Talk:Boeing B-29 Superfortress

Hansell

Where is a mention of General Haywood Hansell?

Quibbles

The B-24 and B-17 pilot's manuals have extensive charts and graphs giving optimum power settings, how are the B-29 charts so much more extensive, as claimed?

The term "silverplate" was originally the codeword for "highest priority for raw materials". It was given generically to the B-29 project. I doubt if it was in any way specific to the A-bomb carrier conversion project.

There's very little or no mention of the B-29 successor, the B-50, basically a B-29 with R-4360 engines.

B-50 is a separate article. The comment about power charts comes from a cited source quoting an experienced pilot who operationally flew the aircraft you mentioned. I suspect he knows what he is talking about. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Surviving airframes

Why not subsume the "airworthy aircraft" section into a larger section mentioning (or listing) some or all (maybe not all) of the B-29s which survive instead?

A262 20:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea, feel free to go ahead with it. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - I did that. Also modfified the B-29 users section - There was no mention of the US Navy or the Chinese / Russians and their Tu-4s but this now looks a little messy. A262 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Airworthy Aircraft

Under the heading Current Airworthy Aircraft, a contributor made the comment that the NMUSAF were, "considering restoring Bockscar to airworthy condition". I believe the author was in error in his report. I too have been through the Museum website and have found no evidence of factual support of this statement. The museum has made the comment referring to their efforts in preservation of the inventory as, "restoring airplanes and other items to an attractive and original appearance" or, post-restoration of the RB-47H as "factory fresh", but "airworthy condition" escapes me in my understanding of the museum's purpose. Can the author direct me to a NMUSAF source in order to substantiate his(her) comment? Inquiring minds would like to know... fliguy

---

October 2nd, 2007 ... One B-29 "Fifi" is currently registered as "airworthy", but is presently grounded due to costly engine problems. Current status is 80% of the money has been raised for repairs.[9] Three other B-29 projects are being restored for flight.[citation needed] Another 25 confirmed B-29s are preserved at various museums worldwide, along with known wreck sites of three more.

^ Do we have any updates on this??? -Ryan Thompson

Chinese

Don't the Chinese use a Soviet B-29 knockoff?

The Chinese use (or used) the Russian-built Tu4. There are versions with turboprop powerplants. I will look into it further and edit when necessary--Efrasnel 08:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio by Fiddlers Green?

This article's content is mostly a copy of the same as the content at http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Boeing-B29/info/info.htm

Heh, look at the history of this page - you can see each paragraph being built incrementally. Most likely Fiddlers Green is using our content without crediting us. Stan 05:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Data table deletion explanation

During the FAC discussion, a user pointed out that the data table is superfluous. I have to agree; it is also no longer the current format for specifications etc. If you disagree, insert the data table back in. There's nothing stopping you from doing so, and I won't revert it. •→Iñgólemo←• 02:07, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Alright, you didn't go for it. But I think the data table should be deleted. It's no longer current format, and a good deal of its information is blank. •→Iñgólemo←• 02:30, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Spelling Convention

As the B-29 was a US built bomber (though used worldwide), should this page be edited with US spelling styles instead of British styles? (defense/defence, caliber/calibre, analyze/analyse, etc.) or left mixed as is?

No article should ever be left mixed. Current convention is this: articles that are firmly American-related should use American spelling, articles that are firmly British-related should use British spelling, and all others should follow the spelling conventions used by the first author. This is mainly because we have been unable to come to a consensus regarding which form of spelling to use. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 17:30, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

Early history

I've expanded and corrected the early history based on material from Superfortress by Curtis LeMay and Bill Yenne. According to Lemay and Yenne, the Model 322 was a failed project, and the B-29 derived indirectly from the Y1B-20. This is exactly the opposite of what our article said before, so if there are sources that disagree with LeMay and Yenne, we should do some additional research. Isomorphic 09:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe the article meant to say that it evolved from the Model 322. And it didn't discount indirect derivation from the Y1B-20, so I don't think we need more research. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 20:18, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

As long as you're OK with the current version, we're fine. Isomorphic 06:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's probably safe to say that my version was too ambiguous. Thus, we are indeed fine.

→Iñgōlemo← ^talk 21:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Operational history

There is a problem with last sentence of the first paragraph. It states that "77 out of 98 planes launched from India bombing the railroad shops in Bangkok (5 B-29s were lost to non-battle causes)." 98-77 != 5. Were the other loses battle-related?

Pictures

For those who would like more pictures, you might be interested in Commons:B-29 Superfortress. Ingoolemo ^talk 21:00, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Wunderwaffe

The article says that B-29 were only used in the Pacific. This is false, I remember reading that B-29 suffered losses over Germany because their remote controlled turrets were too slow to track the 880km/h fast Me-262 jetfighter, which could shred the B-29 with its strong 4x30mm cannon armament. 213.178.109.36 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you have read about this, it would only be in fiction. (it's possible that B-17 turrets were too slow to track them, however). —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One B-29 was sent to Europe in the spring of 1944 as a feint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bernard Biales (talk • contribs).

According to Wheeler^[1], the commander in charge of bombing Europe was initially pleased to see the new developments, but lost interest because of the expence and time needed to retool existing airfields for the B-29—he did not consider the retooling worth the trouble because his B-17s and B-24s were quite up to the task of bombing Europe. If you have a source that proves otherwise, however, feel free to share it. It's very easy to be in error when making negative categorical statements. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ Wheeler, Keith (1982). Bombers over Japan. Virginia Beach, Virginia: Time-Life Books. ISBN 0809434296.

bibleography

What does "Superfortress! Accessed on January 15, 2006." mean?

Superfortress family

I was thinking, since there are so many derivatives of the basic B-29, perhaps we should do this with a template rather than a "Related" list? If so, should it be in "box" form? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I meant to talk about this earlier. In my opinion, the Tu-4, C-97, and 377 are relevant examples of related developments. But the others are stretching it, especially the Russian planes—which weren't even designed by the same engineers—and the Super Guppy—developed more than twenty years later.

Here are some suggestions:

If I can suggest my variant:

Of course proper category can be added into template as well as some other related articles. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been a template on the page for a while now, template:B-29 family. - BillCJ 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bill, it seems I'm blind. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass burnings

When the B-29s devastated large Japanese cities and wrecked the Japanese industry, Japanese observers described the anguishing scenes as mass burnings. The term "mass burning" is used by some authors as an alternative term to holocaust.

So is the term "Pearl Harbor". - BillCJ 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I coulda swore...

...the B-29's had 20mm cannon in the turrets. Can someone look this up? Deathbunny 00:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Another very good source for B-29 history is Kenneth P. Werrell, 'Blankets of Fire'-Smithsonian Press, 1996.The Initial B-29 had one 20mm cannon in the tail position along with 2 50 cal machine guns. This weapon was deleted in the field and on the subsequent B-29A to save weight and increase payload and range. At the same time, however, 2 more 50 cal guns were added to the top foward turret. The Japanese. like the Germans, perfered a frontal attack. Also, the much troubled remote gun system apparently never worked terribly well. Fortunately the Japanese Air Force was out of fuel and could never mount the resistance that the GAF could have in late 1944. Tha B-29 was never in combat against the Me-262. The jet fighter that forced the Superfortress into exclusively night operations was the Mig-15 over North Korea in 1951.G Gogel 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The 20mm was removed from the tail primarily because of the dramatic variance in the trajectory of the 20mm projectile vs. the 50 cal. They could not come up with the proper fire solution for both of them.., so the 20 mm went. --B29bomber (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Airworthy? 3, 1, or 0?

Maybe I don't know what the term "airworthy" technically means, but the section on surviving aircraft, within its first 3 sentences, seems to give 3 different numbers. Can someone who knows about this subject clear up the contradictions? Thanks. ColinClark 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Colin, The original editor, I assume, was trying to dfferentiate between the cosmetically restored aircraft from the 3 a/c that has (or will be) restored to full flight status. "Fifi" has been flying for many years but is undergoing major repair at this time; but still categorized in this article as "airworthy". As for "Doc", it is being restored in Wichita to flight-status for the past 4 or so years; status of its condition is on its webpage. As for the 3rd 29, Col. Weeks has been working on "Fertile Myrtle" since the parts were hauled out of China Lake back in Dec of 86; it's status is unknown. My opinion, FM is not notable at this time... I am hoping someone will come forward to give us an update on FM. The mentioning of FM can be left in or removed... IDM... "it don't matter". (Side note, 3 B-29s were taken out of China Lake at the same time, "TSq54" for Lowry Heritage Museum/Wings Over the Rockies, and 2 others for Weeks.) Hope that clarifies your question. If you have any facts or references, plz helpout here. I may copy the FM paragraph and insert here on the Talk page, until we have a good reference for its status; then we can re-add it to the main article. Best regards, LanceBarber 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've updated the article to be consistent with this information (saying none are currently airworthy), though the whole section was recently removed. I think that's a shame because a lot of information was lost which is not included in the new page about survivors.ColinClark 07:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporarily the survivors are in the new article: Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors where there is a major discussion going on about the "survivors" list, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors... then down at the very bottom of the discussion there is a draft page of revised version, see: User:Piotr Mikołajski/Test01. Feel free to add your vote and your comments. LanceBarber 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Combat radius

Article has a number for combat radius - 3250 miles. At the same time one of sources [2] points out - 3250 miles is a max range at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load and practical radius is 1600-1800 miles. Range and radius are different and I believe it is an error in the article. --Tigga en 08:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Kansas Page started

Using as a basis an article in the July 1981 issue of "Airpower" I've started a page on the "Battle of Kansas". If anyone else wants to help out, please feel free to do so. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This page has been renamed "B-29 Superfortress: the Battle of Kansas", which is much better. I've also added a paragraph to the main B-29 Superfortress page on the B-29 armament which, I was surprised to note, was only mentioned in passing. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First pressurised bomber

Apparently not: that was the Junkers Ju 86. Would presumably be the first allied pressurised bomber. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point being made, the crew was in a fully pressurized fuselage compared to the Ju 86 where only a portion of the interior was sealed and pressurized. Only the Ju 86P variant could be described as an example of a pressurized aircraft whereas the B-29 was designed from the outset to utilize the advantages of this type of system. I am removing the invisible tag at this point and unless it is put in another area, the statement made is quite correct. The B-29 crew had the ability to move about in a fully pressurized environment, the first time that was available to a bomber crew. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

Well, fair enough, but I suggest that this is made clear in the article and I am not sure that I can fully see the distinction that you are drawing. Given that the Ju 86 had a crew of 2 and a pressurised cabin, they too must have had 'the ability to move about in a fully pressurized environment'. Would it not be more accurate to put in something like this: In 1938, Boeing introduced the Boeing 307, the first production aircraft to feature a pressurised cabin. Subsequently, in 1940 the Germans retrofitted a batch of Junkers Ju 86 medium bombers with pressurised cabins in order to allow them to fly beyond a fighter's ceiling. The B-29, however, was designed at the outset to be a fully pressurised heavy bomber, and in this respect it was the first in the world.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, look at the revision I made in the text and then revise with your new addition of information. Remember to use "two" instead of "2" in the passage. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

Ok, will do now. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Ah-ha - see someone's already beaten me to it! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand Slam or Earthquake?

Which name was used most for the 22,000 lb bomb? I had only heard Grand Slam until seeing Earthquake here. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I thought it was the "Pumpkin bomb"?--B29bomber (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

internment

Of course one can intern aircraft, or any other materiel - just read the Hague Convention. As a more recent example, the Falklands Black Buck Vulcan that diverted to Brazil was interned.

Have we really got to the point where one edit-warring intransigent with a history of confrontational edits from a position of blatant ignorance is sufficient reason to start abandoning whole relevant and important sections of history? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with the simpler statement in the lead and more precise but consice information in the section below, with the more detailed discussion at the TU-4 article. I've replaced the TU-4 paragraph with a condensed version from the TU-4 article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Taking it out of the lead is fine - it's a big history on a complex plane, I could quite happily move the whole Tu-4 out of the lead. However the way in which an "Ally" deliberately "confiscated" a major new weapon for long enough to copy it for use against its maker is complicated and does require explanation somewhere, an explanation that only makes sense in terms of both realpolitik as motivation and strict legal interpretations of internment as justification. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well said! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

B-29 Introduction

Is "8 May, 1944" the real introdution date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin3210 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This bomber remains the best

The B-29 was the bomber used during Bombing of Tokyo in World War II.In a single night, in 1945, more than 120,000 japaneses were killed in Tokyo;the most terrible bombing, in all times.Agre22 (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)agre

Actually, the Dresden Fire Raids were far worse - an unarmed, open city with more than 200,000+ civilian died vs Tokyo which was a legitament target. Davegnz (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're spltting hairs, a single plane, the Enola Gay, was the deadliest plane-to-body-count raid in history, followed by Bocks Car a few days later. But then again, we were at war. Compare to the Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust for a little morality check if you want to talk about 'terrible.' --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

US bomb loads on Japan were only 8,000lb per-bomber, rising to a maximum of 10,000lb for the B-29 when it was using the airfields nearest to Japan.

LeMay's orders

He did not order the removal of all armament from B-29's flying night missions. Ammunition was removed, but for the majority of the Bomb Groups operating out of Guam, Saipan and Tinian, the guns stayed in the aircraft. Except for the 315th and the 505th Composite Group, the remaining bomb groups had their guns up and through the war. Most of the ammunition was removed except for the TG. B29bomber (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to provide reliable sources for that claim. First- or second-hand knowledge is not verifiable per WP:V and WP:RS policies. - BillCJ (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then how can you realiably say what you say here? The reference you have to LeMay just reverts to the 315th BW website. No proof there either. The statement should be removed. B29bomber (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is that much of the entire article lacks proper references, in spite of the extensive bibliography listed below. This entire article needs an overhaul in regards to referencing; I personally have few books on the B-29 so it will be up to those who have written the bulk of the article to go back in and add the information. In the meantime I can see B29bomber's point - why single out his contribution as being "unreferenced" when much of the article follows the same pattern? Dismissing the information of an eyewitness should not be so easily done. I do know that I have read somewhere that Le May's orders were complied with by not loading ammunition, although the weapons, sights and turrets stayed - now I have to find the reference.Minorhistorian (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Project cost $3B or what?

Several sources mention that the project required 3 billion in 1945 US dollars to complete. The multiplication of 3970 aircraft with $639,188 yields $2.5B, so what was the actual cost of each aircraft? Phillip S. Meilinger in Airwar wrote that the project was "around $3 billion" and that each aircraft was therefore about $639,000. To me, this sounds like $2.5B. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Start-class

I've dropped this article to start-class for lack of inline citations. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)