Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
Former featured article Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 18, 2010.

482 BG[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

The symbol shown for the 97BG IS IN FACT THAT OF THE 482 BG. The 2nd, 97th, 99th & 301 should either contain a Y consistent with th3 63(sic) [463] & 483; or be smaller than the 1st & 3rd BD/AD SYMBOLS. The Ys would be consistent for the period of table showing Square P & W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Square T[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

The 493 BG DID NOT CARRY THIS MARKING on its B-17 and in fact had dropped it while still Flying the Liberator. The BW used red segments on the tails on both the B-24 and B-17. The 34 BG was among the BW groups. See also the 490th BG. The 385 BG transfered in and adopted a large red checkerboard tail marking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Pie Y[edit]

REF; http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b17_squad.html

The Y in the circle segment is the symbol of the 463 BG. THERE WAS NO 63 BG in the EAME. —  Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop ranting on the talk page. Citation needed If there are errors or inconsistencies in this article then please feel free to correct them using citations and reliable sources. The principle is outlined at WP:SOFIXIT. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The chart is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct it then, using a cited reliable source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

INCORRECT ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Focus on the content, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B020:7C67:450:A990:1F1C:9253 (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm simply explaining why you can't edit the article as Nimbus suggested. As to focusing on the content, please provide verifiable reliable source vto support your change, and explaining the change you want made, and perhaps Nimbus will change it for you if he feels the changes have merit, after checking the sources if he so desires. - - BilCat (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Which would have been "embedded graphic" regardless of who...or geograph.

Maurer, ...Units; pg 129 @ 63 TCG.  & # 463 Bg.
Bishop, ...Big Triangle; pg 220 and others.;
FORMAN; ...Directory, end leaf; and many others;  

Mundy; ...15Th AF MARKINGS and others. However the graphic is unreferenced, unsourced and unsubstanciated. That it is even encyclopedic is questionable.

==tune 2015 (UTC)

Their user pages are semiprotected because no one else has any business editing them. Their talk pages are not protected, and that's the place for a warning -- but beware of the boomerang. You come across as being here to pick fights, not to build an encyclopedia, and you're likely to get a cold reception if you go to any of the arbitration or administrator intervention pages with unclean hands. --Yaush (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

em.

Design and Development[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

This article deviates from the standard aircraft article by omitting this major section. Instead it splits the subjects and interjects numerious intervening titled and untitled paragraphs that disrupt the continuity and chronolgy of the fundamental design & development storyline.

Moreover, either the standard format is not present; or if present, the content deviates from the heading, thoughout much of the article. The result is a meandering and disorganized presentatiion complete with redundencies and contradictions. What ever praise the article once enjoyed is no longer in evidence. To understand this more objectively, outline the article in hard copy, complete with hierarchy, given each topic its heading. Look at the results and form your assessment. Mine found the article has been amended too often in piecemeal, and suffers accordingly. It needs an overhaul.

...and oh, I have no desire to participate in this process. I abdicate that to R. Freeman (dec) and David Osborne and their B-17 Flying Fortress Story. The latter has reviewed the individual history for every one of the 12, 730 B-17 that have a card on file and supplement those histories in many ways. And that one model 299, never a B-17, is also in the book. So when instead you choose the 1963 work of Bowers in any reiteration, be cognizant of want you are rejecting. You can use a map of the flat earth, but you won t soar to new heights.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B122:67F8:E0C2:D605:D761:5A5 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Combat box[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

the combat box initiated by Le May and adopted in the VIIII BC was an 18 plane formation stacked high and low of the lead six. it was NOT the diamond 12 shown. the unsourced, incorrect graphic is recommened for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00D:405:FA26:7363:F8F0:2AAE (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Variants table[edit]

Close discussion by user not here to build an encyclopedia

ref: The B-17 Flying Fortress Story; Freeman & Osborne; 1998. this book is authoritative and contains a synopsis of the official aircraft history cards for each B-17 ( less a few NIF). The number of F-DL is less than the 600 first ordered from Long Beach, not the 605 stated in the chart. That number is cited to Bowers (#53) work which is a reinteration of his 1963 colaboration ( also cited in the article). That 1963 was based on factory production planning records and not actual production. The F-DL series ended at block 65. The blocks G-1 into 10 account for DL # 530 to 605 and seq. 529 F-DL. ( plus 71 to G & G-DL) MOREOVER, the current G total can not be summed correctly if five (5) G-10-DL are alleged as F-80/85. Do the math.

B-17H vs SB-17...again[edit]

The article now has the order both ways in different places. The mission prefix for the SAR dates to 1948. The H SERIES was the AAF war time designation. The ATC/ MATS assumption of the role was post war. The wartime AAF had about a half dozen ASR emergency rescue squadrons (ERS) and most used the B-17H at least at some point. See Craven & Cate Vol VII for a whole chapter on the subject. Meanwhile the article needs some repair, consistency, clarification of timeframes and removal of redundencies. or find the coverage that was reverted and restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B023:61A7:BF0A:E9DC:25D8:F585 (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

CAREY (ref 7 & BIBLIOGRAPHY) 404 error[edit]

and with it goes the credibility of Defeat of the Wehrmacht as the CBO primary objective. citation needed now.

No. Citation still stands, and fortunately archive.org "is your friend" . GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don t understand this reply. Are you saying you got the link to work? are you saying the ref was published? what exactly are you saying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:8ACD:5D09:1E54:32B4:388D (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

German weapons[edit]

the inserted discussions on German weapons systems recently inserted into the article are no the subject of the article. If deemed germane, hyperlinks are recommended in lieu of sidetracking the article's focus on the Mitchell.

"Mitchell"? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


IP 2600[edit]

Just to note that IP 2600 has been blocked from editing and they are not allowed to contribute, as such any contributions can be removed, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A service ceiling greater than any of its Allied contemporaries?[edit]

Isn't this factually incorrect? The de Havilland Mosquito had a service ceiling of 11,000m which is greater. Maybe the text should read '... than any contemporary allied heavy bombers.

I wouldnt have considered the Mosquito as a contemporary of the B-17. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Jesus wept. Somebody's awfully desperate to award the B-17 an undeserved propaganda superlative. The United States wasn't allied with anyone till December 1941. The passage at issue refers to the B-17's war service with the USAAF (and not its first, unsuccessful period in action with 90 Squadron RAF in summer 1941). The term 'Allied contemporaries' therefore means 'US and British bombers of the Second World War', so both the Mosquito and the B-29 beat the B-17 hollow. On operations it actually flew at around 25,000 - 26,000. When the RAF tried to fly it higher, it didn't work because the engines bled oil in the low air pressure and the oil caked on the tailplane and froze and seized the elevators. Plus the oxygen system froze, the radios froze and the guns jammed. Later models used by the Eighth Air Force (and redesigned in light of 90 Squadron's experience, with far more guns and a bigger tailfin to counter the directional instability) were much heavier and couldn't reach 30,000 at operational load anyway. So the article is awarding an undeserved propaganda superlative. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition of B-17 Pilot, LT. Robert V. Mercer to Wiki B-17 Page[edit]

Greetings,

My name is Dean Carter. I am a first time Wikipedia contributor.

I have attempted to enter information regarding B-17 Pilot LT. Robert V. Mercer (1923-1945).

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=104361456

LT. Mercer died in January 1945, after his B-17 took heavy flak and caught fire. He ordered his entire crew to bail out, including his Co-Pilot, Lt. Charles Taylor (Whom sadly died of impact injuries sustained from the jump) but which saved the lives of the other six men.

LT. Mercer also avoided the small village of Tournai, Belgium, sparing many civilian lives.

This act of sacrifice was witnessed by many of the village residents, whom in 2008, had Belgium dedicate an official memorial to LT. Mercer and the crew.

LT. Mercer also has an entire chapter concerning him in James Hammond's (Award winning Journalist and former Wall Street Journal writer), book, "Tom's War". A book concerning his father, Tom Hammond, also a B-17 pilot and friend of LT. Mercer's.

http://www.amazon.com/Toms-War-Flying-Eighth-Europe/dp/0595415393

My question is in my novice attempt to insert this information to the B-17 page, it seems I am doing it correctly, as I can see a "Updated" page after I insert the new info, but when I check back in an hour it is not updated.

What do you think I am doing wrong, or am I having to await an "Approval"?

Thanks much for any help.

Cordially,

Dean CarterCarter1969 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC) Wilmington, NC, USA

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)