Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

B-17 is also a vitiamin, DUH

Why the hell does it go straight to the B-17 airplane?

Calling it "modern" is a bit too subjective, IMHO. How many piston-engined planes of its size are still produced? How many bombers have tail gunners? Was the cabin fully pressurised, like the B-29? --Robert Merkel

What's a "vitiamin"?--Red Sunset 10:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Crew Complement

Some information regarding the crew complement would be good to put in the body of the text. Begs 06:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

First massproduced?

No way.. for starters, what about the Ilya Murometz (75 built in 1915)? The Handley-Page v/1500? Or, going closer the modern era, what about the various french Farman F221, F222, F223 and F224s?

I think a better wording must be found... perhaps something along the lines: "The B-17 Flying Fortress was a mass-produced, four-engine...".

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the B-17, but the way the article start is sounds like the first fourenginged bomber made in any numbers, which isn't true.

I got the impression from the USAF Museum site from which a lot of my material came that a plane isn't generally considered mass-produced unless more than 500-1000 are made. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 17:47, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I think that sentence should say B-17 was "first mass-produced four-engined bombers used by US" -- Revth 15:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm still uncomfortable with the statement "first mass produced...". Does anyone have a source for this? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote: "At the peak of production, Boeing was rolling out as many as 363 B-17s a month– averaging between 14 and 16 Forts a day, the most incredible production rate for large aircraft in aviation history. Serling, Robert J. Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and its People. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992. ISBN 0-312-05890-X. p. 55. Prior to the B-17, the Boeing Y1B-9 (first flight: 1931) had only seven production aircraft, the Martin B-10 (first flight: 1932) had total production of 213, the Farman F.222 (first flight: 1932) had only 24 constructed and the Handley Page Heyford (first flight: 1933) had a total of 125 built. The B-17 easily eclipsed these numbers. Bzuk 03:08 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, and I'll incorporate it into the intro. Now, how does this compare to non-military aircraft production rates? And, was this the first mass-produced aircraft? And what defines "mass-produced"? Am I over-analyzing this? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Prior to the 1930s, commercial aircraft were not produced in large numbers; an exception was the Douglas DC-2 (its forebear, the DC-1 first flew in 1933) but only 28 were produced before the DC-3 was introduced. In the lead-up to World War II, 800 DC-3s were built. No other airliner/transport had significant production numbers in the 1930s. One other aircraft, the de Havilland DH4 bomber/transport did have a lengthy production run with approximately 5000 aircraft produced in the UK and the United States. Your introductory paragraph may have to be altered to indicate "is considered to be the first truly mass-produced large aircraft." Mass production is variously defined as the manufacture of a product on a large scale. I would rationalize the "large scale" in aircraft manufacture as at least in the thousands. Bzuk 19:31 1 January 2007 (UTC) BTW Happy New Year.

Ambuiguity in first paragraph

A sentence in this paragraph reads

Forgetting to take off the control lock, the aircraft took off into a steep climb, nosed over, and crashed.

I don't know what a control lock is, so I don't know who's supposed to take it off, but this sentence implies that the aircraft itself "forgot."--18.173.1.42 17:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

sorry, nit picking. found a few errors in the section where it talks about the me262, also, how would firing rockets from far off from the jets be like mimicking firing shotguns at ducks???????

Tidied up, removed that sentence. Does anyone have a cite for the story about captured Forts infiltrating formations wearing US markings? I have read several sources which debunk this. Guinnog 09:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Took out meantime. Guinnog 07:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

B stands for?

Alright, I know that B in planes stands for bomber, but about the B-17 I've heard an opinion that it stands for Boeing. I know it's stupid, can we verify the meaning of "B" however?

B is for bomber, as a rule the United States generally does not use the company name to denote the aircraft. (Due in no small part to the fact that in a major war it may be necessary for multiple corporations to produce a design, and even in some cases make their own variants.)

B-Bomber C-Cargo F-Fighter P-Pursuit F/A-Fighter/Attack

"B" in no way stood for "Boeing". The Navy used nomenclature in World War II that identified its planes by type, manufacturer, and model--and the initial of the manufacturer rarely coincided with the letter used to designation it.--Buckboard 09:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Standardization began in 1919 with the Air Service. Prior to that the US had used company designations, such as SPAD XIII and Martin MB-1. The result was a multiplicity of designations breaking down not just the types (B-Bomber, P-Pursuit, O-observation) but missions (N-Night, D-Day) and ranges (S-Short, L-Long), powerplants (W-water cooled)--with so many variuations the nomenclature was anything but standard. In 1929 the Army Air Corps began the single-letter functional-mission system known today for service aircraft (P later became F-fighter), and use additional letters to either modify the mission type or the variant.--Buckboard 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Many people think that 'B' stands for Boeing, apparently because the most famous American bombers (the B-52 and B-17) were both built by Boeing. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and the B-36 was built by Convair, but its not called the C-36. B stands for Bomber, not Boeing. Its the same as how the designation CV means carrier to the navy. The letters denote what type of aircraft. Klauth 03:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the B-24 being built by consolidated also proves the point

Famous Pilots

A) never heard of Francis Burke. B) Jimmy Stewart was a noted B-24 pilot. Deleted both. Methinks pilot Webb is somebody's relative but a case is somewhat made for "notable" pilot.--Buckboard 09:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Stewart was a B-17 instructor before he snagged the opportunity to fly in a B-24 squadron.[1] --Woolhiser 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Added link to article as source. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How about adding ol'666 to the list of famous B-17s?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.39.72.143 (talk • contribs).

How is that spelled? "ol'666" produces no results in Google. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bomb load

In the 8th Air Force the B-17 typically carried a 4,000 lb bombload. The max I found was 8,000lbs carried to Nienburg, B-17G's, 1031 miles round trip, 7:11 flying time, August 5, 1944 (Wayne Frye http://www.91stbombgroup.com/35missions.html). I also found 8,000lbs carried to Metz, B-17G's, November 8, 1944. (Wayne Frye)

The longest flight I could find was to Marienburg (now Malbork near the Gulf of Gdansk, Poland), B-17F's: 12-hour flight, 1,616 miles as the crow flies. The bombload was 4,500lbs, October 8, 1943.

There are instances of 6,000lb bombloads carried to Berlin in B-17G's eg, from Molesworth on March 3, 1944.

These bombloads seem to represent the very high end of what 8th Air Force B-17's carried against targets on the Continent. Although a high bombload could be attached to the B-17 (I've read for the B-17F 9,600lb internally, plus 4,000lb externally), I have not found anything over 8,000lbs in my readings of actual bombloads carried. Edweirdo 15:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See article "Maximum Reported B-17 & B-24 Bomb Loads"--Edweirdo 17:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rocket attacks

I'd like to see some annotations on the claim that Me-262 rocket attacks on B-17s were successful by any measurable standard. Any reading I've done always implied these were something of a folly. 80.169.138.156 15:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted B-17 pilots

Who is Ewald R. Teubner? I have never heard of him? Bzuk 4:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, but when I tried Googling the information, the only hits that came up were all on wiki based encyclopedia websites. --Signaleer 15:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

B-17H

The picture of the B-17H needs replacing or fixing. The article doesn't mention the H as a variant, so it's not a good example, the B-17 Flying Fortress variants article makes two statements on toppic:

• under the heading "B-17G" - "SB-17G. Rescue version, originally designated B-17H"
• under the heading "SB-17G and PB-1G" - "From 1945-1948 12 B-17G's were converted to B-17H's equipped with...".

Text should either be added describing the H variant, or the pictures caption should describe it as a converted variant of one already included on the page. I changed to pic caption to "SB-17G. Rescue version, originally designated B-17H", but was reverted. Comments? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If you clicked on the image, the image source is: http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/photo_galleries/aaf_wwii_vol_vi/Captions/196_17H.htm the caption reads:

• Boeing B-17H Flying Fortress. (29121 A.C.)

This is the reason why I removed the information about B-17Gs that were converted into H's unless there is a source cited for documentation purposes.

--Signaleer 07:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add the info on the H's to the article, with a source (encyclopedia). I think that will make the caption make sense. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Date format conflicts

to: MacInnis Trevor, as you may know, the dating format that is presently adopted for historical articles is actually set up as a day, month and year format. The reason for this is to eliminate one of the commas that is invariably placed between the month and day. The other reason is that it is considered a more formal style whereas the conventional month, day and year is considered "conversational" or "popular" suitable for letter writing but not for researched articles. There is of course a great deal of debate about this and in at least two of my books, editors have insisted on one style or another and as you could guess, my "pop" history editor utilizes the "January 14, 1947" style while my British and "serious" editors have incororated the "14 January 1947" style into their style guide. The reason for using the formal approach is that this article is one of global importance and will be read by many serious researchers and students. In Canada and the UK, the "formal" historical dating format predominates while in the U.S., it is common to see the "popular" date format. I leave it to you to decide, but as I had seen the article evolve, there were three different formats employed for dating and I had initially ratioanlized the article on the formal style which you have now reverted. I would prefer the formal, military and historical format mainly for the reasons stated above since I would want to see the article on the B-17 considered as a serious piece of research that uses the most widely adopted historical dating system (speaking from 33 years of experience as an author and librarian). BzukSunday, 24 December 2006 10:39 (UTC)

In changing the dates format, I was following the manual of style and AndyZ's suggestions, and am unaware of styles used by people outside of this project. If someone prefers the "serious" format, then they could either change all the dates in this article to that format, or set their Special:Preferences to format all instances of wikilinked dates to their preferred style. Either ways is fine by me. - Trevor MacInnis

(Contribs) 17:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your reply, as I had said earlier, I had rationalized the date formats to eliminate the conflicts in dating and had settled on the historical style mainly because it is the most accepted style for research articles in Canada, the UK and worldwide (not as much in the US). BzukSunday, 24 December 2006 17:38 (UTC)

Article is of global importance????!!!? Mdk0642 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed "most famous bomber"

The B-17 isn't unambiguously the "most famous bomber" built. The B-29, B-52, and the Avro Lancaster are also sufficiently well-known to make it impossible to single out one such as "the" most famous. --Robert Merkel 03:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you will have an argument here. The B-17 surely is the most famous bomber of World War II. Quoting the Famous Planes Project: "The fighting forces of the Second World War were each dependent of another. Without each branch of service, the war would not have been won by any side. Whether or not it was the Allied air-war victory that "broke the camel's back" could never be known, but the air forces were significant contributors to the winning of the war. The air forces of each country had more destructive force than any other branch of service, and were what broke the will of the country's core fighting force; the people.

The topic of "famous aircraft of WWII" is hotly debated. There are many aspects that one can argue that causes this conflict. Some argue that "this plane had a deeper impact on the war" or "this plane was produced more" or "this plane is better known." Each argument for a specific aspect has credit, and should not be dismissed. The truth is, there is no right answer. Selections are based on performance, production numbers, kill ratesm and impact on the war. Here is the description of the B-17: Acknowledged as "one of the most famous aircraft of aviation history," the B-17 Flying Fortress first rolled into the world as the Model 299, produced by Boeing. After many versions, successes, and failures, the B-17G "Flying Fortress" was the most famous bomber of WWII. Although it often overshadowed its counterpart in fame, the B-24 Liberator, the Fortress was definitely worthy of the selection by the USAAF to be the primary bomber of the war.

The "Fortress" was most honored for its ability to bring the crew back safely. After hard flak hits the plane would survive the trip back, even if it ended up crashing on the runway. This aspect of the plane, along with its exceptionally long range, the bomb load capacity, effectiveness in combat and the ease of flying, was what made the "Fortress" extremely popular among bomber crews. Supposedly two out of every five bombs dropped during WWII were dropped by the B-17 Flying Fortress."

The AIR POWER SHOWDOWN, BEST BOMBERS OF ALL TIME recently proclaimed the B-17 as the all-time "greatest." Bzuk Thursday, 28 December 2006 T: 03:10 (UTC).

None of that is sufficient to make a definitive statement of fact that "the B-17 was the most famous bomber". Singling out the B-17 is just picking an argument with (for instance) British Wikipedians for whom the Lancaster is undoubtedly the best-known. The only time such unambiguous claims are acceptable when literally nobody disagrees with them.

However, it's certainly appropriate to note that Plane Obsessives' Monthly or whatever other relevant source labelled the B-17 as "the greatest bomber" if they did indeed do so. --Robert Merkel 05:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Robert Merkel. Not simply because I am a British Wikipedian, but that "the best" or "the greatest" (or whatever) of anything is generally just a matter of opinion unless there is incontrovertible evidence or proof to suggest otherwise. Surely it is better in this situation to allow for all opinions and use the terms "widely regarded as..." or "believed to be..." or "one of the..." etc. However, The B-17 was undeniably a great aircraft and rightly deserves to be highly regarded; let's leave it at that.Red Sunset 18:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I've move the quotes over to Wikiquote by recommendation of the peer review. Having quotes in an article is, I believe, against policy/guidelines (if someone could find the specific one to back me up here that would be great). I've added a link to the wikiquote in the external links section. The third quote, about the planes ability to take punishment, could still be used as a source though. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As a cultural icon

I know "Popular Culture" sections are generally to be avoided, but this article seems to be lacking something in that it doesn't mention the movie Memphis Belle, the computer games (see B-17 Flying Fortress (computer game)), the Amazing Stories episode "The Mission", or the fact that a B-17 arrives at the end of the one of the Sean Connery James Bond films to rescue the hero and the Bond girl, who are adrift in an inflatable raft. Not sure how you'd go about adding them without disrupting the flow of the article, but I think these appearances are notable enough and significant enough to warrant a mention (There's no PC game called "Avro Lancaster", AFAIK!) --Commander Zulu 06:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Some arranging may need to be done, I've found a source and uploaded this great pic. It s the perfect demonstration of the airplace recieving massive damage but remaining flyable. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

3-way view

This article really needs a 3-way view diagram. Has anyone seen one? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Othographic projections of several important WWII-era aircraft may be found here. Unfortunately, the website has no source info whatsoever; the B-17 image was probably not created by the website but scanned from a vintage diagram. All other images were probably created by someone using a computer, though this is by no means certain. Karl Dickman ^talk 21:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fw-190

The following sentence doesn't quite work for me:

"The best German fighter, the Fw-190, carried only 500 rounds."

I don't know if the author intended it to mean that the Fw-190 was the best German fighter and just happened to carry 500 rounds, or whether it carried the greatest number of rounds (500) of any German fighter.

In the first instance, there will always be an arguement as to what is the best, and I feel that this remark should be written as a suggestion rather than a stated fact. However, it's probably true to say that the Fw-190 was superior in many ways to most other German interceptors at the time, and best-suited to bringing down enemy bombers.

In the second instance, I'm certain that other German fighters carried more than 500 rounds of ammunition. On creating the link to the Fw-190 itself, I checked the article out regarding this matter. To fix the shortcomings encountered when engaging U.S. heavy-bombers, the Fw-190 A-6 was developed which increased the number of 20mm MG 151/20E wing-mounted cannons from two to four, with 250 rounds/gun in the wing root and 140 rounds/gun outboard. It also had two MG 17 machine-guns. The later A-8 variant was equipped with the same 20mm cannon set-up, but the MG 17s were replaced with two MG 131s having 475 rounds/gun. Altogether, that's a bit more than 500 rounds in total.

BTW, I think that its a pity that it was thought necessary to remove the Me-262 rocket-attack section. It served as a good indication of the effectiveness of the improved defensive armament combined with new flight formations, making the Luftwaffe resort to trying more desperate measures. Could the section be re-worded to indicate that it is currently un-cited, or would that still compromise the integrity of the article?

Red Sunset 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the bit about the FW-190, and used the info given at the source. If it needs fixing so be it. The source also talked about the improved 20mm cannons, but I havn't had a chance to put it in yet. I also removed the Me-262 part, mainly because, as my edit summary stated, I can find no source for this statement. If one is provided then we can add it back in. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Trevor, I'll leave it in your capable hands. Red Sunset 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been searching ,and found a bit I could realistically trust so I put it back in. I also found this quote:

"On April 4,1944, the Germans had completed twelve Me 262's with big guns and rockets, but B-17's bombings had destroyed eleven of the twelve. The remaining Me 262 attacked a formation of 54 B-17's and destroyed three B-17's and one P-51. The 262 could throw 96 pounds of lead at 1300 feet per second in three seconds. The jet was going so fast the gunners could not track the jet and the jet was untouched. The jet attacked the B-17 formation diagonally, and his first shot of three seconds knocked an engine and a wing off the target B-17. The other two B-17's destruction was similar. The P-51 was chasing, went supersonic, had control lock and crashed. If the 262 had not run out of fuel he probably would have shot down all 54 B-17's."

From http://www.aafo.com/library/history/B-17/b17part6.htm , but it sounds a little far-fetched. If I can corfirm any of it It'll sound great in the article. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice one Trevor. Yes it does sound a bit far-fetched, but it would certainly add some colour to the article if you can confirm it. Might I add that this anecdote would also benefit the Me 262 article. BTW, great damaged B-17 pic. Red Sunset 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Too much hyperbole in that quote for my taste, and bullshit like P-51s going supersonic really discredits the veracity of anything else the author might say in my mind. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Two remarks that fit here better than the other sections: 1) In the section "combined offensive" the picture caption of the damaged B17 quotes a collision with "a Fw 190 of II./JG.2", while the image source speaks of "an attacking Bf-109". 2) The whole stuff about the missiles on Me-262 seems to blissly ignore the fact that the Me-262A was armed with four MK 108 machine cannons, "which could bring a bomber down in just a few hits" (earlier in the same paragraph). I also doubt the 400/1000 meters comparison, apparently based on source #53. I know that German fighter guns were set to converge at 400m by default, and naturally had to preserve ammo until they got a "clear shot", so perhaps the author of #53 got it a bit wrong, because I cannot picture e.g. an MG 151/20 (muzzle velocity 810 m/sec.) to be so much inferor in range to a .50 M2 Browning (muzzle velocity 930 m/sec.)... DevSolar 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the picture caption, and added a source to it. As to #2, the 262 did have 108s, but according to this source the R4M seems to be a bit better. If there is a disputing source about the gun ranges, then we'll use it to modify the article.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[This page] does a pretty extensive discussion of armament effectiveness. The author indicates that the main limiting factor of "effective range" was not mainly the ballistics of the weapon, but rather the ability to hit a target causing significant damage (which is influenced by ballistics, but places the Browning a clear second to heavier canons). Effective ranges are said to be "around 400 m against bombers (longer in a frontal attack) and against fighters more like 250 m". Mind you, those numbers are for dogfighting, not for trying to hit an oncoming fighter at some angle. DevSolar 13:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have passed this article as a Good Article, under grounds of the GA Criteria. Congratulations to the editors, and thank you for your considerable contributions; my opinion is this article, with a little work, would pass as a Featured Article. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dashes

I've reverted some dash changes just made, and have to do more. My reason? Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Dashes states :

"The hyphen (-) is used to form compound words. The en-dash (–) is used to specify numeric ranges. The em-dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence, as can the spaced en-dash ( – ); see main article. Other dashes, notably the double-hyphen (--), should be avoided."

The spaced en-dash ( – ) is, in my opinion, the proper one to be used in the instances on this page. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't know there was a differnce (learn something new every day), and the 'em dash' shows up as a thick vertical line on my screen. Mucho apologies... - - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Soviet B-17s

In the VectorSite article on the B-17 there's a section about Soviet service by the B-17 that might be worth mining and adding to the page. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Preserved B-17s section

I have a problem with the listings in this section. I have in my lap Scott A. Thompson's "Final Cut - The Post-War B-17 Flying Fortress: The Survivors" and several of the names in this section do not appear among the 43 airframes he details. Sweet Pea, for one. Also, the March Field Museum exhibit is non-flyable. I think it would be more accurate for the list to be by serial number, and not just by popular name. There are two Memphis Belles, for instance - the original, and N3703G, the former firebomber that now wears the scheme to air shows.

Mark Sublette 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the section needs fixing, and I'd be all for removing anything that isn't referenced (re: Sweet Pea etc), but I don't think a list by serial number is the way to go. Serials will only be useful to B-17 buffs and those doing some very specific research, and if specific aircraft get their own page they will fall under their nose art name (e.g. Memphis Belle (B-17)). I do think the serial should follow the name of the plane. Oh, and perhaps a small note about the different Belle's. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Skip bombing?

I didn't know they skip-bombed using B-17s. Regarding the mission mentioned, I thought it was B-17s doing the high-level bombing, and B-25 Mitchells doing the skipping? - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not according to this, but if anyone has information to the contrary then we may have to remove it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, The HistoryNet implies B-17s at first but then goes on to mention Mitchells, while the somewhat lurid prose of the Australian Broadcasting Company says B-25s and A-20s. However, I pulled out my copy of The Pacific Campaign by Dan van der Vat and found on page 259:

"[Kenney] had therefore ordered that B-25 Mitchell bombers...be used to practice attacking ships at masthead height -- not dive-bombing but "skip-bombing"."

And:

"...the B-17s attacked from medium height [earlier given as 5,000 feet], and this time the adapted B-25s, accompanied by similarly flown A-20s, came in just above sea level..."

He goes on to mention "bombs dropped "down the funnel"", but it is made clear that it was Mitchells and Havocs doing the skip-bombing, not the Fortresses.

- Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 02:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

B-17 vs B-24 looks

In my opinion the B-17 looks much better than the B-24 due to it's long sleek siluete rather than the B-24 hence it's greater popularity with the pilots, media nad the general public. Can someone find references for this point of view? Mieciu K 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say this - the preference of the masses for the Fort over the Lib is obvious by comparing the wiki pages for each. The B-24 page hasn't yet had the love lavished on it that we've all contributed to the more romantic B-17!

No offense to Liberator fans!

Mark Sublette 01:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 01:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sub-categories of Noted B-17 pilots and crew members

As I understand the 3 subcategories, shouldn't Goering and Scott be listed under "Other military achievements or events"? Neither of them are notable for their civilian careers, like the rest of the people in "Non-military achievements or work". --rogerd 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved Goering. Scott wrote a book that was made into a film, so I think that he is a notable author; albeit, about aviation. I may not have have made the most appropriate headings. Do have have any suggestions? Snowman 18:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not right now, but let me think about the category names when I have time. I think Scott probably falls into the same category as Tibbets, they both had 25+ year military careers and wrote books about it after retirement. --rogerd 19:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a 4th category "Wrote about their military career or events". Snowman 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that is needed :) , but my point was that both men's notability is directly tied to their military service. --rogerd 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Scott's own wiki page says that he is best known for his autobiography which was made into a film, so based on these building blocks I listed his fame to the civilian sub-list because of his work as an author. Snowman 17:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

Okay - we have a conflict in sources here. Despite what the weblink states about the fighter that crashed into All American, nearly cutting her in half, claiming it was a Bf-109, William N. Hess' volume B-17 Flying Fortress Units of the MTO states on page 11-12 the following: "Bizerte was bombed again on 1 February, and one of the ten B-17s sortied was extremely lucky to make it back to base. As usual the bombers were attacked by Luftwaffe fighters, and two Fw 190s from II./JG 2 singled out the lead formation of four B-17s from the 414th BS, led by Maj Robert Coulter. Breaking directly into them, guns blazing away, the Germans closed rapidly, until it became obvious that the lead machine was not going to pull up. Perhaps the pilot of the Fw 190 had been hit, for he continued on a collision course until he crashed into Maj Coulter's B-17, ripping off a wing. The bomber immediately went into a terminal spin, although miraculously three men were able to bale out of the doomed aircraft. The fighter then ploughed into the rear of of Lt Kendrick R Bragg's B-17F (41-24406 All American). This second impact caused the fighter to break apart, sending wreckage tumbling earthwards. However, Bragg's Fortress continued to fly."

Furthermore, Roger A. Freeman (with David Osborne) states on page 83, of The B-17 Flying Fortress Story in the notation for 41-24406, that the aircraft was "rammed by FW190 1/2/43, rep; tran 353BS/301BG {3m} St Donat 6/3/43; sal 6/3/45. ALL AMERICAN."

So - I have two sources that state that it was a Fw 190 that hit All American, not a Bf-109.

Furthermore, I cast doubt on the veracity of the contributed story on the RB-29 website, as it states that the photo of All American was taken by a crewman on the Flying Flint Gun. Both Wallace R. Foreman (B-17 Nose Art Name Directory) and Freeman & Osborne list B-17F 41-24412 of the 340BS/97 BG as the Flying Flit Gun (which was a then popular type of insecticide sprayer). If this bit of contributed information on the RB-29 website about the companion Fortress is in error, then I suggest that the identification of the Luftwaffe fighter in the account is also questionable.

Mark Sublette 09:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like convincing sources for me. So the image caption in the article was right, and the image description in Wikipedia is wrong. (This should probably be rectified, with additional comment that the website linked in the comment is in error, so this doesn't resurface.) DevSolar 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Lets switch it and use the new reference. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)