This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Austria never had a Boeing B-17 in service. I think this is a mistake, because we (I am from Austria) had one Saab 17 (also known as B17) in service- a complete different plane with the same name --Peettriple (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I have two photos of an Austrian AF B-17 on my HD, modified as a transport postwar and numbered 672 - and both roundels and flag are visible so misidentification is impossible. I can't find a reference to it in my usual sources though, but here is one of the photos, on wikimedia commons - Austrian B-17. - NiD.29 (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Request: remove Austria from the list of operators. Austria never had a Boeing B-17 in service. The Austrian Air Force had one Saab 17 (also known as B-17), but that is a complete different plane--Peettriple (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Peettriple (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion
On first read through it's fundamentally good. I'll copy-edit the small stuff as I go through, and highlight more substantial changes here.FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Second sentence, third para, Design and variants section, is huge and unwieldy. Can it be broken down into discrete sentences, and do we really need to know who designed/built the turrets?FactotEm (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
3rd para in section "Initial USAAF operations over Europe" begins "At the same time..." but not clear which time is being referred to. Also has the abbreviation "AAF" - need to clarify what this stands for (USAAF?). FactotEm (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The 2nd Schweinfurt raid is already discussed in the 4th para, "Combined offensive" section. The 5th para then talks about the effects of the losses and other stuff, but the last sentence then seems to return to the 2nd Schweinfurt raid and Doolittle's attempts to cancel it. Is there a disconnect here?FactotEm (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The last para in the lead contradicts itself. FactotEm (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Zamzow is a dead link. It's also a thesis, which need to be handled carefully. FactotEm (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added a fair few citation needed tags. Also, running the External Links checker on this page throws up quite a few problems. FactotEm (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I've learned that deadlinks aren't a show-stopper for GA, but nevertheless it might be a good idea to look at this.FactotEm (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Coverage
Third sentence in Design and varients section begins "While models A through D of the B-17 were designed defensively..." and then details the E model, but preceding paras make no mention of the D model. FactotEm (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The section on Colin Kelly's actions seems a bit anecdotal, and just plain odd. In one sentence he's crashing his B-17 into a Japanese ship (which the article on him makes no mention of), then 2 sentences later he's flying his burning B-17 long enough for the crew to bale. Does this need to be in the article? FactotEm (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The last sentence in the section "Bomber defense", beginning "This durability..." seems out of place. It's something I would expect to see in a summary somewhere, at the end of the article or maybe the lead, but not in a section with such a specific subject. Is it necessary? FactotEm (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The whole "Luftwaffe attacks" section seems to stray off topic. Do we need so much information? Would it be better to condense into a couple of sentences and place it at the end of the preceding section?FactotEm (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Not a fan of 'in popular culture' sections myself, and this and the "Other non-military achievements and events" section don't seem to add much to the article. Consider removing?FactotEm (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
There were at most 168 B-17s in the Pacific Theatre, of over 12,000 built, yet the Pacific Theatre section represents around half of the text in the whole Operational History section, which includes an introductory section, RAF usage, initial USAAF operations, and the combined offensive sub-sections. I would have thought there would be more to say about operations over Europe, or have I missed something? FactotEm (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The Accidents and incidents section needs a short summary FactotEm (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
If anything, the article is over-illustrated. Lots of images down the right hand side, and some sandwiching of the text. Do we really need so many images? FactotEm (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Review on hold
I've replaced the review on hold to give the nominator a chance to respond to the comments above. FactotEm (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm going to fail this nomination. Sorry. None of the comments have been addressed, either by discussion or amendments to the article. It's a shame, because it's really quite well written. The balance, however, doesn't feel right, specifically with regard to information about European theatre of operations in comparison with the rest of the article. The profusion of images is another key issue. Note that I have not checked the licensing of these, nor do I intend to while there is the likelihood that quite a few will be removed. Happy to revisit this if someone wants to get involved. FactotEm (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Austrian 'B 17'
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think this was a good faith error, based on this. I've a hunch that the editor has confused the type, which is the Saab 17. One was indeed sold to Austria as a target tower. Irondome (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The B-17 currently in the USAF Museum collection was used by the Austrians as a transport, including by their Air Force - info here. - NiD.29 (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
"at the expense of bombload"
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
It is true that the B-17 did not carry such a great bomb load as compared to other, later bombers serving in the same role, for instance the B-24 which carried three more tons of bombs, flew faster, and had greater range, but could not fly as high. Or you could point out that any mass on a bomber aircraft is going to affect the mass of the bomb load. A larger bomb load would be possible by eliminating gunners and guns, or by reducing fuel – both methods were used at various times in WWII. So it's fair to say that heavy defensive armament resulted in a smaller bomb load. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm jumping into an old talking point, but only the B-29 and B-32 had a larger bombload than the B-17. Nothing else carried more. A B-17 max bombload was 8,000 lbs internal and 9,600 lbs external, for a total bombload of 17,600 lbs. And that is NOT an 'overload' of the aircraft. The actual loadout forms at the beginning of the War all listed a max bombload first, since it was assumed that was going to be the loadout chosen most. Second was the internal load only listing. Most people confuse the preferred loading to the max loading. Since sticking to just the internal loadout reduced drag so much, thus inceasing altitude and speed, it was chosen more often. 68.106.33.90 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Assigned to write a Seattle Times caption on a picture of the B-299, a B-17 prototype, on July 17, 1935, Williams wrote: "Declared to be the largest land plane ever built in America, this 15-ton flying fortress, built by the Boeing Aircraft Co. under Army specifications, today was ready to test its wings."
Does anyone have a primary source for the wording of the quote in the article? (That is to say, one that does not simply reprint the version from an earlier source.) Otherwise, I am tempted to change it.
I found a book that cites Roger Freeman's book B-17: Fortress at War, which might be a good place to start. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it at the moment. –Noha307 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I checked the B-17: Fortress at War book today, and it does not mention any sort of exclamatory comment either. Instead, it mentions the exact same picture caption story from the Los Angeles Times obituary above. To quote page 8 of the book:
The Seattle Daily Times, serving the area around the largest city of Washington State in the north-western corner of the United States, has always given a good measure of publicity to Boeing, the aircraft manufacturers, ultimately Seattle's major employer.
In 1935 Boeing, establishing themselves as a progressive force in the highly competitive and financially perilous business of aeroplane design and construction, were known to be working on the prototype of an advanced bomber; although the Company did its best to keep details secret. Final assembly took place in a hangar at Boeing Field, a few miles south-east of the city, and on the afternoon of July 16 the completed 4-engined aircraft, Boeing Model 299, was at last unveiled for public view.
A press photographer took pictures of the event and these, with details given by Boeing, arrived on the desk of Richard L. Williams, a member of the editorial staff. The laudatory copy prepared included the sentence: 'Ropes kept a throng of spectators from closely inspecting the fifteen-ton flying fortress, which made its first public appearance yesterday afternoon when it was rolled out of its hangar and its motors tested.' Williams noting the novel machine gun turrets jutting out from the streamlined metal body of the aircraft depicted in the photographs picked out as a caption heading the words – 15-TON FLYING FORTRESS.
The title caught the attention of Boeing executives and Flying Fortress was later registered as a Company name for their Model 299, although in a rather different context, echoing the defensive posture of the nation and in line with the isolationist policy then pursued by the United States Government. The aircraft was ostensibly for long range ocean patrol to protect America's coastline from a hostile fleet, although many officers of the Air Corps realised its offensive potential.
Note that in this telling, Mr. Williams did not even see the bomber in person. So if it did indeed occur, it was in the editorial office and not while standing in front of the plane itself. Unfortunately, the book has neither footnotes, nor a bibliography, so Freeman's version of the source of the story cannot be traced any farther back. –Noha307 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Notable B-17s Section
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am going to be bold and delete the entries of surviving aircraft with no notable wartime history. It is starting to suffer from listcruft. In addition, the surviving aircraft article already covers the subject in sufficient detail and including them here would simply be redundant. –Noha307 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
B-17s bombing and inflicting considerable damage on Scharnhorst in Brest.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article states that RAF B-17s "on 24 July .. attacked the Scharnhorst, anchored in Brest, and inflicted considerable damage on the vessel."
There are quite a few discrepancies with this account.
2. Scharnhorst was not anchored in Brest, but 200 miles away in La Rochelle on the 24th July having left Brest on the 21st and arriving in La Rochelle on the 23rd.
3. Only Halifax heavy bombers of No. 35 Squadron RAF and No. 76 Squadron diverted to Scharnhorst in La Rochelle (in it's port of La Pallice).
4. The B-17s were part of the initial, undiverted plan to attack all of the ships in Brest...
The RAF had planned a large, complicated raid on the capital ships in Brest for the night of 24 July, but an aerial reconnaissance photograph [1] of Scharnhorst in her berth at La Pallice caused a last minute alteration to the operation. The Halifax heavy bombers of No. 35 Squadron RAF and No. 76 Squadron RAF flew the extra 200 miles to reach Scharnhorst and the rest of the raid on Brest went ahead as planned, with Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau as their principal targets.. I.e. they attacked Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau in Brest.
5. The only RAF B-17s (List_of_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress_operators#_United_Kingdom) to attack German capital ships were those of No._90_Squadron_RAF which, on the 24th July played a part of the aforementioned "large, complicated raid" on the Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau - i.e. the part that wasn't diverted to Brest - .....taking part in a large scale attack on the German battleship Gneisenau at Brest, France on 24 July. Three Fortresses attacked were to attack from 30,000 ft (9,100 m), with the objective of drawing German fighters away from 18 Handley Page Hampdens attacking at lower altitudes. A larger force of 79 Vickers Wellingtons would attack later, while the fighters were meant to be refuelling. The operation did not work as expected, with 90 Squadron's Fortresses being unopposed, with the German defenders concentrating on the Hampdens and Wellingtons, shooting down two and ten respectively.. Further, the record of 90 Squadron with B-17s in Northern Europe is concluded.. 90 Squadron flew its final operational mission over northern Europe on 25 September 1941. In 51 operational sorties, 25 were abandoned due to faults with the aircraft, with 50 tons of bombs being dropped, of which only about 1 ton hit the intended targets.. Again no mention of any bombs from RAF B-17s hitting any German capital ship, especially not the Scharnhorst, which was 200 miles away on the 24th July.
6. Neither are any recorded as hitting the sister of the Scharnhorst that was in Brest, German_battleship_Gneisenau#Air_attacks_in_Brest - which does not mention any bombs hitting on the 24th July, but many attacks around that time from other squadrons and aircraft. Clearly the part that the B-17s played in the attacks on Brest did not succeed, only the Halifaxes attacking Scharnhorst scored any hits that day. So they were a diversionary attack from a high altitude of 30,000 ft on Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau, and not surprisingly none hit.
7. The source being used for this baffling claim of "severly damaging Scharnhorst" is Garzke & Dulin, pp. 159–160. but this is used in many the other articles on this point, which all corroborate with each other, and not "severly damaging Scharnhorst" which is clearly a fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.7.146 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC) 86.161.7.146 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Sperry remote turret.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The early B-17E's did not use the Bendix remote turret. It was a Sperry remote turret. The same people that designed and built the upper turret and the later ball. This is clearly called out in the B-17E pilots manual and also shows in the Boeing engineering drawings. This Bendix thing has been repeated for years and is wrong. B17FE (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Sperry remote turret
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I do not know how to use this fully, so bear with me. I need to contact BilCat and provide him with the correct information on the remote turret used on the early B-17E's. I have the Boeing installation drawing and the B-17E Pilots Manual which show this information.
Thank you,
Karl Hauffe B17FE (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B17FE (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Came across a book by one of the test engineers for the B-17, Seth B Anderson, and he states that the B-17 had severe stall problems.
According to his tests, the aircraft would roll nearly 90 degrees to the left during a stall. This nearly destroyed one of the prototypes when it rolled 90 degrees on landing.
The stall behavior was judged "very unsatisfactory" and stated that the aircraft had no effective stall warning.
He states this is because the different direction of the prop wash on each wing, and that the wingtips would stall before the roots due to the propwash.
Here is the reference for anyone interested in posting it. [1]
References
^Memoirs of an aeronautical engineer: flight testing at Ames Research Center. Seth B. Anderson, United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. History Office, Ames Research Center. P.16
Boeing Fortress Mk.II
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Towards the end of the History section of the RAF Brawdy article there’s mention of a squadron of Boeing Fortress II being stationed there. “Boeing Fortress II” Is wikilinked to this article. The citation is Jetson, with a page number. Could anyone there please correct that article? It makes no sense to me - what was a Mk.II? Thanks! Boscaswelltalk 03:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with "Boeing Fortress II" it is the RAF designation for the B-17F. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Well you know that, but no-one looking at the article I mentioned and this one would find that out. Thanks for informing me! Boscaswelltalk 10:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
change: All content about the aircraft in fictional and gaming use has been moved to [[Aircraft in fiction, please see WP:AIRPOP
to: All content about the aircraft in fictional and gaming use has been moved to Aircraft in fiction, please see WP:AIRPOP
Even though the line is inside a comment tag, it messes with scripts trying to parse the document.
Done: I added a closing pair of brackets to the “Aircraft in fiction” link. — Tartan357(Talk) 15:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Combat range vs ferry range vs Tokyo tanks
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The specifications section contains a puzzler: The ferry range is listed as less than double the combat range with a bomb load. It should be more than double, because the bombs aren't there. I think the listed combat range is too high by a few hundred miles. Who has a copy of David Donald's American warplanes of World War II?
Also, the topic of Tokyo tanks is entirely missing from this article. The ferry range would be greatly increased with such tanks. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
US Army Air Forces vs US Air Force designations
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've noted in several articles about the B-17 that there are references to USAAF B-17s in and after 1948. Since the US Air Force was separated from the US Army in 1947, it would make more sense to refer to the aircraft as USAF, except when the depiction was of USAAF craft.
For example:
The comment about Howard Hawks' 1943 film "Air Force" properly uses US Army Air Forces, while Henry King's "12 O'clock High" should be listed as having been made with USAF support and aircraft, as it was made in 1949.
Because of the number of linked pages, I'm not comfortable making the changes without some consensus of the usages.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
