Talk:B-47 Stratojet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Trimming

Content should be trimmed down - it's excessive as it is today. Brevity is sweet!


Mother of all edit conflicts! This is hopeless. You do it then. Tannin

Sorry! (I know the feeling.) I do appreciate you bashing at it, but I was feeling responsible, having sucked in the giant mass... Should have looked closer at the time of your edit, better to wait a couple hours after someone else's last edit. Stan 18:07 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
No problem Stan. Please excuse my mometary grumpiness. I'll leave this one to you. You should have seen the look on my face when I looked at your edit with maybe 30 small changes in it sprinkled here, there and everywhere, and then looked at my edit with maybe 30 small changes in it, sprinkled here, there and everywhere. I'd spent about 45 minutes doing that edit. I reckon I could have gone through it line by line and resolved all the conflicts in ... oh ... about three hours!
Instead I went to bed and finished the new history of Second Alamein I'd been reading - which was a much better idea! Tannin

[edit] Removed 'Graph

I removed this from section == Comments, Sources, & Revision History ==; perhaps it is useful as source material:

* Although I grew up under the approach path to a Strategic Air Command base, I have no recollection of ever seeing a B-47 in flight. I do have an oddly vivid boyhood memory of an episode of the "Steve Canyon" TV show, which ran in 1960 or so, in which a B-47 engaged in an attack exercise against the USSR got into trouble: the canopy cracked, killing the crew. Canyon was scrambled to intercept the bomber as it flew towards Soviet airspace. As it neared the frontier, he was ordered to shoot it down and did so reluctantly. Although I must've been 6 or 7 at the time, I still can remember the image of the pilot and copilot of the bomber, lying dead in their seats, their faces iced over with frost, while the aircraft continued automatically on course.

--Jerzy 00:40, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

[edit] Immelmann Turn with a B-47

People, last night I saw a documentary (Discovery) where B-47 pilots were doing practice runs of dropping the A bomb performed an Immelmann (named after Max Immelmann). They did this, according to the program, by dropping the aircraft to 20,000 ft, then pull sharply up, release the bomb and away they went into the opposite direction. This, however, was soon stopped at it was found that the g forces were stressing the airframe too much. Can we get this into the article?

Demerzel 11:50 2004/03/03 (UTC)

There's a photo of a B-47 coming out at the top of the Immelman in "Flying Combat Aircraft of USAAF-USAF Volume 2." According to the pilot who wrote the chapter, they practiced primarily low-altitude approach (this was in the pre-SAM days) with pull-up and deployment of a drogued weapon followed by a rapid escape at low altitude. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 707 connection

Anon IP user claimed:

Engineers at Boeing say that the B-47 evolved into the Boeing 707 passenger jet. The 707 has the same engines, landing gear, fuselage, vertical stabiliser, ect, ect....as the B-47.

I removed this because claims like this absolutely must be referenced. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Add in the fact that some of those claims are patently obvious to the Mark 1 eyeball. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, bicycle and tricycle landing gear are actually the same! How could we be so blind? ericg ✈ 03:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I should have said "obviously false to the Mark 1 eyeball". Sorry if I confused. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I assumed that. I was making fun of the anonymous edit. :) ericg ✈ 19:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] German connection

The role of the german data could have been downplayed. It is interesting to note that more than the idea of sweeping the wings could had come from german engineers. See for example the Junkers EF 132. Particularly the shoulder-mounted, anhedral wings and the innovative landing gear layout.

--Aldo L 04:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I re-read the paragraph and I'm not convinced it violates NPOV. The swept-wing technology transfer is well documented in literature. Drawing other similarities to German designs is speculation and original research unless you can offer documentation. The article presents the facts as they are known (this is not the place for speculation or discourse on historical revisionism) and gives due credit to the engineers involved. Therefore, I have removed the NPOV tag. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survivor

There is another survivor sitting on the tarmac in front of the NMUSAF restoration hanger. It is the one that was replaced by the current RB-47 in the museum. I am trying to find a citation for this even though I have seen it personally. Patrick Berry 15:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This section was replaced with a pretty nice list, but it was uncited and could use some work. I reverted only because the previous incarnation had working wiki links. I think that a well cited, formatted list would be nice. Any comments? --Chuck Sirloin 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violations

A majority of this text seems to come from [1] which has a pretty good set of its own citations. Any comments? If it is a copyvio, most of this article will have to be re-written. --Chuck Sirloin 20:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From the last line of the References section: The initial version of this article was based on a public domain article from Greg Goebel's Vectorsite If it's "public domain", it can't be a copyvio. However, it might be a good idea to cite each reference from his website as a courtesy, and to let readres know where certain protions of text did come from. - BillCJ 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related development

Per WP:Air guideines, related development should be "those that this aircraft were [sic] developed from, or which were developed from it. Many aircraft will be stand-alone developments with no relatives, in which case this line should not be used." The B-52 was a direct descendant of the B-47 and shares MANY design characteristics (Swept back wing at the same angle, engines in pods, the original had the same basic cockpit design, etc). As for the 707 and KC-135, they were developed for the specific purpose of refueling faster bombers like the B-47 and B-52. They also have the same angle of sweep in the wing, same basic cockpit layout, heck, even the same engines (on the originals). — BQZip01 — talk 17:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Look at the examples given in WP:AIR, the F-82 Twin Mustang (based on, but not built from), CAC Kangaroo(based on, but not built from), Cavalier Mustang(built from) and Piper Enforcer(built from). So, I think related by design counts. --Chuck Sirloin 19:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a B-47 expert by any means, so tell me: would you agree with -

  • "The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is a long-range, jet strategic bomber developed from the B-47 Stratojet and flown by the United States Air Force (USAF) since 1954."
  • "The Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker is an aerial refueling tanker aircraft developed from the B-47 Stratojet. It has been in service with the U.S. Air Force since 1957."
  • "The Boeing 707 is a four-engine commercial passenger jet airliner developed by Boeing in the early 1950s, based on the company's B-47 Stratojet design."

If so, please update the relevant articles accordingly; and if not, please remove these links from the "related development" line. --Rlandmann 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If "Related development" is restricted to whole designs, then no. However, the consensual practice has been to also include designs that share related elements, especially revolutionary ones. This issue is now up for discussion on WT:AIR#Related development scope, so we should wiat until a final consensus is reached before making further changes to the disputed section of the article. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First attempt

I thought I'd take a stab at tweeking some of the sections for ease of reading for the general reader. I started with the Development section and created 3 titled subsections. I'd be willing to try the same technique on some of the other longer sections, unless there is a major objection. Respectfully submitted, LanceBarber 04:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The section breaks are fine – waaaaay too wordy for titles. FWIW Bzuk 04:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

Okay dokie, i shortened the headings. LanceBarber 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Where you've rearranged sections doesn't fit. Design and development is a natural link. I think you've done some intersting work here but it appears to be "overkill" and I can't see the need for such a radical rearrangement into many mini-sections. However, I did another experimental "tweak". FWIW Bzuk 03:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC).

The source from the NASA History "Jet Bomber" NASA History on Jet Bombers article and Baugher's XB-47 are very nearly the same. I would like to do even someting even more radical here... a section of Source for the major references for this articles source, and use the Reference section for the actual rer/ref usage. This article has been indicated in the Av Project as needing work. I seem to be the one to volunteer, let my "overkill" on subsections be abosrbed by others. It is certainly easier to read and scan by the general user, than the looooooong sections without breaks. Lets go with my flow for a while. Thanks. LanceBarber 03:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bzuk, the following paragraph I can not find in our sources. Going to remove it unless your eyes can scan the sources better than I can:

However, there was a widespread disinterest in the machine through the rest of the Boeing company, it seems partly because it was so futuristic, leading many to dismiss it as a whizzy experimental aircraft that would be impractical for operational use.[citation needed] Pictures of the initial rollout of the first XB-47 prototype show only about a hundred people watching.

LanceBarber 04:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Test ride story

Seems to have been split into two pieces, it starts in the test articles section and ends in the variants section. I don't know where it really belongs (assuming it can be sourced) so I just mention it here. ++Lar: t/c 13:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Diversion point in Strategic Operations

Section states that diversion points for Thule included "Goose Bay, Labrador, London, or Fairbanks, Alaska.". I rather doubt that the Heathrow (or anywhere else near London) was ever considered a diversion point for B-47 operations. Suggest that this be removed (or sourced). Gnmtndogs (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QB-47 crash

I suspect that the Bomarc launch site referred to in this section is actually Aux. Field 9, Hurlburt Field where the 4751st ADS operated IM-99/CIM-10s until deactivation in 1973, not Field 3, Duke Field where discrete operations are mounted from.