Talk:Boeing XB-15

message: The article states that "due to the technology of the time, a 5,000 mile flight took several days; the crew was made up of several shifts, and bunks allowed them to sleep when off duty". This must be a rewrite of page, where it says that "because a long-range flight, powered by the engines of the time, took several days, the crew had bunks to sleep on between shifts". I think this needs a bit of explanation. My first thought was that the aircraft remained up in the air for day after day, but a quick prod of the calculator shows that, at maximum cruising speed, a 5,000 mile trip would have taken 25 hours. It is my guess therefore that, in this context, Boeing's website is talking about a lengthy combat mission with stop-overs, perhaps in friendly airbases in the Pacific; either that, or we should change "several days" to "several hours". page says that "the crew of ten has soundproofed, heated, and ventilated quarters with rest bunks, a kitchen, and a lavatory", which might make this the first bomber to have a loo. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The page now says "Due to the technology of the time, a 5,000 mile flight took thirty-three hours at its 152-mph cruising speed"... is that fact really attributable to technology, or just to dividing 5,000 by 152? 81.131.10.150 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology, or mathematics?

message: The article says it was the second largest airplane in the world at the time of its completion. I was wondering, what was the first? It might be helpful to mention the first in the article. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like that distinction belongs to the Tupolev ANT-20  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.159.88 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Second largest??

message: Jack McKillop and Pacific Wrecks both say that the majority of the aircraft was bulldozed eastward off the tarmac and into the Curundu swamp within which Allbrook Field was built. Frank Hohmann said he saw it barely visible in 1980, sinking into the muck.
*http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/McKillop/5384.htm
*http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/xb-15/35-277.html
Pacific Wrecks says it was stripped of parts and the tail, so maybe that merits the term "scrapped" which we have in the article at this time. Ray Merriam doesn't hint at the bulldozer finale but he gives the time frame as being "ordered dismantled in June of 1945". For what it's worth. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulldozed?

message: The design was to use V-1710's originally, but they weren't available... the V-3420's were NOT to be used
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.44.254 (talk • contribs)  18:49, January 2, 2013
:I see some confusion in the various book sources we have. For instance, Jon Lake in The Great Book of Bombers says four Allison V-1710s were intended. Michael John Hardy in Boeing writes the following in 1982: "Boeing's design and mock-up were based on the use of four 1,000 hp Allison V-3420 in-line engines, but these were not available in time and the XB-15 first flew on October 15 1937 with 1,000 hp Twin Wasp R-1380-11 radials." Hardy names the 3420 but he specifies the horsepower of a 1710, which is very confusing. He also overstates the 850 hp of the Twins. The book The Army and Its Air Corps: Army Policy toward Aviation, 1919-1941 agrees with you that four V-1710s were specified but Twin Wasps were substituted. Timothy Moy says in War Machines that the initial engines were "experimental liquid-cooled twelve-hundred-horsepower Allison engines" without naming the model. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter M. Bowers in Boeing Aircraft since 1916 also states V-3420s, although he doesn't specify a power.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Engines

message: I assume that this 31,000+lbs lifted was achieved largely by leaving the fuel tanks mostly empty, because if the normal payload is a maximum of 8,000lbs + fuel, it would seem that you'd have to loose some weight quickly in order not to exceed the maximum takeoff weight. With full fuel, you'd be 20,000lbs or so overweight on takeoff carrying 31,000lbs. Or does the fuel COUNT as part of a "payload"? I mean, what is the difference taking off with an 8,000lb bombload and full fuel at maximum weight, and taking off with a gigantic payload and little fuel, equalling the same maximum weight. I mean, you can't exceed the maximum takeoff limits to any appreciable degree, can you? That would also mean that, if it couldn't climb over 8,200ft at it's maximum weight, then combat takeoffs at maximum weight (fuel + weapons) would be forced to takeoff and fly under 8,000ft, and slowly climb as the fuel burned off and the weight dropped. Which brings me to wonder, is the 71,000lb maximum weight quoted based on this "superheavy" takeoff configuration, or is that a maximum weight expected to be reached in combat operations, with full weapons and fuel load? It would be nice to differentiate between the two. And if they are different, what is a a typical "combat takeoff weight", as opposed to maximum? Many aircraft articles list both..45Colt 08:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Payload record 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Boeing XB-15. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208181449/http://www.boeing.com/history/chronology/chron04.html to http://www.boeing.com/history/chronology/chron04.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121064642/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil:80/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2486 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2486
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040607033925/http://www.boeing.com:80/history/boeing/xb15.html to http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/xb15.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051227032522/http://home.att.net:80/~jbaugher2/b15.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b15.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071121064642/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil:80/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2486 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2486
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified