Talk:Boeing B-29 Superfortress

message: The B-17 article has a number of examples listed of notable cases were the aircraft received considerable battle-damage yet returned its crew safely.
Is there a reason why this article does not follow the convention established in the B-17 article?
Here are a few examples of B-29s rammed and shot into swiss cheese but ultimately survived to land its crew.
Unbreakable World War II aircraft that were shot to hell—and came back, 2001. The B-17’s big brother proved to be no less rugged. On a bombing mission near Tokyo, Japan, a Boeing B-29 Superfortress named Irish Lassie was rammed twice by Japanese aircraft and then riddled with gunfire when it fell out of formation...Irish Lassie flew home and broke apart upon landing when its nose gear collapsed. However, the entire crew survived.
Boundarylayer (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survivability

message: I see that a user has removed some data from a referenced source, from the bomb load specification section, which states (amongst other things) that:
"Could be modified to carry two 22,000 lb (10.0 t) Grand Slam bombs externally."
The criticism given to justify the deletion was:
"a single example could when heavily modified - not part of its common specification"
The reason given seems entirely credible - however, it's not referenced and, to my mind, isn't a valid reason for removing the data.
I have two points to make:
1) I followed a referenced source which made that claim; the user who deleted the data made no reference to justify the reason behind the claim for deletion.
2) Assuming that the reason given for deleting that part of the bomb load specification is true - and I strongly suspect that the given reason is indeed true - it's not relevant, since the referenced claim is that the B-29 COULD be modified to carry two 22,000 lb (10.0 t) Grand Slam bombs externally.  The point is that, bearing in mind the other bomb load specifications, this is claimed as an exceptional case not normally carried.
Please also note that the bomb load specification I looked up on-line replaced the previous version, which stated simply:
"bombs=20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout."
- which is both poorly referenced, and to anyone who has a clue about WWII bombers, obviously nonsense.
The thing is, the B-29 really was an exceptional machine, and I feel that the Wikipedia page should reflect its true abilities. Please allow the bomb load specifications to show this: my additions reflect a referenced source which make it quite clear that the normal "absolute max over short range" was less than half the "twin grand slam" load but nevertheless, a B-29 could carry an astonishingly huge bomb load if called upon.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: purpose of specifications section is to give a good grasp of the overall parameters of an aircraft. Taking a path between the barest of height, length, width and weight and every possible detail down to the size of the windows. Accepted practice is to pick a given major variant rather than lump all the numbers from all variants together. The layout style guide for aircraft on Wikipedia (reached by consensus  and practice) says "These specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labeled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant. Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. ". Putting an exceptional situation into the specifications gives impression that this was something that was or could be regularly done. The information on the dual Grand Slam trials should be given in full context and there's plenty of room for it in article, but the specifications section is not it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

text: The source you are referencing does not appear to be a reliable source, but is an archived pagefrom a personal website, so the information shouldn't be included AT ALL until a better source is used, while the standard loadout is sourced to a reliable source. If you do find a reliable source, then discussion of the mod should be discussed in the body of the text, not in the specifications table, as that would be misleading.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From a hunt around, the internet suggests the aircraft in question was B-29-75-BW, serial 44-70060. Photographs of it with intert (sand filled) Grandslams exist. No other instances. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Certainly the B-29, vehicle for the atomic bomb and holder of the long-distance record (8,198 miles in 35hr 5min) was one of the war's great aircraft. Had the atomic bomb not shattered Japan's resistance the type would have gone into action within a fortnight carrying one 22,000-pounder, and experiments were in progress to increase the load for Japan to two external "Grand Slams". Experimental flights had, in fact, been made with this load.' From 'Bombs Versus Concrete', Flight, May 30 1946, pp.537-539. https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201049.html 44-70060 seems to have been a one-off conversion by Boeing Wichita. There are photos of it in flight, so it could clearly get off the ground, but the range might have been an issue. And there's no indication that they ever actually tried dropping the two bombs at once. On the other hand, the US was producing Grand Slams and special B-29s to carry them singly, and these would have seen imminent action had the war not ended. So the single Grand Slam does seem to have been an authorised combat load, though it required a special loading pit to be dug, as with the atomic bombs, because of the aircraft's low stance. Three of the Grand Slam B-29s were detached to RAF Marham in 1946 for Project Ruby, when Lancasters and B-29s dropped Grand Slams, Tallboys and other penetration bombs on the concrete U-boat shelter at Farge to find out why they didn't work (which they didn't), with a view to making better 'bunker busters' in future. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing B-29 Superfortress. 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/20130222142443/http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/NuclearChemicalBiologicalMatters/965.pdf to http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans/NuclearChemicalBiologicalMatters/965.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pwencycl.kgbudge.com/B/-/B-29_Superfortress.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Did the forward dorsal turret have two or four machine guns, or did this change at some point? MKFI (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forward dorsal turret, 2 or 4 machine guns? 

message: The sourced document"Monday, January 01, 1940 – Saturday, December 31, 1949."  History Milestones (US Air Force). Retrieved: 21 October 2010. for Col. Irvine's record flight lists a time of "35 hours" whereas his May 1955 biography and the National Museum of the United States Air Force web page devoted to Irvine's aircraft both list a specific flight time of "39 hours and 36 minutes." If no one objects, I'll correct the time hack and I'll cite both sources for it. Enjoy! Rob Rosenberger (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources conflict over Col. Irvine's flight time