Talk:Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1

message: At the moment we have
"Two pilots set in separate cockpits either side of the fuselage, while a bombardier sat in the nose. One or two flight engineers sat behind the cockpits to help tend the engines, a first for any aircraft. A radio operator and a navigator were seated next to them."[Allen p70][Flight 1923 p749-750]
Could someone with access to the Allen book (or others) clarify the situation with respect to the seating arrangements. Flight uses "cockpit" singular but it could be referring to a single pilot's cockpit rather than one cockpit for the both. (I guessing that if it is seperate cockpits, it left room between and below for the bombardier and or access to the front gun position). Secondly that the position of the flight engineers was novel. Flight mentions the controls behind the pilots, as was the case in the Tabor which unsurprisingly it resembles in many ways, but does not note it as unusual. I'm beginning to think the Flight reference is to some respects superfluous if its not contradictory. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement above from Allen is completely false. The only this that was novel was the necessity of a flight engineer to monitor the engines during flight. This was the first aircraft to require a flight engineer in order to operate. The flight engineer(s) sat in the nose below the cockpit. The aircraft was so noisy it was necessairy to have a small chalk board to write on for the flight engineer to communicate with the pilot. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two distinct pilot's cockpits (or to be more precise, positions), one on either side of the nose with some structure (i.e. a roof) between them- this is clear from photographs in Allen. What exactly is completely false in the statement about flight engineers?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The mistake is the statement "Flight mentions the controls behind the pilots". If you look at photos of the cockpits you will see that there was no stations behind the pilots. The pilots and bombardier sat in separate openings on top, while the flight engineer (usually one) and radio operator sat below the cockpit inside the aircraft in its nose. In this position they were well forward of the cockpit. There is an excellent photo of the port flight engineer's station in the Air Force book I reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: The Air Service Engineering Division was not involved in the design of the Barling Bomber in any way. The Barling Bomber was designed by Walter Barling under direction of Billy Mitchell. The aircraft's parts were constructed by Whittman-Lewis. The parts were shipped by rail to the Fairfield Air Depot, where they were ssembled by employees of the Depot, and mechanics from nearby Wilbur Wright Field. At no point was the Engineering Division, which was at McCook Field, ivolved in the design or assembly. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks Ken! I've also corrected the name of the builder in the article to what you stated above. I'm not sure how the false name of "Witteman-Lewis" got into the article, but since you're never wrong, and don't need to cite sources to back up your points, "Whittman-Lewis" must be correct. - BilCat (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Please excuse the minor disruption to make a point :) Since you were the one who suggested Engineering Division as the design entity, any trhoughts on that? - BilCat (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to believe that the Engineering Division were not involved in the design or assembly of the aircraft. Reliable sources say that Barling was working for the Engineering Division when he designed the aircraft and it is common to see the aircraft described as the Engineering Division NBL-1 in some sources. Also note that it was the ED who issued the specification to get the aircraft built. Hard to believe that the ED as customer were not involved in some way with the assembly, and it is also hard to believe that Charles Wittemann and his people were not around when the bomber was assembled, they did have a contract to build and assemble. It is also hard to believe that Barling designed the bomber at home and then gave the plans to his mate Mitchell, Mitchell then went to the Engineering Division and said I got some foreigner to design a big bomber can you get somebody to build it, oh by the way I dont want you to be involved in any design changes or have anything to do with the assembly, you can come and get it and test it when it is finished", no sorry dont buy that. MilborneOne (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of good articles and descriptions on this aircraft. Perhaps the two best are the Air Force's own book "Home Field Advantage", and Mary Ann Johnson's book "McCook Field 1917-1927". Both discuss this very issue. Mitchell went to Barling because he had previously designed a bomber very similar to the type Mitchell was looking for. He gave Barling the specs he wanted and Barling designed the aircraft. Mitchell pushed the design through the Air Service appropriations committee, and the aircraft, known as the Barling NBL-1, was offered for bidding. A group of investors in New Jersey saw an opportunity and formed the Wittman-Lewis Company to gain the contract, expecting to receive a production contract after the first examples were delivered. When the aircraft encountered serious cost-overruns and the Air Service made it clear they had no intention of buying more, Wittman-Lewis folded before the aircraft was even flying. There is no indication that Wittman-Lewis was in a position to send anyone to Dayton to help build the plane, as they were going out of buisness at that point. It is clear from the books that the Engineering Division had nothing to do with this aircraft. In fact, it appears that they judged it a failed design early on, and carefully avoided having contact with it. The aircraft was never flown to McCook Field. The best that can be said about the Barling and the Engineering Division is that the Barling flew over the Engineering Division a few times. I have RS that clearly state that the aircraft was never at McCook Field. That alone is more than sufficient to disqualify any claim that the Engineering Division was involved in the design. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Witteman-Lewis was in existence in 1917 which is two years before the completion of the Tabor. Mitchell might have identified Barling as a possible designer before the Tabor met with its unfortunate end, it seems rather ahead of the game for him to get Barling on board before the formation of Witetman-Lewis and Barling had parted company with Tarrant. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: That's easy. From 1917 until 1927 the Engineering Division operated at McCook Field. Both the Air Forces book "Home Field Advantage", and Mary Ann Johnson's book "McCook Field 1917-1927" state that the Barling Bomber never visited McCook Field. It's just my opinion, but I would say that the Engineering Division avoided having anything to do with the plane. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is not a WP:reliable source. The Air and Space Power Journal, on the other hand, is. "In 1920 the Army Engineering Division issued specifications for a large triplane bomber to the Witteman-Lewis Company of Teterboro, New Jersey. Commonly referred to as the NBL-1 (night bombardment, long distance) or Barling Bomber (after its inventor, Walter Barling) and designated the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1, it was the Army's first long-range night bomber."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can safely say that the U.S. Air Force is a more reliable source on its aircraft than the Air and Space Power Journal. Once Witteman-Lewis was awarded the contract it was the Engineering Division's responsibility to send them the plans. That doesn't mean the Engineering Division was involved in creating the design. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to comment on the assertion that the NBL-1 never visited McCook an article in "Air Classics" July 1983 shows a picture of the aircraft in a hangar at McCook with the note that they had to build a special hanger at McCook field to house the aircraft It notes after the aircraft was shipped to Dayton it had to wait for a building to be built and work on final assembly resumed in the Summer of 1923 in a temporary hangar.  This contradicts the article which says it was built and first flown from Wilbur Wright Field in Fairfield. Anybody have any reliable sources on this? MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Engineering Division

message: I agree with Kauffner in his post, to a point.
He stated: "World's Worst Aircraft calls it, The Barling-Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 "Barling Bomber".". This is true on pg. 32's page title. However, on pg 4., it is called Barling NBL-1. As the book states, there were to be two prototypes; one day and one night. As other books state, the day prototype (NBL-1) was canceled.
The prototype that was built was built by Witteman-Lewis, and was given the Army designation of XNBL-1 for a night bomber. So, the proper title is Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1.
Where Barling comes in is that Walter H. Barling, one of the designers who worked for W.G. Tarrant and helped design the Tarrant Tabor, another disaster, relocated to the U.S. and designed the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1. The plane came to be called "Barling Bomber". The press called it "Mitchell's Folly" (after Billy Mitchell the U.S.Army Air Service General and most vocal advocate of strategic airpower).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellectual Searcher (talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1