Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleBoeing B-52 Stratofortress has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2007WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
January 30, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
September 3, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 15, 2010, and April 15, 2012.
Current status: Good article

Notable B-52 accidents[edit]

I see the recent B-52 crash at Guam affected (=destroyed) a B-52 wich was one of six airplanes sent from Minot AFB for a short stage at Guam. The aforementioned list was completed with this event. Could the airplanes serial be found and added? I did not find the info anywhere; but I would know, since my cherished 1:72 model, Nº 61040, the last one to roll out from Boeing around 1966, was (short time after to Captn Hollands accident at Fairchild AFB) reassigned to Minot AFB so there is a chance that "mine" could be the one now missing. Best regards and thanks 190.113.164.2 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an accident that is really notable enough to be be included in the article, old aircraft fails to takeof nobody hurt. The aircraft is possibly 60-0047. MilborneOne (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've got the point. But just for the record, B-52 fifty years after they was made, still are the best ande most reliable war machines in the States, and the reminding planes (about 70 or some) are kept updated to extend lifespan until 2040. Amazing...

Thanks for the data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.113.164.2 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC) PS Excuse my english. I wanted to say "Remaining" instead of "reminding".

The B-52H that was destroyed at Guam on Wednesday May 18, 2016 was tail number 60-0047 and named "Neanderthal" at the time of the crash. The loss of a 56 year old military aircraft with no injuries is not notable and I will remove it from the article again if no one objects. Samf4u (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Samf4u I object, and think the crash is important to add. Note, notability does not to contents of articles.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it again, as there's no consensus here to keep it in the article. Note that WP:Notability only applies to articles, but the word "notability" is still used in the English language for concepts other than WP:N. - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I was minded to restore, but noticed there was a discussion here. IMHO, as the aircraft was written off, AIRCRASH is met. I probably wouldn't support a stand-alone article, but it is certainly worth a mention. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure we have invoked "hull loss" for military aircraft in the main article, if we had a stand-alone List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress then it would apply but not here were we should only list the more notable accidents which for military normally means it has to have killed something or hit something notable. A list of hull losses for most military would run into hundreds or thousands (or even tens of thousands for second world war types) clearly something we dont normally do in the main article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not know about WPCRASH. The reason I thought the the B-52 loss was important, is because the number of planes is small, with no new B-52s being built, and no actual replacement aircraft for the B-52 mission.

Also, a suggestion, it would help explain in WPCRASH the reason for not listing all crashes, "A list of hull losses for most military would run into hundreds or thousands (or even tens of thousands for second world war types)" per above. Thank youCuriousMind01 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Should the 1963 crash near Grantsville, MA be included in this list? 3 crew members died and a broken arrow incident. [1] and [2] 313-matt (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)313-matt

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Still about VN[edit]

Even if USAF do not admit any losses to MiG-21, why the hell the B-52 kills are accepted and mentioned, while the VPAF don't confirm them? So, if USAF is 'always' right, is it a NPOV statement? The facts are, that USAF claims two MiGs and no AA losses, while the VPAF claims two B-52s and no AA losses. Why the articles says only the USAF version? I think this should be corrected, no matter if it is more or less verifiable. After all, who says that USAF spoke true about this kills? The Wikipedia should be neutral, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point here have you read the bit about losses over vietnam In total, 31 B-52s were lost during the war, which included 10 B-52s shot down over North Vietnam. Are you saying that these figures are wrong ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Costs[edit]

Not sure I understand the encyclopedic value of the cost table for individual bits of eaach model, propose it can be removed as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In service date[edit]

The article says: "The B-52 took its maiden flight in April 1952.". Boeing says "The first B-52A flew Aug. 5, 1954." http://www.boeing.com/history/products/b-52-stratofortress.page. The previous flights seem to have been of the YB-52. Anyone see any reason why this correction should not be made? Jim Whitaker (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The in service data is when a military aircraft is declared operational, such as Initial operating capability. This is not tied to a first flight. --Finlayson (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable Accidents - A Question[edit]

In the Notable Accidents section of this article, only about 25 accidents are listed. The Aviation Safety Network (ASN) website lists 111, most with fatalities. What makes some of these notable and most of these not notable? TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 20:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not checked the list but normally only those that kill somebody notable, hit something notable or caused a change in regulations and such like would normally be listed. Military aircraft accidents or combat losses are just not that noteworthy in most cases. That said if we had a seperate List of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress accidents and incidents then it would be given a bit more leeway then the main article and could list all the fatal accidents. MilborneOne (talk) 08:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Armament[edit]

The article implies that all B-52 models prior to the B-52H were armed with .50 caliber machine guns and expressly states this was the armament for the B-52A. Through the first half-dozen B-52Bs, the planes were armed with two 20mm guns, which used an entirely different fire control system than was installed for the quad 50s. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So fix it with reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Now there's no mention of the guns under the armament section at all … 93.145.221.210 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong picture next to air-combat section[edit]

Why do we show a photo of a post-Vietnam remotely-layed tail gun postion next to the section descrinbing tail gunners shooting down MiGs in Vietnam? All the VN era B-52s still had the gunners postions in the conventional place. This is totally misleading to people who don't know this already, they will be picturing the wrong thing entirely. There are photos of the original manned tail gun postions here, but I don't know anything about availability. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10237/the-u-s-air-forces-last-tail-gunner-has-retired


Idumea47b (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

None of the tail guns positions are post Vietnam - B52 production finished in 1952. Note that B-52Gs (as shown in the photo) did take part in Linebacker II, with several shot down (although the credited air-to-air kills were made by B-52Ds)Nigel Ish (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Think this number is wrong[edit]

 "Of the 50 B-52Bs built, 27 were capable of carrying a reconnaissance pod as RB-52Bs (the crew was increased to eight in these aircraft).[53] The 300 pound (136 kg) pod contained radio receivers, a combination of K-36, K-38, and T-11 cameras, and two operators on downward-firing ejection seats. The pod required only four hours to install"   "300lbs" seems ridiculously low to me for an installation like this. Radio equipment and cameras were large, heavy and bulky back then, the pod alone must weigh a good amount, and two ejection seats are not light either. I wouldn't be surpised if they were more than 100lbs each. I suspect it's supposed to be 3,000lbs, which is a far more plausible figure, or that it was supposed to be 1,300 or 2,300 and someone missed a digit.

Idumea47b (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Fuel tanks[edit]

I'm tempted to just come back when I have some time and go over this whole article and make a list of things that are problematic, unclear, contradictory or seemingly unlikley, and then post them all at once, otherwise I'll have to keep coming back and posting new sections here. In Variants, it says that the C (I think) model was "fitted with 3,000 gallon underwing fuel tanks". These can be seen in photos easily, and 3,000 gallons seems plausible. But then for the G model it says "700 gallon underwing fuel tanks were added". The B-52 already had underwing fuel tanks. Are these in addition to the larger, older tanks? Instead of them? Why are no tanks visible in the photo of the B-52G right next to this? Were the older ones fixed and the newer ones jettisonable? Also, I don't see any mention of the nose being repofiled, but it clearly was. Older models have a much blunter, continuous nose curvature, while later models have a more projecting nose cone, or the windscreen is more distinctly "stepped" than the older models. It is easy to see it in the photo of the old and new NASA aircraft parked next to each other. Why was this change made and when?

Idumea47b (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jet powered?[edit]

It says B-52 is jet powered but is clearly not the case it uses Turbofans to fly NOT rockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatal Error 401 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

A Turbofan is one of 3 basic types of jet engines. Rockets are not "jets". I hope that clarifies. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Altered image[edit]

The lede image is faked; compare it to the purported original, https://www.flickr.com/photos/usairforce/14230029094/ The "desert" before and after the plane has been added William M. Connolley (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not "faked", in as much as the image of the aircraft itself is intact, but the background is retouched. I am not an expert in this area, but I don't think it violates Wikipedia rules. --rogerd (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I have replaced it with a similar image that doesnt have the tanker photoshopped out. MilborneOne (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress&oldid=938184110"