Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

Length Correction

The aircraft length needs to be changed from 159 ft. to 98 ft. Having worked onthese aircraft for over 4 years at Minot AFB I can say for certain that the 159 ft. length is a gross overestimation. Our general airframe technical manuals on the B-52H cited 98 ft. lenght with the rear turret removed.

Don't know where you figure came from. I'd say you need a new ruler: [1]. Or, try this. Go to google maps with the link I'll give you here to a Barksdale B-52. Check the scale. Now, mark that distance on a piece of paper held to the screen. Then, put the piece of paper next to a BUFF. You tell me what you come up with. Yeah, this is original research, but it confirms the above source as well. Here you go: [2] --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, I appreciate your input. Unfortunetly your link just sends me to random page here on Wiki. So i did a little searching and found a near perfect top down view of a B-52H in flight. I picked this pic because there's no ground clutter or shadows to mess with the sizing. Since we agree that the aircraft has a 185 ft wingspan I used that as my base to find scale. Wingtip to wingtip was 4.3125". If we take 185'x 12 we get width in inches, devide that by 4.3125 and we get the scale... 514.7826 Multiply this by the measured length of 2.3777" and then divide by 12 (to put the number from inches to feet) we get a length of just under 102ft. My ruler may be wrong, but the math agrees with Boeing's Air Force Technical Data the 1B-52H-1-1. But as I stated, This wasn't a perfect top down. Even if I added .5 inch it still wouldn't make the 159' mark. Something I've learned over the years, never trust the engineer's specs. Looks like you and me have a little work ahead of us to find an actual length that we can agree on. Shoot me an email at fmd_dragon@yahoo.com, being a modeler and perfectionist I know that there is an error in the length due to the angle. My curiosity is perked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.240.136.86 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be helpful. Try to zoom in to an Aircraft on the tarmac on this google map. Hope it works this time. You need a picture with a scale. Trying not to be silly about it as EVERY reference out there says the right length so I'm not sure why there'd be an issue. This is original research, but that's what you're asking for. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Boeing's site references 157'7" as the length, I'm inclined to believe that the 159' length used on this site is either correct, or close enough that I would chalk it up to slight variations in production. www.boeing.com/history/b52. My own personal experience as a crew-member some years ago also bears out the general length of this plane, a length that is far in excess of the 98 feet mentioned above. Jongleur (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use the Boeing site for the official length. The 98 feet claim doesn't seem to be backed up by any references (no offense to the modeler IP above). I'm also at Minot AFB right now and I think your recollection may be a bit off. A B-52 is significantly longer than 98 feet. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bud Holland

why is not the Bud Holland accident mentioned under notable accidents? --98.246.94.67 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it is linked in the Category:Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress at the top of the section AND it has its own article referenced. The pic is included. S'pose the accident could be linked in the caption... will check it out.LanceBarber (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Added "See article" link which probably should have been done before.LanceBarber (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest aircraft to achieve an aerial kill

The claim that the B-52 is both the largest aircraft to achieve an aerial kill in combat and the largest aircraft to be shot down in combat has been challenged. Please present evidence that this information is incorrect or the challenge will be removed. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a claim without a reference. The burden is on the one that added it per WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize that. Will modify the article accordingly. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The article still states this, however, the B-52 is one of the largest combat aircraft with an air-to-air capability (admittedly it is a past capability). It has two confirmed kills. If there is a larger aircraft with a kill, it should be easy to find, but I cannot find anything. While it is still unreferenced it is a logical inference. I'm going to leave it for now, but I am also researching it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to add something about the use of Diamond Lil in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and how Michael Moore lies about what its dedication plaque says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "aircraft" is a bit too broad to apply here because Zeppelins are certainly aircraft, are certainly larger than the B-52 in almost every respect, and are certainly credited with air-to-air kills during WWI. A better term here would be "airplane". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.82.162.166 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Now what

Ok. I think the best way to go about this is to do a proof by exclusion. There are not many combat aircraft larger than a B-52 (in terms of mass, wingspan, length, or payload) and most of those are unarmed cargo aircraft. I think the best way to prove this is to conclusively show why this claim is true by showing all larger aircraft did not have a kill.

The following military aircraft are larger than the B-52 in some manner (the parameter listed in parenthesis may not be the only one that exceeds the corresponding parameter of the B-52, but is one characteristic that does exceed it):

Those with a gun turret/air-to-air capabilities

B-36 Peacemaker (wingspan)

Convair_YB-60 (wingspan)

IL-76D (payload)

None of these have air-to-air victories

Those with no armaments

C-5 Galaxy (payload)

C-17 Globemaster III (payload)

Tu-160 (wingspan)

An-124 (wingspan)

An-225 (payload)

Boeing 747 (wingspan) in various military configurations

Hughes H-4 Hercules (wingspan)

There are several other cargo aircraft (civilian/military) which have payload capacities and/or wingspans above that of the B-52; none of these were ever armed with air-to-air weaponry. Feel free to add them to the list. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FA push

To those who have contributed to this article, I intend to work on this in the near future and press for FA status. The prose needs a little bit of work here and there, some sources are needed, and some formatting needs to be done with respect to the references (dates, italics, authors, etc), but it largely appears to be ready for FA. Thoughts on anything else? Please add them to the list below. Once one of the items below is done, strike it out and put your signature after it.

I'm just trying to coordinate efforts here. If you have a better way to do it, I am all ears. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

FA list of things to do

• Re-examine the prose for writing inconsistencies
• Find sources for statements with a "" tag

  Still have one sentence about the BUFF being the largest a/c with an air-to-air kill, but I don't think that one is controversial and I don't know of a larger a/c with a kill. If it is incorrect, a simple link to another claim would be easily sufficient to remove it. Simple process of elimination reveals the truth. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fix problems with the references
• Really needs more about the Cold War role as it served in that capacity for nearly 40 years. Only 3 paragraphs seems disproportionate.
• Fix dates/numbers/etc IAW WP:MOS
• All aircraft images point at the center of the page
• Check any other MOS issues
• Early Structural issues section/paragraph needs to be added.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 500 kg, use 500 kg, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 500 kg.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[?] Specifically, an example is 480 mi.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks

Comments

One point that arose from the F-4 Phantom Featured Article review is that Vectorsite and Joe Baugher's website are not considered WP:RS - they will need to be replaced if this is raised to FA.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This comment and the one following it were originally together, but I have split them for clarity. I would largely prefer not to remove them. If the information is accurate, we can add another reference to show that this information is indeed reliable (better to have extra references than not enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Was the reason that Mr. Baugher's website was not reliable because it wasn't peer reviewed? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be relatively easy to fix as he gives his references. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Baugher's pages, GlobalSecurity and similar web pages are all self-published. They don't pass WP:Reliable sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article could do with expansion of the section on the structural issues encountered in the early days that caused a number of crashes. Referencing also needs improvement. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur; added. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Need a better/updated image

File:B-52 3-view.svg looks more like a B-52D (IIRC, B-52D has the tall tail/vertical stabiliser and is the only model that can carry more 750lb bombs than the other B-52 variants) than a B-52H to me, and in my view, this file should not be use as it does not correspond to the header of Specifications for B-52H, kind of misleading to place it there in the first place. Thoughts, anyone? --Dave1185 ^talk 16:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind all, I've switched the image to that of a short-tailed B-52G instead, which is similar to the H-model except only for the tail-gun. But if there's a better image or outline drawing of a H-model, please feel free to change it to correspond to the B-52H specification. Thank you. --Dave1185 ^talk 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference format

Is there any consensus for the complete change in the reference format?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect not, it is normal practice just to keep to the style adopted by the first editor. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And do we really want all the adverts for Google books sprinkled into the references? They don't add anything.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The links aren't needed unless maybe there's some dispute over the info from it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The links aren't needed if you have the book, BUT, "you should cite where you found the material", not just the book's info. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Three of the Google books links gave no preview and no additional information, so I deleted them (as its easily reachable if you click on the ISBn link its no great loss.) One of them has a review (but no preview) and one has a limited preview, which could theoretically be used to find information.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Was trying to lend a hand to get this towards FA, but clearly folks are unhappy with my efforts, so I'll leave you to it - good luck with the review. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question, what is the current reference format used here? I've seen examples of manual coding, citation template'd ones, and half finished ones; so which actually is the standard we're supposed to be adopting as one right the way though? While I recognise that we should keep to whatever standard is dominant and first used, I'm unable to tell what that is, so the clarification would be appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The article originally mainly used manual coded references - an attempt by one editor to impose cite templates on the article and change the layout of the standard appendices without any prior discussion resulted in the above discussion and the current mix of reference formats.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah good. Just thought I had better get that established, so that I and other editors know what to work towards on this article. Kyteto (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering putting this in for GAN

I wanted to state my intentions that I am currently making considerations on this article towards nominating it for a Good Article Review. I note that there was an ongoing FA push several months ago, I'm not sure how active those efforts are right now, I don't want to step on anybody's toes with this. This article would be the first that I've taken through with manual citations, which I find a real pain to work with, but I'll manage it somehow as I think the quality is essentially there. If anybody is in favour of this move and wants to keep an eye on this article for when it happens, or even more importantly if there is opposition to me taking such actions here, drop a comment below this one. It's only an idea right now, I'd be much more confident going forwards with it if I knew someone more experienced in tuning up manual referencing was enthusastic and ready to go, as there I could certainly use what help is offered. Kyteto (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Putting it up for GA is probably about right. Another option is going for A-class with WP:MILHIST. I don't think there has been a focused effort to improve this article in months. A couple of the first things to do is probably improve the referencing (replace non-WP:RS refs maybe?) and make sure all major details are covered. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-RS refences have been booted out. Think that I have gotten them all. Anybody like the new quotes I've found? Kyteto (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another 20 Book references thrown into the article, hope that looks good. Kyteto (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominating for GA Review now, feels like its hit the spot now. Kyteto (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I think the Development section needs a summary of the post-A-model variants and mention of the upgrades performed. I'll try to work on that.. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Have a great picture of a B-52D tail gun, where to put it?

I was visiting the Kansas Aviation Museum in Wichita, KS yesterday, and took an external photo of the tailgun section of a B-52D they have on display there (tail number 55-0094). Since good pictures of a B-52's tailgun are hard to come by, I figured I would upload this one. I'm just not sure where to put it in the article itself. I was thinking of including it in the Variants section under the picture of the B-52D dropping bombs, but I'm not sure if that's the best place. Raguleader (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)