Talk:Boeing B-29 Superfortress

Survivability

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)

First I quote a current paragraph: In wartime, the B-29 was capable of flight at altitudes up to 31,850 feet (9,710 m),[27] at speeds of up to 350 mph (560 km/h) (true airspeed). This was its best defense, because Japanese fighters could barely reach that altitude, and few could catch the B-29 even if they did attain that altitude. Only the heaviest of anti-aircraft weapons could reach it, and since the Axis forces did not have proximity fuzes, hitting or damaging the aircraft from the ground in combat proved difficult. Also paragraph is marked for lack of a reference. Article has no statements as to how many were lost during the War, and if so to what causes- Would be a nice add if found. Wfoj3 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Specifications

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)

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)

I take your point, but bear in mind that I am following the guideline calling for a single set of specifications. In the case of bomb-load, typical bombers then and now have a range of bomb loads which they can carry so it makes sense to provide information on this in the specification section.

You surely must concede that information on the range of bomb loads that a bomber was shown to carry aids in giving (as required) a good grasp of the overall parameters of the aircraft - which is the over-arching intent of the specifications section.

It is not the case, as you suggest in your objection, that putting the disputed remark in the specifications section gives the impression that this is something which was generally done, since the text I use states plainly that:

"Could be modified to carry two 22,000 lb (10.0 t) Grand Slam bombs externally."

Now then, that claim comes from a source which I referenced in the article. The objections raised here in the talk section do not provide any references to back up the objections - not even a reference to show that this modification was only made on one machine. Not that I think this claim is bogus (common sense applied to the other bomb load figures suggests that an unmodified B-29 was unlikely to be able get far - probably not even off the runway - with a 44,000lb bomb load) - but surely we must base our decisions on information which is properly referenced.

Moreover, without referenced information we cannot (as suggested by GraemeLeggett) put information about this version into the article.

I note also that for more than two years, this article contained the misleading (to the point of inaccuracy) claim that the B-29's bomb load was:

"20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout"

which no-one seemed bothered about correcting; I decided to look up some referenced information to deal with the problem.

I suggest therefore that unless and until someone does come up with a reference to back up the unreferenced claims about this particular point, that my properly referenced, relevant, and accurate data should be allowed to stand in the specifications part of the article.

The point is that at the moment, there's no other sensible way to include this accurate, relevant, and referenced information in the article - nor is there referenced information provided to back up the main reason for removing this twin Grand Slam bomb load.

Without references to back up the specific claims of the exceptional nature of the bomb load, where's the justification for removing the data?

Find a reference for the twin Grand Slam B-29, put the data elsewhere in the article - great. But until then, how else to include this data?

Michael F 1967 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

'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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious

The Armament section here says that the B-29 could carry a 20,000 maximum bombload "over short distances at low altitude" but also that it "could be modified to carry two 22,000lb Grand Slam bombs externally". Thus is supported by the source given, but is it true? That the B-29 could double its maximum bomb-load if they were strapped on outside? Or is the author thinking of the 10,000 lb Tallboy, which would also need to be carried externally or in a modified bomb bay. Is there another source for this? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as the author of the source cited in the bomb load section: I'm proud of The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia, and have done my best to make it accurate, but it is nevertheless a tertiary self-published source and should not be cited by Wikipedia. I've listed the sources I used for that article at the foot of the article and those sources should be consulted and used instead.

That said: I don't recall off-hand what the source was for the Grand Slam factoid. I included it in my article because it was one of those quirky factoids that's just irresistible. I can check the list of sources (I have most of them on my bookshelves) and see if I can piece it together, and make a guess whether the Tallboy was meant, and make an assessment whether the source for it is unreliable. (That's quite possible.) Meanwhile, since I doubt a B-29 ever actually carried a Wallis earthquake bomb over enemy territory, it might be best to just remove that statement. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I found the source. It's Bill Gunston, 1986. American Warplanes. New York: Crescent Books. ISBN 0-89673-000-X. Page 202: "With modification, carried two 22,000lb British bombs externally under inner wings." Gunston is pretty good with his books on specific aircraft types, and his book on aircraft engines was one of the most enjoyable reads I've ever had, full of geeky technical goodness. But I doubt he's as reliable in compendia like this one. But the claim seems pretty specific and there's no doubt he means the Grand Slam. I found this in Walter J. Boyne, 1994, "Clash of Wings: World War II in the Air, p. 294: "The Lancaster could carry a normal load of 14,000 pounds of bombs (compared with the B-17's 4,000 pounds), and a relatively simple modification enabled it to carry the 22,000-pound 'Grand Slam,' the heaviest bomb of the war." I'd judge it's just within the realm of possibility that a Silverplate-type variant of the B-29 could carry a couple of Grand Slams. But, as I said, I doubt it was ever actually done in combat, so perhaps still best to just remove the claim. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2020

(UTC)

See above, under 'Specifications'. One B-29, 44-70060, was modified to carry two Grand Slams under the wings. There are photos of it in flight, but no recorded attempt was made to drop the things. If one hung up, the aircraft would be in serious trouble. It is also likely that the range was seriously compromised. A number of B-29s carried and dropped a single Grand Slam in trials just after the war, but it was never an approved combat load. In June 1943 Norman F. Ramsey, a Columbia physicist working in Parsons' delivery group on the Manhattan Project, identified the British Lancaster as the only Allied bomber that could carry the atomic weapon internally, except the B-29, which would require major modifications, not least joining the two bomb bays into one. (Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Schuster, 1986, p.478.) The B-29 was encountering severe development problems at the time, but the Lancaster would have had to launch from no further than Iwo Jima and bomb from about 23,000 feet at a much lower dash speed than the B-29 (though its cruise speed was about the same), so the B-29 had to be made to fit the bill. The bomb attachment and release mechanism for the nuclear weapon, however, was taken from the Grand Slam Lancaster. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Forward dorsal turret, 2 or 4 machine guns?

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)

Sources conflict over Col. Irvine's flight time

The sourced document 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)

References