Talk:Boeing B-52 Stratofortress/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Peer review underway

A peer review for this article has been started. Add comments there. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2007 Nuclear weapons incident

I added a reference to the incident here into the article. LordShonus (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture / trivia creep is happening again...

• Trinity's Child, a 1983 novel by William Prochnau
• The Day After, a 1983 made for television movie starring Jason Robards
• Flight of the Old Dog, a 1987 novel by ex-B-52 crew member Dale Brown, many of whose works involve the B-52, EB-52, or other variations of the Stratofortress
• By Dawn's Early Light, a 1990 HBO telemovie adapted from the novel Trinity's Child
• Stolen Thunder, a 1993 novel by David Axton about the hijacking of a B-52
• The B-52's, a New Wave rock band, were named after a hairstyle that resembles the nose of the airplane.
  • Moved from main article.LanceBarber (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

The current version of the article calls the chapter "Air-to-air victories" -- it then makes sense to add Pham Tuan and his victory over B-52 -- probably the largest military airplane shot down with air-to-air weaponry.94.248.125.55 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Even the book cited in his article only mentions that PT "claimed" to have shot down a B-52. It doesn't say he actually did. This is also the only book which has such a citation. Given that the North Vietnamese had a propensity for exaggerating results (as did the Americans at the time) and no evidence has been produced to verify the claim (despite ample incentive to do so), I see no reason to include it. Buffs (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

USAF doesn't seem to dispute the loss of that B-52 (there goes exaggeration argument), so the only point is whether it was downed by SAM's (USAF version) or a MiG. Basically there are three possible 'votes' in the determination of the cause of the downing: USAF, VPAF and VPA. USAF seems to say it was a SAM; VPAF sais it's an air-to-air, and VPA air-defence doesn't claim that victory (something unlikely for "exaggerating Vietnamese"). Seems like a clear reason to include it as a "possible". 94.248.125.55 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

NVAF claimed LOTS of kills that were actually SAM kills, so, no they don't actually have that many kills nor is this claim any more credible. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (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)

I think it can replace the B-52G on display at Langley AFB image. That B-52G image is used in the List of surviving B-52s and is available on Commons. -fnlayson (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ejection seats & Turbulence-induced structural failure

I've been working on the 1963 Elephant Mountain B-52 crash. During that research I found a lot of useful information here. Thank you! The problem with the ejection seats became more clear to me on this website:The History Of Ejection Seats - Bailout for the other guy If one wants to add a little more details about the series of turbulence-induced structural failures the B52s experienced in the beginning of the 1960s, here is a interesting website on this topic: Look mom, I lost my tail! We gotta bring this Buff in anyway. I would do I myself but I really don't want to mess with this article. WideBlueSky (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A-class review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Airplaneman ✈ 21:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

SDASM images

I am working with staff at Balboa Park in San Diego for releasing museum images under free licenses. There are several digitized images of B-52s from the San Diego Air & Space Museum. The images can be seen here and here. If any of the images can be used for the article, please list the requested image(s) at Wikipedia:GLAM/BP/Image requests. If there are any questions please let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

List formatting

I recently fixed the formatting of the Notable accidents section, so that it renders as a a proper HTML list, per the MoS. In doing so, I also moved the image ahead of that list. User:Fnlayson has twice moved it into the middle of the list, causing there to be two, unconnected HTML lists. This is semantically incorrect and unhelpful to our readers. Furthermore, he did so he said, to place it "adjecent [sic] to relevant entry", which it apparently is on his system. However, on my system (which no doubt has a different screen size, resolution and/ or font size), it sits alongside a 1972 incident. Images should not interrupt lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What exact MoS guideline are going by here? You have not mentioned it yet. The caption of the image was directly next to the 1994 entry. If the image link was right above the entry, the image would run into the next section and cause image crowding later on. Note this article passed GA and A-class reviews with no reviewers having a problem with it. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BULLETLIST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The screenshot above shows that, again and as I said previously, you are describing what you see on your system; not what others see on theirs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, it is too high now. The image link had been right above the 1984 entry for a while before this month. As long as the image's caption is, some variation in screen size or resolution won't affect things too much. Either part of the image or the caption should be next to the entry with that earlier placement. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Although you've moved the image again, it's still in the wrong place; and the list markup is still broken by it. Per the cited MoS, the image should either be above the list or inside the bullet point to which it applies. Consider also how it is presented to people who do not see our pages, but hear them read to the by assistive software. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quibbling over the placement of an image because it could interfere with assistive software which reads to people. Give me a break. I'm not against helping those that are hard of hearing have visual impairments (wow, probably should have re-read what I wrote...), but I believe that this placement places the image chronologically where it should be in relation to the text around it. I've moved the image to within the bullet so the list remains intact, but this is a guideline, not policy. Guidelines can be violated for good reasons. What you SHOULD be campainging for is a correction to the wikipedia software which overlooks the images when creating lists. Buffs (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not "quibbling over the placement of an image because it could interfere with assistive software which reads to people", but in any case that software reads alt text and captions, so is affected by image placement. I'm not quite clear what this has to do with "those that are hard of hearing". The image is not now located chronologically where it should be, because you have placed it within and at the end of the list item about a 1972 incident. The MoS is quite unequivocal in this regard; it belongs ahead of the list, or within and at the start of the list item to which it relates. No good reason for ignoring it has been offered. Placed in one of those locations, MediaWiki will handle it correctly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The MoS is not a requirement. Right now, our miniscule consensus is 2:1 against you. That consensus can' override a mere guideline, however, another important policy certainly applies here.

As for the rest, no, that image only falls within that list item in a textual sense. Graphically it overlaps between three or four list items. You are ignoring the graphical layout (which the vast majority of people use) to attain a marginal improvement in a relatively unused realm. That is a good reason and Fnlayson & I agree on the point. As for my comment, I fixed it above (my mistake). Buffs (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

2:1 is not a consensus of any kind; consensus is not voting. IAR is not a "get out of jail free" card for prematurely closing a discussion such as this. The image is on the wrong list item in a textual, semantic and logical sense; and that is wrong. You make the same mistake as Fnlayson in considering your own experience of using Wikipedia. The image is not aligned next to the correct item on systems with a very large font setting, nor on the mobile view of the article (which site's popularity puts lie to your "vast majority" claim), nor to various other users. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

2:1 is the only consensus we currently have, so spare me the lectures about voting and what consensus means. I never said the discussion was "closed" and I never made any attempt to do so. There are very few things on WP that are "wrong". The vast majority is merely preference and style choices. You are indeed correct that it doesn't line up when placed with "very large" font settings, but other problems also arise by placing it with the chronological incidents (for example, it runs into the next section).

WP:IAR was created exactly for something like this. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Fnlayson and I have decided this is the best option right now. You are the sole dissenter. Far too many people are dedicating their WP lives to making WP a bureaucracy with formal requirements for everyone else to follow in a vain power trip. It isn't worth it. Buffs (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm only going to reply to those parts of your essay which appear pertinent to the issue at hand. The image is currently associated with the wrong item in the list. This can be remedied in one of three ways. Place it inside the correct item; place it ahead of the list (as I did in my reverted edit); or remove it entirely. The latter seems unnecessary; the former, you say, causes it to run onto the next section. This, then, leaves only one viable solution. You appear to have raised no reasoned objection to this. I note also that you have ignored my point about the mobile view of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Then you have missed our point entirely. The problem lies with limitations in WP software which doesn't allow alignment with the end of a section or to avoid overlaps into another section. There is also the issue that the image shouldn't be associated with anything in the first place (again, an HTML coding issue). Again, aesthetics for a small minority of people (BTW, both my iPad and iPhone seem to display the image just fine) do not override the aesthetics for the vast majority. Again, I contend you are directing your energy into the wrong discussion. I recommend Wikipedia:Help desk instead. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If that's your point then it's not a valid one. The limitation is not with the MediaWiki software, but with HTML (please, if you believe otherwise, explain how you would avoid such overlaps using HTML & CSS). And yet again you seem to base your arguments on a limited world view based on your own system, rather than a wider understanding of how the various hardware and software systems work. Did you view the mobile-version link I provide for you, above? Between which bullet points is the image locate, on your devices? This is a matter of semantics, not merely aesthetics; and your apparent claim of understanding the experiences of "the vast majority" is, as I have already pointed out, bogus. As is your remarkably self-contradictory assertion that "the image shouldn't be associated with anything in the first place", to which I respond by again referring you to the MoS, and especially its suggestion that the image be placed ahead of the list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what? You just don't get it. It's worthless "discussing" anything with you if you are simply going to call my opinions invalid or view them as not pertinent. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am confused by the location of the image. The image shows a 1994 incident, right? So why is it placed all the way up by the 1968 stuff, rather than down with 1994? On my computer screen, there's a full two inches between the bottom of the caption and the top of the relevant bullet item. Why would anyone object to moving it lower, so that it sits right next to the relevant bullet item? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as it's within the relevant bullet point, in accordance with the Mos (WP:BULLETLIST), I wouldn't; but that would cause it to "dangle" below the list for some people, and it appears that some of them would object. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Operating altitude

I'm looking for information on what altitudes the airplane can operate at. The article doesn't seem to discuss this. __meco (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My (very dated) T.O. 1B-52H-1 (15 February 1975) states on page 5-18 "there is no unqualified altitude restriction." Practically however, there are some considerations flying above 50,000 feet. The aerodynamic phenomenon known as the Coffin Corner comes increasingly into play, where the aircraft's stall speed approaches its critical Mach number, and the plane become unstable. I've been in B-52s flying as high as 58,000 feet and the pilots were very gingerly working the throttle and flight controls, all the while watching airspeed and fuel distribution very carefully. Policy is to limit the altitude to 50,000 feet.Jongleur (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Without getting too deep into details, realize that B-52Bs and several jets of various other models that were configured for high altitude flight. Buffs (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The bomber carries up to of weapons ?

At least, thats how it renders on my machine. Whats missing is something from the "convert" template William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Not sure why the template did that before. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Landing airstrip length requirements

I saw the B-52 Stratofortress that is on display at IWM Duxford recently and the caption says when it flew in to the Museum on 8 October 1983 it landed on the grass runway there, the shortest airstrip a B-52 has ever landed on. What is the minimum requirement for landing the plane, how long is the Duxford airstrip and is this claim true? 86.154.164.71 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source but here is a video of the landing [4] I have no idea if the claim about being shortest is true, perhaps somebody else will be along soon. The physical runway is 1503 metres (4931 feet approx) although I think they need to close the nearby motorway to use the full length so the declared every day use length is less. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bail out link

At the very end of the first paragraph of the Design --> Overview section, there is a link to the page for Bail out, however that page concerns economic bailouts. No page exists for bailing out of an aircraft. What should happen to the link? Hentheden (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That link has been changed from [[bailout|bail out]] to [[parachute|bail-out]] since parachute was the closest relevant page I could find. Thanks for pointing this out. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please make obscenity in BUFF obsure by using F#@k7r or similar

75.80.54.119 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Please see WP:Offensive material about replacing letters. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Elimination under START

I'd love to see some clarity on what of the B-52 force was actually eliminated under the START I treaty, and when. Two useful links I'll refer to below:

• "Disposal-article": http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/467809/final-b-52g-eliminated-under-new-start.aspx
• "Factsheet": http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-141104-024.pdf

Under "Post Vietnam service" it currently states that "all B-52Gs remaining in service were destroyed per the terms of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)". This sounds like this occurred before the Gulf War (the next section), yet as per the disposal-article at least 39 B-52Gs were destroyed between 2011 and 2013 as part of the New START treaty.

It can't be that "remaining in service" didn't count the units in the boneyard, as the factsheet states that the B-52G was used heavily in the Gulf War, and no B-52s had ever been reactivated until Feb 2015.

Based on the disposal-article, it's unclear whether part of the problem was that under the START I treaty the aircraft were "cut into pieces" but under New START they specifically needed to have the tail section severed.

It also states that they "cut the 365 B-52G bombers into pieces", but there's no source for this number. However, the factsheet states that the total number of B-52Gs (both built and converted) was 193, so I do not understand where the 365 number comes from.

I don't understand what happened to all the earlier B-52s that were produced - I wonder if what was destroyed under START was a combination of all of these, so not specifically the B-52Gs, and certainly not "all" of them. cfmdobbie 86.187.213.214 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

B-52 taken out of boneyard

A current article about a b-52 taken out of the boneyard to replace one damaged in service; seems to have information about the status of the b-52s in the Air Force that may be of value to this piece.

I leave it to people more familiar with the topic to determine if such is the case:

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/i-ll-be-damned-these-boneyard-b-52s-can-still-fly-4eec4c8bf5cf

Wowaconia (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• That's not really notable to the B-52 overall given its long history. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparable Role?

Victor, Vulcan, and Valiant were all medium, not heavy bombers, so more equivalent to the B-47 than B-52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.90 (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Wow! This is impressive; didn't know Guam had one.

Headline-1: B-52 bomber flies over South Korea as rift with Pyongyang deepens

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/10/b-52-bomber-flies-over-south-korea-as-rift-with-pyongyang-deepens.html?intcmp=hplnws

QUOTE: "The B-52 was joined by South Korean F-15 and U.S. F-16 fighters and returned to its base in Guam after the flyover, the U.S. said.

"This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland," said Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., commander U.S. Pacific Command, in a statement. "North Korea's nuclear test is a blatant violation of its international obligations."

The warplanes’ flight follows a victory tour by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to celebrated the country’s purported claim of a hydrogen bomb test. Kim is seeking to rally nationalistic pride as the rest of the world is outraged over reports or the test." -- AstroU (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Summary of USAF B-52 losses in the Vietnam War 1965–1973

Individual combat losses are not really notable and this table doesnt add much to the article, suggest we remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, overly detailed and out of balance. The B-52 has participated in several other wars/operations that do not have loss tables. A similar table in the Northrop F-5 article was removed for these basic reasons. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I concure, it is undue weight and unbalanced - if the other sections don't get one, it shouldn't. I'm fine with a summary statement. Kyteto (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see some comparable B52 losses. But, I believe no other B52s have been lost to direct enemy action since the Vietnam War. Consequently, there can be no other sections to receive such data. I do note with interest however, that at least 3 B52s had been blown out of the skies in December 1972 during the Linebacker II campaign, which is also known as the Christmas Bombing operation; allegedly by MiG-21s:

• B52 serial number 56-0622 was heavily damaged by a -21 then destroyed by a SAM.

• B52 serial numbers 56-0674, 56-0584, 56-099, and 56-0605 were knocked down on 26 thru 28 December 1972.

Those dates coincide with NVAF MiG-21 claims, although listed in the table as SAM kills, of course. During the era of the cold war it would not be acceptable for the USAF to admit that a relatively modern interceptor such as the MiG-21 could knock down the mightiest bomber ever made. So it could be a convenient coincidence that those B52s had been recorded as downed by SAMs, instead of MiGs. The chart gives information that is more accessible to researchers and writers, rather then deciphering the narrative portions, which at times appear to be somewhat confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.40.114 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 November 2014‎ (UTC)

• Disagree: Many wiki articles contain tables, this B52 article contains at least 3; Aircraft deliveries, Aircraft production, and Cost per aircraft, in addition to the Operational combat losses. Of those 4 total, what the B52 did in its only war against a determined enemy...and for the first and only time against the latest technology of Soviet Ground Air Defense and high altitude interceptors, not to mention Soviet bomber interception tactics ("one pass, haul ass") is probably more notable than how many non-combat roles it participated in.

• The Operational Combat Loss table, as is probably the intention of most tables, allows readers to take in information with one sweep of the eyes, rather than having to fight their way through non-combat data. This OCL table shows the who, what, when, how, and why of the Strategic Air Commands B-52 in it's only war in which it suffered losses against Soviet Surface to Air Missiles and modern high altitude interceptors, in this case, the MiG 21.162.194.95.201 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with retention of the table. Nearly every Wiki article has one, and I see no difference between this one and any other wiki table. As a matter of fact, this particular table appears to be more informative than the average combat aircraft table that I have yet seen. I might add, other wiki tables appear to be of less importance in comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.6.139 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2015‎ (UTC)

As has been said before clearly not every wiki article has a list of combat losses and I suspect if any exist then it is an oversight, combat losses are rarely notable for a military aircraft just doing its job. We already have sufficient information in the text about the B-52 combat role. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• If the table is going to be kept, then can the dates be corrected? Several don't make sense. In addition, I can't find the reference that many of these quote as source. Norman21 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Even more reason for the table to go. To the IPers above, this discussion is only about the table of losses not other unrelated tables. I'll remove it. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Strategic Air Command B-52 Stratofortress Losses in the Vietnam War

This B-52 bomber "lost in combat chart" was made for one primary reason: Too many "properly sourced" references have been stating different numbers of B-52s lost in the war. Some say 30, some say 31, some state only 15 were shot down, and some say 16. There are other examples, but those few samples will suffice. To settle this issue once and for all, those B-52 losses were documented by Serial Number, Date, and Cause. And of course, they are clearly referenced. To my surprise, and I never knew this, and no one bothered to research it, one B-52 was damaged by a NVAF MiG-21 then it was downed by a SAM. Maybe the NVAF was right after all, maybe one of their -21s did down a B-52, that the USAF flatly and adamantly denies! Interesting, that a MiG-21 should strike a -52 with it's Atoll missile and almost within seconds a SAM hits it? Those -21s were specifically trained to intercept the -52s, and were specifically trained to stay out of the SAM kill zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.54.218 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"the USAF flatly and adamantly denies" Sounds like some sort of sinister govertnment conspiracy, like the Roswell Incident! In reality, probably some PA officer somewhere didn't have any difinitive information after some 30 or 40 years. Even at the time, it's dark, there's confusion, and even the crew (if any of them survived) weren't sure what happened. Did a similar thing after the Gulf War with Iraqi aerial losses and there were a few that weren't possible to square with all of hte conflicting points of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.152.76 (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See Scott Speicher, as always no AF in the world would admit a air-to air loss if not absolutely indispensable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusing range in lede

The last sentence in the lede is confusing, but so is the following cited source:

The use of extended low altitude operations to insure the B-52's penetration capability further degraded the design strike range. The overall inefficiency of jet engine operations at low level, coupled with slower operating speeds, greatly reduced range at low altitude. For example, if the B-52H flew at high altitude on a nuclear strike mission, it had a maximum unrefueled range of approximately 9,000 nm. On a similar strike mission with 2,400 nm flown at 500 feet, the operations planners could count on only a 6,300-nm range with the addition of one refueling.

What exactly is a "similar strike mission"? Is the range at 150 metre altitude 2,400 nautical miles ( I assume yes)? What exactly is the "could count on only a" bit meant to convey? Does it mean after the low altitude stretch, the B52 needed refueling and could only continue 6,300 nm at some unspecified altitude? Or does it first fly 6,300 nm, then get refueled and is limited to 2,400 at low altitude? Can anyone help clarify this? -84user (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It think "similar" just means another nuclear strike mission, with the last 2400 nm flown at very low level rather than high level it can only go a total of 6300 nm (base to target, but even then would need to be refuelled at some point) if it kept at high level all the way it could go to a total of 9000 nm (base to target without refuelling). MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense about thermonuclear weapons

"It was the first air-dropped thermonuclear weapon." What?? Hiroshima, anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.42.217 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission bombs, not thermonuclear weapon, which is a fusion or hydrogen bomb. - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Obscenity

There is no need to spell out the anecdotal meaning of BUFF.. this site is of possible interest to juveniles and don't need this bad language.. Any adult who reads.. big ugly fat f****r known exactly what the author is implying... I changed this twice and but it was put back to its crude form almost immediately.. I believe the author is doing this as a matter of personal principle without regard to the age of the reader... Chrispaul1 (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not, Wikipedia is not Censored is Policy on English Wikipedia. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"Any adult who reads.. big ugly fat f****r known exactly what the author is implying..." and any juveniles too... - Mcremp (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Still about VN

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)

Notable Accidents - A Question

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 (Tadg^Talk) 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)

Wrong picture next to air-combat section

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

"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

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?

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

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)