Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress/Archive 5

Operator Austria
Austria never had a Boeing B-17 in service. I think this is a mistake, because we (I am from Austria) had one Saab 17 (also known as B17) in service- a complete different plane with the same name --Peettriple (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have two photos of an Austrian AF B-17 on my HD, modified as a transport postwar and numbered 672 - and both roundels and flag are visible so misidentification is impossible. I can't find a reference to it in my usual sources though, but here is one of the photos, on wikimedia commons - SAS Boeing B-17 1944-1948, OY-DFA, Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, Greenland.jpg.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the ref:

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017
Request: remove Austria from the list of operators. Austria never had a Boeing B-17 in service. The Austrian Air Force had one Saab 17 (also known as B-17), but that is a complete different plane--Peettriple (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Peettriple (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Austrian 'B 17'

 * I think this was a good faith error, based on this. I've a hunch that the editor has confused the type, which is the Saab 17. One was indeed sold to Austria as a target tower. Irondome (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The B-17 currently in the USAF Museum collection was used by the Austrians as a transport, including by their Air Force - info here.&#32;- NiD.29 (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"at the expense of bombload"
" it was a relatively fast, high-flying, long-range bomber with heavy defensive armament at the expense of bombload" is dubious according to discussion in GA nomination on plwiki (see https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Propozycje_do_Dobrych_Artyku%C5%82%C3%B3w/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress ) - fuel and armour was mentioned as also important and that bombload was not really low Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is true that the B-17 did not carry such a great bomb load as compared to other, later bombers serving in the same role, for instance the B-24 which carried three more tons of bombs, flew faster, and had greater range, but could not fly as high. Or you could point out that any mass on a bomber aircraft is going to affect the mass of the bomb load. A larger bomb load would be possible by eliminating gunners and guns, or by reducing fuel – both methods were used at various times in WWII. So it's fair to say that heavy defensive armament resulted in a smaller bomb load. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm jumping into an old talking point, but only the B-29 and B-32 had a larger bombload than the B-17. Nothing else carried more. A B-17 max bombload was 8,000 lbs internal and 9,600 lbs external, for a total bombload of 17,600 lbs. And that is NOT an 'overload' of the aircraft. The actual loadout forms at the beginning of the War all listed a max bombload first, since it was assumed that was going to be the loadout chosen most. Second was the internal load only listing. Most people confuse the preferred loading to the max loading. Since sticking to just the internal loadout reduced drag so much, thus inceasing altitude and speed, it was chosen more often. 68.106.33.90 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A song popular among WW2 RAF bomber crews - see https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk/omeka/collections/document/36248 - said of the B-17 “We’ve tons of ammunition, we’ve got lots of big point fives/But we’ve only got a teeny weeny bomb!” Mr Larrington (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Exact Wording of Nickname Origin Quote
The article currently reads:


 * Richard Williams, a reporter for the Seattle Times, coined the name "Flying Fortress" with his comment, "Why, it's a flying fortress!".

However, the cited reference does not include that exact wording; instead only noting that:


 * When Seattle newspaperman Richard L. Williams caught sight of the Model 299, he promptly dubbed it “flying fortress.” The name stuck.

A brief obituary from the Los Angeles Times has this version of the story:


 * Assigned to write a Seattle Times caption on a picture of the B-299, a B-17 prototype, on July 17, 1935, Williams wrote: "Declared to be the largest land plane ever built in America, this 15-ton flying fortress, built by the Boeing Aircraft Co. under Army specifications, today was ready to test its wings."

Does anyone have a primary source for the wording of the quote in the article? (That is to say, one that does not simply reprint the version from an earlier source.) Otherwise, I am tempted to change it.

I found a book that cites Roger Freeman's book B-17: Fortress at War, which might be a good place to start. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it at the moment. –Noha307 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I checked the B-17: Fortress at War book today, and it does not mention any sort of exclamatory comment either. Instead, it mentions the exact same picture caption story from the Los Angeles Times obituary above. To quote page 8 of the book:


 * The Seattle Daily Times, serving the area around the largest city of Washington State in the north-western corner of the United States, has always given a good measure of publicity to Boeing, the aircraft manufacturers, ultimately Seattle's major employer.


 * In 1935 Boeing, establishing themselves as a progressive force in the highly competitive and financially perilous business of aeroplane design and construction, were known to be working on the prototype of an advanced bomber; although the Company did its best to keep details secret. Final assembly took place in a hangar at Boeing Field, a few miles south-east of the city, and on the afternoon of July 16 the completed 4-engined aircraft, Boeing Model 299, was at last unveiled for public view.


 * A press photographer took pictures of the event and these, with details given by Boeing, arrived on the desk of Richard L. Williams, a member of the editorial staff. The laudatory copy prepared included the sentence: 'Ropes kept a throng of spectators from closely inspecting the fifteen-ton flying fortress, which made its first public appearance yesterday afternoon when it was rolled out of its hangar and its motors tested.' Williams noting the novel machine gun turrets jutting out from the streamlined metal body of the aircraft depicted in the photographs picked out as a caption heading the words – 15-TON FLYING FORTRESS.


 * The title caught the attention of Boeing executives and Flying Fortress was later registered as a Company name for their Model 299, although in a rather different context, echoing the defensive posture of the nation and in line with the isolationist policy then pursued by the United States Government. The aircraft was ostensibly for long range ocean patrol to protect America's coastline from a hostile fleet, although many officers of the Air Corps realised its offensive potential.


 * Note that in this telling, Mr. Williams did not even see the bomber in person. So if it did indeed occur, it was in the editorial office and not while standing in front of the plane itself. Unfortunately, the book has neither footnotes, nor a bibliography, so Freeman's version of the source of the story cannot be traced any farther back. –Noha307 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Notable B-17s Section
I am going to be bold and delete the entries of surviving aircraft with no notable wartime history. It is starting to suffer from listcruft. In addition, the surviving aircraft article already covers the subject in sufficient detail and including them here would simply be redundant. –Noha307 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

B-17s bombing and inflicting considerable damage on Scharnhorst in Brest.
This article states that RAF B-17s "on 24 July .. attacked the Scharnhorst, anchored in Brest, and inflicted considerable damage on the vessel."

There are quite a few discrepancies with this account.

1. The article on German_battleship_Scharnhorst makes no mention of this inflicting of "considerable damage" by B-17s.

2. Scharnhorst was not anchored in Brest, but 200 miles away in La Rochelle on the 24th July having left Brest on the 21st and arriving in La Rochelle on the 23rd.

3. Only Halifax heavy bombers of No. 35 Squadron RAF and No. 76 Squadron diverted to Scharnhorst in La Rochelle (in it's port of La Pallice).

4. The B-17s were part of the initial, undiverted plan to attack all of the ships in Brest... ''The RAF had planned a large, complicated raid on the capital ships in Brest for the night of 24 July, but an aerial reconnaissance photograph [1] of Scharnhorst in her berth at La Pallice caused a last minute alteration to the operation. The Halifax heavy bombers of No. 35 Squadron RAF and No. 76 Squadron RAF flew the extra 200 miles to reach Scharnhorst and the rest of the raid on Brest went ahead as planned, with Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau as their principal targets.''. I.e. they attacked Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau in Brest.

5. The only RAF B-17s (List_of_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress_operators) to attack German capital ships were those of No._90_Squadron_RAF which, on the 24th July played a part of the aforementioned "large, complicated raid" on the Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau - i.e. the part that wasn't diverted to Brest - ..''...taking part in a large scale attack on the German battleship Gneisenau at Brest, France on 24 July. Three Fortresses attacked were to attack from 30,000 ft (9,100 m), with the objective of drawing German fighters away from 18 Handley Page Hampdens attacking at lower altitudes. A larger force of 79 Vickers Wellingtons would attack later, while the fighters were meant to be refuelling. The operation did not work as expected, with 90 Squadron's Fortresses being unopposed, with the German defenders concentrating on the Hampdens and Wellingtons, shooting down two and ten respectively.''. Further, the record of 90 Squadron with B-17s in Northern Europe is concluded.. ''90 Squadron flew its final operational mission over northern Europe on 25 September 1941. In 51 operational sorties, 25 were abandoned due to faults with the aircraft, with 50 tons of bombs being dropped, of which only about 1 ton hit the intended targets.''. Again no mention of any bombs from RAF B-17s hitting any German capital ship, especially not the Scharnhorst, which was 200 miles away on the 24th July.

6. Neither are any recorded as hitting the sister of the Scharnhorst that was in Brest, German_battleship_Gneisenau - which does not mention any bombs hitting on the 24th July, but many attacks around that time from other squadrons and aircraft. Clearly the part that the B-17s played in the attacks on Brest did not succeed, only the Halifaxes attacking Scharnhorst scored any hits that day. So they were a diversionary attack from a high altitude of 30,000 ft on Prinz Eugen and Gneisenau, and not surprisingly none hit.

7. The source being used for this baffling claim of "severly damaging Scharnhorst" is Garzke & Dulin, pp. 159–160. but this is used in many the other articles on this point, which all corroborate with each other, and not "severly damaging Scharnhorst" which is clearly a fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.7.146 (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC) 86.161.7.146 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sperry remote turret.
The early B-17E's did not use the Bendix remote turret. It was a Sperry remote turret. The same people that designed and built the upper turret and the later ball. This is clearly called out in the B-17E pilots manual and also shows in the Boeing engineering drawings. This Bendix thing has been repeated for years and is wrong. B17FE (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sperry remote turret
I do not know how to use this fully, so bear with me. I need to contact BilCat and provide him with the correct information on the remote turret used on the early B-17E's. I have the Boeing installation drawing and the B-17E Pilots Manual which show this information.

Thank you,

Karl Hauffe B17FE (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B17FE (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to point interested editors to the discussion on your talk page: User talk:B17FE.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Stall problems
Came across a book by one of the test engineers for the B-17, Seth B Anderson, and he states that the B-17 had severe stall problems.

According to his tests, the aircraft would roll nearly 90 degrees to the left during a stall. This nearly destroyed one of the prototypes when it rolled 90 degrees on landing.

The stall behavior was judged "very unsatisfactory" and stated that the aircraft had no effective stall warning.

He states this is because the different direction of the prop wash on each wing, and that the wingtips would stall before the roots due to the propwash.

Here is the reference for anyone interested in posting it.

Boeing Fortress Mk.II
Towards the end of the History section of the RAF Brawdy article there’s mention of a squadron of Boeing Fortress II being stationed there. “Boeing Fortress II” Is wikilinked to this article. The citation is Jetson, with a page number. Could anyone there please correct that article? It makes no sense to me - what was a Mk.II? Thanks! Boscaswell  talk  03:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with "Boeing Fortress II" it is the RAF designation for the B-17F. MilborneOne (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Well you know that, but no-one looking at the article I mentioned and this one would find that out. Thanks for informing me!  Boscaswell   talk  10:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's in the section on RAF use of this article, at List of Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress operators. amnd List of Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress variants. But a redirect might possibly be warranted GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
change: All content about the aircraft in fictional and gaming use has been moved to Aircraft in fiction, please see [[WP:AIRPOP to: All content about the aircraft in fictional and gaming use has been moved to Aircraft in fiction, please see WP:AIRPOP Even though the line is inside a comment tag, it messes with scripts trying to parse the document.


 * undefined Aurhe (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: I added a closing pair of brackets to the “Aircraft in fiction” link. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 15:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Combat range vs ferry range vs Tokyo tanks
The specifications section contains a puzzler: The ferry range is listed as less than double the combat range with a bomb load. It should be more than double, because the bombs aren't there. I think the listed combat range is too high by a few hundred miles. Who has a copy of David Donald's American warplanes of World War II?

Also, the topic of Tokyo tanks is entirely missing from this article. The ferry range would be greatly increased with such tanks. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

US Army Air Forces vs US Air Force designations
I've noted in several articles about the B-17 that there are references to USAAF B-17s in and after 1948. Since the US Air Force was separated from the US Army in 1947, it would make more sense to refer to the aircraft as USAF, except when the depiction was of USAAF craft. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortress#Notable_appearances_in_media

The comment about Howard Hawks' 1943 film "Air Force" properly uses US Army Air Forces, while Henry King's "12 O'clock High" should be listed as having been made with USAF support and aircraft, as it was made in 1949.

Because of the number of linked pages, I'm not comfortable making the changes without some consensus of the usages.

DocKrin (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)