Talk:Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants

Referencing
Major cleanup needed on all sectional referencing! LanceBarber 03:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup begun
USAF Museum official website was www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b3-28.htm and replaced by www.nationalmuseum.af.mil. All sections need to have new USAF Musuem links research and referenence correctly. Any B-29 editors, feel free to assist in this endeavor. Thank you. LanceBarber 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not much done since August, cleanup done.LanceBarber (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Congress fell for the trick
Should we really believe that a naive Congress, not knowing that a B-50 was the same as a B-29D, passed appropriations based on this ignorance? If so, a specific cite is needed.
 * This comment is not just about whether the AAF was "gaming" aircraft designations. (Peter Bowers is probably a better source than Joe Baugher in this area)   At various times emphasizing the redesign has been helpful, at others emphasizing the modification has been helpful.  (Examples of this would be the F-84F and the F-86D).
 * In addition, it was well-established Air Corps policy that modifying an airframe by changing the engine that powered it would change the aircraft designation (see the numerous designation of Curtiss Hawk fighters, Condor bombers, designations for Douglas DC-2 and DC-3 variants, B-10 v. B-12, etc.) The switch from the R-3350 powered B-29 to the R-4360 powered B-50 would fall in this category.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's true that Joe Baugher says the redesignation was a "ruse" which worked. However, I have seen Baugher get several important facts completely wrong on certain aircraft. I don't consider him very reliable.
 * Media of the day were openly telling the reader that the B-50 was an up-engined version of the B-29. Nobody was trying to fool the American public. Congress was not fooled either; there are pages and pages of Congressional testimony available online, dating from the mid-1940s through the 1950s, discussing military expenditures. Almost every mention of the B-50 makes reference to it as a slightly more advanced B-29.
 * I'm taking out the "trick" bit of text until better sources can be found. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants. 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/20070315004602/http://home.att.net:80/~jbaugher2/b29.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants. 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/20080509032710/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_5.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_5.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Boeing B-29 Superfortress variants. 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/20041013181450/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_1.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013182811/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_2.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421175918/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_3.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013175544/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_4.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041216235726/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_7.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_7.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013180434/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_17.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_17.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013181803/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_26.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_26.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041217000106/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_14.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_14.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Add to lead section
As I was reading/editing the article on the B-29 it occured to me that the lead section is somewhat short and somewhat lacking in information for such an iconic aircraft. According to WP:MOS/Lead section the lead paragraph should contain information, "summarising the most important points of the topic," and "Awaken the reader's interest without satisfying their hunger." The Lead section on the B-29 really does neither of these. I added to the first sentence, but I'm relatively new to editing so before adding more to the the lead section I'd like to get other editor's thoughts on this. Thanks! KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This isn't the main article, Boeing B-29 Superfortress, where the lead needs to significant. As such, I think what is here already is sufficient. BilCat (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I noticed this oversight this morning. I need to be more careful. Thanks! KittyHawkFlyer (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)