Talk:Boeing XB-44 Superfortress

Stand-alone article
Shouldn't this aircraft really be part of the B-50 Superfortress article? There's only really one actual paragraph here, which would fit into the B-50 article rather neatly. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As written, yes. Might need some verifiable sources to back this up though. - BillCJ 04:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it does need to be merged. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, it should be merged. --Compdude123 (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST Assessment
This needs drastic overhaul... give an infobox, give specifications, comparisons with the B-29. Career in service, if any. The Design and Development is also skipped. More references should be added along with any info that comes along. Otherwise, I'd suggest AfDing this and adding the info to the B-50 page. Sniperz11talk 19:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, it ought to be merge with the B-50 article. It was just a B-29 testbed for the engines that would be used in the B-50. -Compdude123 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's consensus to merge and redirect (not AfD!), I just need to get around to doing it. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 17:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)