Talk:Convair B-36 Peacemaker/Archive 2

Questionable attribution
"...the lead flight engineer would say to the captain "six [engines] turning and four [engines] burning". Erratic reliability led to the wisecrack "two turning, two burning, two joking and two smoking," with two engines not accounted for. Quote attributed to Captain Banda when he toured an air cadet Michael R. Daciek, later Lt. Col. Daciek, on an inside tour of the XC-99 in 1953."

I have a problem with the above quote from the article. Unlike all the B-36, the XC-99 was never retrofitted with the J-47 jets. Hence the wisecrack (which I love, BTW) could not have applied to the XC-99.132.181.160.42 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But in the article where this is derived, it is clear that the author is describing the B-36 not the XC-99. IMHOBzuk 19:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how one blog post (that really sounds like a bad corporate info video, Shirley has to drive the fork lift, good thing she has a seatbelt) about what was supposedly said over 55 years ago (not that age automaticly makes it bad, just that personal recollection tends to change things) matches the standards for inclusion. It does seem like that blog post may be the source for A LOT of the information in this article thought...

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DC-10-10 comparison
Twice a comparison ("size and maximum takeoff weight of the B-36 were comparable to those of the DC-10-10") to the DC-10-10 has been added and I have removed it both times. From the DC-10 article itself, the size is not even close to comparable to the B-36. The max takeoff weight is similar, but why does a max takeoff weight comparison between a transport and a bomber even matter? I don't think it does. --Chuck Sirloin 14:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Largest combat aircraft
I think the largest is the Tu-160 heavy bomber, larger than the B-36.--Arado 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The B-36 has a longer wingspan, but the TU-160 has a heavier loaded weight and a longer length. --rogerd 23:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And their combat payload is approximately the same (close to 40,000 lb of ordnance) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello
i find segments of this article repetative and comparisons over-done. while obviously written by a big fan of the '36, i'm thinking that a more objective point of view would be helpful (not to say that I fit the bill precisely). i would like to re-write this article if there are no objections (what am i Saying, "No Objections" Ha!). feedback is welcomed... --63.249.37.13 14:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some suggestions: First, I stronly recommend that if you're going to undertake a project this big, you register a user account and join the Aircraft Project, so that you can be familiar with the guidelines that cover articles such as this. Second, after you register, I suggest you set up a sandbox page and write the draft there, then invite comments from the regular editors.  AK Radecki Speaketh  15:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions, which i will follow. i Am a registered user (network won't Always allow me to Sign-In for some reason) and Have joined the Aircraft Project (i believe). i say "i believe" because i find the mechanics of contributing here somewhat confusing. any further suggestions and/or instructions regarding requirements are welcome.

--gstoner007@yahoo.com 02:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

404
"An image may be found here"? Not anymore... Trekphiler (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Weather damage to B-36s on ground?
Somewhere I recall reading a severe thunderstorm, maybe a tornado, damaged a significant number of B-36 bombers on the ground, maybe at Carswell AFB, Texas. Anyone know about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was a tornado at Carswell. Jminthorne (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Jenkins books have extensive coverage of the Carswell Tornado. Here's some information: http://www.cowtown.net/proweb/tornado/tornado.htm "skydaddy" 5/3/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.193.3 (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Three observations to enrich research
1. Re: the nuclear propulsion experiments. I served in the USAF 1957-1961. During the latter two years of that window, I was in the 1009th Special Weapons Squadron which was identical with or a component of AFOAT-1 (now AFTAC). Part of our mission was to perform chemical and physical analysis of debris from nuclear detonations. The team of which I was a member performed analysis on samples taken from one of the reactors in the nuclear propulsion project. However, we were told that the project was designated by the title "Project Kiwi" which does not appear to be mentioned in the article.

2. Pictures of the B-36: the history channel had a series on the development and employment of nuclear weapons. In that series there was a reference made to "Operation Big Stick" which was flown during the Korean War (or Conflict). A unit of B-36s, armed with nuclear weapons, was sent to Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan, to persuade the Chinese and North Koreans to sign an armistice in Korea. I cannot recall how extensive was the depiction of B-36s in that video was; but they were shown -- as I recall -- landing at Kadena.

3. During the early 1950s, I was living in Chester, IL, my home town. On one summer day, when I was mowing our grass with an old-fashioned human-powered iron wheeled push mower, I heard a low rumbling sound that seemed to be coming from the east. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation sometimes used the area for test flights. I was a bit of an airplane nut during my early teens. Therefore, I climbed up on the top of our house to investigate the source of the rumbling sound. It proved to be coming from a B-36 flying from east to west. However, I was eventually treated by the successive appearance of several more of the same. They were all flying the same basic route and seemed to be at the same altitude in approximately five minute intervals. I cannot recall exactly how many there ended up being; but the number 10 sticks in my mind. Could this have been "Big Stick"?

65.1.156.9 (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vaughn Hathaway

Repetetive Starting Paragraphs on first two sections
I would like to update the first two sections ("Development history" and "Design and development") since their is a LOT of duplicated information sometimes written in differnt ways. This is even signified by the titles of the two sections. I would like to seek some input on this before making too major of changes though.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this problem needs fixin'. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Be careful not to remove cited, "long-term" passages. Seek opinion first. FWiW, you also need to start providing authoritative, verifiable information to replace text you are deleting. Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Having redundant material for a long time means the article has been poorly-formed for a long time. I checked a version from two years ago and there were, even at that time, two instances of the concept that Britain might fall to a German invasion, just like there is in the article today. Careful editing could be a benefit. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be more of a crusade by Bzuk against me than anything since he has informed an admin when I tried to do the same thing to the A-10 page today which information listed 3 times. Just because cited 3 times I don't think it needs to be in the 3 places. It can be considered citation for the 1 section I leave so I will try better to move the citation. Another problem is that these repeat tend usually drift a bit to close to copywrite infringement or bulk copying from another page, probably because if someone doesn't mind noticing its repeat information they probably don't take the time to write it out properly.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the conclusion is that the two sections have the same information duplicated, I understand Bzuk worry is that cited text may be lost in the re-write of the two sections. May I suggest that the editors dont try a big bang approach but take one section and then improve and consolidate it from the other duplicated sections in small bits. I would agree it needs to be sorted but remember other editors get worried when they see large chunks of text removed or changed. I note that they both start with the danger of an invasion of Britain in 1941 when Operation Sea Lion had already been postponed in September 1940! MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consolidating similar information is a good approach and if there are three citations, they can either be consolidated or one citation placed at the end of a passage can suffice, as overlinking is also not recommended. The first reversion seemed to be based on removing an entire section that was sourced. Sometimes doing that removes a Harvard citation notation or a full bibliographic notation which leaves the aforementioned or related section as unattributed. BBIE, please consider all my actions as "friendly" as I would welcome another editor in the aviation project and you certainly have in very short order, sharpened and focused an awareness relating to many articles that may have become a bit "stale". A new set of eyes often does that, and since I have over 3,000 articles at present on my watch list, invariably some of your recent edits did make an impact. FWiW, none of that is necessarily bad, but as I indicated once before, there is a need for replacement of a cited statement with another that is also reliably sourced. (copied to your talk page) Bzuk (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Jeez, how did we both get 3k+ watchlists? I've got to pare mine down. :-) Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3457, aaaargh! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Sorry if I seemed a bit unfriendly (and I agree I did this) I think I got a bit overly defensive when I woke up to a whole bunch of changes by one or two people but I think if we both view them as friendly and good faith we will be alright. Bzuk and Binksternet clearly have done lots of good work and when I've talked to you guys have been very reasonable and useful, my initial thoughts that I would have to invade a club of long time editors was mistaken. I think a lot of my problems was that before I thought that citations could be listed below or in-line, I didn't know they would always be deleted, and this is something I need to be more careful about. Its hard for me to express sometimes when I look at a source and it doesn't seem very good or doesn't say what is claimed. (for example a figure in millions was cited for some upgrades in the A-10 article but the cited article only talked about a figure in billions. Later in the A-10 page that same billion figure is used but the same citation wasn't used (from memory could be not quite right).

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The way I read it, it's an easy fix. The first two paragraphs of "Design and development" (which should be renamed "Design") should be merged into the "Development history" section, which should be renamed "Development" per WP:Aircontent. -  Trevor  MacInnis   contribs  17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Weaponry?
In the Weaponry section are several paragraphs which should be more properly put in the Development section, starting with "The first prototype XB-36 flew on 8 August 1946", and ending with the next section.

187.132.75.227 (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Engine Fires
This is conflicting:

"This unusual configuration prevented propeller turbulence from interfering with airflow over the wing, but also lead to chronic engine-overheating due to insufficient airflow around the engines"

Later, the article claims that carburetor icing was the cause of engine fires...

Both make sense, but which is right?

The pusher configuration is not a cause for engine fires due to carburettor icing or overheating. Carburettor icing causes en derichment of the fuel air mixture, starving the engine from fuel wich results in a loss of power. Additionaly the engine installation consists of a pair of BH-1 turbochargers, intercoolers and finally the supercharger of the engine itself. Cooling air is provided via en two speed cooling fan and the adjustable air plug. And last but not least, one or two flight engineers are responsible to engine monitoring. They have gauges for carb air temp, cyl head temp, oil temp, torque pres, rpm, fuel flow, turbo backpressure, manifold pres and many more.... If the flight engineers are unable to realize carburettor icing or engine overheating they have to go back to school, you know what i mean... In conclusion, engine fires are generally caused by maintenance and installation errors(oil pipe etc), and not because of a faulty engine design and installation, pratt&whitney and convair are well proved in engine and aircraft designs for shure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by METOPower (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Referencing Joe Baugher's website
With regard to recent edits by Bzuk and myself (i.e., , & ) there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding, or difference of opinion.

I commented "Incorporating Baugher's text into the body violates copyright (I quoted part in the citation, but I concede it's not critical, so I'll comment it out)." By that, I was attempting to convey the fact that by placing a substantial verbatim extract of Baugher's text into the body of the article, referenced, but not indicated as a quote (with a block quotation or quotation marks, for example), you would be running afoul of Non-free content. So I restored the previous wording, with copyedits. As for the quotation in the citation template, I conceded that we don't specifically need to include that (as it does tend to clutter the reference list a bit), so I commented it out with HTML comment tags.

Bzuk changed this to show the full quotation in the reference list once again, commenting: "Baugher's work is derivative, wouldn't it be simpler to rewrite his statements instead of quoting them?" I concur that Baugher's work is derivative—he's a bit of an unusual secondary source, but he seems to be regarded as a competent authority. I'm not sure whether we actually disagree here—I'm fine with not including the quotation anywhere, but making sure that the text in the article isn't a verbatim transcription of Baugher. In fact, I think that prior to the last edit, that was exactly what we had—facts sourced from Baugher in the body of the article, but written independently to comply with copyright.

Also, Bzuk replaced the citation templates with an ad hoc format. While this isn't strictly contrary to policy, I'm unclear about the rationale for doing this. The citation templates provide a convenient way to encapsulate metadata (valuable for searching and bot operations), and have built-in functionality for accessing archived versions of websites (for use when links go dead, for example). (Actually, Baugher is a perfect example of the usefulness of an archived version—he changed webhosts, and a multitude of WP links were broken. Citations with an archive were still usable by readers.)

If there's a concern about the unsightly block of reference text appearing directly within the body of the article (in edit mode), I could convert those to list-defined references (i.e. defined within the ) and use the lightweight syntax   to minimize the clutter in the body text. Any objections to solving this in that fashion? TheFeds 19:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Baugher has been a object of some scrutiny as he is a very detailed compiler of information, provides the sources but has been questioned in the past on FA and GA reviews, as to whether he is considered an authoritative source on his own. I personally like his work and the few times that I have delved into his sources, have found that he is a careful chronicler who does not insert his own "voice" into the work. As to the citation style templates, I tried to use them, but with errors mixed in as to dating, sources and archives, I simply abandoned them, used the same format already in the body of the text and adapted a scratch cataloging style guide to put the same information in place. The whole metadata canard is still to be resolved. No one has effectively written any of the Wiki templates without "bugs" and it revolves back to the "garbage in, garbage out" syndrome. Now, it's not that I am a Luddite, I have been a research librarian for over 30 years and have used electronic templates for cataloguing as soon as the first libraries in my district were converted into electronic data base storage. It's just that the Wiki templates just have too many bugs and unless someone uses them properly, they just format the readout incorrectly. FWiW, Baugher's data is useful, and can be re-written into the text without the need for extensive notes accompanying the citations. The choice, however, is up to the submitter, but IMHO, the quotes are unnecessary but the information is pertinent. Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Metadata canard? I take it you've had some dissatisfactory experiences with the citation templates, but are those bugs still present (and pertinent to this article)? I've heard of occasional errors with User:Citation bot, but haven't had any bad experiences with the citation templates themselves. The worst thing that I could say about them is that there's redundancy between the generic (citation) and specific templates, and sometimes minor discrepancies in formatting (like a trailing period in some but not others). And on balance, it's easier to extract or update data if you have variables to parse for in the code—and it's basically the same as free text in terms of human readability. (For example, the currently-idle-due-to-third-party-outage User:WebCiteBOT does good work on the archive-linking front, but only because people use the citation templates.) For clarity, are you objecting to the templates in general, or something specific about the content of the ones I inserted? (If I were to take exception with something, it would be the  parameter ostensibly containing the name of Baugher's website; it doesn't seem to have an official name, so I went with the big title on the homepage....)


 * And I guess we're agreed on the quotes...we don't need to display them. I think they're ugly in the reflist, but that big block of original text is quite useful for tracking down an article that may no longer be at it's original URL (newspapers are often awful for this). It would be fair to argue that the archive provides sufficient access to the original text, but given the lack of archives of Baugher's new site at archive.org (maybe too new—I used the old archive instead), and the recent unavailability of WebCite (another archive service), I figured the redundancy would be useful. I've long had the thought that those quotes should be auto-collapsed in the citation template. (Also, what do you think about leaving quotes in as an HTML comment? Not a big deal; just a thought.) TheFeds 02:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See edits made recently. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Touting
This article states: "Convair touted the B-36 as the "aluminum overcast", a so-called "long rifle" giving SAC truly global reach." Really? While no doubt called the aluminum, or more commonly magnesium, overcast by many, this somewhat derisive name was surely not what Convair would have preferred their beautiful creation be called. Even "long rifle" sounds a little too jocular for advertising purposes for a nuclear bomber of the cold war spooked 50s - certainly not in keeping with the official name, Peacemaker, which surely Convair did "tout." Somewhere else in this article supersonic is rendered "super-sonic" in conjunction to the interceptors that the B-36 supposedly would have faced - no hyphen is required. While no doubt the B-36 would have been challenged enough by even subsonic jet fighters, the Soviets didn't even start introducing their first supersonic fighter until 1955 near the end of the B-36's career, so perhaps this article's claim "the B-36 was arguably obsolete from the outset, being piston-powered, particularly in a world of super-sonic jet interceptors" needs a little rethinking as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.68 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the reference cited in this article for the "aluminum overcast" and "long rifle" claims is, in true Wiki fashion, bogus - neither is even mentioned in that citation. Again, what a load... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.18 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Convair B-36
The lead says,
 * "Only four (and a half) B-36 type aircraft survive today, from the 384 produced",

but then goes on to list six different aircraft, of which four are on display, one is in pieces in Newbury, Ohio, and one is undergoing restoration in Dayton, Ohio. None of them are "and a half". Ordinarily I'd just change such an inconsistency, but this is not my field and perhaps I am missing something? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because one of them discussed is not a B-36 but a XC-99 which has its own article. I have moved it out of the list and just give it a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you -- that explains "and a half". But it still looks like there are five surviving B-36s, no? Four on display and one in pieces (but apparently complete) in Newbury. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs)  17:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The one in Newbury is the nose section only of the YB-36. Eccentric collector Walter Soplata salvaged it, using a cut-down school bus to transport it back to his property. "skydaddy" 5/3/12

B-47 intercontinental?
Before making the change, I want to point out that the B-47 was not truly intercontinental, as the lede proclaims. It required tankers to top it off en route. Mark Sublette (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Operational history
Edit last line to: The B-36 never dropped a bomb or fired a shot in active service. Dick Holman. User:Archolman 20:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Final Disposition of nuclear scrap (NB-36)
After Texas scrapping, where was the irradiated scrap for the NB-36 taken? Nevada? Idaho? Somewhere else? 143.232.210.150 (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

NB-36 Redirect
The Convair NB-36 was an airplane that was made from a destroyed B-36. The plane was NOT a B-36. The plane managed to carry a small nuclear reactor, to make it simple. But I don't understand why there isn't an a separate article for this, because it was a totally different plane. I'm not sure why NB-36 redirects to the article named Convair B-36, this article.WilliamBrain (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

SA-2 Caused Obsolescence is Extremely Doubtful
The bullet that the SA-2 caused the withdrawal was likely someone's attempt to self reason why the plane was withdrawn. The claim is very dubious as the decision to begin withdrawing the B-36 was made (1955) before the SA-2 was operational (1957). We clearly did not understand the Soviets had a surface to air missile of that capability in 1959 when Gary Powers was shot down. The statement should be removed unless someone can find a U.S. government report making that claim. It does not fit the historical timeline of what we knew of Soviet capabilities when the decision was made to retire the plane. The poor reliability, difficult maintenance, slow speed, and greatly improved bomber designs coming on-line were all contributing factors to the B-36 withdrawal and are all backed up by fact and not some poorly thought out speculation made years later. The statement does not pass a historical test so I suggest it be removed. Pheasantpete (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The assertion has no supporting reference, so it should be removed per WP:NOR and because it is chronologically wrong. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

B 36 gas engines
I had to ask my father in law who worked on the B 36 gas engines - how is a 28 cylinder engine configured? Imagine four radial engines in line, each with seven cylinders. I think he had his hands full - thank you to all our veterans 71.215.67.97 (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Operators: 9th SRW
...1st BS ? --93.104.177.57 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible notable incident?
On the 25 of May 1955, a B-36 crashed in Glasscock County, TX, after breaking up due to weather. I live in the area, and my grandfather witnessed it and told me about it when I was young. The crash is listed in "List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955-1959)", but not on this page. Should it be added? And if it should, can somebody do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.248 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Aircraft exception to WP:IMGSIZE
Re:

I'm not sure you fully understand the reasons for avoiding fixed image sizes. There are good reasons a reader might want to adjust image sizes, reasons that go beyond aesthetics and personal taste.

I am sure that I don't see the rationale for carving out an exception for an entire class of articles, thereby eliminating the control that some readers are accustomed to throughout the rest of the encyclopedia. WP:IMGSIZE says, in boldface, "Except with very good reason, do not use px...". Can you explain this "very good reason"? What is it about aircraft images (as opposed to train images, art images, medical images, and so on) that they should be unaffected by the user size preference? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a local consensus across the Aviation Wikiproject WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Aircraft). You'd want to take it up with the Project. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation or more specifically Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Nothing at that first link supports your argument. Quite to the contrary, bullet 2 states: "In accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, do not specify the size of the thumbnail as this is specified in user preferences." (Never mind that that is not at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images but rather at WP:IMGSIZE, and never mind that it fails to mention the upright parameter and is therefore inaccurate. I.e., there is nothing wrong with "specifying the size of the thumbnail", provided it's done using upright rather than px. I was careful to code 1.35that is equivalent to 297px for perhaps 90% of readers who don't use the user pref, while respecting the user pref for the other 10%.) 2. Per WP:CONLEVEL, projects cannot override community consensus anyway. I believe any exception would need to be endorsed by the wider community. Given both of the above, do you still have an objection to my edit? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  16:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * that bullet point says "Please use the "thumbnail" option for all images other than those inside infoboxes and the three-view drawing (where one is included in the specifications section). " My emphasis.
 * the MoS says "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed width than 220px (the initial base width), and if an exception to this general rule is warranted, the resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide (300px for lead images) and 500px tall.
 * But as I say, you should take it up at a higher level. Otherwise you will find you are trying to change but one image among hundreds, if not thousands. And the erroneous project guidance will remain in situ. I can raise the issue there if it's not something you're comfortable with. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

trying to change but one image among hundreds, if not thousands - Yes, there are probably hundreds of thousands of images across the (Wikipedia) project that need converting to upright, and Wikipedia is a work in progress. We can't fix everything at once, even within the aircraft class, nor is there a compelling reason to do so. Unwarranted resistance like this certainly doesn't help us get there. If I take it up at a higher level, it won't be at the (Aviation) project, per CONLEVEL (although I would notify the project of the community-level discussion per best practices). I find it remarkable that you would insist that I do so, given that you have so little ground to stand on here. You won't win this on the merits; your best outcome would likely be a "no consensus" derailment because editors insisted on expanding the scope of the discussion to encompass image size control in general, an area of perpetual controversy. I don't think that would be constructive. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained how "an exception to this general rule is warranted"; nor have you responded to CONLEVEL (part of a Wikipedia policy); nor have you shown that the project seeks to avoid upright in any case. From this last comment, you appear to believe that upright is only for use with thumbnail; I don't believe that's the case, nor can I imagine any reason why it should be the case.


 * I think you misunderstand me. Take the issue to the project - which has a large number of motivated editors - persuade them what is the appropriate code with respect to meeting Wikipedia MoS and ordinary reader/user preferences. Then, as bob is your uncle, the project editors will make the changes across the aircraft articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did misunderstand you. Thanks for the suggestion, and I may well do that if you think it would have that effect. What I don't understand now is why that should be a prerequisite to making this edit to this article now. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

coming round to your idea. thinking on it, if you rework the image in this article as the example, using whatever params necessary to deliver an equivalent of 300px scaled to default thmbnail (complete with caption and alt text) then present that at the project to show that the same effect is achieved while meeting all the guidelines it will carry the argument. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. This is effectively identical to my original two edits, with the addition of alt; lacking a screen reader we'll have to take it on faith that the alt text works. 1.35 gives 297px for most readers. 1.36 would get you to 299px (maybe even 300px, depending on how it rounds 299.2), but I wouldn't bother. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you added thumb to show the caption. Not sure you're aware that, without thumb, any caption displays in a tooltip when you mouseover. I thought that was your intent. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that tooltips don't work for printouts. Touch screen users might not do the tooltips, though it does work so long as you tap and hold. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. Then the question is whether F is important enough to justify a thumbnail, and I'll leave that to you. "Convair B-36 silhouette" states the obvious. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Loss of a nuclear warhead?
In the section about engine fires, the brief mention of an incident in which a warhead was lost could really benefit from some explanation and a wikilink added by someone who knows what this is referring to (which I don't). 2A00:23C5:C385:AE00:D1DC:D52C:7AC0:1B5C (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Samf4u (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Under "Variants" there is a gross lacking
Under "Variants", at the top of the article, there is a gross lacking: the RB-36. For example, for the B-66, I would want to see the EB-66, RB-66, WB-66, versions, and for the B-29, the EB-29, KB-29, RB-29, and WB-29. I think that the record is held by the C-135, with the EC, NC, OC, RC, and WC versions. Also is the C-130, with the AC, EC, HC, KC, and RC versions. Also, I thing that "variant" is an ugly British word, and the American "version" is much better. Otherwise, we need to start using bloody, bonnet (hood), boot (trunk), cheerio, fag+got (cigarette butt), gearbox, headmaster, pram (baby buggy), railway, spinster, etc.!24.121.195.165 (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ignoring your anti-British rant the RB-36 is mentioned under variants. If you have reliable sources you are welcome to add more information on the RB variants, wikipedia is a work in progress. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Clunky Sentence - makes no sense
In the Development section it states "...a very real chance apparently existed...". This makes no sense. If it was a very real chance, then the use of apparently is unnecessary. If it was not a very real chance, just say something like "...a chance existed...". If you agree, change it, or let me know and I'll change it. I like to get a bit of a consensus first though. Thanks! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

”ten-ten Bomber”
Nice to meet you all. I am a Japanese user. This text was created with the help of machine translation, so please forgive me if there is anything unnatural. I can read English, but I am not satisfied with writing it on my own. (To be honest, it's almost impossible)



The word "tenten bomber" is often used to describe this B-36 in Japan. It may also be referred to as "10x10 bomber" or "10-10 bomber". In addition to the B-36, the XB-35 (YB-35) / XB-49 (YB-49) "Flying Wing") flying wing bomber is sometimes referred to as such. On rare occasions, the B-52 "Stratofortress" bomber.

The origin is that the name "Ten Ten" was given from the specification required for development, "It is possible to carry a bomb of 10,000 (ten-thousand) pounds and fly 10,000 (ten-thousand) miles". However, even if you search for the word "Tenten Bomber" on the Web, there are few hits on sites outside Japan. There is no such description in this English Wikipedia article.

In recent years, there has been a theory that "Tenten bomber is a name that was born in Japan and is not used overseas."

However, the other day, I read a post on a Japanese web bulletin board stating, "There is a description in this overseas document."

According to it

There is a description in an old aviation magazine called

In the article

It was said that it was described.

When I searched for the magazine name, it certainly says that way. (Can be viewed on Google Books) For this reason, it seems certain that it is not a term that originated in Japan.

But why is it that even if you search the word "Tentenbommer" on the Web right now, there are few hits on sites outside Japan? Does that mean that it is an old term and is no longer used outside of Japan?

I would like to know the name of this "Tenten Bomber" to people other than Japan.

--240fe0730c1 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)