This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of the
Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of
open tasks and
task forces. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please
add the following code to the template call:
this is a much better way of doing a survivors piece. It still ought to have a intro paragraph since the page could be reached by the "random article" link from the wikipedia main page. The paragraph could just be a repeat of the summary section from the main article with a little more context of the aircraft itself.
GraemeLeggett08:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, there is lack of info, proper referencing etc. I didn't added that because I didn't wanted to work on this article right now, it's just a "technology demonstrator".
Piotr Mikołajski08:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
DELETE I am now strongly in favor of Deleting this article as it now stands - The intent of this seperate article was to complete document and list the survivors not a random selection according to some fanciful system Piotr has designated - This change has destroyed the intent and purpose of this sub. I am also demanding that the original list be returned.
Davegnz15:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry, Dave, but the problem here is with your intent. Though I know you meant well, Wikipedia simply isn't the place to completely document and list all the survivors, even of a notable aircraft like the B-29. I can easily see the justification of all the ones which have a significant history (and no, flying in WWII isn't a default significant history - after all, we don't list all the human survivors of that war, either), and all those preserved in museums. More than that, though, you might want to consider your approach. You've been responding as if these lists are your personal property, going even so far as to try to pull them from the Project. That simply isn't way things are done here, and I'm sorry if you weren't clear on that. At the bottom of every edit screen is a "Please Note" section, and the second item there says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I know this experience has probably left a bitter taste in your mouth, which is regrettable, but you need to realize that when you come into an environment where teamwork is the key to truly great things, you need to be willing to concede some, even though you might not think it's the best thing, or the direction things start going isn't what you "intended" the article to be. I've certainly had to give in on issues, and I think everyone here has. AKRadecki21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, I think that the Wiki is the perfect place to list all survivors of significant historic types. After all, the list will generally get shorter over time for the planes of fame that are out of general use (P-51s might be an exception though...) I have been listing preserved C-130 Hercules on the C-130 page, and I might add that Lockheed Constellation populations are now pretty much finite. Having the Wiki be a reference on preserved aircraft, as opposed to listing all operational models (good luck on listing all surviving Dakotas!), seems like a reasonable paragraph/list in articles about the type.
But then, I'm a serial number fiend, and like exact identifications...
I know Dave really disagrees with our naming conventions, but that disagreement aside, the name of this article really should be changed to drop the Boeing, so that it will be consistent with the main article. I'm happy to do the move, but I wanted to give notice first. AKRadecki22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Much better. When I first saw the AFD for the article under the old name (not being familiar with other articles of this type), I had no idea what the article was about. Surviving members of B-29 crews? People who survived crashes or accidents involving B-29s? Now it's clear.
PubliusFL00:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)reply
If we're going to list so much information on each entry, the table format is not a good idea. Not trying to be difficult here, but tables work best for just one or two lines per entry. -
BillCJ06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I disagree, tables are superior for cases like the less noted survivors. It presents the information in a consistent, controlled way.
GraemeLeggett09:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I like the compromise of the text and table format. Thank you team! I was frustrated with Chris(Talk) on the pure table format as I am a little too close to TSq54 and could not see this excellant compromise. Kudos! I will re-focus my efforts on our av-projects after our holiday weekend. Maybe we all can take a short break from Wiki for a couple of days and comtemplate on the men and women who flew and restored these suvivors for our great nation on Memorial Day. We owe it to them.
LanceBarber17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Individual aircraft names, like Fifi, are like ships' names, and are properly italicized, rather than put in quotes and/or bolded. I fixed this once, but somehow they got put back. I've fixed them again. AKRadecki17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)reply
True. However some names are in quotes as painted, so that the name in article should be: "Nickname".--Buckboard 07:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
fate of 44-86402
According to
this, (I know, message boards are not reliable sources), that plane was scrapped in the 90's, after having been moved to a Ohio collector some years earlier. I found this by googling "44-86402". I could find no reference for the "Aircraft Industries Museum" in Louisville, Kentucky. Does the person who added this one have a source? --
rogerd17:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
No good source. Did find this info on Joe Baughers s/n search
s/n search -- 86402 used as mothership for X-7/XQ-5 programs ... Also found an Aviation Museum of Kentucky...being developed but NO references to a B-29....
LanceBarber17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't think there is any evidence that this airframe still exists. I think we should remove it. I lived in Louisville from 1968 to 1978 and was a student pilot and Civil Air Patrol member during part of that time. I also visit occasionally. I think if such an aircraft existed in the area, I would have heard about it. Also, this
Aviation Museum of Kentucky is in
Lexington, KY, not Louisville (75 miles apart). --
rogerd20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Hello all, I saw this great
photo on Airliners.net today and brought this poor bird back to my attention. 44-70039 crashed in 1957 and remains there to this day
[1]. I don't know where or if we'd like to have it on this section. Technically it's not a "survivor." However it's a pretty famous wreckage. --
Trashbag (
talk)
23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 10 external links on
List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on
List of surviving Boeing B-29 Superfortresses. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Does anyone have a more accurate reference or set of coordinates for 42-94052? There is no reference for it and the current coordinates seems to just point to an open field.
Bravoechonovember1 (
talk)
16:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Potential advertising
I have noticed on the very last wreck listed it appears to be edited to advertise a scuba diving business. I don't know who put it there but I will look and see.
96.29.181.235 (
talk)
13:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I found that it was made by a user with the name of 2600:8801:1900:5ba:74e3:ba9e:4234:2dde and it is the only edit on their account so it is likely only there to advertise the buisness. I have reverted the edit. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
96.29.181.235 (
talk)
13:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Requested move 12 June 2024
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose – The scope of this article is on surviving B-29s that were not scrapped and are still "alive" so to speak, which includes stored aircraft, displayed aircraft and airworthy aircrafts.
Aviationwikiflight (
talk)
16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply
We can use definitions in this case:
Cambridge Dictionary which states "continuing to live or exist",
the Merriam Webster which states "remaining after another or others have ceased existence, operation, or use",
Vocabulary.com which states in its "Definitions of surviving", "adjective; still in existence",
Collins Dictionary stating "2. continuing to exist". As you can see, surviving is not only limited to organic beings with examples given in the links. For example, from the Merriam Webster:
"Among the most important surviving documents for any discussion of Tucker porcelain are two hand-drawn books in the library of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
—Alice Cooney Frelinghuysen
In Dallas, Terry Elkins, the campaign manager for Max Goldblatt, who in 1985 ran for mayor, came to believe, on the basis of a months-long study of the surviving records and materials of the election, that Goldblatt had been kept out of a runoff by manipulation of the computerized voting system.—Ronnie Dugger"
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.