Author Topic: Wikipedia and the B-25: Is this true? (Read 1472 times)

scottydawg · « **Reply #15 on:** August 27, 2007, 02:07:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk
Wikipedia sucks, find a real source.

Theoretically the flaps would cause more drag in the long run and would only reduce range. If the 40 gallons is true you might be able to use them up with the flaps technique, but how much burn time is that anyway? What's the standard GPM on a B25? Probably wouldn't be worth a loss of airspeed unless you're really bone dry.

I'm sure if there was something like this involved in flying the B25, Doolittle and his men new about it. Affleck wouldn't even have been allowed on the Hornet. Its sad how Hollywood butchers history.

Agreed, wikipedia sucks, however this particular tidbit of information appears to have a footnote referencing an actual book that actually exists.

I am inclined to believe that this is true, however, if I actually cared more than just posting on a BBS about it I would find the book and look it up. Fortunately I don't care that much.

68Hawk · « **Reply #16 on:** August 27, 2007, 02:54:54 PM »

Actually Scotty they're citing Vol 2. Which is referenced as such:

_______. Flying Combat Aircraft of USAAF-USAF (Vol.2). Andrews AFB, Maryland: Air Force Historical Foundation, 1978. ISBN 0-8138-0375-6.

I assume the ______ is a stand in for the same editors of Vol 1. Being "Higham, Roy and Williams, Carol, eds." Their footnote is wrongly credited then too. Roy might be a nickname, but an ISBN search shows it's actually credited to a Robin Higham. Basically this is borderline plagiarism.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least to actually look up that source and find it cut and pasted. Blatant plagiarism. Given that they don't cite a page number I'd have to look through the whole 202 pages to find this info. Again plagiarism.

Too much crap is either copied onto Wikipedia or just made up because people don't care about where the info comes from. They assume that it'll be credible because its got some type of footnote. This could be a true fact, but its too bad whoever wrote this didn't give proper credit.

If you do want to assert something, check the real source. If you don't want to take the time then don't.

scottydawg · « **Reply #17 on:** August 27, 2007, 02:59:20 PM »

I never said it was true, bro.

68Hawk · « **Reply #18 on:** August 27, 2007, 03:14:38 PM »

No, you did qualify that, but if you want to drop out the sources the least you can do is look at how they're cited. Also you could refrain from punching people.

I also believe this could be true, but the 'author' of this wiki article seems to have committed some academic transgressions, possibly even stealing the real authors words. It could also be a complete fabrication. Because of wiki and its low standards we are left to wonder.

I'm curious now, and I might just check out the source, but if something can't be corroborated somewhere other than wiki it might as well be false.

Krusty · « **Reply #19 on:** August 27, 2007, 03:18:27 PM »

I agree.

I only brought it up because it was a bizarre claim.

Tiger · « **Reply #20 on:** August 27, 2007, 03:20:52 PM »

Wiki sucks and should be destroyed.

I still like Colbert's idea about the African Elephants. I think we should all get together and alter the thread on the B-25

Bodhi · « **Reply #21 on:** August 27, 2007, 06:08:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oleg
I doubt its true, at least for fighters.

99% of aircraft have unusable fuel. That is where the term "Usable Fuel" comes from. It is part of the design especially considering the use of flexible fuel bags, placement of tanks, and the placement of sumps.

On the P-38's it is roughly 3 gallons a side. Going from memory, I believe the B-17's with the bladders in the outboard wing panels had about 20 - 30 gallons unusable a side.

sethipus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 30, 2007, 03:28:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk Theoretically the flaps would cause more drag in the long run and would only reduce range. If the 40 gallons is true you might be able to use them up with the flaps technique, but how much burn time is that anyway? What's the standard GPM on a B25? Probably wouldn't be worth a loss of airspeed unless you're really bone dry.

I'm guessing that the idea was only to fly with the notch of flaps to have access to this fuel when you were actually down to the end of your fuel, and needed that extra 40 gallons to stay in the air. It wouldn't have helped in any way to have flown with the flaps down on a full tank.

And I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if the alternative to taking a bit of a speed hit by having flaps down a notch is to run your engines dry and commence gliding, the pilot would gladly take the performance hit.