Talk:Martin XB-48

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Aviation: Aircraft

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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Untitled

Is the serial number of the second prototype correct? If the one is 45-59585, I would guess that the other would be 45-59586 instead of 45-586. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.108.10 (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

This sentence makes no sense: "Although the pictures make it look like the aircraft has three engine gondolas under each wing, the jet engines were actually clustered in a pair of flat three-engined gondolas with an intricate system of air canals between the engines providing cooling." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that at first. On second reading, though, it seems the engines were grouped into a three-engine "pod," with one of these units on each side. It is convoluted wording, but I think it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who just changed my photo?

I recently had a higher quality photo on here that gives you better detail of the aircraft, and I check now and it's back the original.73.230.178.114 (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did, as you could have discovered for yourself by looking at the article's history. My edit summary states "previous image is better", and it is. It's a much better angle, giving a better view of the aircraft. The image you added is of higher resolution, but that doesn't matter in a thumbnail image. I've no issue with the photo being added somewhere else in the article, but it doesn't need to be in the lead. BilCat (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]