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:
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 for now - Leaving out "Technology" is more
WP:Consise. We include it in the company's name because we a disambiguation page at
Boom, as the company isn't the primary topic, and using "Technology" (or "Supersonic") is a natural disambiguator. -
BilCat (
talk)
05:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)reply
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.
designed to be like a 75% scale model of Concorde:
The following sentence makes no sense:
"The International Council on Clean Transportation estimated the plane would burn at least three times as much fuel as a subsonic business-class passenger." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.19.100.47 (
talk)
09:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Why are users sanitizing factual and referenced information from the engine section? RR has terminated all contracts with Boom, is not going to be in the future and literally said the engine ideas were "speculative" 22:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Leeveraction (
talk)
22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I don't have a subscription, but what I can read doesn't say anything about Rolls-Royce having canceled any contracts. You've also claimed the Boom website no longer mentions RR, which is incorrect. It does make me question your own reading abilities.
BilCat (
talk)
23:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This sentence doesn't sound right to me: "Boom intends to use moderate-bypass turbofans which can achieve supercruise (supersonic flight without afterburners), unlike Concorde's Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus." Concorde was capable of supercruise but used afterburners both for takeoff and then again to pass Mach 1, up to about Mach 1.7. Supercruise was one of the major distinguishing factors between Concorde and the Tu-144, as the latter required constant use of afterburner to maintain supersonic speed. (Incidentally, had the Concorde B model been built, Aerospatiale/BAC intended to use a revised engine model that didn't use afterburners.) I believe this sentence is meant to say something along the lines of Boom intends to use supercruise-capable moderate-bypass turbofans that do not require afterburners to break the sound barrier. But I'm not sure what the best way is to word that.
1995hoo (
talk)
17:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Boom seems to be little more than a tangle of unsupported bold claims. Scholl is confident about this that and the other. Who is this Scholl? Is he even remotely credible? Has he ever so much as built and marketed a wheelbarrow?
2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F8BF:E4B9:2DE:EF67 (
talk)
09:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It is very unlikely. I have edited the page to explain why. They have no chance of developing from scratch engines by 2030. The less powerful F-135 took P&W 15 years
Completeaerogeek (
talk)
00:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Some other things in your edits that need attention:
Bon now says the aircraft will enter service in 2030 however, as of Feb 2024, no prototype engine exists - It is not our job as encyclopedists to point out possible contradictions, suspicious statements, etc. Just report facts. "X said Y. Z disagreed with this." Please avoid
WP:EDITORIALIZING.
so data value will be limited. - More editorializing. We should just state facts as stated in reliable sources. We as encyclopedists should not add our own opinions or analysis.
How the medium bypass turbofan engines, with the required very high exhaust gas velocity will meet ICAO4+ noise restrictions, has not been explained. - Same as above.
Can you identify the line please? I have sourced for all my work and have in fact been removing invalid and broken sources all morning? If you are referring to the speed issue it is pure mathematics. Not sure how you cite multiplication of speed over distamce.
Completeaerogeek (
talk)
00:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Novem, no problem. I will fix those thee lines. I have included a airspeed/altitude calculator now to validate the claim that their a flight time is physically impossible. That is factually and verifiably correct.
Completeaerogeek (
talk)
00:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. The line is however at Mach 1.7 this is not possible. Concorde cruised at Mach 2.0 and its average flight time was 3h:30 minutes. Citing a calculator is not enough. A reliable source would need to say something like "Boom Overture's claims about its travel time between Newark and London are controversial, and some have called it into question." Encyclopedists don't calculate. We only summarize. What if your calculations are wrong? What if you're right but this detail is unimportant (
WP:UNDUE)? If this contradiction is correct and it is important enough, a reliable source will publish something about it, and we can cite that. Hope that makes sense. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
00:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
however this is extraordinarily unlikely. This is more
WP:EDITORIALIZING. Would suggest switching to a writing style where you just say "X stated Y in Z year". The tone we're going for is factual. We want to avoid opinions and analysis and emotive phrases like "extraordinarily unlikely". Don't forget that encyclopedias are a
WP:TERTIARY source. All encyclopedias are supposed to do is summarize
WP:SECONDARY sources. Hope that makes sense. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
00:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Novem, I have adjusted accordingly. this article originally was basically a press release for BOOM. It now has extensive factual data. If you find anything else that I have missed, just let me know. Also the flag about it being written like and advertisement can come down I think.
Completeaerogeek (
talk)
00:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I think finding a source that says their claim is exaggerated, or just deleting the claim, or changing it to "X stated Y on Z date", would all be fine. No adjudication needed yet since I haven't reverted anything :) –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
00:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, here is a direct comparison with cited sources. Concordes data is verified and was so every day for 27 years.
Boom's media statements[3] claim that at Mach 1.7 over water, New York/Newark and London via the shortest route (3,442.18 mi/5,541km) would take 3 hours and 30 minutes is controversial. Concorde supercruised at Mach 2.0 (1,320-1,350mph TAS/2,125-2,173km/h) and its average flight time was 3h:30 minutes. At Mach 1.7, Overture is travelling 228mi / 367km less distance every hour than Concorde in cruise, across the Atlantic.
Completeaerogeek (
talk)
01:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Got a URL to a source that says Boom media's statement is controversial or exaggerated or incorrect? That's what we need here. Again, we as encyclopedists shouldn't be doing a bunch of math and making our own conclusions. If it's important enough and is a correct analysis of the data, a source will do it for us and we can cite that. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
01:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This article was originally a series of thinly disguised press releases which are worthless as a source of information . No axe to grind just professional expertise combined with properly sources technical corrections. It should not be a the advertising arm of a company which is largely what this article was as noted by the flag at the top of the page.
A blanket reversion is not appropriate. I have contributed a considerable amount of properly sourced technical information here. Perhaps I need a little more practice in wording as I normally write for industry publications but just turning it back it one big press release for Boom, does no one any good. I am going to clean up and revert a section at a time. If you or the other 'person' have objections, just message me in Talk an i will correct the issue, but there is much more to be said here from a technical point of view to turn this into a credible article.
Completeaerogeek (
talk)
23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
successful XB-1 test flight 2024-3-22
Successful test flight of the XB-1 has occurred in Mojave, CA
Also, Superfactory (Greensboro, NC) is expected to be completed later this year (2024)