Talk:Boom XB-1

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

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

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Article title?

Aircraft articles are indeed supposed to be titled "(Manufacturer) (Model)", per WP:NCAIR. However, firstly, might it not be better to put "Boom Technology" rather than just "Boom" for the manufacturer name? If we apply the same logic, when an article is spawned off for the full-size version, it would probably end up being titled "Boom Boom"! And secondly, the naming conventions tell us not to use nicknames in the title. Accordingly, I propose renaming this article to "Boom Technology XB-1" (and creating redirects for other variants, of course). Rosbif73 (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosbif73: Good idea. We will discuss about this here. But for now, I am requesting this article title to drop the uncommon monkier "Baby Boom" according to WP:CONCISE (therefore, there will never be an aeroplane called "Boom Boom"). --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 July 2020

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 section.

It was proposed in this section that Boom XB-1 Baby Boom be renamed and moved to Boom Technology XB-1.

result:
Moved to Boom XB-1. See below a case of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, where there is agreement that the current article title should be changed, and yet no particular consensus for a new title. So the closer gets to choose from the available options. It's important to note from the guide: "if anyone objects to the closer's choice, then instead of taking it to move review, they should simply make another move request at any time." Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 21:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Boom XB-1 Baby Boom → Boom Technology XB-1 – The monkier "Baby Boom" is uncommon in several sources (completely absent in Business Insider). Therefore, I want to drop the uncommon monkier from the article title according to WP:CONCISE. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - Leaving out "Technology" is more Consise. As for the name, you've only presented one source that doesn't use "Baby Boom", and it's not authoritative in any way, and we'd need to see a much broader range of sources that do and do not use the name to prove it isn't common. I.realize it doesn't currently appear on the company's website, but that has nothing to do with it being common or not. (A case in point is the Bell 429 GlobalRanger. When Bell first announced the 429 in the mid-00s, it included the name "GlobalRanger", but it disappeared from Bell's website and documentation some time afterwards. I can't remember exactly when, but within a few years at the most. But the name still appears in published sources enough to be considered a common name.) - BilCat (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support perhaps as "Boom XB-1" as I agree with @BilCat that "Technology" is probably unnecessary. No mention of "Baby Boom" anywhere in recent/recent-ish coverage by CNN, Flight Global, TechCrunch, or Flying Mag, from a quick google search. Retswerb (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Boom XB-1, Boom Technology XB-1 distant second choice. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 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.

Article not clear on thrust values

This article mentions:

In section development: "engines change from 3,500 lbf (16 kN) J85-21 to 4,300 lbf (19 kN) J85-15"
In section design: "Powered by three 3,500 lbf (16 kN), non-afterburning J85-15 engines"

According to this wiki page engine J85-15 has 4,300 lbf (19 kN) thrust, therefore I assume there is an error in the second (design) section, unless the engine was modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S2131 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated according to the most recent ref. Most turbine engines have many ratings.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crew: one or two?

The "Design" section says it has a two-person cockpit and the Spec says one crew. I can see how both could be true, but in its current form it is not really helpful to the reader. Can we clarify it please? Thanks DBaK (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Registration

A/c is registered N990XB. Do we need a non-primary source before this info is added to the article? Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it needed?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Test flight?

The article says Further delays as of February 2023 pushed the expected first flight to mid-2023.. We are now in the final weeks of 2023. Did these happen? Abigail-IV (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new updated image.

The main image is quite outdated. / 24.152.144.132 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engines

Are we sure they use the civil version of the J85 as engines? There are various pictures of them performing afterburner tests online and as far as I’m aware the civil J85 lacks afterburners 223.17.115.220 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Supersonic list the engines as J85-15 in their facts Facts sheet, as well as listing different length and wingspan to the data taken from aviation week.

The CJ610-15 listed is also not a known variant, and the CJ610 are specifically non-afterburning engines. So I don't know where that even came from, it should be obvious they're running J85 engines. I'm going to correct the listed specifications according to Boom's data. Wyattr55123 (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made, i left the listed engines unchanged for most of the history section since they appear to have changed designs and engines throughout development, and I don't have an aviation week subscription to see what the listed engine was throughout the timeline.

I also wanted to include the listed combined thrust of 12,300 lbs, but the "more power" entry in the template formated poorly when I tried it. Wyattr55123 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First supersonic civil private airplane?

Dawn Aerospace already have been said to be 'the first civil plane to go supersonic since concorde' So I don't see how this can be true for XB-1 as well. If this claim is re-added to the article it needs an explanation for this contradiction at least. (Source for Dawn Civil plane goes supersonic for the first time since Concorde | Science, Climate & Tech News | Sky News) JeffUK 08:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Warzone article you removed does not say "first civil aircraft", it specifies "supersonic civil jet". Dawn's mk-II aurora is both rocket powered, and unmanned. Dawn also only claims "first NZ designed and built aircraft to go supersonic", not first supersonic civil aircraft. That award actually goes to Virgin Galactic, with SpaceShipOne achieving rocket powered supersonic flight on 17 december 2003. Wyattr55123 (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim I removed was "This marked the first time that a civil private manufacturer had passed the sound barrier with an in-house made aircraft." Both dawn and SpaceShipOne beat it to that title. Maybe we could say it's the 'First jet powered.." but we end up splitting hairs, to say "it's the first manned aircraft, built by a private company (except private companies that are sponsored by governments), that is powered by a specific type of engine, that has been designed to break the sound barrier, and has done so.. since Concorde." I don't think we need that claim as it's trivia even if it's verifiable. JeffUK 08:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wording used was editorial, as it's not what boom has claimed. But so is the sky news article about dawn. I agree it's not really necessary in the article, but if anyone does want to add it back they'll need to specify civil manufactured jet. Wyattr55123 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]