Talk:Scaled Composites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Corporate History

The opening sentence states that Scaled Composites was "formerly the Rutan Aircraft Factory". The company history section doesn't list this as part of the company history. Both companies exited concurrently, with RAF closing in 2004: http://www.eaa.org/homebuilders/kitplans/longez.asp. Aside from Burt being the head of both companies and one being formed before the other, it is incorrect to state SC was "formerly" RAF. Also, Burt has retired (http://www.scaled.com/images/uploads/news/Burt_Rutan_Announces_Retirement_Plans_03Nov10.pdf). Made appropriate changes and added citations. BigBaaadBob (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

link

Why was the link to http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040407/D81Q8VQ00.html Government Licenses First Private Rocket to Scaled Composites removed from this article? - Bevo 18:09, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I put the information in the article body - much better than external links. Outside links change. DavidWBrooks 23:44, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. - Bevo 14:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Photos

I have not added any Tier One photos to this page. Since there is so much coverage of that project elsewhere, I was hoping we could use this page to cover the other craft that Rutan/Scaled have worked on. -Joseph (Talk) 04:54, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

Tier II UAV

At some point, Scaled built a POC mockup for Northrop Grumman under the Tier II program. It appears to have been a twin-engine aircraft. Anyone have any information?Akradecki 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Model numbers?

Does anyone know if the Roton ATV and the Toyota TA-1 had in-house Scaled model numbers while they were being developed?

Ok, found and added the TA-1 model number, but still nothing on the ATV.Akradecki 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Model numbers are applied to designs initiated by Burt himself, not all Scaled projects. Burt has a notebook where he keeps concept sketches and each new one gets a model number. The Roton was a design by Rotary Rocket and Burt was not involvedBobwanwiki (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Rocket Test Accident

Shouldn't this be in the SpaceShipTwo article? 132.205.44.5 03:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The nature, cause and location of the explosion are all unknown, statements that the injector exploded are pure speculation so far, no official nor credible announcement has been made. It could be several months before the accident report is finally published. There is some unconfirmed speculation that one or both of the main oxidizer reservoir tanks ruptured. If true it is not curently known whether this was the primary explosion or a secondary result. Charles 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Who or what is Cal-OSHA?? 200.54.125.99 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cal-OSHA is the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Conrad T. Pino 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Recommend balancing article so the length of the accident section is not so long compared with the rest of the article. There's a lot to add to the article which means the accident section doesn't have to be shortened! Archtransit 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the accident doesn't have an incident article of its own. Given that, there are going to be alot of details here. I do agree the rest of the article does need expansion. Perhaps at this point we should consider splitting off the incident to its own page, if there are further notable details that can be added. At first glance, the incident does appear notable on its own, which is the major qualification for having its own article. - BillCJ 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Other than the fact that the accident happened, and that three folks were killed, there's not likely to be any further information forthcoming. Scaled keeps such things fairly proprietary. There were some details discussed at the memorial service, but none of these were published, so there's really not much as far as specifics that can or will be added to here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed this section, now twice. I pulled it because it is out of date, but also of minor significance to the trajectory of the company and the product, SpaceShipTwo, which was involved in the accident. The incident is mentioned in the SpaceShipTwo article under design and development. An accident in the testing of a new rocket is important, but not so important in this case that it deserves a dedicated section in an article on a company that has had other accidents in the testing of new designs... Scaled Composites has designed and fielded many designs, and they have encountered accidents along the way. We don't have sections in this article on any of those other accidents, and as the SpaceShipTwo and WK2 project was not terminated as a result of this accident, it is less relevant to the article on the company. If the accident has led to the end of the company or the project, then it would bear greater significance now. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Other famous vehicles

I am not sure that the (nice) Beech Starship is so famous, specially for the builder. Just see the article about it. Canard designs are innovative, yes, but they have less advantages than often written. Better gobal efficiency because of canard lift instead of tail down lift is a legend, not a physical law. The best efficient aircrafts are gliders and commercial liners, all of classic configuration. Plxdesi january 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.102.4.123 (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Corporate HQ?

The page lists corporate HQ as being in Poway. I believe this is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.81.27.11 (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You bring up an interesting point. I can't find any ref's that link Scaled to Poway. FAA registration database usually is a good indicator, because it will show the legal location of a corporation rather than their actual physical location, but in this case, it says Mojave. However, Poway is the location of SpaceDev, the folks that Scaled has contracted to to develop the rocket engines...I wonder if some well-meaning editor confused the two? I'd suggest that if someone can't come up with a ref, the HQ location be changed in the article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Rutan Model 76 Voyager

This article lists the Model 76 Voyager aircraft as manufactured by Scaled Composites, but at the same time the aircraft's own article says it's a common mistake to list it as manufactured by Scaled Composites. Which article is correct? 23:48, 21 December 2009 (GMT-3)

This article covers both companies. The Voyager is listed under the "Rutan Aircraft Factory aircraft" heading. That should be clear enough. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Mislabeled Rutan personal aircraft as Scaled Composites Aircraft

the Voyager, Catbird and Boomerang are NOT Scaled Composites aircraft. Voyager is Rutan Aircraft Factory, and the Catbird and Boomerang were Rutan designed, funded and built. Although the Catbird was stored in Scaled flight hanger for many years it is in no way affiliated with Scaled Composites other than Burt was the CEO. the Catbird and Boomerang were Burt's personal projects. Claiming Scaled designed and built them exposes Scaled to potential liability for aircraft they did not design, build or operate. The fame from the Rutan Voyager was what allowed Burt to attract investors to start Scaled Composites. Please remove the reference to Scaled Composites for these 3 projects.Bobwanwiki (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Voyager is listed as a Rutan Aircraft Factory aircraft, not a Scaled aircraft. RAF should probably be its own Wikipedia page. Catbird has been listed as "citation needed" for some time. Boomerang lacked a "citation needed" tag, but should have one. I removed both of the latter two. BigBaaadBob (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

More citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the Scaled Composites article are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.

There seem to be quite a number of unsourced assertions, and some parts of the article have many of these tagged {{citation needed}}. If the claims are not supported, the material is likely to be removed from Wikipedia per WP:V. N2e (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed many of the unsourced, redlinked claims in the Aircraft projects section that had been fact-tagged for many months. This is all very interesting stuff, and could well be true, but we need to find verifiable sources for it to stay in Wikipedia. Has anyone published a book about the history of scaled that might have all of these aircraft described and documented that could be used to source the claims? N2e (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

PDF to the Power Augmented Ram Landing Craft

This is a nifty device. It uses a jet engine to push the craft off the water AND provide thrust. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a085870.pdf

I'm not familiar with what should be done with it but if you edit the section there is a note that nothing is known about it.

I'm forwarding this bit of flotsam to a certain clutch of science fiction authors. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.116.18 (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Image removed

Wingspan comparison of the Stratolaunch [or possibly White Knight Two!] carrier with other large aircraft

I have removed this image, as the image page indicates that it was inaccurately captioned, and is a silhouette of the WK2. If the size is correct for the WK2 it could be reintroduced with a more accurate caption, and of course if the image does actually match the Stratolaunch it can also be reintroduced. Otherwise we need a new image or no image.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Scaled Composites.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"Tier 1b" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tier 1b. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#Tier 1b until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)