Talk:Boom Overture

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boom Overture article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 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: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Requested move 13 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Andrewa (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Overture → Boom Technology Overture – Boom Technology is a manufacturer of this aeroplane. Therefore, according to the WP:AIR/NC, this should be renamed Boom Supersonic Overture. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Oppose per BilCat. —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:27, 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.

designed to be like a 75% scale model of Concorde:

For those who never saw Concorde in person: it was much smaller than you probably think it was. A 3/4 size plane will be really small, maybe 3 passengers per row at best. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:F1D2:9E1D:C125:3853 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the "like" part comes in, as it's obviously not an exact scale-down. BilCat (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Engines

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]

clarification: "the plane" replaced by "a passenger in a supersonic transport"--Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:46, 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]

Because the source you've cited doesn't support your claims. BilCat (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, strange it says so right in the article. Can you not read a reference link or do you need to be shown how? Leeveraction (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When asked to comment on BOOM ENGINES "we're not making anything speculative for anybody" - Warren EASTMAN - CEO Rolls Royce Leeveraction (talk) 23:21, 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]

New four-engine design

The Boom Overture design has been revised into a four-engine layout, becoming even more Concorde-like. New design is described at https://boomsupersonic.com/flyby/post/its-about-time-for-a-bold-new-era-of-supersonic-flight Mcvoorhis (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Mesa - for the record, it's satire!

I've just reverted an addition to the article which cited this: Mesa Airlines Latest Carrier To Add Boom Jets, Only Regional Carrier To Offer Supersonic Flights. I'm not trying to embarrass the person who added this, assuming good faith, but the source is clearly a satire site, as noted by the "satire" watermark in the photo of the Overture in that "story". I wouldn't have otherwise mentioned this, but it's likely to be added again. BilCat (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the website's logo with the motto "travel satire powered by middle seats & bad coffee" is a clue! - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. BilCat (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engines redux

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 do not intend their engines to be fitted with afterburners at all. But you are right, I'll see what I can come up with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According this this Aviation Week article, Boom [is] pulling together a team of companies to design, build and support a new engine for Overture. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's there now. Thanks to User:Osunpokeh and others for adding it to the article. See Draft:Boom Symphony for the new draft I cribbed from that section. Anyone is welcome to work on it constructively, and hopefully it can go live in a few days. BilCat (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work and quick too, thanks! I didn't fully understand the teaming aspects when I first read this article last night. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is any of this even remotely real?

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]

Boom Overture edits

Moved from User talk:Completeaerogeek § Boom Overture edits

– –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Completeaerogeek. In this edit to the article Boom Overture, you edited it to say something like "Company states X, but this is impossible because Y." Is there a reliable source that says exactly this? If not it needs to be changed to avoid original research and tone problems / WP:EDITORIALIZING. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:44, 24 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.

Ideal outcome: please edit the article to fix these issues, or someone might revert your changes. Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Please read what I have rewritten on this. If I say 2=2=4 do I have to have a citation from mathematics text book? Completeaerogeek (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to make the other changes but the speed is the raison detre for the aircraft. I think we might need adjudication on this one. Completeaerogeek (talk) 00:52, 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]

Sorry. I decided to revert all your edits. There's original research, tone problems, run-on sentences... it's just too much for me to cleanup. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 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)

Source: https://www.wfmynews2.com/article/news/local/boom-supersonic-xb-1-successful-flight/83-2b1dd00a-c247-4d61-a9a3-2a4074e414d4 2600:1700:9A0:22A0:946C:DEB6:99AB:1F6D (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]