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 articles

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 an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Article title?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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.[edit]

The main image is quite outdated.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