Talk:Boeing X-48

X-48C and article deficiencies

This article doesn't seem to mention the X-48C model that is being testing now (or in the near future). Anyone willing to take a crack and add to that? Also, this article seems to rely too heavily on quotes... it would be nice to get away from that IMO.

Finally, FWiW, two other disadvantages of the BWB for commercial use is the lack of windows for the majority of passengers (on interior of aircraft), and the fact that any passengers towards the outside are moved much more with rolling manuevers... I.E., a passenger 100 ft. out from the centerline will move up/down about 17 feet in a 10 deg roll... not the most comfortable situation. -SidewinderX (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The block quotes do need to be summarized. I had that tagged with the wrong tag before. I cut back on the quote some in the past but never got them rewritten. I hadn't seen many articles on the X-48 in a while. Please add whatever you can reference on it. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've started a Sandbox page here to work on the article. Feel free to add to that page if you have something. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the first attempt, citing a recent NASA release Andrew D Banks (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article is busy enough to really need a sandbox. Just work on it in main space. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, when I made the sandbox, I was planning some pretty dramatic rewriting. I've gotten sidetracked by several things since then, but I'll try and catch back up. -SidewinderX (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are more important things that this. Work on it when you can. The pay is the same either way. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since this was discussed, but I think it's time to add what we can from the sandbox now. The article here is still quite a mess, made even worse by recent attempts by IPs t update the article. - BilCat (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot more that can be added, yeah. I'll hae a look at the sandbox. - The Bushranger (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• The block quotes have since been summarized and I added a brief Variants section based on what is in User:SidewinderX's sandbox. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Boeing 797 hoax Photo Origin placement

I feel the origin of the photo should be after Boeing's comment. the current placement of the origin paragraph suggests the photo was created to represent Boeing 797, to which Boeing has responded its a fake.

Please note that is not the case here. the photo was commissioned for the article by Popular Science themselves. there is no claim of the photo being a Boeing concept, though its based on Boeing's concept. therefore, it ought to come after Boeing's response as it is obvious Boeing did/does not know of the photo's origin.

perhaps the origin paragraph can be reworded. your opinions are welcome. i have not reverted the position of the origin paragraph as of now since its more civil to discuss first and decide later. but i strongly feel the origin must come at the end for clarity and to not give a wrong impression to other readers.

--Krishvanth (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted it as I dont see any evidence of notabilty or relevance to the X-48. MilborneOne (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think deleting the entire section is way too drastic as it was obvious that the hoax was based on the Boeing studies of a blend-wing design that was exemplified by the X-48. Consider seeking a consensus for such a major revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC).

Sorry but a user adds something new and somebody else challenges it, it is up to User:Krishvanth to gain consensus to add it again. The status quo is to leave the article without the new addition. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I make it as 3:1 (judging by the editors involved) to keep the section, but perhaps with some revisions to establish relevance more clearly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

OK - The first bit is email tat about the 797 no mention of relevance to the X-48 so it should not be added. I could accept the popular science story about using the blended wing stuff but it really needs some better references than the blogs that were suggested and perhaps re-titled popular culture/blended-wing predictions or similar. MilborneOne (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going offline today, but I will submit a revision ASAP so that editors can look at what appears to have been a rumour of future Boeing projects that got wrapped up in a faked photo of the Boeing X-48. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I came to wikipedia y.day searching for info on the Boeing 797. failing to find anything, i resorted to the rest of the net. at the end, i managed to collate quite a bit of info including the exact issue from which the image was sourced.

the whole point of wikipedia is to educate people, not to hide info. for your info, this design is based on BWB-450 on which the X-48A and subsequently B & C are based. in short, this render was inspired from an actual physical concept model preceding X-48. also fyi, the BWB-450 was supposed to be a 450 passenger aircraft BWB concept but when the design was carried over to X-48, it was decided to scrap the passenger part for the time being with more focus on military applications like air-refuelling. officially, there is no talk by boeing or nasa to bring in such planes to the commercial sector in the imminent future. and this is where the 797 hoax has to be mentioned and cleared.

in the interest of knowledge, i feel this should stay. at the worst, we can discuss moving this to the BWB page which i thought could be discussed after the paragraph setting is done with.

also, why do you simply have to delete a well cited set of information without having a proper discussion first? this isn't some useless drivel. or this isn't some unsourced crap info. there's a whole bundle of references, from hoax-busting sites, from the ex-VP of boeing, from google books scan of popular science mag, from pop-sci's website (plus an email from the embassy confirming they were the ones behind this - which is not mentioned in the article for obvious reasons). any person who wants to clarify whats what via wikipedia will end up looking at a blank wall if you delete this - which kinda destroys the purpose of free and cited knowledge.

to repeat, we can move this to BWB page even though further additions i'm planning will make this fit nicely in the X-48 article. but lets decide that two or three days later after fixing the current info to read decently. i see Bzuk was kind enough to preserve the original text in the template. however, i'm rolling back the removal of the section as i'm concerned about the non-free photo getting auto-deleted. personally, i will ensure the section gets developed over the next few weeks (i have a real life too you know) as i 'mine' more data related to this.

currently i've stumbled across a fantastic publication that, while not thorough, is pretty detailed and covers the BWB development over the last decade-and-a-half. there's a good amount of info that fills up many gaps in the X-48 development and the NASA Langley's relevance over the decades in BWB tech.

thanks for your cooperation. --Krishvanth (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

not editing the paragraph arrangement in the hoax section. Here's my take on what it should read like.

(heading) In popular culture (/heading) (hidden comment) See talk about the reasoning behind preserving this section; perhaps a bit too quick in its removal.(/comment)
(heading) Boeing 797 hoax (/heading) (hidden comment) if you wish to move this to another page, contact User:Krishvanth first. (blah blah blah etc.) (/comment)
((File:Blended Wing Concept Art.jpg|thumb|The image used in the hoax email, first appeared in the Popular Science magazine.)) (hidden comment) if you are going to remove this image, please contact User:Krishvanth as this is a non-free image and may get auto-deleted on removal.(/comment)

(comment) information about hoax email (/comm)
Emails and articles of an aircraft bearing a striking resemblance to Boeing's blended wing body design have been circulating since 2006 or earlier. These claim Boeing has developed a "1000 passenger Jet Liner" with a "radical Blended Wing design" in cooperation with NASA Langley Research Center, in direct competition to the Airbus A380. The email also claims this aircraft is called the Boeing 797 and it "can comfortably fly 10,000 miles" at a speed of "Mach 0.88 or 654 mph". The photos are claimed to have been shot by an amateur photographer.

(comment) Boeing's response (/comm)
Boeing has reportedly responded to inquiries, stating the information in the email is a hoax.Also, Randy Baseler, Vice President of Marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes until 2007, stated in his blog that the claims are false and the images are probably photoshopped. The hoax email has remained in circulation and some websites still report this as truth.

(comment) origin of the photo (/comm)
The photo was originally created for the Popular Science magazine, October issue 2003, by a group The Embassy Visual Effects, on request. The artists Neill Blomkamp and Simon van de Lagemaat used Adobe Photoshop to depict the future of aviation and air travel. It is likely the photo was inspired by BWB-450, a pre-X-48 concept model designed in the late 1990s or the X-48A concept model designed around 2001.

(((endofsection)))

why is the hoax-slayer.com reference added to the origin? the website has only made a brief mention and linked further linked to snopes.com which has got the year wrong (as 1996 or something while its actually 2003). further, first reference is by popular science themselves and no further reference is needed in that case. i propose that is removed. its not present in my edit above. currently appears in the article next to the artists name (again makes no sense adding the reference there since no website other than popsci.com has mentioned the name of the artist).

also, i feel placing the origin at the bottom here makes sense as neither popular science nor the group the embassy claimed the images to be some boeing bwb commercial plane. its just a concept art for the future of aviation using existing bwb concept designs from the 90's. (i've mailed them asking if they can clarify where they based their concept from but not sure if i'll get a response - since they may not be sure themselves, any more.)

OR

(heading) In popular culture (/heading)
(heading) Popular Science Concept (or some better sounding heading name) (/heading)
(File:Blended Wing Concept Art.jpg|thumb|The image used in the hoax email, first appeared in the Popular Science magazine.)) (hidden comment) if you are going to remove this image, please contact User:Krishvanth as this is a non-free image and may get auto-deleted on removal.(/comment)
A concept photo of a blended wing body commercial aircraft depicting the future of aviation and air travel appeared in the Popular Science magazine, October issue 2003, by a group The Embassy Visual Effects, on request. The artists Neill Blomkamp and Simon van de Lagemaat used Adobe Photoshop to depict the future of aviation and air travel. It is likely the photo was inspired by models of BWB-450, a pre-X-48 concept designed in the late 1990s or the models of X-48A concept designed around 2001.

(heading) Boeing 797 hoax (/heading)
Emails and articles of the (blended wing body commercial aircraft) concept photo from the Popular Science Magazine have been circulating since 2006 or earlier. These claim Boeing has developed a "1000 passenger Jet Liner" with a "radical Blended Wing design" in cooperation with NASA Langley Research Center, in direct competition to the Airbus A380. The email also claims this aircraft is called the Boeing 797 and it "can comfortably fly 10,000 miles" at a speed of "Mach 0.88 or 654 mph". The photos are claimed to have been shot by an amateur photographer.

(comment) Boeing's response (/comm)
Boeing has reportedly responded to inquiries, stating the information in the email is a hoax.Also, Randy Baseler, Vice President of Marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes until 2007, stated in his blog that the claims are false and the images are probably photoshopped. The hoax email has remained in circulation and some websites still report this as truth.

(((endofsection)))

at any rate, i feel the origin photo must not come between the hoax email info and boeing's response as it reads like popular science is the cause of the hoax or has made claims of a 797 in their article - which is not the case.

also please keep in mind the unnecessary hoax-slayer.com reference near the artist name - it is not a reference for that at all and i dont understand why someone keeps adding that link there.

--Krishvanth (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

After reflection, I agree with MilborneOne that the section is more directly related to the BWB article where there is a closer confluence. Consider moving the following:

In popular culture

Boeing 797 hoax [File:Blended Wing Concept Art.jpg|thumb|The image used in the hoax email, first appeared in the Popular Science magazine.]

A concept photo of a blended wing body commercial aircraft appeared in the October 2003 issue of Popular Science magazine. ref http://books.google.co.in/books?id=5bKyC4K5tMwC&lpg=PP3&pg=PA44#v=twopage&q&f=false "Future of Flight." Popular Science, October 2003. ref Artists from The Embassy Visual Effects created the photo using computer graphics software for the magazine to depict the future of aviation and air travel. ref http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2003-10/future-flight-gallery-next-century-aviation "Future Flight: A Gallery of the Next Century in Aviation." PopSci.com, October 15, 2003. Retrieved: November 22, 2012. ref. It is likely the photo was inspired by models of BWB-450, a pre-X-48 concept designed in the late 1990s or the X-48A concept designed around 2001. ref Chambers, Joseph R. [http://history.nasa.gov/monograph39/mon39_a.pdf NASA SP-2005-4539 "Innovation In Flight: Research Of The NASA Langley Research Center On Revolutionary Advanced Concepts For Aeronautics." NASA, August 22, 2005. ref

Emails and articles of an aircraft bearing a striking resemblance to Boeing's blended wing body design have been circulating since 2006 or earlier. They claim Boeing has developed a "1000 passenger Jet Liner" with a "radical Blended Wing design" in cooperation with NASA Langley Research Center, in direct competition to the Airbus A380. The email also claims this aircraft is called the Boeing 797 and it "can comfortably fly 10,000 miles" at a speed of "Mach 0.88 or 654 mph". The photos are claimed to have been shot by an amateur photographer. ref name="truthfic"> http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/b797.htm "Giant New Boeing Airline{sic}?" TruthorFiction.com, September 14, 2006. Retrieved: November 22, 2012. ref

Boeing has reportedly responded to inquiries, stating the information about the blended wing body commercial aircraft is a hoax. ref name="truthfic" ref name="hoaxslay" Christensen, Brett M. http://www.hoax-slayer.com/boeing-797-hoax.shtml "Boeing 797 Hoax" Hoax-Slayer, April 19, 2012. Retrieved: November 22, 2012. ref Randy Baseler, Vice President of Marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes until 2007, also stated in his blog that the claims are false and the images are probably photoshopped. ref name=Baseler Baseler, Randy. http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2006/11/air_mail.html "Air mail." Boeing blogs: Randy's Journal, November 1, 2006. Retrieved: November 22, 2012. ref The hoax email has remained in circulation and some websites still report this as truth. ref Petitt, Karlene. http://karlenepetitt.blogspot.in/2012/08/boeing-797-fact-or-fiction.html "Boeing 797: Fact or Fiction." Flight to Success, August 9, 2012. Retrieved: November 22, 2012. ref ref http://www.ukessays.com/essays/project-management/boeing-large-manufacturer.php "Boeing-797." UK-Essays.com. Retrieved: November 22, 2012. ref FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

hey well i've been considering that myself. ok will do that in the next hour. Krishvanth (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

the deed is done. check it out Blended Wing Body --Krishvanth (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable compromise, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing X-48. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130102173045/http://www.boeing.com/history/chronology/chron16.html to http://www.boeing.com/history/chronology/chron16.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boeing X-48. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819141321/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061027b_nr.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061027b_nr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714223640/http://www.arnold.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123059396 to http://www.arnold.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123059396
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819141321/http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061027b_nr.html to http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061027b_nr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing X-48. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130119202922/http://www.cranfieldaerospace.com/unmanned-air-systems/ to http://www.cranfieldaerospace.com/unmanned-air-systems/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)