Talk:Rutan Boomerang

Relationship of aircraft to Scaled Composites

The title implies that the Boomerang is built or designed by Scaled Composites. This is not true, although Burt Rutan was the president and founder of Scaled Composites, the Boomerang was a personal project entirely designed, funded and built by Burt out side of his day job. Bobwanwiki (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A number of Internet sources seem to show this aircraft was produced by Scaled Composites (and may be using Wikipedia as their authority for this). The November 96 edition of Popular Mechanics cited by the article includes the sentence: "There is a lot that just doesn't look right about Burt Rutan's 5-passenger Boomerang, the latest surprise to roll out of the hangar at Scaled Composites." This does not state the aircraft was produced by Scaled Composites (it calls it "Burt Rutan's" not Scaled's). My personal discussion with an engineer present when Boomerang was built confirms it was a personal project of Burts, but that Burt and Scaled were not careful to make that distinction clear. This article at EAA seems careful to indicate it is a "Burt Rutan" aircraft and not a Scaled Composites aircraft: http://www.airventure.org/news/2011/110707_boomerang.html. It also states: "Clements made it clear: "Burt is still the owner of the Boomerang; I am maintaining and operating it."" Another EAA article, authored by Burt, shows this is his personal aircraft which he has the ability to dispose as he wishes: http://www.airventure.org/news/2011/110707_whyboomerang.html. Also, this aircraft is not listed at Scaled's website's projects page: http://www.scaled.com/projects/

As a result of the above I think the words "Scaled Composites" in the title are not verifiable and thus misleading (there is sufficient evidence to indicate it is Burt's personal aircraft) and the article should be moved to "Rutan Boomerang". This title is verifiable via multiple sources including those already used in the article and it doesn't seem like anything is lost as a result of the move. BigBaaadBob (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. BigBaaadBob (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Scaled Composites Boomerang → Rutan Boomerang – See rationale above. BigBaaadBob (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutral Point of View?

The section "Design and Developement" sounds quite euphoric to me. This should be backed up with additional sources or presented in a more objective style. Considering the fact that there were only a hand full of asymetric aircraft designs in history one might be sceptical if the aircraft reached the design goals stated at the beginning? 217.224.45.179 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

When?

restored in 2011, but when was it originally designed and built? The one fact the article really, really needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.134.188 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Caption on the Image of the Cabin

The 2011 image of the interior of the plane shows an unfurnished interior. The caption of this image further states that the interior was never furnished. However, on the aircraft's website, several images have since been posted which show that the interior was indeed furnished sometime later. An exact date was not provided on these photos, but this March 2015 blog post seems to also show the furnished interior. Therefore, it can be reasonably assumed that the interior was completed some time between 2011 and 2015.

I would add these links to the article as sources, but I'm not sure if they meet the proper guidelines. Could anyone help confirm whether or not these pages from the site would be considered acceptable? Waterfire (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)