Talk:Twin-boom 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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

The definition given in this encyclopaedia is logical, standing as a wise possible basis BUT it should be known that many discrepant definitions have been published to define the wording “twin-boom”, and its French equivalent in a single word (not compound: “bipoutre”). The AirBritainUK specialist about twin-boom aircraft, amateurish writer/artist, has gathered/compared eleven “twin-boom” definitions in a published book, with three more in a free inline-book, and two more (including the Wikipedia one) in a Web forum.*

About justifications, several rare ones complete the main ones: - (fast planes) hiding the dragging fuselage behind one of the lateral engines - (big spans) supporting at mid span a giant wing or giant tailplane - (twin-hull) lateral hulls avoiding the use of extra floats apart of a main hull - (twin fuselage) many doors to load/unload quickly - (mother plane) free center for the fin of a plane below - (4-rotor helicopter) square support to the main devices etc.

Final: this is A good definition but it seems impossible to give THE definition, every sentence to define “twin-boom” begins by the implicit word “Usually…”

from X.Toff/Tophe: “Catamarans du Ciel” (sold out book, scheduled to be an E-book in 2010), “Forked Ghosts” (E-book), “Supplement to Forked Ghosts” (E-book), “The end of Forked Ghosts” (E-book), “article-about-twin-boom-aircraft” (topic in a Web forum).

Update 2007: a (French) Web-site has been dedicated to the definition of twin-boom, the title being definitions-du-mot-"bipoutre" (a half million versions have been counted...)

List Inclusion

I've removed all the listings that did not have an article on the grounds that if they are not notable enough for an article, then they don't need to be cluttering up the list. A few exceptions that seemed likely to one day receive an article, I've instead made into redlinks. Sario528 (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this. I saw all the non-linked aircraft last night, but didn't have time to remove them. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all articles have been written, by the standards of the aircraft project, they remain notable, and red links are needed to ensure they get written. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stratolaunch

Should this aircraft be included on this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_Stratolaunch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.22.62 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. - BilCat (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not cruft

Contrary to editorial comment, the transport and general uses of twin-boom aircraft are not cruft. These sections may not be perfect but they need to be retained and improved, not summarily deleted. They are very much part of the purposes of the configuration. If there are excess examples they can be trimmed without unbalancing the article via wholesale deletion. I trust that editors who disagree will respect their restoration per WP:BRD so we can see what we are discussing.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The gist was retained. What we don't need is a laundry list of obscure American examples which adds an unnecessary bias. The C-82 when you've already got the C-119 is cruft. Also - there is no need to break five bullet points into multiple paragraphs, especially when they overlap. Now perhaps we could find some references to back up those claims? Especially the stiffening one. Generally I try for one or two examples, spread out so some are American, some British, some French, some Russia etc to provide balance. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps - what do you think about renaming this page back to what it really is - a list of twin boom aircraft? - NiD.29 (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have finally widened the scope of the list from "combat" aircraft and added other classes to it, the gist at least is finally restored. I agree entirely about trimming laundry lists but not about trimming informative content that balances the article. I disagree strongly with your suggestion to trim this article back to a mere list. If that were done then a new article discussing the technical and historic aspects of the twin-boom configuration would need to be created. The set of observations you have reduced to mere bullet-points needs expanding into a fuller treatment, with the "laundry list" you cut being as much a set of pointers to where the (then) article needed expansion. You have been doing the exact opposite to what this article needs. As when and if the list of types grows too unwieldly, it may be split off into a new list article, but it should be done that way round. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a definition, different reasons for using them with examples, and a list. I didn't mean trim that stuff, but it is mainly a list. There really isn't much to expand on even if we get absurdly verbose. History? There isn't enough evolution (outside of structural materials advances) - nor is it used enough to really have one unless we widen it to include all the lattice tail aircraft that preceded it - and which some entries such as the Sikorsky seaplanes verge onto. We have advantages - perhaps some disadvantages (increased structural weight and drag), otherwise why so rare? Lots of companies known for wacky and unconventional designs are completely absent. There are more additions, however we are getting into un-built paper proposal territory there (Boulton Paul P.99, Gloster F.18/37 etc) and glorified radio control models - tops maybe another 5-10% larger. - NiD.29 (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, what it is now and what it can be expanded into are different things - you are an experienced editor, you know that perfectly well, I am puzzled why you make such a shallow remark. Again, if you "didn't mean to trim that stuff" then why have you now done so three times in a row? I am sorry, but there is a big credibility gap here, I feel that your true reasons are not yet visible to me. Perhaps you should fork off your preferred list and leave others to curate this article? Despite your confessed personal lack of anything more to say, there is plenty for others of us to add to the topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Let it be noted that I have not deleted any additional material of NiD.29's, merely restored some stuff that was there before. I have also now begun improving it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It had already been completely replaced with new, much improved and expanded material, and no longer adds anything. What is needed are the textbooks I had (but lost in a HD crash) that would provide some references for all this. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, not improved at all. At best you have mixed the technical discussion in with the historical one and it all needs pulling back out again. But I am reluctant to edit your work down in case it upsets you while you are still working on it. I would ask that you offer the same consideration in return. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now - was the vitriol needed though? (If you haven't seen it and need a laugh, google Thanos + Trump)

Now - a bigger problem - inclusion criteria in the lists.

1. The Sikorsky flying boats that are included are not simple cantilevered booms, but are fully braced with struts. Their long running inclusion opens up a can of worms, not least how much bracing is permitted. Should the Savoia S.55 and S.66, with their Y shaped-booms also be included? How about the booms on something like the Caudrons, in which the structures on each side of the fuselage were tapered only vertically and run parallel with the line of flight - but with ample bracing. I have seen many sources calling all these "twin-boomed", but then the definition seems a bit fuzzy. I would draw the line at something like the DH.2 though, as its booms taper in plan view to a single point, and so do not represent distinctly separate structures.

2. UAV criteria. Is something that fits in the palm of the hand an aircraft? I am thinking that perhaps this should be limited to those with military or civilian identification serial numbers in established aircraft sequences? I know there are many omissions, but if every toy airplane is included, it will overwhelm the list.

Ideas? - NiD.29 (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced editors who ignore WP:BRD need to be brought up with a reminder. When they then respond badly, they may benefit from rethinking where the "vitriol" lies. Bracing makes no difference: a biplane is not suddenly a monoplane if its wings are braced together. Similarly where the central structure is an open braced framework with no fairings, we accept that the machine has no fuselage. The Savoia types are twin-hulled, i.e. twin-fuselage flying boats, and these are explicitly excluded in the article lead. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the hulls are distinct from the booms - and the central part of the wing contains the cockpit in the same manner as on the Burnelli types. Are you suggesting that the Caudrons should be included? - NiD.29 (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some frame members may be booms, but that does not make them tailbooms, and anyway there are four of them. A small central nacelle is not a fuselage. If your concern about whether to include some Caudron types is genuine, by all means post a link here, but I see no value in wordplay for the sake of it: if the obvious is good enough, go for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]