Talk:Boeing X-51 Waverider

German version
He mates,

I just write on the german version of this article. Just to let you know a source I found:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-51.htm

work out the facts if useful for yourselves ;-)

Kind Regards, AR79

Name & article
Sucessfull test firing:, also is it the X-51 or the X-51A? -Ravedave 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like other X planes and aircraft, A is the version/model indictator. If it was the X-51B that developed from the X-50A, sure.  But there's no reason to rename this article.  Also, if there are later versions, they can be readily included here. For further info see Aircraft naming conventions. -Fnlayson 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize that this is an old thread, but to clarify, the X-51 was a non-flight engine demonstrator, initially called the WaveRider, that began ground testing in 2003. In 2005 the X-51 designation was approved by DoD for it. The X-51A is the follow-on system that is being prepared for an October first flight. Both Boeing and AFRL are now calling this the X-51A WaveRider.  AK Radecki Speaketh  00:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant
This page needs to be combined with Waverider Klausner (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. This article is on a particular aircraft type, the X-51.  Waverider article covers a more general aircraft configuration. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then there is need for significant clarification. The Waverider article uses capitalization in the name, indicating a unique entity. Furthermore, it does not differentiate the concept of a waverider design from the actual instantiation in the X-51. The impression is rather that the article is the development history of the X-51. -Klausner (talk —Preceding undated comment added 20:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Waverider has been clarified some. It clears says it is a type of design now. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Testing section poorly organized
I'm not an expert, so I won't make the changes myself, but it seems to me that in the Testing section, the third paragraph ("Four test flights...") logically belongs before the second ("During the flight demonstrations..."). Also, the fifth paragraph ("For the test flight...") restates much of the second. Zhiroc (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'four test flights' sentence says 'for 2009', so that is properly placed before the 2010 events. The repeated parts do need to be combined.  Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Relevant omitted info
Even though it failed to attain the 300-second duration the Air Force hoped for in its initial test, it still shattered the record for Hypersonic flight (previous record was 12 seconds). In fact, the article title for the pertinent reference directly says it broke a new record, and yet, as relevant as this part is, it's omitted from the article. Here's one more news story that mentions it directly, for what it's worth. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Mentioning it flew much longer than the previous hypersonic vehicle (X-43) is fine. But I think adding world record wording can wait until the record is official. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

How long can it stay in flight, how is it controlled, how does it land —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.81.97 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New reliably-archived media source for the first flight, new record, etc.
Here is a source for the recent (first) test flight, from the Los Angeles Times, with the meta-data ready to insert into the article as a source between reftags: Hypersonic aircraft shatters aviation records, Los Angeles Times, 2010-05-27, accessed 2010-05-27.

I don't have the time to do it myself right now. But others may find the article interesting, and useful for improving the article. Cheers, N2e (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

New name ? waste ? scam ? opinion ? troll ?
project Boeing tax collection scam? Markthemac (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about and how is this related to improving this article, i.e. WP:NOT? -Fnlayson (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the reality is that none will ever be successful, and it's a pointless waste and it has no mention of this anywhere (there is NO CRITICISM OF THIS THING ANYWHERE ON PLANET EARTH?!?) Markthemac (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

and who still does real world testing when you can accurately simulate testing and creating adjustments before going into production? Markthemac (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Que? - rides shockwave
What does "it rides its own shockwave" actually mean? Peter Bell (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * See the nearby article nearby, i.e. WaveRider. Some wording was added after that to help clarify. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

First flight flight-time, possible contradiction
"The X-51 completed its first powered flight successfully on 26 May 2010. It reached a speed of Mach 5, an altitude of 70,000 feet (21,000 m) and flew for over 200 seconds; it did not meet the planned 300 second flight duration, however.[1][23] The flight had the longest scramjet burn time of 140 seconds. The X-43 had the previous longest flight burn time of 12 seconds,[23][24][25]"

I'm not sure what the 140 seconds is referring to. 140 seconds isn't mentioned in any of the articles sourced. Nydoc1 (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Nydoc1


 * The 140 seconds was probably covered in the Aviation Week article (ref. 1), which has gone dead since. The 140 s is mentioned in the nearby Flight International article as well.  That is the flight time of the X-51 while powered by its scamjet engine.  The wording has been adjusted and clarified. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

additional details
This article (http://www.space.com/21572-air-force-x51a-waverider-pilot.html) stated that: 1) hypersonic means > Mach 5. Current WP article is saying mach 6. 2) The experimental craft sped up to Mach 5.1 at an altitude of 60,000 feet (18,300 m) 3) An artist view of X51 flight is available here: http://www.space.com/17091-hypersonic-waverider-how-the-usaf-x-51a-scramjet-works-video.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.103.32 (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Knots vs MPH
The English units used throughout the article are given as "[statute] miles" and "mph", but "air [nautical] miles" and "knots" are standard for aviation. This seems not only misleading, but also would lead to inaccurate conversions to international units ("kilometers" and "km/h"). Could an established expert in the subject either clarify the usage or else make the appropriate edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C445:C29:218:F3FF:FEF1:1346 (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x51-wave-rider/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unit conversion
Several of the unit conversions in the article are incorrect, I don't know enough about the convert function to know why or how to fix them. KingSupernova (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to be more specific than that for others to try and fix that. Reember X-51 flies at approximately 70,000 feet (21,000 m). So the speed conversions from the Mach number are based on that. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Four built and flown, were any recovered ?
Each of the 4 built was flown once. Were any parts/debris recovered ? Was there any intention to recover the vehicle for study or reuse ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What was cost of program, or of each test ?
What was cost of program, or of each test ? - I've seen $400 M estimated (and compared to ISRO's own scramjet test). - Rod57 (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

HSSW claim removed
Deleted from lead:

X-51 technology is proposed for use in the High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW), a Mach 5+ missile which could enter service in the mid-2020s.

Turns out the HSSW program has hardly any Google juice, being mainly mentioned in conjunction with new hypersonic weapon developments as some previous program whose former auspices are being embraced and extended.

I could find no evidence whatsoever of an actual missile under current development under HSSW. And the claim was never properly cited in the first place. &mdash; MaxEnt 05:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It was cited per MOS:LEADCITE, but there's nothing to say HSSW is current. Check the body of the relevant article in the future. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Commercial use
Boeing has said they want to use the technology for Mach 5 commercial air travel. 174.21.186.46 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)