1970s Boeing Advanced Bomber Studies

Sundog

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
2 August 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,354
These are advanced Boeing Bomber Studies from the late '70s. Except for the two Rockwell design, which I left in due to the two page Boeing 'X-Wing' Bomber design.

Boeing-Bomber-1.jpg


Boeing-Bomber-2s.jpg


Large Version of the above image
 
Show us a picture of the one on the right-hand page! Please :)
 
I think that one on the right hand page was an oblique wing design (can't remember from who) where the wing rotated to be flush with the fuselage leaving a very slim and flattened lifting body design with twin fins.
 
There's a Rockwell design of that description on the Right-hand side of the scan (there should be a scroll bar below the image).

Just how fast was it supposed to go to generate sufficient lift?

RP1
 
Or, On the larger images, I just right click and select "view image" and it shows me the whole image without anything else. Just remember to hit the back buttin when you're finished viewing ;)

BTW, I'm using Firefox, for your ref.
 
Some additional pics from my archive
 

Attachments

  • File0009.jpg
    File0009.jpg
    124.2 KB · Views: 1,593
ATB from 1980
 

Attachments

  • Boeing ATB - 1980.jpg
    Boeing ATB - 1980.jpg
    136.5 KB · Views: 1,459
Uh uh, and would you like some nice sideviews??? ;D
 

Attachments

  • Bombers_of_the_70s.jpg
    Bombers_of_the_70s.jpg
    31.7 KB · Views: 1,621
Aviation & Marine international - December 1979 , page 40....
 
Eh eh, Mister Lark wins the First Pize... ;)
Probably Aviazione & Marina had some three-views of the concept but not of all. This explains the wrong dihedral. There is another error in my opinion. The High Supersonic was the tandem wing, the large delta was the "strategic" (it is improbable to drive a so large wing to mach 1+)....
 
Orionblamblam said:
And *where* did those side views come from?

Note: the Rockwell strategic bomber side view has errors. The main wings had positive dihedral.
Click to expand...

I've seen another shot of that one in which it has a negative dihedral. Not saying you're wrong just that somehow the impression got out there that it was negative.
 
This one has surely a negative dihedral, but I suspect Scott has a real three views.
 
Ok, question settled: positive.
If you want, I will add more pictoriial info to Rockwell studies thread.
Click to expand...
You bet!!!

Thanks Flateric, and I think I speak for all the forum members!
 
lark said:
Aviation & Marine international - December 1979 , page 40....
Click to expand...

Please, please, please, mighty Lark, give us higher-res scan!!!
 
More pics of Boeing 1978 ASPA concepts
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard04.jpg
    Clipboard04.jpg
    232.8 KB · Views: 854
  • Clipboard03.jpg
    Clipboard03.jpg
    56.8 KB · Views: 973
  • Clipboard02.jpg
    Clipboard02.jpg
    168.9 KB · Views: 1,116
  • Boeing ASPA Concepts.jpg
    Boeing ASPA Concepts.jpg
    105.7 KB · Views: 1,031
extra ASPA stuff
 

Attachments

  • 1046-1010.jpg
    1046-1010.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 682
  • 1048-504.jpg
    1048-504.jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 698
  • boeingdesigns.jpg
    boeingdesigns.jpg
    7.8 KB · Views: 620
Fixed the thread (and on holiday too! - luckily some people don't secure their wireless very well) for you.

Sundog, the image you are posting is 1250x1624 in size, when the server tries to resize it down to thumbnail size it decompresses the jpg and then runs out of memory. I can't change the settings on the current server, so best to reduce the resolution. Saving it as a lower quality jpg doesn't help.

Paul.
 
Ok. I'll send the image directly to Flateric

Thanx!
 
Problems caused by posting large, hi-res scans are described by Overscan two messages above, and all of us could watch the fruitful results of this for about a day. I still eager to see what that large Sundog tried to show us - I bet it was something very interesting as always. I personally didn't know about pixel size limitations of images, and will be more cautious.

If you want, you can just ask Skybolt to post it via e-mail, he surely will be able to help.
 
Hi-res color versions of Prometablava pictures from Bill Sweetman's 'Inside The Stealth Bomber'
 

Attachments

  • boe70s-2s.jpg
    boe70s-2s.jpg
    133.8 KB · Views: 781
  • boe70s-1s.jpg
    boe70s-1s.jpg
    113.9 KB · Views: 742
Sorry about that, as soon as I get home (At the office now) I'll make it smaller and repost it.

OK, I replaced it with a small image and a link to the larger one. If the first image is too big I'll make it smaller as well. In the future, I'll make big images with links and small preview images, unless the image is small to begin with.
 
Boeing 1970s Faster Penetrator concept courtesy Matej Furda
 

Attachments

  • boe70sfasterpenetrator1.jpg
    boe70sfasterpenetrator1.jpg
    65.3 KB · Views: 794
flateric said:
Boeing 1970s Faster Penetrator concept courtesy Matej Furda
Click to expand...

Any chance of a higher res version of the 3-view of this proposal?

For that matter, is there a full 3-view of the more convetional swept wing, twin engine plus booster design?
 
A couple of nice b/w renderings of the two most conventional ASPA proposals ;D
 

Attachments

  • Boeing_bomber_1.jpg
    Boeing_bomber_1.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 799
  • Boeing_bomber_2.jpg
    Boeing_bomber_2.jpg
    19.5 KB · Views: 1,731
Some of those Boeing designs could still be viable today- given an environment with almost zero air threat (Afghanistan, Iraq) an efficient "bomb truck" loaded with LGBs and JDAMs could orbit in patrol areas "on call" to ground units that are engaged with insurgent forces. There is a recent article in the latest issue of AWST that talks about discussions at the Pentagon for a close-support aircraft more geared to COIN warfare than the current high-tech legacy systems in use. The article talks about smaller aircraft, but the current generation of sensors and precision weapons I see no reason right off hand why a larger "bomb truck" type aircraft couldn't do the job.
 
Leave the dirty job to bombs... or to drones with bombs. An aerial drone-carrier (again) loitering at 20.000 m, itself remotely controlled. On the same level of sensors and computer/communication, I'd consider the new explosives (hyper-termites, supercompressed and the like): a 50 kolos bomb could do the job of a half a ton one
 
Sentinel Chicken said:
Some of those Boeing designs could still be viable today- given an environment with almost zero air threat (Afghanistan, Iraq) an efficient "bomb truck" loaded with LGBs and JDAMs could orbit in patrol areas "on call" to ground units that are engaged with insurgent forces. There is a recent article in the latest issue of AWST that talks about discussions at the Pentagon for a close-support aircraft more geared to COIN warfare than the current high-tech legacy systems in use. The article talks about smaller aircraft, but the current generation of sensors and precision weapons I see no reason right off hand why a larger "bomb truck" type aircraft couldn't do the job.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bummer they didn't build 713-1-138. Think super-sized B-52 with four twin-engine nacelles under each wing instead of two.
 
Since it was hydrogen-fueled, maybe even Greens (well, part of, the H-tribe) would cheer.. 8)
 
Skybolt said:
Since it was hydrogen-fueled, maybe even Greens (well, part of, the H-tribe) would cheer.. 8)
Click to expand...

I'm about 99% certain 713-1-138 wasn't LH2 fueled and if it was it didn't carry very much because it didn't have the Goodyear-blimp look of most LH2 aircraft. It simply looked like a scaled up B-52.
 
I've never seen this 713-1-138. Did I miss a drawing or can someone post one?
 
Frank,

I can't post the picture because I get a warning about "file size is too big" even when it is only 88 Kb. So I'll email you a hi-res scan ;)

Cheers,

Antonio

Source:

Valkyrie
Dennis R Jenkins & Tony R Landis
Speciality Press
ISBN 1-58007-072-8

This book is PURE GOLD :p
 
Thanks! However, if it's in the Valkyrie book, I'm pretty sure I have it in my stash at home. I can look it up then. I guess I haven't seen my copy in a couple of years.



pometablava said:
Frank,

I can't post the picture because I get a warning about "file size is too big" even when it is only 88 Kb. So I'll email you a hi-res scan ;)

Cheers,

Antonio

Source:

Valkyrie
Dennis R Jenkins & Tony R Landis
Speciality Press
ISBN 1-58007-072-8

This book is PURE GOLD :p
Click to expand...
 
'm about 99% certain 713-1-138 wasn't LH2 fueled and if it was it didn't carry very much because it didn't have the Goodyear-blimp look of most LH2 aircraft. It simply looked like a scaled up B-52.
Click to expand...

Oooops, you're right. I confused it with with tis one:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=243.msg1444#msg1444

Anyway, not all the liquid hydrogen projects were blimp-like. Think ot he L-400 Suntan, or, in the WS-110A studies, the Boeing 725-101.
Talking of scaled-up B-52s, my favourite is 713-1-135.. almost zwilling...
 
Here's a cool Boeing design I ran across at the patent site, so I thought this would be the best place to post it.
[edit - link broken - Admin]
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom