NASA Advanced Transport Technology (ATT) or Mach 1 Airliner program

boxkite

boxkite

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
12 July 2006
Messages
918
Reaction score
614
This model picture was published very often in aviation magazines of the early 1970s (my scan is from FLUG REVUE 2/1972 page 40). The Convair Aerospace Division of General Dynamics proposed this design with supercritical wing for the period between 1975 and 1985. At which stage did they stop the work on it (only windtunnel tests?) ? Did it get a Model number like other Convair/GD designs?
 

Attachments

  • Convair airliner with supercritical wing.jpg
    Convair airliner with supercritical wing.jpg
    47.4 KB · Views: 1,115
Sorry, no designations, just two more pictures from Aviation Week 6/1971
 

Attachments

  • Convair_Trijet_1.JPG
    Convair_Trijet_1.JPG
    15.1 KB · Views: 1,060
  • Convair_Trijet_2.JPG
    Convair_Trijet_2.JPG
    37.9 KB · Views: 1,068
Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760024072_1976024072.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed long range.JPG
    Lockheed long range.JPG
    28.1 KB · Views: 325
  • GD-Convair long range.JPG
    GD-Convair long range.JPG
    35 KB · Views: 321
  • Boeing long range.JPG
    Boeing long range.JPG
    38.6 KB · Views: 978
Yes, but at least for Boeing, they were far more then theoretical and speculative. W/o the 1973 Oil Shock and subsequent events, the 767 would habve been a transonic airliner.
 
Yes in Japan we always travel by 767 and 777. They are beauty,too. We are waiting 787!!!!
 
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, NASA had a research program to develop an airliner that would travel at about the speed of sound that was expected to appear in the late 1970s. The program was called the Advanced Transport Technology (ATT) or the Mach 1 airliner. The ATT would be "boomless" because it would cruise at about Mach 1 or 660 mph at an altitude of 35,000 to 45,000 feet. One of the most interesting and salient design features of the ATT is its "Coke bottle" or wasp-waist fuselage intended to reduce drag. To be able to approach the speed of sound, the ATT had a flat-topped supercritical wing. The ATT program developed design concepts for aircraft carrying from 200 to 400 passengers.

Artist's impression of General Dynamics Convair Division Mach 1 airliner capable of carrying 200 passengers with a maximum range of 3,400 miles.
 

Attachments

  • ConvairATTconcept.JPG
    ConvairATTconcept.JPG
    61.6 KB · Views: 242
"A summary of the application of active controls technology in the ATT system studies" by RV Hood, Langley Research Center, Aug 1, 1976.

Abstract

The application of active controls technology to subsonic, long-range transport aircraft was investigated in three Advanced Transport Technology system studies. Relaxed stability requirements, maneuver and gust load alleviation, and active flutter suppression were the concepts considered. A different configuration was investigated for each of the three airframe manufacturers, and each had a somewhat different approach to the application of active controls technology. Consequently, the results varied in magnitude between the contractors, but several trends were noted. Relaxed stability requirements resulted in the largest benefits - reduced weight, increased return on investment, and decreased direct operating costs. Maneuver load alleviation, gust load alleviation, and flutter suppression resulted in much smaller benefits. Prior to application of active controls technology, a research and development program directed toward fulfilling data base requirements, establishing effective design techniques and criteria, improving systems maintainability and reliability, and demonstrating technology readiness must be completed.
Click to expand...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760024072_1976024072.pdf
 

Attachments

  • BoeingATTConcept.JPG
    BoeingATTConcept.JPG
    89.3 KB · Views: 208
  • GeneralDynamicsATTConcept.JPG
    GeneralDynamicsATTConcept.JPG
    78.9 KB · Views: 175
  • LockheedATTConcept.JPG
    LockheedATTConcept.JPG
    63.3 KB · Views: 181
Advanced Transport Technology (ATT) models in the 8x6 Wind Tunnel at NASA Glenn Research Center.
 

Attachments

  • 1973_02513L.jpg
    1973_02513L.jpg
    25.7 KB · Views: 156
  • 1973_02515L.jpg
    1973_02515L.jpg
    18.4 KB · Views: 155
  • 1971_03146L.jpg
    1971_03146L.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 119
I've never fully understood the motivation for this program. It always seemed counterintuitive to specify a cruise speed that is right at the transonic drag spike. I'd be willing to bet the drag at M1.2 is less than at M0.98.
 
I've never fully understood the motivation for this program. It always seemed counterintuitive to specify a cruise speed that is right at the transonic drag spike. I'd be willing to bet the drag at M1.2 is less than at M0.98.
Click to expand...

As stated in the first post, M = 0.98 = no sonic boom, which means you can actually get to fly your aircraft. M = 1.2 = Boom! = Banned!!

cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

  • SupercriticalWing.JPG
    SupercriticalWing.JPG
    19 KB · Views: 142
The ATT program wasn't limited to the near-supersonic concepts. In a study extension, some slightly supersonic (Mach 1.2) configurations were studied, and one of that was the oblique wing one. Both Lockheed and Boeing studied that. Earlier, in 1966, Boeing had done for FAA a no-boom configurations studied, including one with a VG wing. Near supersonics and slighly supersonics were studied by British and Canadian companies too.
 
Same project as this? The engine configuration is different, though.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing long range.JPG
    Boeing long range.JPG
    38.6 KB · Views: 702
There is also an alternate engine configuration on this patent:
 

Attachments

  • Tandem_wing_aircraft_and_method_for_manu.jpg
    Tandem_wing_aircraft_and_method_for_manu.jpg
    256 KB · Views: 369

Attachments

  • BoeingModelATT.JPG
    BoeingModelATT.JPG
    25 KB · Views: 331
"Study of the application of advanced technologies to long range transport aircraft. Volume 2: Advanced technology program recommendations" The Boeing Company

Abstract:
The benefits of the application of advanced technology to future transport aircraft were investigated. The noise reduction goals established by the CARD (Civil Aviation Research and Development) study for the 1981-1985 time period can be satisfied. Reduced terminal area and airway congestion can result from use of advanced on-board systems and operating procedures. The use of advanced structural design concepts can result in greatly reduced gross weight and improved operating economics. The full potential of these benefits can be realized in a 1985 airplane by implementing a research and development program that is funded to an average level of approximately 55 million per year over a ten year period.
Click to expand...

URL: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720018357_1972018357.pdf
 
To Stargazer: that configuration is much later. Been discussed in the Sonic Cruiser thread. Another one, covered by another patent, tries and uses a 747-like configuration of the front fuselage to attempt a vertical squeeze area ruling.
 
Three-view drawing of Boeing Advanced Transport Technology (ATT) concept, also known as high-subsonic transport aircraft or near-sonic transport aircraft. This aircraft had a payload of 40,000 lbs. with a range of 3,000 nm. Cruising speed was Mach 0.9 to Mach 0.98. (Boeing Model 767-620)

Source: "Aircraft Design at the AIAA" Flight International September 7, 1972 p. 342.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202415.html
 

Attachments

  • BoeingHighSubsonicConcept.jpg
    BoeingHighSubsonicConcept.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 338
Preliminary Design Department. Advanced subsonic long-haul transport terminal area compatibility study. Volume 2: Research and technology recommendations The Boeing Commercial Airplane Company Feb 1, 1974

Abstract:
The Terminal Area Compatibility (TAC) study is briefly summarized for background information. The most important research items for the areas of noise congestion, and emissions are identified. Other key research areas are also discussed. The 50 recommended research items are categorized by flight phase, technology, and compatibility benefits. The relationship of the TAC recommendations to the previous ATT recommendations is discussed. The bulk of the document contains the 50 recommended research items. For each item, the potential payoff, state of readiness, recommended action and estimated cost and schedule are given.
Click to expand...

URL: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740008617_1974008617.pdf
 
From AviationWeek, October 1974 a photo of a model of the GD design:
(sorry for the distortion, it was scanned from a bound volume)
 

Attachments

  • NASA_ATT.jpg
    NASA_ATT.jpg
    68.1 KB · Views: 188
Stargazer2006 said:
Same project as this? The engine configuration is different, though.
index.php
Click to expand...

Boeing Model 767-601 (above). The color artist's impression (below) is Boeing Model 767-620.

index.php
 
Would a moderator be so kind as combine this topic with an earlier one I found this morning?

"Convair airliner design of the early 1970s" « on: August 19, 2006, 12:01:43 pm »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,607.0.html
 
Model of Boeing Advanced Transport Technology (ATT) 767-701 concept with four wing-mounted engines at the Boeing Archives.

Sources:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/airlinereporter/4957523520/in/set-72157624753056369/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/airlinereporter/4957523566/in/set-72157624753056369/
 

Attachments

  • 4957523520_3e6df3e3db_o.jpg
    4957523520_3e6df3e3db_o.jpg
    383.5 KB · Views: 1,277
  • 4957523566_3fe7fa9110_o.jpg
    4957523566_3fe7fa9110_o.jpg
    366.9 KB · Views: 1,145
Should be merged with this topic:

NASA Advanced Transport Technology (ATT) or Mach 1 Airliner program
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7714.msg75068.html#msg75068
 
Models in the Boeing Archives Bellevue, Washington.

Source:
http://airchive.com/html/museums/boeing-archives-bellevue-washington-usa/boeing-7x7-engineering-and-display-models-early-1970s/19070
 

Attachments

  • 19070.jpg
    19070.jpg
    106.3 KB · Views: 798
Model in a better shape... Boeing 767-701
 

Attachments

  • Model 767-701 model.jpg
    Model 767-701 model.jpg
    98.7 KB · Views: 212
I love the look with the area ruled fuselages. Makes them so much more sexy looking, like a nice hourglass shape on a woman.

My question is, are there any benefits with the area rule in regards to normal airliner speeds (< M.92)?
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
I love the look with the area ruled fuselages. Makes them so much more sexy looking, like a nice hourglass shape on a woman.

My question is, are there any benefits with the area rule in regards to normal airliner speeds (< M.92)?
Click to expand...


I recall that when the 747-300 introduced the extended upper deck, the fuel consumption was lower than predicted. This was attributed to the longer "hump" bringing the cross-sectional distribution closer to the area-ruled ideal.
 
I read up on wikipedia about the Whitcomb Area Rule, and it said Mach .75 is where it begins to become an important design consideration. Something meant to fly at .98 Mach would definitely need area ruling.

It's really about making the aircraft conform roughly to a Sears-Haack cross-sectional area distribution. There's something else to be said about how 'sexy' the design ends up as a nice side effect! B)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom