Thanks!

I have volumes on the US SST program, the bound submissions to congress and FAA with data from both Lockheed and Boeing, most all NASA, Langley data, and other documents as well as a number of original blueprints and line drawings, only these models perplex me as I know the one style was PacMin. but I have no idea of the other earlier one. I probably need to post these on a diecast forum or something.

Here are a few more of the bulged and the lower strakes...
:p !!! This look like an early -300 config. !
Inboard Profile 2707-300 cropped.jpg
Please please, post if you have more :)
 

Attachments

  • 0a389e87-boeing-sst-alpha_s-back-the-sst-program-info-brochure-p32.jpeg
    0a389e87-boeing-sst-alpha_s-back-the-sst-program-info-brochure-p32.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 67
Last edited:
Hi!
 
I believe this is the shape which could cruise mach 2.7.

Boeing tinkered with the design of the SST, but even with the 2707-300, they tinkered with the wing design.
I think that the need for landing gear fairings means that the thickness of the wing has been reduced.
The purpose of reducing the thickness of the wing is either to reduce drag or to reduce weight.
I imagine that it was difficult to satisfy either the range or speed requirements with the original design.


 

Attachments

  • Lockheed-Aircraft-Corporation-Lockheed-Star-Publication-Nov-1964-P5.jpeg
    Lockheed-Aircraft-Corporation-Lockheed-Star-Publication-Nov-1964-P5.jpeg
    318 KB · Views: 49
  • d82c92c9-240f-4a35-a944-e9697d9806f2.jpg
    d82c92c9-240f-4a35-a944-e9697d9806f2.jpg
    91.2 KB · Views: 43
  • 598545ba-e41a-42fc-bbda-f19c570f2af5.jpg
    598545ba-e41a-42fc-bbda-f19c570f2af5.jpg
    131 KB · Views: 44
  • 6b1ce98a-42e5-41ce-b413-27d6f0a8159d.jpg
    6b1ce98a-42e5-41ce-b413-27d6f0a8159d.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 41
  • 0f1487f0-f65f-4ee0-b79a-01c31f3a2259.jpg
    0f1487f0-f65f-4ee0-b79a-01c31f3a2259.jpg
    66.7 KB · Views: 44
  • 301710388_381162384205933_1884459021724983030_n.jpg
    301710388_381162384205933_1884459021724983030_n.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 69
Last edited:
Hi!
 

Attachments

  • 32232hh3-min.jpg
    32232hh3-min.jpg
    298.6 KB · Views: 65
Hi!
 

Attachments

  • $_1.jpg
    $_1.jpg
    498.4 KB · Views: 66
  • $_57.jpg
    $_57.jpg
    331.9 KB · Views: 43
  • s-l1600.jpg
    s-l1600.jpg
    234.5 KB · Views: 71
Hi! You can see 2707-100 display model large images.
 

Attachments

  • BhargavT-B2707-100-History-final-final.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 25
Last edited:

Attachments

  • ilari-siltala-sst-ground-008-01.jpg
    ilari-siltala-sst-ground-008-01.jpg
    180.4 KB · Views: 45
  • ilari-siltala-003.jpg
    ilari-siltala-003.jpg
    277.8 KB · Views: 42
  • ilari-siltala-001.jpg
    ilari-siltala-001.jpg
    372.9 KB · Views: 41
  • thumb.jpg
    thumb.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 40
  • ilari-siltala-002.jpg
    ilari-siltala-002.jpg
    318.1 KB · Views: 38
  • ilari-siltala-sst-ground-009.jpg
    ilari-siltala-sst-ground-009.jpg
    144.5 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 20170924JLSKT02.jpg
    20170924JLSKT02.jpg
    128.6 KB · Views: 39
  • 20170924JLSKT03.jpg
    20170924JLSKT03.jpg
    154.5 KB · Views: 32
  • 20170924JLSKT04.jpg
    20170924JLSKT04.jpg
    74.7 KB · Views: 30
  • 20170924JLSKT05.jpg
    20170924JLSKT05.jpg
    108.4 KB · Views: 52

Attachments

  • 65dddb742b824.jpg
    65dddb742b824.jpg
    85.3 KB · Views: 59
  • 65dddb741b3c6.jpg
    65dddb741b3c6.jpg
    108.9 KB · Views: 64
  • 65dddb7444b27.jpg
    65dddb7444b27.jpg
    111.7 KB · Views: 66
Hi!
 

Attachments

  • gettyimages-517262804-2048x2048.jpg
    gettyimages-517262804-2048x2048.jpg
    476 KB · Views: 48
  • rawImage.jpg
    rawImage.jpg
    190.3 KB · Views: 45
  • 1_882add36bb1f01fef57a04b6ae37ed2b (1).jpg
    1_882add36bb1f01fef57a04b6ae37ed2b (1).jpg
    81.6 KB · Views: 43
  • 1_882add36bb1f01fef57a04b6ae37ed2b (3).jpg
    1_882add36bb1f01fef57a04b6ae37ed2b (3).jpg
    79 KB · Views: 42
  • 1_882add36bb1f01fef57a04b6ae37ed2b.jpg
    1_882add36bb1f01fef57a04b6ae37ed2b.jpg
    66.1 KB · Views: 72
In my personal opinion, I think that if the Lockheed proposal would've been picked, we probably would've gotten our SST. Sure the design was similar to the Concorde but Lockheed had experience in building jets and fast ones at that and it still would've surpassed the Concorde.

Also I do have a question regarding the L-2000. Does anyone have any estimates or specs regarding its internal fuel capacity? The L-2000-7 to be specific as that was the final design that would've gone into production if picked if I recall correctly.
 
Does anyone have any drawings or 3-views of the little known Lockheed L-2000 Phase 2B from 1965, also known as the L-2000-4? It was the 170 passenger version that was infamously mistaken for a Douglas proposal I think from FlightGlobal and Aviation Week magazine at the time. These are the only visualizers out there, just seeing if there was more. Note the fuel distribution cutaway above the TWA logo.
If Lockheed would have won I guarantee you they would have ditched the L-2000-7A/B designs by 1970 to '72 and went right back to the 170 seat JT17 turbofan design for efficiency purposes and flying at mach 1.7 to 2.2 after 1975. Pan Am's 50th anniversary flight from pole to pole would have been at mach 3 for public relations purposes only. The same with other airlines for various PR purposes and airline supremacy.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas SST Cutaway.jpg
    Douglas SST Cutaway.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 22
  • L-2000-cutaway.jpg
    L-2000-cutaway.jpg
    92.7 KB · Views: 21
  • 19660221107_1.jpg
    19660221107_1.jpg
    64.7 KB · Views: 21
  • 5798334185_847233e128_b.jpg
    5798334185_847233e128_b.jpg
    278.3 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom