US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971

[galgot]

Found these two of the NAA proposal, don't think they were posted here before :

 

[Triton]

Boeing SST wind tunnel model

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Wind-Tunnel-Model-Airplane-Boeing-Desk-Display-Aviation-Prototype-Concept-1960/183125627361?hash=item2aa32351e1:g:hVgAAOSwNDJaddCb

 

[circle-5]

Re: Boeing SST wind tunnel model

That ain't no wind tunnel model!

 

[gabrielorosco]

Hi to all!
Does anybody has this photo in high resolution? I really need it for a special job. Thanks!

 

[flateric]

In b/w

 

[gabrielorosco]

Thank you so much! It will help a lot. Any chance of the colores one? You already saved me!

 

[sienar]

Thank you so much! It will help a lot. Any chance of the colores one? You already saved me!

The image you posted looks like it is a colorization of the black and white pic flateric posted.

 

[gabrielorosco]

Yes, indeed. Thanks a lot for your help and attention!

 

[flateric]

The image you posted looks like it is a colorization of the black and white pic flateric posted.

exactly!

 

[flateric]

Lockheed VP Clarence L. Kelly Johnson (R) and Program Chief Robert A. Baility walking in front of the new supersonic transport at the plant.
Lockheed VP Clarence L. Kelly Johnson (L) and Program Chief Robert A. Baility sitting behind the panel of the new supersonic transport at the plant.
May 14, 1965

 

[sienar]

I dont think this has been posted in this thread before. Some nice photos of a Boeing presentation of the 733-197 and a little bit about the 767/three engine 777

https://www.flickr.com/photos/flightblogger/albums/72157634452616378

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

A pair of Vought drawings of what appears to be the 2707-300 - would surmise this was what Vought was looking to build as a subcontractor.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[hesham]

In this topic and reply # 40,a Vought SST designs;

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4786.msg42890.html#msg42890

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Yes, but a clearly different design. Vought has been a major subcontractor on Boeing airliners since at least the 747 so it would make sense they would want a piece of the action with the 2707-300.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Zeppelin]

https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/roo-tales/when-the-flying-kangaroo-almost-went-supersonic/ I find the number of refuelling stops envisioned for the proposed Sydney to London route rather amusing. I'm guessing the passengers would be required to disembark 5 times.

 

[RAP]

Lockheed mockup ad.

 

[MaxLegroom]

Once again, that gives you the scale of these designs. Nice one...

 

[Archibald]

Yep they were long, long, and very long, 300 ft and more. When you think about it, it is quite logical. In a subsonic airliner you can pack all those 250 passengers in a large fuselage with lof of seats side-by-side. Supersonic flight don't like this: he needs narrow, slend fuselage. Double deck as in 747 or A380 is also a non-starter. So the only way was to put the 250 passengers across the length of the fuselage... and the end result were very, very long aircrafts, longer than an A380 or even the An-225 itself (80 m +). Concorde and the Tu-144 were already nearly as long as a 747, yet they packed only 140 passengers. The U.S SST would have carried 250 passengers because that number is far more logical as far as SST ROI goes. That's the reason why every single SST design since 1975 packs 250 passengers and not less, because 200 or less would result in a money pit akin to both concorde and Tu-144.
So in a striking irony of history, the United States got the SST economic case mostly right (250 passengers, and Mach 2.7 to get more daily rotations across the Atlantic) but never build any aircraft. Europe and USSR got the economic case all wrong, yet they build their aircrafts against all odds, only to find they were money pits.

I did the math once for a Mach 2.7 SST on Paris / London > New York airway. Startin g at 6 o'clock in the morning, it cross the Atlantic in two hours, makes a one-hour stop, and starts again. Rince, repeat: it is possible to achieve three rotations every day (up to 11 o'clock in the evening) something that Mach 2.1 really can't do.

Paris > New York
6 > 8
1 hour stop in New York
9 > 11
1 hour stop in Paris
12 > 14
1 hour stop in New York
15 > 17
1 hour stop in Paris
18 > 20
1 hour stop in New York
21 > 23 back to Paris, ready for the next day.

 

[MaxLegroom]

That is pretty much the case. In some of the research I did at the National Archives, I saw reports stating that Concorde economics weren't good, even by 1960's standards. I remember seeing information TWA turned over to McNamara about this. Sadly, I didn't copy these things, but any of the American designs would have been either more profitable than Concorde, or at least less of a loss.

While I don't recall seeing economic analyses like the one I posted of the NAC-60, I suspect they're out there, somewhere, to be discovered.

 

[Archibald]

When Concorde was retired in May 2003 Le Fana de l'aviation magazine briefly discussed future SST and mentionned Mach 2.7 as a more desirable cruise speed but did not explained why.
I was striken by the coincidence (since the old U.S SST was mach 2.7, too) and I wondered the why of such speed. The bottom line with airlines is: when airliners don't fly, they are money pits. The more daily rotations and hours spent flying, the better the R.O.I. SST not only can't fly over land, they can't land at airport late at night considering the huge noise they make at landing. So they better have to fly a lot during day, and the most profitable airways are trans-atlantic and trans-pacific. With its 4000 mile range the 2707-300 could have flown from Europe to New York and back. On the Pacific side, a stop was needed, either in Hawai or Anchorage (the later is probably more realistic).

 

[TomcatViP]

The US never built the SST simply because Europe cheated the game with a subventioned airframe that was basically a supersonic business jet put in public service for mass transportation and not a sound airliner. The policy of an eye for an eye led us to the present Middle age of air transport. Something that we only see the end recently (and still probably only!) thanks to the Sart-up era.

But was the lesson learned? I am highly pessimistic as you would guess.

 

[galgot]

"Simply"… Thks great infos.
Wonder how much money did the US Gov poured into the SST program before cutting the funding.

 

[galgot]

Been browsing the Defence Technical Information Center, a search for "Boeing SST" gives a sh!t-load of documents, makes me drool. Unfortunately Most are not downloadable in pdf , though marked as "APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE"… :/
https://publicaccess.dtic.mil/psm/api/service/search/search?&q=Boeing+sst&site=default_collection&sort=relevance&start=10

 

[martinbayer]

The US never built the SST simply because Europe cheated the game with a subventioned airframe that was basically a supersonic business jet put in public service for mass transportation and not a sound airliner.

TomcatVIP, you're absolutely right, those grapes are definitely waaaaay too sour... ;D

 

[Jemiba]

Ok for all, who had a good laugh ...and now back to the theme "US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program"
... without too much politics, please !

 

[Hood]

Although not entirely on topic, I came across this Flight International article the other day.
Boeing certainly feels that Condcorde was capable of two transatlantic flights per day with the same crew. Whether this would have made operation more profitable I'm not sure?
Its interesting how the hypersonic airliner is bringing up all the same time vs cost arguments that were created for supersonic airliners 50 years ago. It proved to be a canard then and I wonder if the same isn't true today. Saying that the super-Jumbo killed off the prospects for supersonic airliners but they too have met their demise. Twin-engine high-bypass turbofan economical operation has trumped all other technical innovations (even the ultra high bypass engine remains an intriguing technical sideline).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hypersonic-airliner-may-not-be-as-hard-as-people-th-451069/

 

[Archibald]

Wow. What does Boeing smoke, really ? how about noise, for a start ? I call both flight article and Boeing propaganda complete B.S. I like the way they pretend cabin depressurization is a major roadblock on the way to hypersonic airliners. Yet not a single word about noise, either by the engines at liftoff and landing, or the unavoidable sonic boom.
My eyes and brain are aching reading such siliness.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Concord was the size/speed it was because that’s what was considered technically feasible at the time. Indeed the final aircraft had a payload range which was very marginal;- to be within fuel regulations, the flight plan, going east bound would routinely declare Shannon as the destination only to divert to New York based on a satisfactory fuel state being achieved a pre determined point on the outbound route ( the Pax knew nothing of this), AirFrance pressurised the fuel to balloon the tanks to get more in and regularly towed the aircraft to the runway to avoid taxi out feul burn. Aerospat/BAC didn’t have an aircraft which achieved payload range until mid 1974, after 18 versions of the wing leading edges flight tested to wring out every last fraction of a percent from the performance.....amongst a raft of other things. The problems of making your declared payload range get worse the bigger the aircraft;- ie the squared vs cubed divergence which would have very much been on Lockheed mind with their SST proposal.

The “Super metal” Titanium is very overrated;- A study done in the mid 70’s based on replacing the aluminium in Concord with Titanium, only for it to show that it would only achieve about 20% of the required fatigue life. Redesigning the airframe to achieve the fatigue life added so much weight it killed the payload range. BTW - The SR71 fleet leader only did a few thousand hours, with many of the other airframes had less than one thousand upon retirement;- A civil aircraft typically is designed to last 30-50 K flying hours.

I too laugh at Boeing plans for a hypersonic considering the airport noise but even more astounding is Musks plan to fire a BFR daily from the Hudson close to New York;- the supersonic arrival shock is very alarming as well;- it’s a sudden noise that sounds like a bomb going off, yeah sure New York is going to accept that.

 

[Archibald]

I have an old Science&Vie magazine from April 1964 which discusses SST plans and projects, notably the american ones.
It is a fascinating hindsight into a pretty naive era now lost forever.

I've found the entire article on the Internet right here, how about that. Google translation shall be able to do its job. What is lacking are the pictures, pretty beautiful ones.

http://cap-avenir-concorde.fr/les-dossiers-de-presse/science-vie-avril-1964-trois-projets-us-contre-concorde

What is pretty clear from this magazine, is that Concorde started as "Super Caravelle" which mean, Paris - Algiers and back, 4500 km total (sonic booms rattling southern France and Spain ? no problem !). No way that aircraft ever crossed the Atlantic. Then it started growing heavier and heavier, more fuel for more range. The magazine (April 1964) say that Concorde remain marginally trans-Atlantic - 5 years before first flight, 12 years before commercial service. Which says how much SST were pushing the edge of technology, with very little margin.

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcap-avenir-concorde.fr%2Fles-dossiers-de-presse%2Fscience-vie-avril-1964-trois-projets-us-contre-concorde&edit-text=&act=url

 

[galgot]

I think it's a "Super-Caravelle" drawing on the cover. Any stuff (images) we don't have here in that Science&Vie ?

Found a NASA page with many many wind tunnel models pictures, the 733-290 included :
https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/1251_Models_A-C#SST
Also some picts of Arrow Wing testing
https://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/1251_More_Arrow_Wings_Photos
Surprise, together with a Tu-22 blinder model !

Also some Concorde model picts there. And a lot lot more.
But anyways, I have the bad habit to post things already posted here before, so again if it's the case, i'll hide under my desk in shame for two days (but i'll take my laptop, some food and drinks with me...).

 

[galgot]

Any idea where this drawing originate from ?
Found it on this page :
http://boeingsfuturesstdesigns.blogspot.com

 

[youROKer]

Any idea where this drawing originate from ?
Found it on this page :
http://boeingsfuturesstdesigns.blogspot.com

It seems to be a picture of a Orionblamblam's blog.
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1531

 

[galgot]

Any idea where this drawing originate from ?
Found it on this page :
http://boeingsfuturesstdesigns.blogspot.com

It seems to be a picture of a Orionblamblam's blog.
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1531

Thanks ! So it's from Boeing.

 

[galgot]

Some few images of the 733-197 on this Boeing Brochure on sale on the bay :
https://www.ebay.fr/itm/BOEING-SUPERSONIC-TIMETABLE-BROCHURE-BOEING-733-SST-1964-2707-NOT-CONCORDE/202391258820?hash=item2f1f7586c4:g:XL4AAOSwQcJaGaY7

 

[Archibald]

I dug out a couple of interesting documents about the Lockheed L-2000.
After they lost to Boeing the FAA claimed the full scale mockup. They moved it to their Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City and used the fuselage for SST evacuation tests in 1967.
There was I final report I found on NTIC.

After that the L-2000 mockup remained outside, until the weather ruined it and it was sold for scrap.

The Boeing mockup fate was even more astonishing. From Seattle, it was send to the opposite corner of the United States, to Kissimmee, Florida, sold for 30 000 dollars. Opened in 1976 was a SST museum. The mockup was so huge, a 300 ft building had to be build around it. When the museum went bankrupt in 1983, the building was bought by a church... who celebrated mass under the mockup wing (ain't that cool ?)
In 1991 it ended at Charles Bell Cape Canaveral junkyard, before being salvaged by the Hiller museum, crossing the United States, to California.

 

[circle-5]

Your first link downloads a 1976 newsletter from the University of Notre Dame. After eliminating all the debates about anything but education (the column about Ted Kennedy saving a woman's life was amusing), I found the following relevant snippet. Interesting.

 

[galgot]

I dug out a couple of interesting documents about the Lockheed L-2000.
After they lost to Boeing the FAA claimed the full scale mockup. They moved it to their Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City and used the fuselage for SST evacuation tests in 1967.
There was I final report I found on NTIC.

After that the L-2000 mockup remained outside, until the weather ruined it and it was sold for scrap.

The Boeing mockup fate was even more astonishing. From Seattle, it was send to the opposite corner of the United States, to Kissimmee, Florida, sold for 30 000 dollars. Opened in 1976 was a SST museum. The mockup was so huge, a 300 ft building had to be build around it. When the museum went bankrupt in 1983, the building was bought by a church... who celebrated mass under the mockup wing (ain't that cool ?)
In 1991 it ended at Charles Bell Cape Canaveral junkyard, before being salvaged by the Hiller museum, crossing the United States, to California.

Yes, of the 2707-300 mockup, only the nose was saved. it's back in Seattle now, saw it there 3 month ago.
Dunno what happened to the first Boeing (2707-100) mockup...

 

[Archibald]

Thank you Galgot. I thought it was still at the Hiller museum. Nice to see it finally ended in Boeing homeplace, Seattle, where it all started.

More stuff. The more I look into that story, the more it seems completely crazy.

April 25 - 26 1972, in varied newspapers

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&biw=1680&bih=936&ei=jUiJW9nIM8TYabLFjdAL&q=%22+it+had+been+in+the+works+for+15+years+and+that+more+than+%241+billion+was+poured+into+the+SST+program+%22&oq=%22+it+had+been+in+the+works+for+15+years+and+that+more+than+%241+billion+was+poured+into+the+SST+program+%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...28003.28003.0.28855.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.8pYJm3wcfUY

Transport Auctioned Off By Government— SST May Fly After All, But Not Under Own Power WASHINGTON (AP)

- The SST may fly after all—but not under its' own power. The 228-foot-long prototype supersonic transport, built at a cost of $10.8 million before Congress .scrapped the SST program last year, was auctioned off recently by the government. The high bidders were . Marks O: Morrison of Lyman. Neb., and Don Otis of Rocklin. Calif., who offered $31.119 for the huge plane. They were in Washington last week to confer with John H. Shaffer, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration which owns the Boeing built plane. Morrison said they were relieved to learn thai, the government wants to keep it for up to a year to continue testing the.fuel, systems .in the mockup. "We don't have a place to put it yet. and we were worried we might have to claim it ' in 30 days, as the contract -, specified. Morrison.said in an interview. '

Why would anyone buy a football-length airplane denounced in Congress as a lemon even before it took to the air? .
"This is quite a historic bird." Morrison said, noting that it had been in the works for 15 years and that more than $1 billion was poured into the SST program before Congress scrapped it. "We plan a permanent enshrinement," Morrison said. "It definitely will be in exhibition hall; "We feel we would like to combine some: other related air exhibits with it," Morrison, said they are looking for a rural area near an interstate highway where land costs are not insurmountable and where there is a "good atmosphere—not a bar or a carnival or restaurant. This has got enough of the nation's pride in it to be displayed with dignity." he said.

Three states are being considered: Nebraska, with a site near Offutt Air Force Base and the cities of Omaha and Lincoln: Colorado, with locations near the urban transportation facilities at Pueblo or near the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs; and Kansas, with a site near Wichita, which is the center for many' small aircraft manufacturers.
Disney World in Florida, and Six Flags Over Texas also have expressed interest.
Morrison said it will cost at least $100.000 to move the plane. Current plans, he said, are to dismantle it into six or seven pieces and fly the sections to the plane's new home. That could be the only flight the SST ever makes.

Looks like Disneyworld and Florida won the day.

More of what happened next, 18 years later
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-08-02/topic/9008010865_1_sst-supersonic-transport-boeing

For more than a year after the SST being built by Boeing Co. was killed, there was a flicker of hope that the project might be revived. During that time, the metal model of the SST, a non-flying, pre-prototype airplane engineers were using to test design principles, sat in a hangar at Boeing's Seattle plant.

Boeing finally disposed of the SST in a sealed bid auction. Marks O. Morrison, a Nebraska millionaire, bought the airplane for $31,119 and dreamed of creating an aviation museum. He eventually joined forces with Don Otis of California.

Morrison and Otis, former pilots, said they couldn't bear to see the SST destroyed. Morrison had the money to fund the project. Otis, a scrap dealer who specialized in buying old rockets, airplanes, and other government junk, contributed the expertise to move the giant bird.

With Walt Disney World drawing a record number of tourists to Central Florida and the Kennedy Space Center just 60 miles to the east, Morrison thought the Orlando area would be an ideal place for the SST to be housed in a museum with other aviation and space artifacts.

And so in January 1973, the SST was taken apart, loaded on seven railroad cars and transported to Kissimmee. There it was reassembled on a huge concrete slab that had been poured in a cow pasture 15 miles east of Disney.

Some of the Boeing workers who built the SST in Seattle had taken it apart there, followed it to Florida and helped reassemble it.

Then on July 4, 1973, the SST Air Museum opened to the public. Initially it drew big crowds. It had a nice collection of historical artifacts ranging from a Mercury space capsule to several rare World War II airplanes.

And then, God stepped in ;D

 

[Archibald]

so, here is a tentative timeline of that peculiar mockup numerous travels...

March 24, 1971
SST cancelled

February 1972
Mockup bought for $31 000, to be exposed at Bonneville Salt Flats (or... elsewhere). The deal fail

1973
February
Mockup moved to Florida
July 4
SST aviation exhibit center opens in Kissimmee, Florida

1981
The museum goes bankrupt

1983
Faith World buy the building with the SST mockup inside

1989
October
Oscalea New Life Assembly of God buys the building. Mockup still inside.

August 1990
Mockup cut into pieces and sold to Charles Bell, who brings it to his junkyard near The Cape

November 30, 1998
Charles Bell sell the lockup to the Hiller aviation museum, San Carlos, California

February 16, 2000
Charles Bell died.

February 2013
The mockup forward fuselage moved back to Seattle.

 

[galgot]

To be more precise (sorry should have been earlier) it's at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center & Reserve Collection at Paine Field (Seattle...).
https://goo.gl/maps/xqD97SbC8Qp