US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971

[Archibald]

Thank you for the picture, Galgot.

Picture of the SST Kissimee exhibit on flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/8767849@N07/sets/72157618299890370/

There is still an enigma: what happened to the earlier mockup ? - the 2707-200, the yellow, swing-wing one ?

 

[galgot]

Excuse-me , but that first Boeing Mockup was supposed to represent 2707-100 (or 733-467, internal? non-commercial designation ? or B 2707 "sans suffixe") . Note that one even changed in many in details shapes , see how the scale model fin shape is different from the full scale mockup presented at the same time .

The -200 was the even longer "canarded" one.

Found a vid showing the -300 mockup droop nose in action (very slooooww) while it was at the Hiller museum :
https://www.youtube.com/embed/HqEyLstiNPA

 

[Archibald]

I readily recognize that I'm a little confused about the pre 2707-300, VG variants. I think I mixed the original design of 1964 with the 2707-100 & 2707-200 you mention.
Here is how I saw things
- VG with the engines in the middle, below the swing wing. Looked a bit like Rockwell B-1 (the original 1964 design has shown in Science & vie)
- VG with the engines attached to the horizontal tail (2707-200)
- 2707-300 tailed delta

Looks like I missed one, probably the 2707-100 you mention. In fact I have difficulty differencing it from the 2707-200. And this also explain why I'm confused about the mockups.

Did they modified the 2707-100 mockup into the 2707-200 one ?

 

[galgot]

I readily recognize that I'm a little confused about the pre 2707-300, VG variants. I think I mixed the original design of 1964 with the 2707-100 & 2707-200 you mention.
Here is how I saw things
- VG with the engines in the middle, below the swing wing. Looked a bit like Rockwell B-1 (the original 1964 design has shown in Science & vie)
- VG with the engines attached to the horizontal tail (2707-200)
- 2707-300 tailed delta

Looks like I missed one, probably the 2707-100 you mention. In fact I have difficulty differencing it from the 2707-200. And this also explain why I'm confused about the mockups.

Did they modified the 2707-100 mockup into the 2707-200 one ?

Nope, there was no 2707-200 mockup. for sure Boeing SST projects configuration changed a lot and it's difficult to follow
Main ones were :
- 733-197 - "classic" VG , a bit like B-1 yes, but with engines in four pods under the wing.
- 733-290 - Same configuration but bigger and longer , 250 passengers. they tried to solve the problem of Jet blast burning the tailplane by moving the tailplane down with the 733-390, with no success. There was also some tries with a T-tail (dunno designation), but not adopted to avoid possible deep stall problem. Also big problem with acoustics on the back of the fuselage due to inner engines being close to it.
- 733-467 / 2707 (sans suffixe) /2707-100 - this is the first mockup, and this is when Boeing won the contract, hence I suppose the change of the "733" to a more commercial "2707". Solution for not burning the tailplane= moving the engines all the way back under the tailplane ... This is the one also with the twisted , two angle droop nose.
- 2707-200 - Same but bigger and longer. But then due to be even longer, problem with governs moment arm and other things, so added canards.
And that's where they found the thing was so long , heavy, that it would break under certain loads (like any other planes...) , so would require heavy structure reinforcement that makes the configuration too heavy, hence less range... ect...
- 2707-300 - Drop the VG, now tailed delta, this is the last mockup you wrote the timeline . But then time passes, noises became serious concern , Boom e all... Gov cut funding. End.

And in between these , a tons of lesser known variants . Fascinating.

Note most of what I've learn about this bird come from this very thread

 

[Archibald]

Thank you, it is a clearer. I often think that 2707 was a "double joke": mach 2+707 or mach 2.7 which was the plane cruise speed.

The most striking aspect with the SST is its length, 300 ft or 90 m+ it would have been the longest plane even today, even longer than the An-225 Mriya at 85 m. Both 747 and A380 are pretty stubby in comparison. Both Spruce Goose and Stratolaunch have the longest span but pretty short fuselages (and the Spruce Goose was made of birch !)
It was the only way to pack 250 passengers, since going supersonic, you can't pile up passengers on a too wide fuselage or two decks. Most people don't realize that both Concorde and Tu-144 are nearly as long as a Boeing 747-100. Had the SST been build, it would have dwarfed even a XB-70 Walkyrie, which already dwarfed a SR-71. When one see how large a building does the XB-70 takes at Wright Patterson, imagine a SST in comparison). A XB-70 is similar in size to Concorde and Tu-144, the SST would have been a league by itself.

A 300 ft long fuselage, still the longuest today, and made of titanium to withstand mach 2.7. Even today, Boeing (and Lockheed) SST would be hard. Aeroelasticity wasn't that aircraft friend, for sure. And Lockheed had many, many bad surprises when building its SR-71 / A-12 - out of Soviet titanium, the supreme irony. Some issues were never solved, notably that SR-71s leaked fuel on the ground so much they had to tank behind a KC-135 just after liftoff. I wonder if Boeing would have ran into similar problems...

My personal hypothesis about "why the first mockup vanished without a trace" is that, considering the sheer cost of that thing, they dismantled it and recycled as much as possible into the 2707-300 mockup. Wood is cheap, but that thing was huge. Plus there was aluminium, too.
Some costs
- By 1971 government planned to spent $1.3 billion on the two prototypes
- the mockup cost $10 million
- they auctionned it for $32 000. There was a $40 000 dollar bid to turn it into a hot-dog stand. Sigh.

Apollo cost $22 billions, Concorde, $3 billion (from memory). The fully reusable Space Shuttle of 1969 was $ 10 billion, OMB kicked NASA for two years until they dropped that to barely $5 billion - and NASA, for once in its existence, managed to keep cost under control (I mean, "only" 20% above the traget, a little less than $7 billion).
1970 dollars of course - nowadays Apollo would be in the $130 billion. Guess why we never returned to the Moon ?

A case could be make that, if both Concorde and Apollo pushed the state of the art, then Boeing SST was like von Braun plan to go to Mars in 1982. Doable on paper, but fraught with major unknowns. Both would have been one hell of achievement for the Wright Brothers first flight 80th anniversary, in 1983...

 

[galgot]

Just found this attached pict. there was TWO 2707-300 mockup ??!!
Note another droop nose in construction on the left. And the one on the right has an extra cockpit rectangular window.

Edit: or maybe like for the -100 , they did a complete airframe mockup AND a nose section ??

 

[hesham]

Nice find Galgot.

 

[galgot]

Thks Hesham.
Found this tri-jet variable wing image :

on this site :
http://beigleart.com/aviation-artwork-memorabilia/
The artist, Mr.Beigle, worked at McDonnell/Douglas, at the Advanced Design Engineering Group.
Any idea what that Tri-jet is ?
Note a lot of other projects images on his gallery , including a big six-jet transport...

 

[Archibald]

Just found this attached pict. there was TWO 2707-300 mockup ??!!
Note another droop nose in construction on the left. And the one on the right has an extra cockpit rectangular window.

Edit: or maybe like for the -100 , they did a complete airframe mockup AND a nose section ??

I've seen a picture with the 2707-300 and a nose section, but I can't remember where...

 

[Orionblamblam]

Come and see.

 

[Archibald]

The Kissimmee SST building, now a church, was build for Transpo'72. Marks O. Morrison bought the buildings to house the mockup. Never heard of transpo'72 before, and it blew my mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpo_%2772

 

[Zeppelin]

NAC-60;

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19640210/20/2

Was there ever any design links between the NAC 60 design and the Rockwell B1. The latter seems to have very similar ending intake arrangements plus the need to solve a large swing wing design ?

 

[MaxLegroom]

I'd guess there was some similar thinking, perhaps some of the same engineers, but that'd probably be about it.

 

[TomcatViP]

I don't know if this one has been posted already. It gives a good insight of the economical challenges faced by Boeing at the time.

https://youtu.be/UJGNyjJedmM

From the video owner:

What may very well be the single rarest film in my entire collection, here's a classic promo for the B-2707-200! I was 6 years old in 1967, and so excited waiting for the 2707 to arrive. Film by the Boeing Company. For educational & non commercial purposes only.

 

[Johnbr]

 

[TomS]

Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...

 

[sferrin]

Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...

Did you see those Braniff Jetson suits? ;D

 

[RAP]

707 prototype used to simulate some aspects of the SST.

 

[TomS]

Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...

Did you see those Braniff Jetson suits? ;D

Turns out these are Braniff uniforms too. Same era, even.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/01/06/the-1960s-pucci-air-hostess-uniforms-ideal-for-mile-high-stripping/

 

[sferrin]

Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...

Did you see those Braniff Jetson suits? ;D

Turns out these are Braniff uniforms too. Same era, even.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/01/06/the-1960s-pucci-air-hostess-uniforms-ideal-for-mile-high-stripping/

That Boeing / Braniff SST "commercial" was definitely a child of the 60s.

 

[MaxLegroom]

Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...

So, no appreciation for Pucci, then? I'd rather see this than the outfits I saw on a Virgin America flight from a few years ago. At that time, I was wondering who these people in '80s workout clothes were helping people with their carry on bags.

I enjoyed seeing these again, particularly the close up shot on the Lockheed SST.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

here is a strange two concepts,one was in artist drawing form (right),and anther was in
wind tunnel Model form.

http://www.oltreilcielo.it/pic/1964/sv189-1-010.jpg

 

[hesham]

Also Northrop SST.

http://www.oltreilcielo.it/pic/1965/192-002.jpg

 

[galgot]

Nice ! First one with variable swept wing is Nasa SCAT 15.3 study, the other wind tunnel model is SCAT 16.
The others two , never seen before.

 

[hesham]

Nice ! First one with variable swept wing is Nasa SCAT 15.3 study, the other wind tunnel model is SCAT 16.
The others two , never seen before.

Thank you Galgot,need a hard search.

 

[lastdingo]

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/26/for-sale-magnificent-nasa-sup.html

 

[Archibald]

That's the SCAT-15F with the arrow wing. Even today, it remains an aerodynamic wonder. Supersonic Lift-to-drag ratio of 10, when both Concorde and SST were barely 7. NASA Langley did an outstanding job refining this shape, unfortunately they hit a brickwall: its low-speed flying characteristics were abysmal, a flying coffin not unlike a F-104. Only digital FBW could have tamed that beast stall characteristics, but not in 1965... a crying shame, because it was stunningly futuristic.

 

[RAP]

Drawings from various AWST issues. Sorry if any of these are duplicates but I was too lazy to look through 60+ pages to check.

 

[RAP]

...

 

[LowObservable]

That Boeing / Braniff SST "commercial" was definitely a child of the 60s.

You could have made a wing spar out of her (?) hair. Question mark because the model definitely has the face of a Cowboys quarterback.

 

[Sundog]

Thanks for digging those up RAP. I find the flight controls in the cockpit interesting (Is the right one the throttle?). Also, I find the water ballast interesting as well. I'll have to see if they used it to maintain the cg until enough fuel had burned off, then they could dump the water and just shift fuel around; or if the water was just for the subsonic to supersonic AC shift.

 

[N1011N]

These Douglas models depict different fuselage lengths, cunard size and sub / supersonic configuration. I would like to know who may have made these models. Any ideas?

 

[Orionblamblam]

These Douglas models depict different fuselage lengths, cunard size and sub / supersonic configuration. I would like to know who may have made these models. Any ideas?

They certainly look like Douglas model shop products.

 

[hesham]

These Douglas models depict different fuselage lengths, cunard size and sub / supersonic configuration. I would like to know who may have made these models. Any ideas?

Welcome aboard N1011N,

and that needs a good search.

 

[N1011N]

Thanks for your comments.

Were Douglas Factory Models made from resin too?
There are no markings or serial numbers.
The stand is perspex / plastic however I suspect it includes a metallic ballast given its weight.
I suspected Pacific Miniatures however have no proof!

On a side note, aside from details provided on this thread, is there any info regarding the two different variants depicted, i.e. weight, range, dimensions etc...

 

[hesham]

Thanks for your comments.

Were Douglas Factory Models made from resin too?
There are no markings or serial numbers.
The stand is perspex / plastic however I suspect it includes a metallic ballast given its weight.
I suspected Pacific Miniatures however have no proof!

On a side note, aside from details provided on this thread, is there any info regarding the two different variants depicted, i.e. weight, range, dimensions etc...

Maybe they was just a variants.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/search?exactphrase=true&QueryTerm=V-STOL&start=560&rows=20&DocType=Article&Sort=&SortOrder=&startdate=1949-05-17&enddate=1970-08-22&LastViewIssueKey=&LastViewPage=

 

[MaxLegroom]

Such a shame I let my Aviation Week subscription lapse.

 

[RAP]

...

 

[Triton]

Vintage Boeing SST Metal Prototype

Source:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Boeing-SST-Metal-Prototype-Airplane-Model-w-Wooden-Base-Approx-15-Long/192805183842?hash=item2ce415a162:g:OuoAAOSwuQhcTPky

Seller's Description:

Vintage Boeing Metal Prototype Airplane Model w/ Wooden Base 15” Long. Condition is Used. Bought this rare model at an estate sales while I lived in Seattle. I was told the gentleman work at the Boeing Propulsion Lab for 30 years. The FWD fuselage is made out aluminum and AFT fuselage made out of stainless steel. Approximately 3 lbs. Sharp features. Free shipping.