blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
- Thread starter Orionblamblam
- Start date
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
And perhaps these drawings shows Boeing 2707. Please comfirm drawing title,
Small area vertical tail stabilizer and fuselage length after vertical tail stabilizer is long.
I can see two different horizontal tail stabilizer trailing edge shape.
What is the meaning 65A10191?
Small area vertical tail stabilizer and fuselage length after vertical tail stabilizer is long.
I can see two different horizontal tail stabilizer trailing edge shape.
What is the meaning 65A10191?
Attachments
All that Right.
There was a Boeing 2707 (sans suffixe),that is maybe originaly the 733-467,and that is the last two drawings you posted. The one with the tall fin, no canards, and one pieces droop nose. But even between these two drawings , one can see differences, see the under tail fin. Details changes from drawing to drawing as the design development goes.
The first Boeing Mock-up is that one Boeing-2707 (sans suffixe), with the tall tail.
But then again different in details, like it had the two pieces droop nose of the 2707-100, and position of the under tail fin is again different. And even the model presented with the mock-up was different , having the later 2707-100 fin design
So I suppose they started working on the mock-up, planned to make it like the Boeing 2707 (sans suffixe), then design progressed to the 2707-100 with two piece nose before the presentation, and they incorporated that to the mock-up
65A10191 is the drawing designation, like the 2707-200 one you posted above is 65A10479. Don't know what "65A" stands for, but the higher the next number, the later the design development obviously. But someone more knowledgeable than me here could maybe tell us.
There was a Boeing 2707 (sans suffixe),that is maybe originaly the 733-467,and that is the last two drawings you posted. The one with the tall fin, no canards, and one pieces droop nose. But even between these two drawings , one can see differences, see the under tail fin. Details changes from drawing to drawing as the design development goes.
The first Boeing Mock-up is that one Boeing-2707 (sans suffixe), with the tall tail.
But then again different in details, like it had the two pieces droop nose of the 2707-100, and position of the under tail fin is again different. And even the model presented with the mock-up was different , having the later 2707-100 fin design
So I suppose they started working on the mock-up, planned to make it like the Boeing 2707 (sans suffixe), then design progressed to the 2707-100 with two piece nose before the presentation, and they incorporated that to the mock-up
65A10191 is the drawing designation, like the 2707-200 one you posted above is 65A10479. Don't know what "65A" stands for, but the higher the next number, the later the design development obviously. But someone more knowledgeable than me here could maybe tell us.
Last edited:
Oh thanks a lot brilliant galgot-san!!
And my next question. What is this?
I beleive its a 2707-100. Later fin size/geometry. Although the plan doesn't show how the nose drops.
Ah, if the drawing is titled B2707 then, you're right.
So they kept that B2707 designation even with the later fin...
Now one as to determine what changes made the designation change from B2707 to B2707-100... Tricky he ? :/
So they kept that B2707 designation even with the later fin...
Now one as to determine what changes made the designation change from B2707 to B2707-100... Tricky he ? :/
Last edited:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
The location of the engine in left and right did not shifts to the front and the back(mockup shifts to the front and the back).
And fuselage line looks like B2707-100.
So now I think this drawing shows B2707-100(early design?) as you said.
Fuselage length seems to be 306' where B2707(mockup) length is 298'. Thanks again.
And fuselage line looks like B2707-100.
So now I think this drawing shows B2707-100(early design?) as you said.
Fuselage length seems to be 306' where B2707(mockup) length is 298'. Thanks again.
Attachments
Last edited:
yes
Wanted to do a chart like that too, with all the known plans available placed in chronology as I could, showing the evolution in the development.
But it would make a very big chart .
Wanted to do a chart like that too, with all the known plans available placed in chronology as I could, showing the evolution in the development.
But it would make a very big chart .
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
galgot-san. Of course only you can do that.
Now I can understand that following model shows B2707 same as Boeing's full scale mockup.
Now I can understand that following model shows B2707 same as Boeing's full scale mockup.
Attachments
Last edited:
Also the MiG-25, from memory
I can't understand this model.
It's a restored 1/60 PacMin model. It's a 2707-100, and i'm not sure it had the canards originally.
see this page : http://www.aviationmodels-online.com/for_sale/page_2/United_Boeing_SST_1.htm
although the text states it is an unusual -100 with canard, the last picture shows the model unrestored without canards.
But there are some rare images of 2707-100 like with the canards.
If you take a plane at Haneda, at the JAL first class lounge, you can have chance to see this nice JAL 2707-300 (early 1969 model) :
Last edited:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
Thanks again gaogot-san!
Recently I become a fan of B2707-300 especially operational model. No doubt she's a perfect beauty.
Unfortunately I have no money to use first class.
I think also this picture is little strange,too.
elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com
Recently I become a fan of B2707-300 especially operational model. No doubt she's a perfect beauty.
Unfortunately I have no money to use first class.
I think also this picture is little strange,too.
April 2019 – Aviation Rapture
10 posts published by Whitemule during April 2019
elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com
Attachments
Last edited:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
Last edited:
Hi Blackkite San, sorry for late response.
Yes , that is what i find too , 306' for the -100, and 318' for the -200.
Yeah seen this one too, its a mix between -100 and -200. Don't know if its 3d render or a doctored scale model picture.
still nice picture, but it's not "official" stuff" anyway.
Yes , that is what i find too , 306' for the -100, and 318' for the -200.
...
I think also this picture is little strange,too.
April 2019 – Aviation Rapture
10 posts published by Whitemule during April 2019
Yeah seen this one too, its a mix between -100 and -200. Don't know if its 3d render or a doctored scale model picture.
still nice picture, but it's not "official" stuff" anyway.
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
Last edited:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
Not bad ! Still not very detailed, and low poly. what is that software ? is it for a game ?
Mind you , I would have to redo my -200 model now that I have more recent documentation finds.
RipSteakface
ACCESS: Restricted
- Joined
- 18 May 2019
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 32
Is there a post-'71 thread anywhere?
A 2707-300 PPD cutaway plan (unfortunately bad quality) published in AWST January 5 1970.
PPD stands for Prototype Point Design, which is the prototype as if it was to be certificated and fitted out as transport aircraft.
"configuration includes additions of 16 seats in fuselage aft section gained by design refinement. Two four-abreast rows are added at the rear, as well as an extra seat to each of eight four -abreast aft rows of the earlier design".
This is the 298 ft prototype. (Last known configuration before cancellation ?...).
Compare with the earlier 2707-300 configuration cutaway published in AWST December 9 1968 (and in other mags) :
This is the 280 ft earlier version.
PPD stands for Prototype Point Design, which is the prototype as if it was to be certificated and fitted out as transport aircraft.
"configuration includes additions of 16 seats in fuselage aft section gained by design refinement. Two four-abreast rows are added at the rear, as well as an extra seat to each of eight four -abreast aft rows of the earlier design".
This is the 298 ft prototype. (Last known configuration before cancellation ?...).
Compare with the earlier 2707-300 configuration cutaway published in AWST December 9 1968 (and in other mags) :
This is the 280 ft earlier version.
Last edited:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
Super!!!!
Not bad ! Still not very detailed, and low poly. what is that software ? is it for a game ?
Mind you , I would have to redo my -200 model now that I have more recent documentation finds.
I hope JAL version,too.This is the software which use to make not bad model. I don't know the objective of this model.
Last edited:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
Thansk a lot uk 75-san!!
I perfectly agree your decent opinion.
NASA and FAA were also very bad not only Boeing at the day.
NASA also recommend VG at the day but Dr.Whitcomb........
I think that Douglas 2229 SST was gone with the compression lift theory. Perhaps wind tunnel test showed it was hard to fulfil range requirement.
I perfectly agree your decent opinion.
NASA and FAA were also very bad not only Boeing at the day.
NASA also recommend VG at the day but Dr.Whitcomb........
I think that Douglas 2229 SST was gone with the compression lift theory. Perhaps wind tunnel test showed it was hard to fulfil range requirement.
Last edited:
MaxLegroom
Why not?
- Joined
- 28 December 2013
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 47
I agree, but there's actually more to be found. For example, I've yet to see the full reports on the Phase I designs. When I got some of the stuff I posted, I was looking also for a proposal for the NAC-60 similar to the ones I found the L-2000 drawings in, but I was unable to find it among the National Archives.
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
I believe NAC-60 was a good design based on their experience. But little small and little slow. Surprisingly NAC-60 did not apply compression lift theory.
Good contribution for NAC-60.
Good contribution for NAC-60.
Last edited:
MaxLegroom
Why not?
- Joined
- 28 December 2013
- Messages
- 159
- Reaction score
- 47
I'd tended to believe that the people designing the NAC-60 also looked at the B-70 and saw a number of things they didn't want to do again. Maybe for them, using compression lift was a mistake. One thing not to be repeated was the complexity of the Valkyrie's landing gear. I'd say that to go from the Valkyrie to the NAC-60, they were looking to simplify things. The military tends to tolerate maintenance costs the airlines wouldn't put up with.
These -197 docs are fantastic Blackkite-San !
These below come from Interavia magazine of dec1969. I beleive that is when Boeing released last known conf of 2707-300.
Clearer views of 969-404 variable sweep and 969-320 arrow wing models. Also a comparaison of these models and delta model 969- 302B.
Note 969-404 ressembles a lot 733-390, with lowered tailplane (to avoid burning it) , but I can't decide if the dotted lines under the tail displays a hinged keel, or the tailplanes being hinged down in cruise ...
"Poid à vide en ordre d'exploitation" = empty weight in operationnal order ( 1000 of Lb ).
"Poid maxi. au roulage" = rolling max weight .
"Distance franchissable" = Range (in NM).
And the last 2707-300 plan also published elsewhere
These below come from Interavia magazine of dec1969. I beleive that is when Boeing released last known conf of 2707-300.
Clearer views of 969-404 variable sweep and 969-320 arrow wing models. Also a comparaison of these models and delta model 969- 302B.
Note 969-404 ressembles a lot 733-390, with lowered tailplane (to avoid burning it) , but I can't decide if the dotted lines under the tail displays a hinged keel, or the tailplanes being hinged down in cruise ...
"Poid à vide en ordre d'exploitation" = empty weight in operationnal order ( 1000 of Lb ).
"Poid maxi. au roulage" = rolling max weight .
"Distance franchissable" = Range (in NM).
And the last 2707-300 plan also published elsewhere
Last edited:
blackkite
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
- Joined
- 31 May 2007
- Messages
- 8,575
- Reaction score
- 6,766
”Note 969-404 resembles a lot 733-390, with lowered tailplane (to avoid burning it) , but I can't decide if the dotted lines under the tail displays a hinged keel, or the tailplanes being hinged down in cruise ...”
Thanks very impressive.
Following picture shows operational model. Please take care ventral fin position and leaped beautiful tail.
Thanks very impressive.
Following picture shows operational model. Please take care ventral fin position and leaped beautiful tail.
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
FLIGHTS OF FANTASY: The Lockheed L-2000 SST in airline service- Started by Sentinel Chicken
- Replies: 9
-
Could the US have built an SST?- Started by uk 75
- Replies: 35
-
-
Lockheed VLST Very Large Subsonic Transports aircraft- Started by hesham
- Replies: 19
-