Rare 1960's NASA Aerodynamics SST Model


We recently acquired a rare 1960's aerodynamic test model for a NASA SST (Super Sonic Transport) vehicle from Langley Research Center. This model is rather large and is built of wood and composite materials. One rear fin has the NASA logo -- finish and condition is original. The piece measures 51" L and has a max width of 24". Everything is in tact with the minor exception of one rear fin. Wear has some dings and chip paint in areas. These Langley Aerodynamic models are very rare and as you can imagine and these were used in what is called the free-flight technique where they are tethered and float in the wind tunnel for study. A variety of designs were tested and this is one in the spectrum of craft. Reference the video for a demonstration of this type of craft in free flight testing. These video segments are courtesy of NASA Langley Research Center.

View attachment 669586View attachment 669587View attachment 669588
View attachment 669599
View attachment 669589View attachment 669590View attachment 669591View attachment 669592View attachment 669593View attachment 669594View attachment 669595View attachment 669596View attachment 669597View attachment 669598
This is the SCAT-15F: The ultimate SST, and best looking, IMO.

"…In 1964, advances in the sophistication of aerodynamic theory and computer codes at Langley allowed a team of Harry Carlson, Ed McLean, Warner Robins, Roy Harris, and Wilbur Middleton to design an improved SCAT configuration, called the SCAT-15F. This fixed-wing version of the earlier variable-sweep SCAT-15 configuration was designed using the latest, computer-based supersonic design methodology that Langley had developed, resulting in a L/D ratio of 9.3 at Mach 2.6, an amazing 25 to 30 percent better than the previous state of the art at that time. The new Langley theories permitted the researchers to shape the wing with reflex, twist, camber, and other parameters that nearly optimized its supersonic capability. When informed by the design team of the SCAT-15F’s projected performance, Larry Loftin (Langley’s top manager for aeronautics) did not believe the prediction. Subsequent wind tunnel results, however, proved the estimates accurate and the SCAT-15F remains to this day one of the most aerodynamically efficient SST designs ever conceived. Carlson, McLean, Robins, Harris, and Middleton were awarded a patent for the SCAT-15F design in 1967." -NASA archives
 
Last edited:
 

Attachments

  • 2017_05_12sst1.jpg
    2017_05_12sst1.jpg
    610.3 KB · Views: 128
  • 2017_05_12sst21.jpg
    2017_05_12sst21.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 132
Hello, it's been a while. I wonder if I can't use a concorde fuselage as a basis for a model of one of those project (a early lockeed one per exmaple). Here's how lindbergh presented the civilian XB70:
Thanks or your answers!
 
So I have a question, assuming the 2700 (or even really the l-2000) had been biult and flown, how much more range would be added if the passenger count was reduced to 150 instead of 300?
Assume each passenger is worth 200lbs of fuel (175lb FAA standard passenger, plus at least 25lbs for a seat), times 150 pax, gives 30,000lbs of additional fuel. Do you have fuel capacity stats for those planes?

Edit: now that I have a fuel capacity spec for the 2707-300 of 475klbs, that's looking like only a 6-7% increase in fuel load/range (passenger planes rarely ever take off at max fuel, as they'd rather load for planned trip plus required reserves). So, half the passengers to fly 6% farther? Unlikely to be worth it, unless you can get those passengers to pay Business Class prices for seats.

Nice document from Boeing's here:
http://www.emotionreports.com/downloads/pdfs/boeing.pdf

There is surprisingly few on the -300 technically-side. Also of interest is the neat 3-views detailing the "public" evolution (no hint to the 1968 studies that led to the delta configuration), where you can find the rarely seen early-VG 2707 canard configuration.
Link is dead, is there a place I can get that?


Air Force One based on a B-58....
I mean, there's arguments for making your Presidential transport a National Prestige project, but I can't see that happening with a VB-58, too short ranged and not enough passenger capacity for support staff. Plus, it doesn't do the boss any good to arrive before the ground transportation does.
 
Last edited:
Did we send this before ?,I know that,we spoke about it as a bomber.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    638 KB · Views: 181
No mention of it anywhere, but I remember reading that the final Boeing 2707 cruise speed of mach 2.7 was reduced to mach 2.6 as part of the switch to the Concorde-esque delta wing version...
 
No mention of it anywhere, but I remember reading that the final Boeing 2707 cruise speed of mach 2.7 was reduced to mach 2.6 as part of the switch to the Concorde-esque delta wing version...
Not according to the PDF I got from this forum of the General Characteristics of the 2707-300.
 
Wish I could find the source, but I recall them saying (very late in the program, after the switch to the delta configuration) the mach number dropping to 2.65. then 2.62. Not that it makes much of a difference, still being over 1700 mph, but interesting nonetheless.
 
Wish I could find the source, but I recall them saying (very late in the program, after the switch to the delta configuration) the mach number dropping to 2.65. then 2.62. Not that it makes much of a difference, still being over 1700 mph, but interesting nonetheless.
I believe the 2.7 mach number had a lot to do with fuel, with mach 2.7 being the fastest you could go in cruise and still use JP-5. (recall the Blackbird and XB-70 used JP-7 and-6 to deal with heat-soaking). I don't know what the L2000 had in mind...
 
I believe the 2.7 mach number had a lot to do with fuel, with mach 2.7 being the fastest you could go in cruise and still use JP-5. (recall the Blackbird and XB-70 used JP-7 and-6 to deal with heat-soaking). I don't know what the L2000 had in mind...
File I have said that Cost was the driver.

"The choice of Mach 2.7 as the cruising speed resulted from comprehensive studies of various speeds and their attendant temperature costs on weight, complexity, reliability and cost of all the major systems and components. The changes in cost of the total airframe and engines, daily utilization and fuel costs were used in determining the effect of speed on operating costs. These data indicate that the operating costs remain nearly constant up to about Mach 2.7, but rise substantially above this speed. The chosen speed is also high enough to avoid early obsolescence without incurring excessive development risk."
 
File I have said that Cost was the driver.

"The choice of Mach 2.7 as the cruising speed resulted from comprehensive studies of various speeds and their attendant temperature costs on weight, complexity, reliability and cost of all the major systems and components. The changes in cost of the total airframe and engines, daily utilization and fuel costs were used in determining the effect of speed on operating costs. These data indicate that the operating costs remain nearly constant up to about Mach 2.7, but rise substantially above this speed. The chosen speed is also high enough to avoid early obsolescence without incurring excessive development risk."
Switching fuel types would definitely have increased cost. Airframe materials in the mach 2.7 to 3+ range would not have differed. Stainless steel or Titanium.
 

Attachments

  • s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220325.068.jpg
    s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220325.068.jpg
    145.9 KB · Views: 79
  • s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220321.137.jpg
    s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220321.137.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 68
  • s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220317.078.jpg
    s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220317.078.jpg
    210.8 KB · Views: 64
  • s-l1600 (100).jpg
    s-l1600 (100).jpg
    199.7 KB · Views: 62
  • s-l1600 (99).jpg
    s-l1600 (99).jpg
    192.4 KB · Views: 63
  • s-l1600 (98).jpg
    s-l1600 (98).jpg
    179.5 KB · Views: 61
  • s-l1600 (96).jpg
    s-l1600 (96).jpg
    205.6 KB · Views: 66
  • s-l1600 (97).jpg
    s-l1600 (97).jpg
    183.9 KB · Views: 62
  • s-l1600 (95).jpg
    s-l1600 (95).jpg
    207.8 KB · Views: 62
  • s-l1600 (94).jpg
    s-l1600 (94).jpg
    194.4 KB · Views: 63
  • s-l1600 (93).jpg
    s-l1600 (93).jpg
    215 KB · Views: 65
  • s-l1600 (92).jpg
    s-l1600 (92).jpg
    216 KB · Views: 73
From FAA Aviation News 1963,

I can't ID the aircraft in the middle ?!.
 

Attachments

  • 30.png
    30.png
    832.9 KB · Views: 74
Hi! SCAT-15F feasibility study by Boeing.
 

Attachments

  • AD0478511.pdf
    14 MB · Views: 35
  • cover.jpg
    cover.jpg
    204.3 KB · Views: 47
  • summary1.jpg
    summary1.jpg
    459 KB · Views: 38
  • summary2.jpg
    summary2.jpg
    186.3 KB · Views: 35
  • summary3.jpg
    summary3.jpg
    299.4 KB · Views: 34
  • summary4.jpg
    summary4.jpg
    526.5 KB · Views: 30
  • summary5.jpg
    summary5.jpg
    180.2 KB · Views: 30
  • summary6.jpg
    summary6.jpg
    465.2 KB · Views: 31
  • SCAT15F_CONFIGULATION.jpg
    SCAT15F_CONFIGULATION.jpg
    276.9 KB · Views: 34
  • SCAT15F_B7_PERFORMANCE.jpg
    SCAT15F_B7_PERFORMANCE.jpg
    423.4 KB · Views: 49
  • SCAT15f_design_evolution.jpg
    SCAT15f_design_evolution.jpg
    264.7 KB · Views: 62
Hi! SCAT-15F with horizontal tail stabilizer.
 

Attachments

  • SCAT 15F with tail stabilizer model_in_NASA_Langley_Research_Center_wind_tunnel.jpg
    SCAT 15F with tail stabilizer model_in_NASA_Langley_Research_Center_wind_tunnel.jpg
    584.6 KB · Views: 74
From American Aviation 1966.
 

Attachments

  • 20.png
    20.png
    854.4 KB · Views: 58
  • 21.png
    21.png
    925.4 KB · Views: 59

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom