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: 183
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: 81
  • s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220321.137.jpg
    s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220321.137.jpg
    146.8 KB · Views: 70
  • s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220317.078.jpg
    s-l1600 - 2023-12-05T220317.078.jpg
    210.8 KB · Views: 66
  • s-l1600 (100).jpg
    s-l1600 (100).jpg
    199.7 KB · Views: 64
  • s-l1600 (99).jpg
    s-l1600 (99).jpg
    192.4 KB · Views: 65
  • s-l1600 (98).jpg
    s-l1600 (98).jpg
    179.5 KB · Views: 63
  • s-l1600 (97).jpg
    s-l1600 (97).jpg
    183.9 KB · Views: 64
  • s-l1600 (96).jpg
    s-l1600 (96).jpg
    205.6 KB · Views: 68
  • s-l1600 (95).jpg
    s-l1600 (95).jpg
    207.8 KB · Views: 64
  • s-l1600 (94).jpg
    s-l1600 (94).jpg
    194.4 KB · Views: 65
  • s-l1600 (93).jpg
    s-l1600 (93).jpg
    215 KB · Views: 67
  • s-l1600 (92).jpg
    s-l1600 (92).jpg
    216 KB · Views: 75
From FAA Aviation News 1963,

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

Attachments

  • 30.png
    30.png
    832.9 KB · Views: 78
Hi! SCAT-15F feasibility study by Boeing.
 

Attachments

  • AD0478511.pdf
    14 MB · Views: 35
  • cover.jpg
    cover.jpg
    204.3 KB · Views: 51
  • summary1.jpg
    summary1.jpg
    459 KB · Views: 41
  • summary2.jpg
    summary2.jpg
    186.3 KB · Views: 38
  • summary3.jpg
    summary3.jpg
    299.4 KB · Views: 36
  • summary4.jpg
    summary4.jpg
    526.5 KB · Views: 32
  • summary5.jpg
    summary5.jpg
    180.2 KB · Views: 32
  • summary6.jpg
    summary6.jpg
    465.2 KB · Views: 33
  • SCAT15F_CONFIGULATION.jpg
    SCAT15F_CONFIGULATION.jpg
    276.9 KB · Views: 36
  • SCAT15F_B7_PERFORMANCE.jpg
    SCAT15F_B7_PERFORMANCE.jpg
    423.4 KB · Views: 53
  • SCAT15f_design_evolution.jpg
    SCAT15f_design_evolution.jpg
    264.7 KB · Views: 67
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: 79
From American Aviation 1966.
 

Attachments

  • 20.png
    20.png
    854.4 KB · Views: 61
  • 21.png
    21.png
    925.4 KB · Views: 62
Hi! SCAT-15F feasibility study by Boeing.

May 1965. What is interesting is that Boeing briefly considered SCAT-15F again late 1968, after the 2707-200 death. For the 2707-300, kinda.

 

Attachments

  • L2000 SST.jpg
    L2000 SST.jpg
    554.3 KB · Views: 155
  • LOCKHEED L2000 COCKPIT.jpg
    LOCKHEED L2000 COCKPIT.jpg
    116.6 KB · Views: 105
  • aviation-magazine-out-1966-9.jpg
    aviation-magazine-out-1966-9.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 76
  • 1_240f3816e3e9078029faed2796a44cc1.jpg
    1_240f3816e3e9078029faed2796a44cc1.jpg
    518.1 KB · Views: 94
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom