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?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?
Link is dead, is there a place I can get that?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.
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.Air Force One based on a B-58....
As alwaysLink is dead, is there a place I can get that?
Keep forgetting them...As always
Airline Ratings said:Mike Lombardi, Boeing historian shows us the remaining parts of the SST mockup.
Not according to the PDF I got from this forum of the General Characteristics of the 2707-300.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...
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...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.
File I have said that Cost was the driver.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...
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.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."
Maybe for a new publication? I´m asking for a friend...
A new US Transport Projects. Eventually.Maybe for a new publication? I´m asking for a friend...
Check search advice for SDASM image collection here:Boeing SST
American Airlines image of then proposed US built (never got past mockup) Boeing Supersonic Transport.
Hi! SCAT-15F feasibility study by Boeing.