US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971

[vstol]

NASA-Boeing oblique-wing SST designs from the '70's

View attachment 1684View attachment 1686

I wrote an extensive paper years ago on oblique wing research. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2007-150

 

[blackkite]

At last you did it ️

 

[blackkite]

Thanks a lot my dear galgot san‼︎
Amazing work. Unbelievable model️

 

[blackkite]

Until a dozen years ago, there was very little information about the L-2000.
With limited information, Jozef-san created a wonderful 3D model of the L-2000 and showed us its beauty.
After that, a detailed general layout of the L-2000 created by Lockheed was discovered, and our understanding progressed.
The model created by Galgot-san this time is accurate and detailed, and it is a wonderful thing that each part moves.
I never imagined that such a wonderful thing would be seen.
I think the ancestors who suffered from the failure of the American SST program see Galgot-san's series of spectacular work, pay the utmost respect, and feel great joy.
Jal's paint is very good for L-2000!!

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Douglas 2229 SST painting.
Air intake shape is different from final design.

 

[Johnbr]

The massive GE4, stretching 27 feet long in this 1966 photo.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

 

[uk 75]

This chart of Concorde liveries came from a children's book in the 1960s. Except for MEA and Sabena the liveries would have been used for Boeing and Lockheed SSTs. Sadly no such chart exists for them.

 

[Archibald]

I often wonder if an analog FBW similar to Concorde could have "tamed" SCAT-15F vicious low speed and stall characteristics... or would it take a digital Apollo guidance computer ?

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://avtales.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/boeing-2707/

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
http://www.aircraftdisplaymodels.com/airline-photos/airline/3639/Boeing-House-Livery/

 

[sienar]

Very long compilation of multiple SCAT/SST reports. Lots of interesting bits in here.

Proceedings of NASA Conference on Supersonic-Transport Feasibility Studies and Supporting Research - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Supersonic transport configurations, propulsion systems, structural materials, handling qualities, and sonic boom - conference

ntrs.nasa.gov

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Four engined SCAT-4 and six engined SCAT-4.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! JAL B2707-300 model.
https://gingertravelguru.com/2017/10/05/jal-first-class-lounge-haneda-avgeek-heaven/

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Not bad, but not terribly accurate.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5_6XhuVkPg

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Hi!

Lovely. Source?

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
http://yasushix.blog38.fc2.com/blog-entry-1108.html?sp

 

[RareBird]

Not bad, but not terribly accurate.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5_6XhuVkPg

Yeah, lots of fiction, not recommended if you want real info.

 

[galgot]

Hi!

Btw, this is early 2707-100 or 2707 "sans-suffixe" with taller fin. Just like the first Boeing full scale mockup.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Douglas 2229 SST larger image.
https://www.pinterest.jp/pin/583638432935729583/

 

[blackkite]

https://flic.kr/p/ThaUxo

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/33657191860/in/photostream/lightbox/
1964... models of proposed SSTs - FAA Commissioner, Gordon M. Bain

 

[blackkite]

https://flic.kr/p/TChSYj

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/33884882282/in/photostream/lightbox/

 

[blackkite]

https://flic.kr/p/fbkcfb

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/9305904666/in/photostream/lightbox/

 

[MaxLegroom]

Not bad, but not terribly accurate.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5_6XhuVkPg

I came, I saw, I *ahem* pointed out some inaccuracies, especially those taken with the model. I referred people to this thread for better information.

 

[fightingirish]

Models of NASA supersonic transports. SCAT-15, bottom; SCAT-16, centre left; SCAT-17, centre right and SCAT-4, top. circa 1963.

https://www.diomedia.com/stock-photo-models-of-nasa-supersonic-transports-scat-15-bottom-image18092390.html

If this post is in the false topic or has been posted before , please let me know via PM, so I can delete or move this post to a more suitable topic.

 

[hesham]

From Air Force 1960.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://translate.google.com/transl...avia-aout-1966-le-lockheed-l-2000-7&sandbox=1

 

[blackkite]

A - Bunker vehicles. B - Telescopic boarding gangways. C - Generating sets. D - Truck for the drinking water service or for the evacuation of waste water. E - Food and drink supply trucks. F - Luggage trolleys. G - Floor air conditioning installation. H - Reactor start-up group. I - Conveyor belt for luggage.
On board a supersonic airplane, two kinds of air intake systems are generally used; in one of the systems the compression occurs on the outside, in the other inside the inlet channel with external compression, the normal shock wave which produces the compression of the air and, therefore, its slowing down at subsonic speed is perpendicular to the wall of the intake duct and originates just at the entrance to the sleeve; in the mixed compression inlet system, the normal shock wave forms only far enough downstream, so inside the sleeve itself. In the first case, the air enters
the sleeve when it is already at subsonic speed and a subsonic diffuser is enough to bring it to the optimum speed. In the second case, two consecutive diffusers must be provided; a convergent diffuser for the subsonic flow, another divergent for the subsonic flow from the first.

 

[blackkite]

Another factor plays an important role in the design of a supersonic aircraft air inlet. If the inlet system is calculated to obtain the optimum recovery of the dynamic pressure (as is the case, for example, in the air inlet with external compression) and the air enters the diffuser with a subsonic speed, the instability of the flow can cause impulses thereof: the air masses admitted into the diffuser are alternately accelerated and slowed down at a frequency of 3 to 5 Hz; the phenomenon referred to as “inlet unstart” greatly reduces the efficiency of the diffuser and causes intense structural and dynamic effects on the cell and on the reactor, which can lead to pumping of the compressor.
In order to combat this tendency to pulsation, the Lockheed L-2000-7 is provided with a variable section entry sleeve whose central corner moves continuously during normal flight in order to follow variations in internal aerodynamic conditions; these are modified, for example, by the operation of the post-combustion or by variations in the speed of the aircraft. In this way, the optimum supersonic compression and the normal shock wave are maintained at all times within the limits determined in advance. External disturbances caused by atmospheric conditions, aircraft maneuvering or shock waves from other supersonic airplanes must also be taken into account. As a result, care must be taken to ensure that the air intake system is perfect as well as that of the main flight controls, which implies attaching equal importance to its maintenance and reliability in operation.

The air intake system chosen by Lockheed is a mixed compression system with automatic start; the drawings below show the internal configuration during take-off and in supersonic cruising flight. The entry corner is rectangular in cut but its shape can be modified to adapt the entry section to operational conditions. In addition, various air inlets arranged along the outer walls make it possible to maintain the air intake at a sufficient level and to stabilize the flow in the event of disturbances. The wedge adjustment mechanism is operated by two independent hydraulic circuits. In the sleeve are placed sensors which measure the pressure in the channel and allow to determine the position of the compression waves; their signals control the opening and closing of the secondary flow valves and auxiliary air intakes.

The main material used for the manufacture of the air intake system is titanium; the wedge adjustment mechanism is also made of machine-worked titanium parts. In the construction and finishing of the inner walls of the channel, care must be taken that the surfaces do not present any undulations or irregularities which could give rise to turbulence. Regarding maintenance, it is important to protect the leading edges of the handles, which are relatively thin, from damage.

 

[hesham]

From, Faster Than Sound The Story of Supersonic Flight,

please notice Convair design.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://theairchive.net/boeing-sst/

 

[hesham]

Hi,

did we display this drawing before or not ?.

Boeing - Boeing 2707 SST Line Drawing : Posters and Framed Art Prints Available

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
Source : Aireview magazine and JAL.

 

[Cjc]

Some creative accounting assuming SSTs would make more flights per day (due to being faster) and therefore make similar money to a subsonic airliner despite higher costs was probably never going to be correct - it would have needed roughly similar pricing, no stress-based impacts on airframe life from supersonic flight, and no additional maintenance costs, none of which seems especially likely.

I think that's rather an extreme position. An aircraft which is twice as productive can have half the life and still break even, because the airline is selling seat miles, not flying hours.

It can also burn more fuel, provided that this is offset by a corresponding cost reduction elsewhere (e.g. reduced crew costs due to higher productivity), or increased revenue (higher ticket prices).

You can't expect double the productivity from double the cruise MN, because of airspace, but there are big benefits to be had:

I found BA's timetable from 1978-9. I have calculated scheduled ground speeds based upon the great circle distance of 2,999 nmi.
If we look at LHR-JFK:

Aircraft	Flight Number	Departure (UTC)	Arrival (UTC-5)	Arrival (UTC)	Gate to gate time	Great circle ground speed (knots)	Implied headwind
Concorde	BA173	0915	0800	1300	4:45	631	84.5
747	BA175	1100	1335	1835	7:35	395	27.0
Concorde	BA171	1115	1000	1500	4:45	631	84.5
VC.10	BA179	1800	2050	0150	7:50	382	28.5

JFK-LHR is on the opposite page:

Aircraft	Flight Number	Departure (UTC-5)	Departure (UTC)	Arrival (UTC)	Gate to gate time	Great circle ground speed (knots)	Implied tailwind
VC.10	BA178	0930	1430	2120	6:50	439	28.5
Concorde	BA172	1000	1500	1845	3:45	800	84.5
Concorde	BA170	1215	1715	2100	3:45	800	84.5
747	BA176	2200	0300	0940 (next day)	6:40	449	27.0

I have calculated the implied wind as being half the speed difference between the directions. It isn't obvious why Concorde's schedule appears to be based on double the assumed wind of the subsonic jets

In any case, Concorde is about 78% faster that the 747 flying West to East, and about 60% faster flying East to West.

Of course, in 1978, the expectation was that pax would check in an hour before departure (45 minutes at LHR for 1st class & Concorde), because the security theatre was less elaborate. Check-in delay reduces the door-to-door advantage somewhat, but 3 hours is still 3 hours, and this is an advantage for which people were, and are, prepared to pay a premium, especially for business travel (I suppose that some Americans might also be prepared to pay a premium for pleasure travel as well, given their limited holiday allowances).

The big productivity question is whether you can get an extra sector per day out of the crew. I don't know what Concorde's turnaround time was, so it's hard to comment with authority, but it looks pretty marginal. If we imagine BA173 turning around and becoming BA172 on the return journey, they would push back at 0915 and park up at 2100, which is already almost a 12 hour day, before we consider whatever briefing & pre-flight would be needed before the first flight of the day.

OTOH, flight time limitations were probably less restrictive in the 1970s.

My suspicion, however, is that a higher cruise MN would have been needed to make this work comfortably, which is perhaps why Concorde's original target was 2.2, and the Americans wanted 2.7.

The big problem with aircraft productivity is that you can only make an integer number of flights per duty period, and the real benefits only arise when you can get an extra sector in. I suppose this may have motivated the codeshare with Braniff to fly between New York & Washington DC.

Ya, unfortunately even with a extra flight a day there gust aren't enough people who are willing to spend extra for faster flights, concord showed that most passengers prefer price to speed. Honestly thus is why the proposal based on the B-58 was probably the best, not only would it have been able to piggyback off the money the army was already expending on it (British concord would have made money if the mulit billion dollar recerch wasn't added in) and because it was the smallest design, it could actually fill the plane reliably unlike the concord. If ther wasn't enough passengers for jfk to Heathrow for 200 seats a day, there definable wouldn't have been enough for 750 a day but there might have been enough for 150 a day (hustler 3 times a day)

 

[Dew]

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.

 

[publiusr]

Beauty itself

 

[sgeorges4]

Was the united state livery proposed for the variable geometry variant? what color were used?

File:Proposed United States SST (Boeing 2707).jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

Happy new year, thanks for your answers!

 

[Cjc]

Not bad, but not terribly accurate.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5_6XhuVkPg

What did he get wrong?