North American M-3000 (B-70 Civil version)

archipeppe

archipeppe

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
18 October 2007
Messages
2,285
Reaction score
2,307
Just to complete the B-70 excursus.


Ciao
Giuseppe
 

Attachments

  • North American M-3000_01.jpg
    North American M-3000_01.jpg
    735.9 KB · Views: 1,248
  • North American M-3000_02.jpg
    North American M-3000_02.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,109
  • North American M-3000_03.jpg
    North American M-3000_03.jpg
    312.6 KB · Views: 916
Superb Art Work, archipeppe!

Jemiba said:
Great work !
Would surely look good as "Airforce 1", too ! ;)
Click to expand...

The POTUS flying around in Aircraft, that was consider one of the loudest ever build...
 
Michel Van said:
Superb Art Work, archipeppe!

Jemiba said:
Great work !
Would surely look good as "Airforce 1", too ! ;)
Click to expand...

The POTUS flying around in Aircraft, that was consider one of the loudest ever build...
Click to expand...


Thanks Michel, personally I don't belive that the M-3000 would fit the requirements to be the "Air Force One" except if the POTUS use it only to travel around the World with the coolest airliner ever (so for publicity reasons).


Since the Air Force One was conceived not only as transportation mean but also as flying office and command center in case of nuclear war the M-3000 even if really fast not had enough room inside to comply with all the functions requested by POTUS. Not onlys since no air refuelling was forseen for B-70/M-3000 it would stay airborne for limited time.


In case of nuclear war the velocity is not so essential rather than internal volume, huge fuel tanks and the capability to be refuelled in flight. All the above things that M-3000 missed so bad.
 
Your family portrait of the SST's is another breath-taking work of art of some of the various most elegant & beautiful of all aircraft projects. Big thanks, Archipeppe.
 
foiling said:
Your family portrait of the SST's is another breath-taking work of art of some of the various most elegant & beautiful of all aircraft projects. Big thanks, Archipeppe.
Click to expand...


You're always kind to me Foiling, anyway we have to thank the real genius of the people who designed such marvellous airplanes.
 
The comparison chart is very neat! thanks for that
 
Archipeppe,


Outstanding work as always. Congratulations on another successful project.


Love your TWA B-70. I believe my Dad helped Al White join TWA for Research & Development (SST) after the midair incident. Al and Dad were very close friends at the time, and Dad was TWA's Chief Pilot at LAX, and had previously been Director of Western Ops.


Al White was one of the most cool and professional men I've ever met, and was always a pleasure to talk to. It's frequently mentioned that Al injured his arm in the clamshell door, but it is rarely noted that he was reaching for Carl Cross's ejection handle when the doors closed on his arm. Carl was unconscious, and Al did everything he could to save him.


Looking forward to your next project. Cheers from Texas.
 
SAustin16 said:
Archipeppe,


Outstanding work as always. Congratulations on another successful project.


Love your TWA B-70. I believe my Dad helped Al White join TWA for Research & Development (SST) after the midair incident. Al and Dad were very close friends at the time, and Dad was TWA's Chief Pilot at LAX, and had previously been Director of Western Ops.


Al White was one of the most cool and professional men I've ever met, and was always a pleasure to talk to. It's frequently mentioned that Al injured his arm in the clamshell door, but it is rarely noted that he was reaching for Carl Cross's ejection handle when the doors closed on his arm. Carl was unconscious, and Al did everything he could to save him.


Looking forward to your next project. Cheers from Texas.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your appreciation and kind words.


Since I never had the chance to meet White (and all the other extraordinaries air jockeys) your memories recollection are really precious to me.


Ciao
Giuseppe
 
Your illustrations are a delight to view, but are also valuable historical documents. The generation of designers and pilots that built and flew the aircraft / spacecraft is rapidly disappearing, along with their history. Thank you for keeping it alive for our generation. I wish I had your skills.


Cheers from Texas.
 
SAustin16 said:
Your illustrations are a delight to view, but are also valuable historical documents. The generation of designers and pilots that built and flew the aircraft / spacecraft is rapidly disappearing, along with their history. Thank you for keeping it alive for our generation. I wish I had your skills.


Cheers from Texas.
Click to expand...


Thanks again for your kindness, im my drawings (apart for their eventual artistic value) I try to put the all the right things in the right place, I mean trying to illustrate the strong relationship among the general architecture of an aircraft (or spacecraft) and their subsystems.


Each new drawing it is an adventure since I'm forced to do a real "reverse engineering" work, learning a lot of brand new things by my side and also trying to transfer them to who watch the drawing.


The worth of my job is the awareness that other people find it useful....
 
Peppe,

Lately I'm obsessed comparing aircraft size. US SST are amongst the longest aircraft. Really magnificent birds. I highly appreciate your family portrait here but, according to sources available, the B2707-300 was longer than the L-2000. Lockheed design was about 83 m in lenght while Boeing design was between 91 and 93 m in lenght. Is that right?

Antonio
 
Interesting points, P, if the illustrations are to scale, & the SSTs dwarf the XB-70, they must be vast..

FYI, comparing the 1/72 scale models of XF-108 & XB-70..

..The '108 wing is quite close dimensionally - to the `70s folding wing-tip sections..
 
pometablava said:
Peppe,

Lately I'm obsessed comparing aircraft size. US SST are amongst the longest aircraft. Really magnificent birds. I highly appreciate your family portrait here but, according to sources available, the B2707-300 was longer than the L-2000. Lockheed design was about 83 m in lenght while Boeing design was between 91 and 93 m in lenght. Is that right?

Antonio
Click to expand...

You're correct, Antonio. According to the figures I have in front of me...

Boeing 2707-100 (dual-hinged nose): 306.0 ft
Boeing 2707-200 (canard variant): 318.0 ft
Boeing 2707-300 (prototype version): 286.7 ft
Boeing 2707-300 (production version): 298.0 ft
Lockheed L-2000-7A: 273.0 ft
Lockheed L-2000-7B (14-frame stretch): 293.0 ft

The HSCT designs were big, too:
Boeing HSCT configuration: 310 ft
McDonnell Douglas HSCT: 334 ft
 
carsinamerica said:
pometablava said:
Peppe,

Lately I'm obsessed comparing aircraft size. US SST are amongst the longest aircraft. Really magnificent birds. I highly appreciate your family portrait here but, according to sources available, the B2707-300 was longer than the L-2000. Lockheed design was about 83 m in lenght while Boeing design was between 91 and 93 m in lenght. Is that right?

Antonio
Click to expand...

You're correct, Antonio. According to the figures I have in front of me...

Boeing 2707-100 (dual-hinged nose): 306.0 ft
Boeing 2707-200 (canard variant): 318.0 ft
Boeing 2707-300 (prototype version): 286.7 ft
Boeing 2707-300 (production version): 298.0 ft
Lockheed L-2000-7A: 273.0 ft
Lockheed L-2000-7B (14-frame stretch): 293.0 ft

The HSCT designs were big, too:
Boeing HSCT configuration: 310 ft
McDonnell Douglas HSCT: 334 ft
Click to expand...


Thanks guys for your inputs.
I will try to update my drawing sometimes in future (since I quite busy with other projects).


Ciao
Giuseppe
 
It is my understanding that the size of the proposed US SST's was part of the problem.


From what I have read, there is a significant increase in friction heat going from Mach 2.2 (Concorde) to the more ambitious US goal of M2.5 cruise. Concorde can actually push through M2.2, but the aluminum airframe will start having "problems" as it will start to melt. The nose especially. This would mean exotic alloys and other materials for the US aircraft, and larger volumes of those materials for the very large aircraft size.


The early 1970's was a fascinating time with wonderful airliner designs, but without the resources to build them.


Cheers from Texas.
 
SAustin16 said:
It is my understanding that the size of the proposed US SST's was part of the problem.

The early 1970's was a fascinating time with wonderful airliner designs, but without the resources to build them.
Click to expand...

Well, not quite, Steve, you'd be over a decade out, since the heat limitation factor had been encountered
by `50s Mach 2+ combat aircraft & dealt with by even faster cruise missiles.

The steel alloys & Ti used by Mach 3 cruise capable XB-70 & SR-71 were available, - but at what cost?
For ~50 years, there has been no air-breathing plane to better the Valkyrie for size/speed.
 
I agree with you JAW.


My thoughts were that aircraft such as SR-71 and other specialized military/intelligence aircraft are funded by the taxpayer to perform a certain important role. Although they are relatively large aircraft built with exotic materials, they are "worth" the high cost to provide specific capability for the defense of the country.


On the other hand, an airliner that is roughly twice or three times as large in all 3 dimensions (Boeing 2707) is going to use much more of the high cost exotic materials, but would be funded by airlines / paying passengers. Although the aerospace industry and investment community were initially going to finance the US SST, I think it became clear that the level of risk for the investment was too high, when all facets of the project and impacts were considered.


Cheers from Texas.
 
SAustin16 said:
I agree with you JAW.


My thoughts were that aircraft such as SR-71 and other specialized military/intelligence aircraft are funded by the taxpayer to perform a certain important role. Although they are relatively large aircraft built with exotic materials, they are "worth" the high cost to provide specific capability for the defense of the country.


On the other hand, an airliner that is roughly twice or three times as large in all 3 dimensions (Boeing 2707) is going to use much more of the high cost exotic materials, but would be funded by airlines / paying passengers. Although the aerospace industry and investment community were initially going to finance the US SST, I think it became clear that the level of risk for the investment was too high, when all facets of the project and impacts were considered.


Cheers from Texas.
Click to expand...


I fully agree with you Steve.


Indeed is a real pity that Boeing 2707 never left the drawing board.... it would be a real sight to see such "beautiful monster" across the sky (especially if compared with the tiny Tu-144 and the tiniest Concorde).
 
Agreed Archipeppe. It would have been quite a sight to see SST's flying.


I had the privilege of attending the Paris Airshow in 1973 when I was 11 years old. I was allowed to pretty much walk anywhere I wanted on the ramp as I was with one of the manufacturer delegations. I was at the leading edge of the wing of the Tu-144 when they pulled out of the paddock for an aerial display. No one asked me to move, so I stood there as that vast wing went over my head just outboard of the starboard engine nacelle...It was really a thrill for a kid. Fortunately we left the show the day before the crash.

I don't know if any of you are aware of it, but Ken West designed a 1/48 scale card/paper B-70 that sells on Ecardmodels.com for a modest sum. I believe it's about 4 feet long, and is very detailed. He has other aircraft on there also, but (off subject) is currently in the final stages of a 1/12 scale Apollo CM/BPC/LES that is detailed beyond a model builder's dreams. You can check it out on Papermodelers.com.


Cheers from Texas
 
SAustin16 said:
Agreed Archipeppe. It would have been quite a sight to see SST's flying.


I had the privilege of attending the Paris Airshow in 1973 when I was 11 years old. I was allowed to pretty much walk anywhere I wanted on the ramp as I was with one of the manufacturer delegations. I was at the leading edge of the wing of the Tu-144 when they pulled out of the paddock for an aerial display. No one asked me to move, so I stood there as that vast wing went over my head just outboard of the starboard engine nacelle...It was really a thrill for a kid. Fortunately we left the show the day before the crash.

I don't know if any of you are aware of it, but Ken West designed a 1/48 scale card/paper B-70 that sells on Ecardmodels.com for a modest sum. I believe it's about 4 feet long, and is very detailed. He has other aircraft on there also, but (off subject) is currently in the final stages of a 1/12 scale Apollo CM/BPC/LES that is detailed beyond a model builder's dreams. You can check it out on Papermodelers.com.


Cheers from Texas
Click to expand...


I met Concorde only once at Le Bourget in 2003 when it was already decided to retire it. It was a nice experience but I was impressed that Concord was sleek and tiny, especially compared with current airliners (even if they are still really slower than it).


Thanks for the tip on paper models, I always loved them since I was a kid.
I had to quit with them only for room reason, especially for those big as the B-70 (4 feet, incredible!!!), indeed I still enjoy people who make efforts to realize realistic paper model as much as possible.
 
Concorde's fate was tragic in so many ways.


The crash is horrible to think about on its own...those poor passengers and crew. The sudden retirement of the fleet was a very sad end to an incredibly beautiful aircraft. The Concorde's wing was a work of art.


I too only saw Concorde fly once, and that was on our approach into Le Bourget. I got a glimpse as Concorde was in a climbing turn..absolutely gorgeous.


I'm looking to your next project, Archipeppe.


Cheers from rainy Texas (we need the rain)...
 
SAustin16 said:
Concorde's fate was tragic in so many ways.


The crash is horrible to think about on its own...those poor passengers and crew. The sudden retirement of the fleet was a very sad end to an incredibly beautiful aircraft. The Concorde's wing was a work of art.


I too only saw Concorde fly once, and that was on our approach into Le Bourget. I got a glimpse as Concorde was in a climbing turn..absolutely gorgeous.


I'm looking to your next project, Archipeppe.


Cheers from rainy Texas (we need the rain)...
Click to expand...


I absolutely agree with you.


Enclosed you may find my personal contribution to the all the people who designed and flown Concorde.
My next project are currently focused on space side of the story, I will realize all the drawings of KH satellites from 1 to 11.


Ciao
Giuseppe


P.S. If you need rain in Texas I would send you ours from Italy, the latest winter in Naples was one of most rainy I ever remember....
 

Attachments

  • BAC - Sud Aviation Concorde.jpg
    BAC - Sud Aviation Concorde.jpg
    377.1 KB · Views: 384
Beautiful work, as usual... The Concorde was certainly the most beautiful shape I ever saw in the sky. As a teenager it would fly above my house twice a day for years and after a while I didn't even bother looking... I wish I could have flown it... :(
 
As an aviation buff kid living in far off NZ, it was always a treat to see the big graceful deltas fly by
- on their rare visits down-under, (even the RAF Vulcans).

& especially the Concorde when it dropped in during its around the world charter flights,
but the XB-70 - I would've loved to experience that machine 1st hand, & the louder the better..
 
SAustin16 said:
I agree with you JAW.


My thoughts were that aircraft such as SR-71 and other specialized military/intelligence aircraft are funded by the taxpayer to perform a certain important role. Although they are relatively large aircraft built with exotic materials, they are "worth" the high cost to provide specific capability for the defense of the country.


On the other hand, an airliner that is roughly twice or three times as large in all 3 dimensions (Boeing 2707) is going to use much more of the high cost exotic materials, but would be funded by airlines / paying passengers. Although the aerospace industry and investment community were initially going to finance the US SST, I think it became clear that the level of risk for the investment was too high, when all facets of the project and impacts were considered.


Cheers from Texas.
Click to expand...
Expensive to build, yes, but the idea was to carry roughly double the number of passengers as a 707 at Mach 2.7, or roughly 3/4ths the passengers of a 747.

This would have reduced cost per seat-mile to well below that of Concorde, as well as making twice as many trips per day as a 747 (which goes into how quickly a new plane pays for itself for the airline).

And this is for an airplane that uses all the same service features as current aircraft, same fuel, same jetways, etc, and is not particularly heavier than a 747. Any airport that can handle a 747 could have handled a 2707.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom