US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971

...
 

Attachments

  • BI22440(1).jpg
    BI22440(1).jpg
    124.7 KB · Views: 636
  • BI22442(1).jpg
    BI22442(1).jpg
    98.3 KB · Views: 283
I recently attempted some research on the NAC-60 at the NASM Udvar-Hazy Center. While I, again, failed to find the sort of drawings I'll need to really bring this to life, such as those necessary to put gauges and switches on panels, I did find a copy of the proposal and route analysis offered to United Airlines. It has made for interesting reading, as at the time, it was thought that supersonic flights were going to be made over land, resulting in information on routes like New York to Los Angeles (with IATA code IDL referring to Idlewild), Cleveland to Los Angeles, and Chicago to Portland.

Seat mile costs just under 1.5 cents per passenger seat mile, based on a 60% load factor were promised on some routes, as were one hour engine changes, but the one thing that had me looking for a place to lie down was the idea that the entire vertical moves. There is no rudder, just a moving vertical stabilizer.

I thought I'd at least offer the cutaway and its guide for now...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141010_142723742a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142723742a.jpg
    286.3 KB · Views: 257
  • IMG_20141010_142709203a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142709203a.jpg
    92 KB · Views: 223
Hi,


the full-scale model for Boeing SST.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing.png
    Boeing.png
    231.7 KB · Views: 185
Hi Max,


I got it from the book; Aviation and Space Museums of America,and the date was 1972.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    269.1 KB · Views: 161
My trip to the National Archives was an abject failure, in that I failed to find the information I was really looking for. That is not to say that I did not find anything interesting. I'm planning a return trip very shortly for another attempt, but in the meantime, I found the mother lode of Phase III information, with the completed Lockheed and Boeing proposals. Reading just a bit of the information was interesting. One thing that grabbed my eye involved the possibility of an explosive decompression incident. What I read went largely, though I'm sure not exactly, like this: the equivalent of one window blowing out would result in an emergency descent, with the air pressurization systems working in a overload (?) fashion to keep the cabin pressurized, if not cool, temperatures in the cabin in this instance could be expected to reach 95 degrees F. I"m sure everyone else had similar plans, as in such a case, lives are immediately at stake in a way that they aren't in a conventional jetliner. The procedures were expected to be executed within 18 seconds of detection of a problem.

In any case, I photocopied some items, but I"ll be scanning them again later, for better resolution.

Each volume of the Lockheed proposal started with two images, one of the mockup that is very familiar to us, and this color image of the economy cabin:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141219_141406616_HDRa.jpg
    IMG_20141219_141406616_HDRa.jpg
    161.7 KB · Views: 176
Wow!! Thanks for sharing us such a rare information.
 
Hi,


http://starnesland.blogspot.com/2011_12_01_archive.html
 

Attachments

  • SSTswingwing.jpg
    SSTswingwing.jpg
    12.8 KB · Views: 534
Very cool video about the sst program circa 1965. Part of the science reporter series from MIT so its aimed at the general public. But still it contains a few interesting bits of info and some very cool pieces of video footage.


Highlight for me is the section about the flight simulator for the SST starting a tad before the 25min mark.


The video also mentions studies being done on a hypersonic scramjet passenger aircraft. The attached image is of this design which is completely unknown to me.


You can find the video here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9BjJaDlOaQ
 

Attachments

  • screenshot-www.youtube.com 2015-01-09 03-54-20.jpeg
    screenshot-www.youtube.com 2015-01-09 03-54-20.jpeg
    105.1 KB · Views: 679
Douglas Model 2229 SST underside. Douglas cooperation with NAA is evident on this view, with canards, fold-down wing tips for compression lift and grouped engines in ventral 4-pack.


The inlet ducts have a variable geometry intake, which is accomplished by closing together the outer wedges of the "W" shape. This was not possible on the XB-70 because of the front undercarriage location. This 1/10-scale factory model was shown to airline customers interested in offering Mach 3+ commercial routes. It is now displayed at the Santa Monica Museum of Flying, across the field from where it was made, about half a century ago.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas 2229 Underside.jpg
    Douglas 2229 Underside.jpg
    112.2 KB · Views: 1,347
circle-5 said:
This 1/10-scale factory model was shown to airline customers interested in offering Mach 3+ commercial routes. It is now displayed at the Santa Monica Museum of Flying
Click to expand...

OK, now someone needs to climb up to it with a camera and a tape measure.
 
Here is Kennedy's speech that announced the beginning of the program...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMHu7uwfbt4
 
Japanese interest in the Boeing SST
When Congress zeroed SST budget on March 25, 1971, a last minute proposal was made by a Japanese trading corporation (a sogo sosha) with the name of Ataka.
Ataka wanted to buy the SST assets to try and produce the 2707-300 in Japan.
https://www.google.fr/webhp?ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=DvNFVZGXLoK1UYSBgegN#q=%22boeing%22%22SST%22%22ataka%22

The proposal was not entirely serious (although Flight International of that era mention Ataka as active in the front of aeronautics). It was soon dismissed by the U.S and Japanese governments.
 

Attachments

  • HSCT_08.JPG
    HSCT_08.JPG
    81.6 KB · Views: 90
  • HSCT_07.JPG
    HSCT_07.JPG
    62.3 KB · Views: 87
  • HSCT_06.JPG
    HSCT_06.JPG
    78 KB · Views: 90
  • HSCT_05.JPG
    HSCT_05.JPG
    89.1 KB · Views: 129
  • HSCT_04.JPG
    HSCT_04.JPG
    53.7 KB · Views: 178
  • HSCT-03.JPG
    HSCT-03.JPG
    84.5 KB · Views: 188
  • HSCT_02.JPG
    HSCT_02.JPG
    71.6 KB · Views: 250
  • HSCT_01.JPG
    HSCT_01.JPG
    50.2 KB · Views: 250
Additional pages.
 

Attachments

  • HSCT_12.JPG
    HSCT_12.JPG
    37.5 KB · Views: 102
  • HSCT_11.JPG
    HSCT_11.JPG
    72.2 KB · Views: 94
  • HSCT_10.JPG
    HSCT_10.JPG
    74.6 KB · Views: 87
  • HSCT_09.JPG
    HSCT_09.JPG
    90.3 KB · Views: 95
Hi,
I'm working on a Boeing 2707-200 3d model, using mainly some scale plans I got from aerospaceprojectsreview.com and this very thread. it's been very helpful. Here Screenshots :
landing.jpg

sscruise.jpg


Still a lot of work , but before i go into texturing, does anybody know a scale plan showing the panel lines and other details ?
All the drawings I found are or very basic or cut out..
Also, I've been using this cutaway drawing showing quite a lot of details:
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/boeing-2707-200-cutaway.jpg
but have a question about the part shown below :
AirBrakes.jpg

Are these air brakes ?


I understand I'm not contributing to the thread, so if this post is misplaced , please move it somewhere else.


Thanks :)
 
Thanks.
Finished the front LG yesterday :
http://galgot.free.fr//transit/FG2707.jpg


So… Could you confirm these things in my previous post are air Brakes ? or some engine service panels ?
I'll like to be able to do some renders in landing configuration, and maybe these would be open if they are indeed air brakes.
 
Those were probably access panels, especially as they were over the engines. There were plenty of speed brakes on the pivoting portions of the wing, and additional ones, it would seem, on the main portion of the wing near the center. The panels you've highlighted would probably be very dangerous to deploy as moving surfaces in flight, especially at the angles shown, and would result in a unusual amount of upward pitch.
 
galgot said:
Thanks.
Finished the front LG yesterday :
http://galgot.free.fr//transit/FG2707.jpg


So… Could you confirm these things in my previous post are air Brakes ? or some engine service panels ?
I'll like to be able to do some renders in landing configuration, and maybe these would be open if they are indeed air brakes.
Click to expand...


Based on the drawing, which seems to show all of the flight control surfaces, I am inclined to believe those are airbrakes.
 
Thanks, I think I finally found out.
Yesterday I downloaded the Boeing SST patent 3447761 :
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3794.msg29793#msg29793
Something I didn't had before. Even though it describes the 2707-100 it includes a precise description of all control surfaces.
Apparently these are "auxiliary elevators" (!). Moving upward only, the engines being just under it, which is consistent with your observation of these giving upward pitch MaxLegroom.
Thinking now also that it would be a bad idea to put air brakes just in front of the GE4 engines reverse exhaust , as both would be used approximately at the same time, the reverses would tear of the air brakes…
On the patent it shows these kind "auxiliary elevators" over each engines, but on the 2707-200 it seems they discarded the ones over the outboard engines.
Worked on the wing root flaps, will post some other screenshots in the users artwork section later :)


cheers
 
galgot said:
Thanks, I think I finally found out.
Yesterday I downloaded the Boeing SST patent 3447761 :
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=3794.msg29793#msg29793
Something I didn't had before. Even though it describes the 2707-100 it includes a precise description of all control surfaces.
Apparently these are "auxiliary elevators" (!). Moving upward only, the engines being just under it, which is consistent with your observation of these giving upward pitch MaxLegroom.
Thinking now also that it would be a bad idea to put air brakes just in front of the GE4 engines reverse exhaust , as both would be used approximately at the same time, the reverses would tear of the air brakes…
On the patent it shows these kind "auxiliary elevators" over each engines, but on the 2707-200 it seems they discarded the ones over the outboard engines.
Worked on the wing root flaps, will post some other screenshots in the users artwork section later :)


cheers
Click to expand...


I doubt if they had been airbrakes, they would have had any problems with the thrust reversers. The Tornado doesn't have any problem with it's airbrakes in front of the thrust reversers. Most thrust reversers don't angle the thrust too far forward.
 

Attachments

  • Supersonic_Ueberschallprojekte_USA_60er (13).jpg.2155186.jpg
    Supersonic_Ueberschallprojekte_USA_60er (13).jpg.2155186.jpg
    22.3 KB · Views: 601

Attachments

  • SST.png
    SST.png
    572 KB · Views: 818
Also;


https://archive.org/stream/missilesrockets1819unse_0#page/n169/mode/2up
 

Attachments

  • SST.png
    SST.png
    500.2 KB · Views: 733
That's an interesting video. I've subscribed to the You Tuber who posted that for about two years now. There were a couple of interesting lapses, or perhaps foreshadowing as well, in that video. When attempting to describe the interior, they showed scenes of the 747 interior. The 747, in a way, killed off the Concorde, but not in the way that we would now think likely. It was more due to the matter of airlines having trouble making money with the 747, so there was none to buy Concordes with.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom