Register here

Author Topic: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971  (Read 319078 times)

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« on: April 09, 2006, 03:45:07 pm »
NASA-Boeing oblique-wing SST designs from the '70's
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline boxkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 791
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2006, 10:36:25 am »
This was the first and only time I’ve seen a Republic SST proposal. Has Republic Aviation given a model number? Further information?

SOURCE: German magazine „Flug + modell-technik“ 8/1963 (page 236)

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2006, 11:06:59 am »
The same illustration was published in :
"Supersonische Verkeersvliegtuigen" by Hugo Hooftman,in the early sixties,the Netherlands.Since then ,I'm looking for more info
about this design , but nothing was ever found.
Intrigueing are the military colours for an SST...

Offline devi

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 118
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2006, 07:42:31 am »
  Hi boxkite.

  In what to page about Republic SST in this magazine?

  And what number of this magazine?

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2006, 02:26:22 pm »
Wasn't it related with the aerospaceplane studies of late '50s - eraly '60s? Some years ago Scott had a mistery aircraft on his APR site looking pretty much like this. I seem to remember that the large plane was carrying  a little one (a TSTO design?)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2006, 06:03:00 pm »
Do someone have something on some of these (Douglas 1961, lower left GD 1959, Lockheed's left 1958 and North American SST 1964 projects - later look somewhat different from XB-70-follow-on SST project)? Others are surely known for me...
« Last Edit: November 02, 2006, 06:18:52 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2006, 08:55:38 pm »
Well the top left one is a stretched B-58 concept that would have been powered by 4 non-afterburning J58s and cruised at Mach 2.4 as I recall.  The lower left GD design is very interesting.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1227
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2006, 11:28:39 pm »
There was also a version of the top left one with just two afterburning J58s.  This picture is way too grainy for me to tell which one this is.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2006, 12:54:42 am »
From what you are looking for, here is better drawing of Lockheed 1959 SST and its evolution.

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2006, 05:54:18 am »
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2006, 09:08:38 am »
There was also a version of the top left one with just two afterburning J58s.  This picture is way too grainy for me to tell which one this is.

This one (the one in the picture) had the two inner nacelles on pylons while the outer two were on the wingtips much like the Bounder bomber.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline boxkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 791
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2006, 11:57:03 am »
Scott,

I can only contribute an artwork from "Der Flieger” 7/1965. It’s the North American NAC-60.

nearly Mach 3 in more than 21,000 m
payload 16,000 kg
range 6,500 km
span 37 m
wing sweep 50°
gross weight 220,000 kg

The Lockheed design was shown in „Der Flieger“ 12/1963. No details, sorry.

Offline boxkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 791
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2006, 11:58:26 am »
This pictures presented two girls. (By the way, Boeing SST proposals are inside the photo too.)

Source: Spanish magazine “Flaps” No.66/1964 (Thanks to pometablava)

Offline boxkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 791
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2006, 12:00:50 pm »
(I said Scott, but meant Flateric - sorry).

“Early-1960s T-tailed supersonic transport proposal is captured cruising at Mach 2 by Douglas Chief Artist, R. G. Smith.” / Source: “Wings” August 2002 (pg 25)

Offline boxkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 791
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2006, 12:02:38 pm »
Also from the same “Wings” issue:

“Factory model of Douglas tri-sonic transport, circa 1961.”

Offline boxkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 791
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2006, 12:05:46 pm »
An interesting patent from “Weltumspannende Memoiren eines Flugzeugkonstrukteurs” (book and patent by Richard Vogt).

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2006, 01:11:44 pm »
Wow Boxkite!, what a nice post series.

Richard Vogt, from Blohm und Voss?, do you know the date for this patent?, he was working in the USA?, for which company?

sorry for the number of questions but you made me feel curious with the last drawing :)


Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2006, 03:13:51 pm »
The Douglas design:
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2006, 03:15:44 pm »
Early Lockheed SST's, somewhat similar to the one posted:

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #19 on: November 03, 2006, 03:17:13 pm »
Where iot all started, the NACA/NASA "SCAT" series.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2006, 03:18:04 pm »
Of course, none of these are as cool as the SST version of the F-104 Starfighter:

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2006, 03:19:04 pm »
And of course they all pale in comparison witht he Sheer Manliness of the CL-655 hypersonic transport:

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2006, 06:48:13 pm »
Of course, none of these are as cool as the SST version of the F-104 Starfighter:



That one made me laugh  ;)  Strikes me more as someone goofing off than a serious proposal.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline boxkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 791
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2006, 03:39:49 am »
Quote
Richard Vogt, from Blohm und Voss?

Yes.

Quote
do you know the date for this patent?

No.

Quote
he was working in the USA?,


Yes.

Quote
for which company?

I borrowed the book a few years ago, but didn’t make Xerox copies. In only remember two companies, Aerophysics Development Corporation in Santa Barbara (Vogt said he was the leading engineer for the Curtiss-Wright VZ-7, which was developed at Aerophysics) and Boeing.

Maybe there is an Richard Vogt entry in the Wikipedia encyclopedia - ?
============================================
Scott,

Can you tell us something generally about the SCAT terminology? There where NASA SCATs, Lockheed SCATs, …

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2006, 04:23:37 am »
Just found, all types mentioned before, but nevertheless maybe those 3-views are
interesting :
Boeing 733 (earlier, smaller proposal, I think)
Lockheed  CL-823
North American NAC-60

(from FlyingReview 5/64)
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2006, 07:24:31 am »

Lockheed  CL-823
North American NAC-60

They got the Lockheed and NA designs labelled wrong (the lockheed is actually the NA design)
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2006, 07:28:02 am »

Can you tell us something generally about the SCAT terminology? There where NASA SCATs, Lockheed SCATs, …


The Supersonic Commercial Air Transport program was started by NASA in, I believe, 1962. It built upon previous work done by NASA/NACA in designing generic SST configurations. The various corporations then took the NASA-generated configurations and produced more detailed designs based on them.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 576
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2006, 09:58:27 pm »
"We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles.  Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked."

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2006, 02:10:37 am »
- what is the speed of a swallow loaded with a coconut ?
- an african swallow or an european swallow ?
- I don't know...aaaaaaaaaaargh!!!  ;D

Got a good pic of the Boeing 733 in a Science&Vie from march 1964, "3 projets US contre concorde" (thanks mom for the Science&Vie :-*)

Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2006, 05:32:35 am »
Here's the three competitors in march 1964: from up to down,
- Boeing 733
- Lockheed
- North American

 :)
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 01:07:46 pm by flateric »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2006, 05:59:39 am »
According to Aviation Magazine International Nº753 Mai 1979

Boeing launched an study for a 2nd Generation SST. Several configurations were studied but always starting from a delta wing plan. A twin engined scaled down prototype would be build under NASA and General Electric assistance. No engine details.

Prototype dimensions:

lenght: 39.18 m
span: 15.20 m
Max. Weight: 22 700 Kg
Speed range: Mach 2.2 to 2.7

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2006, 01:40:39 pm »
Quote
That one made me laugh  Wink  Strikes me more as someone goofing off than a serious proposal.
Uh, not so, there was even a serious enough proposal for a (small) SST derived from the F-106...

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1227
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2006, 09:21:14 pm »
More of a staff courier aircraft than a SST per se, at least according to the article Orionblamblam published in APR.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2006, 01:17:29 am »
Yes, more or less what is the F-104 SST.. ;D

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2006, 04:44:11 pm »
Enjoy!

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2006, 01:22:06 pm »
The Air and Space Museum in Washington has a complete documentation regarding the 1963 Republic SSt project. If someone is going there, he would take a look in Box 414 of the Fairchild Corporation Collection, Folder 20 to 26....

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2006, 01:55:59 pm »
Hey, my wife wants to visit the USA again  ;D
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2006, 06:55:24 am »
Go, you'll be all of us..  ;) ;D

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2006, 01:02:03 pm »
Sky...

The designs Scott showed on his APR site was a kind of an early spaceplane concept. Perhaps related to Republic's initial idea's for a shuttle launcer.
It is strange that the Republic SST is carrying military markings..

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #39 on: November 20, 2006, 01:18:18 pm »
Yes, its unusual, but not so strange for me. Its only artists impression. Maybe there we can search for mistake...

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2006, 01:32:23 pm »
Can someone share (if have ones) good Boeing 2707-200 SST drawings/cutaways? Got reissued Revell kit, want to dig into details.
Thanks in advance!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #41 on: November 25, 2006, 02:53:32 pm »
Please, check your email box. I think it could be what you're looking for ;)

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2006, 12:49:10 pm »
And, although already shown by flateric on page 1 of this thread, here
with a designation : Ths Douglas Model 2229, Mach 3 Transport :
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1226
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #43 on: January 03, 2007, 02:30:28 am »
Another blast from the past.

I was leafing through some American magazines at a Plane Fair and noticed a small picture of a C5 tanker refueling what was described as the Boeing SST, both in 60s all metal USAF colours.  The Boeing SST was the large 2707 swing wing version.  It looked amazing as a USAF transporter (presumably Boeing hoped that like the 707 they could use the USAF as a start-up customer).  I have seen models of an Air Force One version of the SST on Ebay, though these are modern in origin.

The idea must have been dropped before the swing wing version gave way to the 2707-300 delta version as I have never seen any artwork of this in USAF colours.

Now that Revell have re-released their SST kit it is worth recalling that some 26 airlines flirted with the SST by taking up options including:
Aer Lingus, Aeronaves de Mexico (lapsed in 1967),Air Canada, Air France, Airlift (a battered model of this was on Ebay a few years back), American, BOAC, Braniff, Continental, Delta, Eastern, El Al, KLM,  Japan Air, Lufthansa, Northwest, Panagra (lapsed in 1966), Panair do Brasil (lapsed in 1967), Pan Am, Transamerica,TWA, United

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #44 on: January 03, 2007, 07:19:59 am »
Quote
looked amazing as a USAF transporter

Wow!, maybe one of the forum artists could produce the profile ::)

Quote
C5 tanker

This is even more amazing. Could you describe this configuration?. Any chance to see a pic?. I think Boeing opposed a 747 tanker version to the KC-10 and also it was a Tristar Tanker but never heard about C-5 tanker versions in the 60's. This should be a private iniciative from Lockheed ???



Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #45 on: January 03, 2007, 10:13:09 am »
There's a colour illustration on the cover of
'Air Force and Space Digest' of Februar 1967.

A blue sky with two silver planes - an early C-5 or lookalike
refuelling a Boeings swingwing SST in Air Force markings.

Air Trails Military Aircraft -1971 presents an article
with the Boeing swing-wing SST , again in military guise with the
title  :  'World Fastest Flying Command Post - Shot Down '

 

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #46 on: January 05, 2007, 06:35:21 am »
Hello! Not exactly the topic of this thread, but its better using this one than create another

I'm searching dimensions of the fixed-wing 2707-300. The final aircraft (tailed delta, 234 seats).
Length and span would be welcome!!! (on the web are only dimensions of this damned swing-wing design  >:( )


 

Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #47 on: January 05, 2007, 08:02:42 am »
The proposed Boeing 2707-300 SST was designed for 290 passengers. It had a 69,000-pound payload with four turbofan engines mounted about the center section of the wings, which carry JP-4 propellant. The vehicle had a reference lengtb of 315 feet, a wingspan of 126.8 feet, and a total gross weight of 640,000 pounds.

Use of stability augmentation methods during preliminary design led to a 150 inch reduction in fuselage length for the Boeing 2707-300 SST. The shortened fuselage also led to reduced vertical tail size and gear length, with a weight savings of 6,000 lbs and a range increase of 225 nautical miles.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b2707-design.htm

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline richard

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 562
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #48 on: January 05, 2007, 08:07:46 am »
span 141' 8",length 280' 0"

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #49 on: January 05, 2007, 11:00:54 am »
Please, check your email box. I think it could be what you're looking for ;)

Any chance you could put them in my mailbox too?  :D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2007, 05:41:11 pm »
sferrin,

check your email ;)

regards

Antonio

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 576
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #51 on: January 06, 2007, 08:29:53 pm »
(Raises hand)

Might I impose upon you to visit my email box as well?

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #52 on: January 07, 2007, 06:37:54 am »
sure ;)

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 576
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2007, 07:43:33 pm »
Thank you very much, Antonio! Time to try an illustration, perhaps.....

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2007, 08:18:06 pm »
sferrin,

check your email ;)

regards

Antonio

Thanks a bunch  ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #55 on: January 10, 2007, 02:19:44 pm »
I know we've touched on various designs like the Boeing 2707 elsewhere, but I'm interested in a systematic look at US SST programs.

NASA Langley did a huge amount of research into basic configurations for SST design starting from 1962. Some of the configurations they came up with were:

SCAT-4
Fixed-wing design, highly integrated wing, fuselage and engines and tail into a highly swept, cambered and twisted aircraft design minimising wave drag.

SCAT-15
Auxiliary wing design somewhat like the D-24 Alliance concept but with no horizontal tail surface

SCAT-16
VG design a lot like B-1/Tu-160

SCAT-17
Fixed delta wing with a canard forward surface

Boeing's early SST design was 733-197, in early 1964. This carried 150 passengers, with a gross weight of 430,000lb and a cruise speed of Mach 2.7. Basic structural material was titanium, and wing sweep varied from 20 deg to 74 deg. 4 afterburning turbofans such as the GE4/F6A in the 50-60,000lb category were mounted in individual pods across the wing carry through.

By November 1964 development had moved to the 733-290, with sweep angles now 30 deg to 72 deg and engines moved further aft. Passenger load was now 241, but gross weight was increased to 500,000lb.

18 months later, Boeing had progressed to the 2707-100. Gross takeoff weight had risen now to 675,000lb, and a new, enlarged tailplane fitted flush against the wing in maximum sweep to form a single modified delta planform lifting surface. Engines were again moved aft, to just under the tailplane. Length was now 306ft.

By November 1967, the Model 2707-200 was 318ft long, and now housed 292 passengers in a typical mixed configuration, with moveable canard surfaces on the forward fuselage.

In October 1968, Boeing announced it had shelved the VG SST and was working on a fixed wing design, the Model 2707-300. The integrated wing/tail concept wasn't working - the rear engine position resulted in poor mass distribution, and the control surfaces were closely coupled to the CG reducing stability. The canards added to 2707-200 had just made matters worse, not better.

The final cancellation of the program happened on 24th March 1971 when the US Senate voted against further financial backing.

Source:

"Annals of the Polymorph" Air International, May 1975.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #56 on: January 10, 2007, 03:07:02 pm »
Boeing 733-197
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #57 on: January 10, 2007, 03:17:13 pm »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #58 on: January 10, 2007, 03:35:44 pm »
Some in additional detail
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2513
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #59 on: January 10, 2007, 03:42:24 pm »
This program was followed by the HSCT (High Speed Civil Transport) program in the late 80's and into the 90's. Which lead to many very cool looking supersonic transport designs, many of which I had access too when I was in school, but I never made copies of the drawings. In fact, some of those designs are shown in that NASA PDF document, such as the Lockheed over/under engine configuration. Which is too bad because they were very good engineering multi-view drawings. I would love to have some of those drawings today for 3D modeling those concepts. 

I also remember seeing models of all of those supersonic businees jet designs by NASA. Were those part of the SCAT program, or a different program, I can't recall?

Offline boxkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 791
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2007, 11:21:47 pm »
Clyde W Ohrmann (left in front) and Ben Hollo, engineers for relations (in German 'Verbindungsingenieure'?) at the Boeing company, present a few of the more than 500 supersonic windtunnel models, which were tested since 1957. Ohrmann is standing beside the design which was offered to FAA, Hollo hold one of the first concepts investigated six years before.

SOURCE: aero 5/1964

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1227
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2007, 02:13:10 am »
Is it just me or does SCAT-17 bear a distinct resemblance to Boeing's WS-210 (B-70) entry?

Offline Akaikaze

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • The hardest word to define is 'Normal'
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #62 on: January 14, 2007, 07:29:42 pm »
Not really.  The wings and tail shape are wrong.  I attached a scan from Boeing's losing design for the B-70 for reference.  I got it from a book on the Valkrie by Tony Landis (excellent pictures of the F-108, by the way).  About the only similarities are the general layout and the engine pod design.
I watch, I look, I listen...

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #63 on: January 15, 2007, 01:34:46 am »
Quote
In October 1968, Boeing announced it had shelved the VG SST and was working on a fixed wing design, the Model 2707-300. The integrated wing/tail concept wasn't working - the rear engine position resulted in poor mass distribution, and the control surfaces were closely coupled to the CG reducing stability. The canards added to 2707-200 had just made matters worse, not better.

Do you know where I can find a 3-view of this final variant ? seems that all websites only mention the VG wing variant  >:(
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #64 on: January 15, 2007, 03:50:06 am »
Here  8) ;D

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #65 on: January 15, 2007, 06:22:30 am »
Merci! merci! merci! merci! merci! merci!
and long life to you, and to this forum!!!! Very useful...
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #67 on: March 11, 2007, 06:31:27 am »
Seems to be either very early 733 configuration or fantasy model to foolish concurents from July 1961 Boeing Magazine
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
« Last Edit: June 08, 2007, 01:16:34 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline elmayerle

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1227
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #69 on: June 08, 2007, 01:16:56 am »
The proposed Boeing 2707-300 SST was designed for 290 passengers. It had a 69,000-pound payload with four turbofan engines mounted about the center section of the wings, which carry JP-4 propellant. The vehicle had a reference lengtb of 315 feet, a wingspan of 126.8 feet, and a total gross weight of 640,000 pounds.

Use of stability augmentation methods during preliminary design led to a 150 inch reduction in fuselage length for the Boeing 2707-300 SST. The shortened fuselage also led to reduced vertical tail size and gear length, with a weight savings of 6,000 lbs and a range increase of 225 nautical miles.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b2707-design.htm

Actually, I believe the 2707 was powered by GE4 turbojets.  The competing Lockheed design used, if memory serves me correctly, P&W JTF16 turbofans.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #70 on: July 22, 2007, 04:05:40 pm »
733-290

Flying Review Vol 20 Issue 9
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #71 on: July 22, 2007, 04:18:58 pm »
Some Boeing designs.

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #72 on: July 23, 2007, 11:26:54 am »
Hi,

Anther unknown Lockheed SST.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #73 on: July 24, 2007, 11:19:31 am »
Hi,

Anther Lockheed SST early concept as 3 Mach aircraft
and some unknown SST concepts.


http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1959/1959%20-%200709.pdf

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #76 on: September 30, 2007, 02:54:33 pm »
In desperate search of...GA drawings, cross-sections, any details that can help for scratchbuilding the beauty.
All I have are drawings from Francillion, Flight International 3-views, some murky stuff from old AIAA papers...and that's probably all...Both versions - -7A and -7B are of interest.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2007, 02:59:37 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #77 on: September 30, 2007, 06:58:45 pm »
I have what you want... but no access to it at the moment. After the trip I can scrounge it up.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #78 on: September 30, 2007, 08:08:17 pm »
Thanks, Scott! You are treasure!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline jstar

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 120
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #79 on: October 15, 2007, 06:40:35 am »
Scott, I'd be interested in those also, if you have a chance.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #80 on: October 16, 2007, 08:07:57 pm »
Drawings found, will scan & post in a day or so.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #81 on: October 16, 2007, 08:57:36 pm »
Zillion thanks!!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #82 on: October 17, 2007, 07:30:36 am »
One More Time, with smaller images...
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #83 on: October 17, 2007, 07:31:18 am »
Shazam!
 ;D
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #84 on: December 18, 2007, 10:55:12 am »
Hi,

the Lockheed arrow wing SST airliner aircraft.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1979/1979%20-%204333.html

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #85 on: December 26, 2007, 01:04:24 pm »
Found it on my HDD - L-2000 mock-up...and cool flight attendants (of course, woman stays on the 'No Step' area, what one could expect from her? ;D
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 01:06:06 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #86 on: December 26, 2007, 01:13:31 pm »
Their uniforms are really cool. Thanks for sharing.

Offline Caravellarella

  • Farfadet/Korrigan
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 980
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #87 on: December 27, 2007, 06:28:39 am »
Dear Pometablava, those "cool" uniforms are genuine Braniff International Airways stewardess uniforms; the ones with the repeating pattern are the the second uniform designed by noted Italian designer Emilio Pucci for 1967. The clear plastic "space helmets" are from his first 1966 collection for Braniff.

http://www.braniffpages.com/

All best, Terry, (Caravellarella).
Because L'ORÉAL keeps telling me I'm worth it......
I can scarcely contain my indifference......
Maybe it's MAYBELLINE......
Vamp till ready......
RIMMEL; get the London Look......

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #89 on: January 08, 2008, 09:51:12 am »
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.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 09:53:05 am by Skybolt »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #90 on: January 08, 2008, 11:35:38 am »
Skybolt, you made my day!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #91 on: January 22, 2008, 12:54:06 pm »
Lockheed SST evolution to Phase IA (CL-823 and early L-2000 configurations). Source: Lockheed Horizons Vol.1, Spring 1965
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 01:09:25 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Mark Nankivil

  • Archive Raider
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1424
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #92 on: January 22, 2008, 01:56:14 pm »
Good stuff Flateric - thanks! Mark

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #93 on: January 22, 2008, 03:02:10 pm »
A beauty she was...
« Last Edit: January 22, 2008, 03:04:00 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #94 on: January 23, 2008, 06:18:10 am »
Lockheed did research on behalf of NASA on practical configurations for SST. This was pre-competitive and Lockheed did internal competitive research as well, but the cross-breeding was natural. Configurations studied were based on SCAT-4, -15, -16 and -17 for SST with a cruise speed of Mach 3 built with titanium, and a SCAT-17 derivative for a cruise speed of Mach 2.2 built with aluminium. Boeing did the same (or so). Will post later. BTW, SCAT-17 and SCAT-17 Aluminium were posted here by Scott some time ago. I repost them for completeness of view.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2008, 06:25:01 am by Skybolt »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #95 on: January 23, 2008, 06:37:34 am »
Corresponding Boeing studies based on generic SCAT designs. Only difference was that Boeing did the Mach 2.2 cruise design built with aluminium using the SCAT-16 VG base. Differences in interpretations are apparaent. Unfortunately, I have only plan views of the Boeing designs (for now).

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #96 on: January 23, 2008, 07:18:01 am »
Skybolt, thanks for adding these!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #97 on: January 25, 2008, 02:42:18 am »
The Boeing Model 1080 iterations posted by Scott some time ago were some of the configurations (all under the Model 1080 blanket) proposed by the Seattle company answering the 1991 NASA RFP for a High Speed Commercial Transport (HSCT). So (like mine SCAT-derived design, answering the AST/SCAR 1972 NASA RFP) do not strictly pertain to this thread. I suggest the moderator to split the topic and reorganize it in at least two: one for the first SST program, ended in 1971, and one for subsequent efforts. 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #98 on: January 25, 2008, 06:08:26 am »
It's a real Gordian Knot to do, but I'll try...should really SCAT efforts be separated from the *first* US SST effort? I'm going to create AST and HSCT threads as well ...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #99 on: January 25, 2008, 09:57:30 am »
Gregory, SCAT configurations (and SCAT-derived, like the 15F) were used up to circa 1973. In effect, the B-2707-300 wasn't strictly SCAT based but derived from internal efforts started at least in late 1967. Later the NASA efforts (and at least the Lockheed internal ones) concentrated on the arrow wing config. Boeing did a secret internal research on arrow wing configuration for the Transportation Department in 1967 when the VG config chosen run into problems. As it is evident, the SST program history has yet to be written.  The HCST in 1988 started from a clean sheet, no SCAT there.  :P

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #100 on: January 29, 2008, 01:04:08 pm »
Sorry,

I don't remember if we display this North American VG SST aircraft
before or not .
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1963/1963%20-%200936.html?search=propeller%20aircraft%20project

Offline Apteryx

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 138
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #101 on: February 04, 2008, 01:55:02 pm »
The Convair design:

http://www.up-ship.com/apr/extras/58-9/58-9.htm

I wonder if you've seen this photo. My college roommate found it taped to the back of a file cabinet he was moving at the University of Florida in 1981.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #102 on: February 04, 2008, 01:59:43 pm »
Well, not exactly "this" photo, but that's the notorious SST derivative of the B-58.. Thanx!

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #103 on: February 07, 2008, 06:01:58 am »
I could be wrong, but I don't remember having ever seen this. It is the stretched configuration (read probably: production) of the Boeing Model 733-197, the original (Jan 1964) Boeing bid for the Commercial Supersonic Transport competition. The stretched versions were actually two, one for domestic (transcontinental) and the other for intercontinental (transatlantic) service, but they were externally identical. Dimensions and weight are in the image.
This come from one of the proposal document that is available online,  here http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD803509. Beware, 22 MB, but enjoy !

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #104 on: February 07, 2008, 08:38:08 am »
Another great find, Skybolt, thanks!
And this is last Phase I VG Boeing submission - 3-view from 2707-300 paper from your previous pdf link plus artist's renderinf from March, 25 1965 Flight International.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #105 on: February 07, 2008, 09:05:52 am »
Mmmm, Gregory, I think that 1965 is too early for the last VG submission. The 1966 winning proposal was the 2707-100. Probably the art is from a transition configurations between 733-197 and 2707-100. I have the designation somewhere. I seem to remember that there wa a last ditch attempt at the end of 1967 to "save" the VG, that is probably the not-integrated wing-tail config from the previous PDF. I think I'll have some first answer in a couple of weeks, and a definitive one in the spring.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #106 on: February 07, 2008, 09:14:13 am »
You are right, let's call it 'last submission as of March 1965'...did some SST phase end around this timeframe?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #107 on: February 07, 2008, 09:28:51 am »
Phase IIa, could be

Offline Johnbr

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #108 on: February 07, 2008, 08:03:54 pm »
How far did get in the making of the prototype.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #109 on: February 08, 2008, 01:29:59 am »
Some structural element.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #110 on: February 08, 2008, 02:37:19 am »
Quote
did some SST phase end around this timeframe?
Actually they were betweek Phase 2A and PHase IIB (June 1965), so that would be Boeing design submitted to the Phase IIB review.
Forgot to mention that all documents of Phase IIA (Nov 1964)and Phase IIB (June 1965) are not available in PDF form but only in hardcopy (printout from microfilm, I think). So it will take some time to have them.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2008, 02:45:59 am by Skybolt »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #111 on: February 08, 2008, 06:31:07 am »
Just to give some chronological sense:
the images below are a freeze frame of what was the status of the SST program in November 1965, review at end of Phase 2-C. Model 733 without dash number is the preproduction aircraft (experimental prototype), Model 733-390 is the production version with Ge engine, Model 733-394 is the production one with P&W engines.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #112 on: February 08, 2008, 06:50:24 am »
Air Force One based on a B-58....

We could repeal the 22nd Amendment.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #113 on: February 10, 2008, 11:44:11 am »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #114 on: February 15, 2008, 09:36:58 am »
Original L-2000 desktop model...still on eBay
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #115 on: February 18, 2008, 11:51:12 pm »
Being 733 early SST configuration
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #116 on: February 18, 2008, 11:53:23 pm »
Boeing 2707 details from Flying Review, March 1967.

« Last Edit: February 19, 2008, 12:01:39 am by overscan »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #117 on: February 19, 2008, 12:08:02 am »
Details of intake and pivot
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #118 on: February 19, 2008, 12:36:30 am »
More details
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #119 on: March 03, 2008, 05:01:17 am »
What kind of technology in regards to fly-by-wire, engine-control-systems, autopilots did the Lockheed and Boeing SST's possess? 

Also, does anybody have a picture, drawing or diagram of what the L-2000's cockpit looked like since I've NEVER seen one.


KJ_Lesnick

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #120 on: March 08, 2008, 01:36:11 pm »
Behold the cockpit. From Lockheed California's Horizons magazine, N.5, second quarter 1966.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #121 on: March 08, 2008, 04:50:30 pm »
Wow, it looks a LOT like the L-1011's cockpit!  Thanks Skybolt! 

KJ Lesnick

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #122 on: March 13, 2008, 09:01:08 pm »
Cabin layout for 16 first class plus 108 economy class seats. 1 - passenger doors: 2 - doors for ground staff: 3 - buffet; 4 - clothes hanging space; 5 - washroom; 6 - supply compartment; 7 - cockpit; 8 - seats for stewardesses.

Interavia 10/1961 – Page 1,378

NAA Proposal for a Supersonic Transport

Technical Data

Powerplant

6 ducted fan engines

Thrust with secondary air-stream reheat
31,000 lb per engine

Thrust without secondary air-stream reheat
25,300 lb per engine

Main Dimensions

Span
104 ft

Length
198 ft

Top of fin from ground .
31 ft

Wing

Area
7,000 sq.ft.

Max. wing loading
61 lb/sq.ft.

Mean aerodynamic chord
75 ft

Aspect ratio
1.81

Leading edge sweep
65.67°

Dihedral


Flaps
490 sq.ft.

Control Surfaces

Canard Area
410 sq.ft.

Sweep (25% chord). . .
38°

Dihedral


Flaps
54 sq.ft.

Vertical fins (two) Area .
2 x 255 sq.ft.

Sweep (25% chord)
45°

Fuselage

Max. width (overall)
12 ft. 4 in.

Max height (overall)
9 ft. 2 in.

Cabin length (incl. subsidiary compartments)
89 ft 8 in

Cabin Width
11 ft

Cabin Height
7 ft

Gangway width (1st Class)
23 in

Gangway width (Economy Class)
15 in.

Cargo compartment Capacity
1,000 cu.ft.

Weights

Total structure.....
122,800 lb

Total power plant . . .
50,800 lb

Total equipment ....
30,400 lb

Manufacturing weight
204,000 lb (1)

Max. takeoff grossweight
439,000 lb

Max. landing weight . .
300,000 lb

Max. zero fuel weight. .
260,000 lb

Max. usable fuel ....
217,000 lb (2)

Performance

Cruise speed equivalent to
Mach 3

at average altitude of
68,000 ft.

Critical field length
6,200 ft. (3)
7,900 ft (4)

Landing runway required
7,950 ft. (5)
8,600 ft. (6)

1.) For the 108 economy class and 16 first class seat version. For variations in cabin class 27 lb per economy class and 32 lb per first class seat must be allowed.

2.) 32,400 US Gal. at 6.7 lb per gal.

3.) According to SR 422B; max. takeoff gross weight; sea level; 100°F.

4.) As 3, but 3,000 ft above sea level.

5) According to SR 422B; 40 percent reverse thrust on three engines during ground roll; maximum landing weight; sea level.

6) As 5, but 3,000 ft above sea level.

As an example of the various projects for a Mach 3 transport prepared by American constructors, we have selected here that of North American, concerning which some details were recently announced.

As North American stresses, this is only a paper study, which is subject to continuous alteration. The first efforts of the NAA engineers arc being directed towards reducing takeoff weight by light construction methods and aerodynamic improvements, in order to cut down fuel consumption and reduce operating costs. Later modifications should also enable economic employment of the aircraft on shorter routes at low supersonic, or even subsonic, speeds. Despite their provisional nature, the data available concerning NAA's preliminary design are of interest and are suitable as a basis for operational investigations and commercial calculations.

As is to be expected, this design is inspired (it is not alone in this) by the B-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 bomber. but is fully tuned to civil requirements. The calculated operating costs are comparable to those of today's long-haul jets for 3,500 mile block distances. The run-ways normally available at international airports are adequate for takeoff and landing. And, thanks to the "quiet" but high thrust turbofans, climb performance is good, and there will be little reason for those living in the vicinity of airports to complain of excessive noise. If sound pressure at ground level is not to exceed 1.46 lb/sq. ft, the aircraft must not pierce the sound barrier below 34,000 ft.

Features of Design

North American selects the following features of its design as important:

1. Trimmable canard control surfaces.

2. Spoilers and air brakes.

3 .Downward folding wing tips for economic cruise flight.

4 .Braised stainless steel honeycomb sandwich and riveted titanium sheet construction.

5. Six duct-burning turbofan engines with thrust reversers. 6. Multi-shock induction system —one to each three engines.

7.. Main undercarriage legs each with 8-wheel bogie, tire. pressure 160 p.s.i.

8. 4,000 p.s.i. hydraulic system with brazed fittings.

9., Fully powered automatic hydraulic control system.

10.. Closed-cycle air-conditioning system for the cabin, with ram air pressurization for emergency use.

11. 115/200 volt, 400 cycle, 3 phase AC electrical system.

12 System checkout during flight. 

13 Crew vision angles in accordance with current US regulations (CAR 4b).

14. Self-contained hoists for facilitating loading and unloading of 224 in x 110 in .x 76 in freight compartment (usable cargo space 1,000 cu. ft).

Flight Profile

The assumptions used in the calculation of times, speeds and fuel consumption are as follows: climb at subsonic speed to about 43,000 ft; transonic accelera-tion in climb to supersonic speed; attainment of Mach 3 at minimum cruise altitude; continuous climb at Mach 3; average cruise altitude about 70,000 ft; deceleration to subsonic speed at an altitude of at least 43.000 ft; approach flight and landing; plus six minutes manoeuvre allowance. For a block distance of 3,400 n.m. to be accom-plished with maximum payload, resultant block time, (which includes 15 minutes taxiing time), is 2 hrs 45 mins, block speed 1,240 knots, and block fuel consumption (during flight plus 5.000 lb in taxiing) 176,000 lb.

If the aircraft is forced to deviate to an alternative airport, the amount of fuel used at most favourable cruise altitude, at an all-up weight of 300,000 lb and under ISA conditions, is about 1,050 lb per min. If holding at the airport of destination becomes necessary, the fuel requirement at most favourable Mach no. holding flight, with an all-up weight of 250,000 lb at an altitude of 25,000 ft is about 400 lb per minute, and at sea level some 490 lb.

Typical Operational Weight Calculation

This example is based on a block distance of 3,400 n.m., e.g. New York/Zurich, with max. payload. Cabin layout: 16 first class and 108 tourist class passengers.

lb

Manufacturing Weight Empty
204,000

Crew (8 Persons plus Baggage)
1,580

Unusuable Fuel and Oil
1,400

Cooling Water
2,000

Engine Oil
285

Liquid Nitrogen Fuel System
400

Flight supplies, emergency equipment etc
1,945

Operating weight empty (rounded values)
212,000

Payload (Passengers, baggage, freight)
31,000

Operating Zero fuel Weight
243,000

Reserve fuel (for 300 n.m. diversion at cruise altitude plus 30 minutes hold at sea level
25,000

Operating Landing Weight
268,000

Flight Fuel
171.000

Maximum all-up weight
439,000
« Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 01:17:28 am by overscan »

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 830
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #123 on: March 13, 2008, 09:02:18 pm »
The Performance Specs

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #124 on: March 14, 2008, 01:27:15 am »
Great post, thanks a lot :)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #125 on: March 14, 2008, 07:15:45 am »
Sold on eBay for $660...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2092
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #126 on: March 15, 2008, 12:58:32 am »
What scale  ? 1/72 ?
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #127 on: March 15, 2008, 02:09:08 am »
If the guy is about 1,75m tall and around 85 m length is plausible
for such a SST, then it can be 1/72 ....    ;) 
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #128 on: March 15, 2008, 03:00:30 am »
If the guy is about 1,75m tall...

If the girl you'd say.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #129 on: March 15, 2008, 04:17:56 am »
"If the girl you'd say."

Well, you may be right !    :D
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #130 on: March 26, 2008, 04:50:57 am »

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #131 on: April 04, 2008, 07:47:25 pm »
Does anyone have any diagrams or pictures of models, etc, of the B-2707-100 when they widened the fuselage of the winning design to the point that it could accomodate 2-3-2?

KJ

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #132 on: April 11, 2008, 04:42:13 am »
Hi,

the Lockheed L-2000 was displayed here with large fuselage and
small fuselage variants.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1966/1966%20-%200144.html?search=spacecraft%20project%201972

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #133 on: April 12, 2008, 01:55:43 pm »
What was the airplane's length with the shorter fuselage?  How did that affect the area-ruling? 

BTW:  Was that with the 9,026 square-foot wing-area used in the L-2000-2, or the 9,424 square foot wing-area used in the L-2000-7A?



Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #134 on: April 14, 2008, 08:12:34 pm »
The L-2000-7A's leading-edge droop also required the trailing-edge devices to deflect down (or at least upward at a lesser deflection) no?

Offline Sentinel Chicken

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 576
  • American 71 Heavy, contact departure 126.47
    • TAILS THROUGH TIME: Short Trips on the Long Road of Aviation History
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #135 on: April 21, 2008, 06:51:21 pm »
Wonderful document, Skybolt! I've been trying to work on a Boeing 733 print for sometime now, this will come in VERY handy!

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #136 on: April 22, 2008, 01:20:21 am »
MUCH MORE to come...

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #137 on: May 07, 2008, 09:33:05 am »
ha ah, finally got it...
PROPOSAL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMMERCIAL SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT. VOLUME A-5. AERODYNAMIC REPORT - LOCKHEED-CALIFORNIA CO BURBANK - 15 JAN 1964

Part of the original Phase I proposal. Photo reproductions are abysmal, but line drawings are good. Some of the photos later published in Horizons magazine.
Enjoy http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD377973 Beware, big file.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #138 on: May 07, 2008, 02:46:54 pm »
Cool...

You know I never even heard of the Curtiss Wright TJ70A-4 (one of the engine's to power the Lockheed L-2000 Phase 1).  Fascinating

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #139 on: May 08, 2008, 01:58:17 am »
Actually the Curtiss-Wright was the most advanced of all three engine proposals, but it was deemed not available in time for the original assumed schedule of the SST (first flight in 1971). There was a lot of controversy, with NASA and Air Force insisting in keeping Curtiss-Wright in the game with funds for building a second-generation supersonic transport engine for the 1975 time-frame. But the FAA was racing with Concorde, so Curtiss-Wright was dropped. BTW, the company put significant resources in the design of that engine, but to no avail. The Air Force had already shifted to highly-subsonic low level penetration with incoming and outcoming supersonic legs for their post-XB-70 bombers concepts.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #140 on: May 08, 2008, 02:31:12 am »
Seems that some new SST Program documents were uploaded recently to STINET...
Skybolt, thanks again for smart eye!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #141 on: May 08, 2008, 05:52:50 am »
Yes, but this one seems the only really interesting. There are some new from P&W. The Boeing related ones are old stuff, apart one on the economics at Phase IIC level.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 05:54:51 am by Skybolt »

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #142 on: May 08, 2008, 10:17:26 am »
When I did web-searches on this one, I don't recall ever seeing an explanation regarding the HSCT's weight, just that the plane's weighed a given amount.  I have even asked on other web-forums regarding the following particular questions... 

-How come the HSCT designs came out weighing something like 738,000 lbs utilizing a much more advanced composite design and no need for a droopable-nose?
-How is it that the B-2707-300 which originally started out at 635,000 lbs using a tailed double-delta wing, ended up creeping all the way up to 750,000?  (I know with the B-2707-100 and B-2707-200 the creep up ended up occurring because of the swing-wings.)  It was a fairly simple-design --- how did they screw up so much?   
-Would the Lockheed L-2000-7A have ended up drastically heavier than the 590,000 lb estimate like the double-delta B-2707-300? 

but I never got a particularly good answer....


Kendra Lesnick
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 07:09:15 pm by KJ_Lesnick »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #143 on: May 08, 2008, 10:46:09 am »
The give that answer would need some hundreds pages. I give just an hint for the 2707: structural weight of the wing box and pivots. The -200 was abandoned when calculations showed that design convergence would have required a TOW of more than 1.2 million pounds. As for the HSCT, it was combining low and high speed efficiency and amount of fuel the major culprits, not to mention the sonic boom reduction (very slender airframe, with consequent stiffening of the structure) and sound suppression at low altitude. Build a somewhat "green" SST is VERY difficult, expecially if you want to make it economically viable for the airlines.

Offline LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2124
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #144 on: May 08, 2008, 11:16:00 am »
What really hit the 1990s HSCT badly was the requirement for Stage 3 noise compliance, which nailed you in several ways. The engine cycle had to be compromised:  at Mach 2.4 what you really want is nearly a straight TJ, but that would never make the noise requirement. The chosen solution was a turbofan with a giant, heavy suppressor, which was a weight penalty. Then you have the escalation factor of all that weight hanging off the back of the wing structure.
I believe the reference range was also greater than for the final Boeing SST in the early-1970s program.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #145 on: May 09, 2008, 04:35:32 am »
Yep, the reference route was New York - Rome and later trans-Pacific. For the SST was NY-London.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #146 on: May 10, 2008, 12:28:30 am »
Skybolt,

I never knew the weight of the swing-wings would actually get that high!  The B-2707-300, though, was a tailed double-delta design... how did it's initial estimate of 635,000 lbs go all the way up to 750,000 lbs?  It's range to my knowledge was roughly the same as the earlier SST design specs from what I remember...

Also, while I'm at it... would the L-2000-7A have been able to make it's 590,000 MTOW weight figures (or at least come close)?  I'm just wondering because, while the design was fairly simple, and Lockheed had more experience with supersonic designs, and titanium fabrication than most other aircraft manufacturers, during the 1970's, Lockheed tried to develop an SST design again (I'm not sure the exact details, although at least one was to use LH2), that was a tailed SCAT-15F type design that was 286 or 287 feet long, powered by 4 x 80,000 lbf engines (what engine that was I got no idea), and weighed 750,000 lbs!  Was this design so heavy because Lockheed realized how much such a design would really weigh, or were they right about the L-2000-7A, but because of the (tailed) cranked-arrow wing design (which was rejected during the L-2000 program) and it's weight-penalties over the (tailless) delta-wing?


Kendra Lesnick
BTW:  I have an ENORMOUS amount of information accumulated over the years about the SST program -- I have never found an answer for these questions in the information I possess... internet searches have not provided me with this information either...

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #147 on: May 10, 2008, 01:06:56 am »
Quote
how did it's initial estimate of 635,000 lbs go all the way up to 750,000 lbs?

Its pretty common for initial weight estimates to be optimistic. Nothing odd or unusual about it.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #148 on: May 10, 2008, 08:23:05 pm »
Overscan,

Just out of curiousity, do you think the L-2000-7A's listed weight-figures were as "optimistic"?  I'm just curious as...
- The L-2000-7A is, in many ways, simpler (no horizontal-stabilizer, no flaps, and less complicated droops, it may have had a better structural-design).
- Lockheed had more experience with supersonic aircraft, with titanium fabrication, and with environmental-control, and cooling systems (To keep the passengers, pilots and flight-attendants from getting roasted) and would be better able to estimate/guesstimate weight. 


Kendra Lesnick
« Last Edit: May 10, 2008, 08:33:51 pm by KJ_Lesnick »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #149 on: May 12, 2008, 02:21:43 am »
The 2000-7a and b had other problems as well. As far as noise, it didn't met the already untenable DC-8 and 707 standard. Moreover, its payload at 4000 miles sunk to 30.000 lbs due to ever increasing demand for reserve fuel. The double-delta had problems at subsonic speeds and the airlines were upset by the need to remain aloft circling waiting for landing on increasingly congested airports. Moreover, the climb rate was lower than the Boeing's one, so the noise footprint problem got even worse. Finally, and this became apparent at the Phase III evaluation, the 2000-7 was weight-wise at the limit, i.e. it had no more room for weight increases, any of those would have required a complete redesign.
As a side note: a real complete, technical AND political AND economical history of the US SST program has yet to be written. A good first work is "High Speed Dreams", by Erik M. Conway, John Hopkins University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-8018-8067-X, but it covers ALL officially-backed (NASA primarily) SST efforts in the US, so it must cut short on details. Highly recommended. though.   

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #150 on: May 12, 2008, 02:25:10 am »
KJ, the Lockheed SCATs of the 70's were on behalf of the NASA's SCAR program.  Boeing too worked on arrow wings in that program. Not mentioning MDD.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #151 on: May 26, 2008, 06:15:08 am »
Please enjoy L2000 mock-up pictures scanned from Japanese AIREVIEW magazine in January 1967.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #152 on: May 26, 2008, 06:17:46 am »
Please enjoy L2000 mock-up pictures scanned from Japanese AIREVIEW magazine in January 1967.

Thanks! Any more?
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #153 on: May 26, 2008, 06:38:06 am »
These are engine nacelle, GE4 and JTF17 engine pictures of L2000 mock-up.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #154 on: May 26, 2008, 06:49:19 am »
Landing gear and vertical tail fins.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #155 on: May 26, 2008, 09:03:48 am »
The 2000-7a and b had other problems as well. As far as noise, it didn't met the already untenable DC-8 and 707 standard.

The B-2707 did?

Quote
Moreover, its payload at 4000 miles sunk to 30.000 lbs due to ever increasing demand for reserve fuel.

What was the initial 4,000 nm estimate without the increased reserve-fuel requirements? 

Quote
The double-delta had problems at subsonic speeds and the airlines were upset by the need to remain aloft circling waiting for landing on increasingly congested airports.

What problems?  I thought they got rid of the pitch-up problems by Phase II.

Quote
Moreover, the climb rate was lower than the Boeing's one, so the noise footprint problem got even worse.

Hard to believe as the B-2707 had a lower T/W ratio.  What were their estimated climb-rates anyway? 

I guess the L-2000's relatively poor-climb a result of the high-alphas inherant in the delta-wing... 

Quote
Finally, and this became apparent at the Phase III evaluation, the 2000-7 was weight-wise at the limit, i.e. it had no more room for weight increases, any of those would have required a complete redesign.

I never knew that it was right at the limit.  Was the 590,000 lb figure even remotely accurate as it was? 
 

KJ_Lesnick

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #156 on: May 26, 2008, 10:35:59 am »
KJ, those were the judgments given by the Phase III selection committee in 1966...

As for noise, the B-2707 produced less noise on the airport area than a 707, due to the higher climb and sink rate (less footprint). The strictly engine exhaust-related noise was more or less the same. As for the other answers, I don't have here my sources, so please wait some hours.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #157 on: May 26, 2008, 01:30:33 pm »
Quote
The B-2707 did?
Yes
Quote
What was the initial 4,000 nm estimate without the increased reserve-fuel requirements? 
Add 25 per cent, and before you ask, with equivalent range fuel reserves (subsonic performance was better) the 2707 scored 60.000.
Quote
What problems?  I thought they got rid of the pitch-up problems by Phase II.
Less efficient than the 2707, higher fuel consumption
Quote
Hard to believe as the B-2707 had a lower T/W ratio.  What were their estimated climb-rates anyway?
I guess the L-2000's relatively poor-climb a result of the high-alphas inherant in the delta-wing... 
Hard but true: problem was weight
Quote
I never knew that it was right at the limit.  Was the 590,000 lb figure even remotely accurate as it was? 
As I said before, a comprehensive technical history of the SST effort still lacks; but the evaluation team, and a further independent team, said exactly this. 590.000 was the final datum in the Lockheed Phase III proposal.

As a final round-up, if someone is really interested in re-evaluating the two contenders I think they can read all the Phase III documents (Boeing's are mostly available online, Lockheed's are in the FAA archive) and make up their minds. A good starting point could be the already cited "High Speed Dream" by Erik M. Conway.
No-one of the contenders (and I include the engines) would have been able to provide the performance requested with the noise level requested AND THE ECONOMICS requested by the airlines. Even not considering the sonic boom. Already in late 1966 the DoD was internally sure that no civil airliner would have been permitted to fly supersonically overland. And FAA suspected the same, even asking Boeing to do research on highly subsonic and no-boom supersonics (Mach 1.2) to fill tha gap.




Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #158 on: May 26, 2008, 08:21:39 pm »
Then who said the B-2707 was 675,000 MTOW?  Same people?



Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #159 on: May 27, 2008, 01:05:41 am »
Proposal of the 2707-100 675.000 MTOW. End of Phase III contract specified a 640.000 MTOW. Never achieved.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #160 on: May 27, 2008, 09:33:00 am »
Skybolt,

Am I reading this wrong, or did the same people that said the L-2000 would have a 590,000 max weight said that the B-2707 woul d have a 640,000 lb max weight?   

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #161 on: May 27, 2008, 11:10:42 am »
They weren't saying, they were reading, the submission proposals. The 640.000 figure was mandated in the FAA Phase III contract to Boeing. Take a look at them yourself.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #162 on: May 30, 2008, 02:51:12 am »
1963 Douglas SST ad
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #163 on: May 30, 2008, 03:16:55 am »
Woooops ! Thanks Grigorij !

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #164 on: May 30, 2008, 11:15:59 pm »
PhaseⅡC(1996 September) specifications of Boeing 2707-200(international type and domestic type) and Lockheed L2000-7A/7B. It's written in Japanese language but I believe you can understand the meaning of datas.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #165 on: May 30, 2008, 11:27:14 pm »
I believe these pictures (scanned from Japanese AIREVIEW magazine) represent final configulation of Lockheed L2000-7.
 

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #166 on: May 30, 2008, 11:31:48 pm »
Second picture of L2000-7.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #167 on: May 30, 2008, 11:35:45 pm »
Inner structure of Boeing 2707-300. Very fascinating supersonic transport!!


Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #168 on: May 31, 2008, 01:02:58 am »
Another L2000-7 picture. I am not sure this is L2000-7A or -7B.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #169 on: May 31, 2008, 06:07:46 am »
Great!
The Boeing 2707 has all kinds of front area rule bulging and takeoff rear fuselage banana curving going on. 24 main landing gear wheels! Separate horizontal tail and quite small wing. Spherical spike inlets. Lots of tiny windows, seems more than one per seat. Very long plane.

The Lockheed is more of a Concorde lookalike. Tailless delta. Although not as curvy (ogee) from above as concorde and four separage engine pods. The wing glove is very long, is this for very high AOA during landing or what?

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #170 on: May 31, 2008, 01:59:11 pm »
mz,

The reason for the strake is that due to it's high-sweep, relatively good incidence, and possibly it's contouring, it produces relatively high amounts of lift supersonically compared to the rest of the wing.  The result is that even though the wing features an aft-shift in the center of pressure, the extra lift produced by the strake nullifies this out, allowing very low trim-drag and elevon deflections.  It also produces a powerful vortex at low-speeds at high AoA's which then travels across the front of the rear-delta (which produces a vortex of it's own, boosting it)


Kendra Lesnick

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #171 on: May 31, 2008, 02:33:00 pm »
Blackkite, thank you very much for your posts. Really nice!
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #172 on: May 31, 2008, 08:09:00 pm »
flateric,KJ_lesnick and mz thank you very much for nice comments.
Yes L2000-7 has excellent aerodynamic characteristic, it's lift/drag ration(8.2-8.3) is higher than Boeing 2707-300's(7.34). But Boeing 2707-300 has good lift/drag ratio(14.2) in subsonic flight. It can operate economically in all flight envelope. Today I post the specification of Boeing 2707-300(prototype and mass-production type) and another drawing.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #173 on: June 01, 2008, 12:58:41 pm »
Black, thanks for the postings ! And if you are from Japan, welcome here ! And if you are from somewhere else, welcome all the same ... !  :D
BTW, if the L-2000-7 drawings are really from Phase IIC, they are not final. The "final" proposals for the two-side phase of the SST competition were Phase III. Lockheed finished earlier, by the end of September 1966, Boeing later in the year, and they managed to put together the  Phase III proposal (BTW, largely available online on the DTIC database) just in time (and the design suffered from this). Unfortunately, Phase III Lockheed proposal isn't available online, we'll have to wait for someone digging up the FAA archives... none ever did this thoroughly (for example, there is the NAA Phase I proposal there.... and the Curtiss-Wright engine proposal... and the secret alternate configurations study commissioned to Boeing in 1966, looking an arrow wing designs....).

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #174 on: June 01, 2008, 08:59:28 pm »
Thank you so much skybolt. I will check DTIC web page.I am very happy to get comments from the VIPs of this forum. I have kept great interest for U.S SST program especially L2000. But it's very difficult for me to get precise drawings. But I found best one in this forum which is Orionblamblam's post. But it's not final configulation. I think engine exhaust nozzle part is different from final configulation. I know many datas are included in Lockheed Hrizon magazine revision5 or No5 which I dont't have. I imagine most of L2000's detail datas are still top secret because no manufacture except Lockheed succeed to develop mach 3 cruiser.
I have one question that why Boeing or Lockheed did not apply compression lift theory which applied XB70 to it's SST design? Engine nacelles have the fanction for compresion lift?

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #175 on: June 02, 2008, 02:50:01 am »
Check your PMs..
Regarding compression lift, they didn't apply it simply because (I am oversemplificating, I must admit) there isn't anything like compression lift in the real world... The lift generated by the shockwave is compensated by additional drag. This was proved in the windtunnel at Langley since 1959, and later confirmed in flight testing of the XB-70. See NASA report TM-X-76 "An Experimental Pressure-Distribution Investigation of Interference Effects produced at a Mach number of 3.11 by Wedge-Shaped Bodies Located under a Triangular Wing". http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19670022631

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #176 on: June 02, 2008, 02:56:20 am »
And regarding the L-2000 in Horizons, that wasn't final either: May 1966.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #177 on: June 02, 2008, 06:31:44 am »
Many thanks Skybolt. I immediately download the report. My long question will be disappear soon. Yes I am Japanese and crazy fan of Mr.Jozef Gatial.
He tought me this forum three years ago and from that time I check this forum every day. And found many valuable imformations. I want to contribute to this forum same as you.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #178 on: June 03, 2008, 10:15:18 am »
The Phase III stuff is the mockup right?

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #179 on: June 03, 2008, 02:18:37 pm »
Yes and no.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #180 on: June 03, 2008, 07:31:03 pm »

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #181 on: June 03, 2008, 08:58:22 pm »
KJ_Lesnic and Skybolt, let me participate this very interesting discussion.
My conjectures are as follows.
1.Mockup was made based on early PHASEⅡ design.
2.In PHASEⅢ design, engine nacelles were little lowered to aviod interaction between wing trailing edge, engine nozzles were extended toward aft direction to decrease drag and partial cut of wing trailing edge was avoided.
3.Mockup's nose was little long compared with PHASEⅢ desige.   

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #182 on: June 04, 2008, 02:02:26 am »
Mock-ups didn't capture the real configurations that were proposed by both competitors at Phase III, and even late Phase IIC. For example, in Boeing's design, the position of the engine nacelles weren't fixed even in Phase III proposal, and the mock-up reflected (or didn't) it.  In general, single elements of both designs changed so rapidly that, considering the length of the mock-up building process, it would have been impossible to keep it up-to-date. Even the 2707-300 half-mock-up as built was surpassed by the very late modifications being proposed during 1970. So, for sake of precision, every drawings or artistic impression of SST proposal have to sport a "as at XX XXX 19XX". Otherwise, be content to give a very general impression of what was going on. I myself have not (and don't know someone who really has) documentation of all the drawing evolutions that were produced, for example in the mid-term of Phases documents, only a couple of which are available. If you know the literature of the time, you'll notice how frustrated and puzzled were the writers seeing the designs evolve in seemingly un-convergent ways (the tail position of the Boeing VG design is just a macroscopic example). In short, and this is an invitation to search, historical knowledge on the SST program is far from stabilized: we think to know relatively well the general evolution, but the single phases whys and whats are still much to be researched. Just to give you in example, only in 2002 someone dig up from the FAA archive the official end of Phase III decision explanation document, and didn't published it, only cited. 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 02:16:05 am by Skybolt »

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #183 on: June 04, 2008, 06:57:16 am »
Thank you so much Skybolt ALBM. Excose me I forget to tell you that my conjectires are for Lockheed L2000 sorry.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #184 on: June 06, 2008, 08:06:59 pm »
Another Boeing 2702-200 mock-up pictures from Japanese AIREVIEW magagine in January 1967 which I keep 41 years.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #185 on: June 06, 2008, 08:09:34 pm »
Another pictures.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #186 on: June 07, 2008, 07:47:17 am »
Lockheed SST program logo and promo 'Block-Time Comparator'
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #187 on: June 09, 2008, 10:25:46 am »
2707-100/200 design weight growth
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #188 on: June 12, 2008, 12:33:24 pm »
2707-300 full scale mockup details - found ar AirLiners.Net
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #189 on: June 13, 2008, 06:01:31 pm »
Thank you Flateric for many historical valuables. I feel B2707-300's mock-up pictures are very few because some details are still top secret. B2707-300's cockpit was very narrow and visibility was very limited like high speed racing car. This clearly shows Boeing's big effort to reduce drag.   

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #190 on: June 13, 2008, 06:45:27 pm »
Some of the B-2707 is still top secret? 

Kendra

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #191 on: June 14, 2008, 05:58:27 am »
KJ_Lesnick. This is only my feeling by the fact that I saw only few mock-up pictures of Boeing B2707-300.I think Boeing B2707-300's mock-up was very detailed one which based on manufacturing drawings. I can't point out the secret region exactly. But I think some secret exist in controlled smoothness dimple pattern for wing surface to protect thermal expansion buckling which applied to SR-71 and L2000 not applied to XB-70. I have searched the book which focused on American first generation SST, but I can't find the book till today. It is very strange for me. I feel first generation SST story is untouchable for American aerospace historian. Very famous Mr.Jay Miller or Mr.Scott Lowther did not treate this theme. Sorry I can't answer your question directly. (I have a question that why Sukhoi T-4 did not attack mach 3 speed. Perhaps Sukhoi design team did not know the key point for mach 3 cruising in that day.Is it thermal problem or stability problem?) 

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #192 on: June 14, 2008, 09:28:07 am »
Blackkite,

I doubt the corrugation is a secret.  There are pictures on the top of the L-2000's wing (the mockup, it has a picture of some flight attendants who are dressed up in what looks like some wacky uniform) which show extensive corrugation, it's also documented in some articles of the L-2000.  There's also various stuff which states that the A-12 has corrugations in it's wings in order to deal with thermal expansion. 

Controlled-smoothness dimpling might be used as a form of boundary layer control though... recently at least I remember hearing at least one of the Quiet Supersonic (Business Jet) designs which used a dimpling pattern to improve airflow over the fronts of the wings (supposedly it was the same principle why golf-balls fly so well)

To the best of my knowledge, if it's publicly mentioned, it's probably not classified.  If it is classified though, let's hope neither or both of us get heart-attacks ;D


Kendra Lesnick


Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #193 on: June 15, 2008, 05:43:42 am »
Uploaded some US SST chronicles (full-scale mock-ups/engine tests/aerodynamic issues) from The Wings Over The World to YouTube, plus found beautiful 2707-200/L-2000 full-scale mock-ups footage from Bomberguy. This one is really exciting.




« Last Edit: June 15, 2008, 05:48:06 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #194 on: June 15, 2008, 05:30:18 pm »
flateric,

Great videos!!!  Lots of stuff I haven't even seen before (The Phase I mock-up for example), and I like video 3 and 4 which visually explain the L-2000's wing and inlet aerodynamics in easy to understand terms.   


BTW:  I have a question or two though...

Regarding Video II 
-I thought the B-2707-100 was the swing-wing version depicted, no?  To the best of my knowledge the -200 was the one with the canard and the stretched fuselage...
-Are the maximum altitude figures correct?  I'm just curious since they're listed as identical on both versions (and while this is possible, I've often heard different figures for each), and to the I have heard some figures on google which list a max altitude of 77,000 or 78,000 feet with the typical altitude at the end of the cruise portion being around 76,500 (with initial level-of figures being approximately 71,500)

Regarding Video IV
-While one of the engines (which to the best of my knowledge is the GE-4 as I've seen pictures of that engine run before) produced a normal diamond-shock pattern, one of the engines (which I'm almost certain is JTF-17A judging by the engine's shape) though during the test run depicted produced a rather weird exhaust-pattern (didn't look like the typical diamond-shock pattern, it just looked red with a whole bunch of shock-lines in it), what caused that to happen?


Kendra Lesnick

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #195 on: June 16, 2008, 10:11:50 am »
There were two Dash 200, one w/o canards and one later with them. This was the last effort to save the VG config, then they went back to the drawing board (and computers, and tunnel, and ...). See document I posted in Useful Links section.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #196 on: June 16, 2008, 06:10:38 pm »
Actually the Curtiss-Wright was the most advanced of all three engine proposals, but it was deemed not available in time for the original assumed schedule of the SST (first flight in 1971). There was a lot of controversy, with NASA and Air Force insisting in keeping Curtiss-Wright in the game with funds for building a second-generation supersonic transport engine for the 1975 time-frame. But the FAA was racing with Concorde, so Curtiss-Wright was dropped. BTW, the company put significant resources in the design of that engine, but to no avail. The Air Force had already shifted to highly-subsonic low level penetration with incoming and outcoming supersonic legs for their post-XB-70 bombers concepts.


What particular qualities made the Curtiss-Wright engine the most advanced?

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #197 on: June 17, 2008, 06:28:06 pm »
There were two Dash 200, one w/o canards and one later with them. This was the last effort to save the VG config, then they went back to the drawing board (and computers, and tunnel, and ...). See document I posted in Useful Links section.

I checked the Useful Links section, all four pages.  I couldn't find anything on the 2707-200...


Kendra Lesnick

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #199 on: June 18, 2008, 05:53:05 am »
Flateric,Skybolt Super! How many treasures you have! Till today I don't know the existence of phase ⅠL2000's full size mock-up. I surprised very much that L2000's mock-up undercarriage retracted to the fuselage. B2707-300's mock-up is very beautiful. It was very magnificient air plane. The warp of the wing of Boeing B2707 and L2000 to reduce drug is clearly visible. Long time ago, I heard that P&W JTF17A had thermal problem. Normally turbo fan engine is surrounded by rather low temperature fan flow but JTF17A had duct burner and engine is surrouned by high temperature combustion gas and engine temperature became high.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #200 on: June 18, 2008, 06:11:07 am »
P&W risked of being eliminated because they resisted to rise the inlet temperature above 2000 F.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2008, 06:16:19 am by flateric »

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #201 on: June 18, 2008, 09:22:02 pm »
Blackkite,

I'm not trying to sound dumb here, but those images look to me just like the B2707-100?  Is there a length difference (like the canarded version)?


Kendra Lesnick

Offline Caravellarella

  • Farfadet/Korrigan
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 980
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #202 on: June 19, 2008, 03:24:35 pm »
Dear Kendra, I believe the two images show the first iteration of the Boeing 2707-100; the version with a more swept-back tailfin (with a vertical trailing edge) and the six-abreast seating in the area-ruled forward fuselage. I understand the second iteration went to seven-abreast twin-aisle seating in a wider area-ruled forward fuselage, and this is the pre-canard version available as a very basic 1/200 kit from Revell.

Terry (Caravellarella).
« Last Edit: June 19, 2008, 03:31:45 pm by Caravellarella »
Because L'ORÉAL keeps telling me I'm worth it......
I can scarcely contain my indifference......
Maybe it's MAYBELLINE......
Vamp till ready......
RIMMEL; get the London Look......

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #203 on: June 19, 2008, 05:39:08 pm »
Okay, so the 7-abreast wide-body without canards is actually a -200?  Is it the same length as the later canarded -200?


Kendra Lesnick

Offline Caravellarella

  • Farfadet/Korrigan
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 980
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #204 on: June 20, 2008, 12:06:26 am »
Dear Kendra, to the best of my knowledge the canarded Boeing 2707-200 was longer, and the canards were requried to make a the longer aircraft more controllable. There is another post on Secretprojects which describes the design evolution in detail, but I cannot find it for the moment. Please ignore my captions on the 2 images I've posted as they may be wrong.

The two non-canarded versions appear to be very similar except for the shape of the tail-fin and the width of the area-ruled forward fuselage.

Terry (Caravellarella)
Because L'ORÉAL keeps telling me I'm worth it......
I can scarcely contain my indifference......
Maybe it's MAYBELLINE......
Vamp till ready......
RIMMEL; get the London Look......

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #205 on: June 20, 2008, 02:00:35 am »
The last throngs of the -200 are very complex, and not all the configuration were made public (outside Boeing-FAA I mean). Before discarding the canard, they tried with a different one, of an arrow shape and nearer the wings (to reduce the bending force on the fuselage), and this was named -201. Then they discarded the canard altogether and returned to a T-tail shorter fuselage configuration with engines under the trailing edge of the wing. But at this stage the work for an entirely new configuration had already began in earnest. BTW, the internal model number was changed too, from 733 to 969.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 02:06:21 am by Skybolt »

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #206 on: June 20, 2008, 06:33:19 pm »
KJ_Lesnic,Skybolt,Caravellarella  From Japanese AVIATION JOURNAL magazine in September 1984, full scale mock-up of Boeing 2707 was completed in September 1966 same as the phase ⅡC closing day. According to this book,B2707 had some types they were B2707,B2707-100,B2707-200,B2707-201. Full scale mock-up was may be B2707 or B2707-100,but I don't know the difference between B2707 and B2702-100. Overall length of B2707 was 306ft(93.27m) and B2707-200 was 318ft(96.93m).

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #207 on: June 20, 2008, 10:46:40 pm »
Domo Arigato Gozaimasu, Blackkite!
This is really a treasure chart. Wish I could read Japanese...interesting if English-language analogue exist.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #208 on: June 21, 2008, 01:15:01 am »
Flateric I am very glad that you really enjoy this chart. I will try to make english version of this chart but it take little long time. Please wait. Or some one already have this original chart and will post.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #209 on: June 22, 2008, 05:53:41 am »
Er, I have, but mine is Boeing's proprietary... Moreover, the Japanese one has been reworked to make it more compact, leaving out some models. The original one is more than a meter long. Let me think about it.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2008, 06:00:10 am by Skybolt »

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #210 on: June 22, 2008, 06:28:40 am »
Skybolt I imagined that you sure have it. Blackie

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #211 on: June 22, 2008, 06:46:56 am »
Yep, the hint to a -201 "betrayed me"...

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #212 on: June 23, 2008, 12:24:06 pm »
I'm reading the document.  In one area it lists the plane's weight as 635,000 lbs.  In the others it lists it as around 750,000 lbs? 

I would assume the plane's weight would have been 750,000 lbs if I'm not mistaken.

I'm wondering how the hell can the plane end up so heavy as it was so much smaller than the original designs, and it used honeycomb skin and sine-web spar construction which all save a lot of weight off of the design? 


Kendra Lensick

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #213 on: June 24, 2008, 07:35:00 am »
KJ_Lesnic Yes I confirm 750,000lb(340,193kg,max taxi weight) for B2707-300 production model in some Japanese magazines. Very heavy.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #214 on: June 24, 2008, 06:39:40 pm »
Did Boeing contemplate another swing-wing design between the B2707-200 and the final fixed-wing 2707-300?  Because I would almost swear in a book (could be wrong) that I saw a design that at least appeared to have side-mounted intakes like an F-4 or a Tu-22M2 with swing-wings and stuff (I'm not 100% sure though)

Kendra Lesnick
(If I'm wrong, than what AM I remembering?)

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #215 on: June 25, 2008, 02:31:13 am »
Boeing contemplated more than 150 designs between 2707-201 and -300, using the Model 969-XXX internal numbering. I have only a few, and no-one has side-engines, but it could be. No-one of the "finalists" to the -300 place had side engines, though, and AFAIK no of the early 733-XXX had. BTW, internal designation of 2707-300 was 733-633. 

Offline Caravellarella

  • Farfadet/Korrigan
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 980
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #216 on: June 25, 2008, 02:00:36 pm »
Dear Boys and Girls, have any of you ever seen proper technical drawings for the proposed 2707-300 derivatives. I know that Boeing planned to offer an original smaller 2707-300 prototype-sized production variant as a sort of long-range "2707-300SP". There was also an all-six abreast seating version and a high capacity transatlantic all-seven abreast wide bodied version.

I recall reading in an old edition of Jane's that the 2707-300 design facilitated major alterations to fuselage width and length because the fuselage was attached to the top of the wing surface and existing nose and tail-cone/empennage structures could therefore be grafted onto new fuselage cross-sections.

I cannot identify any subsequent model designations to cover such variants; 2707-400? 2707-300B?

Skybolt's attachment shows some of the schemes on pages 10-1 to 10-5......

http://www.emotionreports.com/downloads/pdfs/boeing.pdf

Terry (Caravellarella).
Because L'ORÉAL keeps telling me I'm worth it......
I can scarcely contain my indifference......
Maybe it's MAYBELLINE......
Vamp till ready......
RIMMEL; get the London Look......

Offline fireflash

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 2
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #217 on: June 26, 2008, 04:41:49 am »
Hi there ,I apologise if this is not the right place to show this but I have just built a model of the 2707-100 as provided by Revell.This particular design has a different tail/ lower fin arrangement than the mock up as dislayed by Boeing and was a further development of the machine. It was made for a special interest group who asked me to build it as a prototype.The markings are custom made as the originals were unusable. I have  12 different models of this aircraft including the smaller Monogram 2707-200 with carnards ( which was slightly longer). Hope this is of use to you  :)

Andy
« Last Edit: June 28, 2008, 05:11:59 am by flateric »

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #218 on: June 26, 2008, 09:18:46 pm »
Beautiful!

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #219 on: June 28, 2008, 04:52:32 am »
This model clearly shows the demerit of this configulation. When engines installed to the main wing, some portion of wing root bending moment due to lift is cancelled by the weight of engines.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 06:34:10 am by blackkite »

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #220 on: June 28, 2008, 05:09:33 am »
But when engines installed to the horizontal tail stabilizer, this merit disappeared. And the distance between center of gravity and horizontal stabilizer is shortened and trim drag become large. And longitudinal moment of inertia become large, low speed controlability is poor and card is needed. This is the reason why B2707-200's weight increased.        
« Last Edit: September 09, 2009, 06:35:02 am by blackkite »

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #221 on: June 28, 2008, 05:10:31 am »
But you must admit it looks damn great=) -300 wasn't so sexy...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #222 on: June 28, 2008, 05:42:15 am »
Flateric Yes I think B2707-300 is very fascinating same as L2000-7. FAA was wrong.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #223 on: June 30, 2008, 02:44:42 am »
The reason for having the engines in a so rearward position was to avoid exhaust impingement of the tail surfaces. Some Boeing designer wanted to go for a T-tail and relocate the engines under the wing, but the chief-aerodynamicist of Boeing opposed due the "deep stall" problem. Naturally, it is very improbable that an SST would ever enter a situation in which a deep stall would occur, and moreover the control-systems was so sophisticated for the time (computer control) that it could have been designed to avoid any occurrence of deep stall altogether . But the "powers that were" decided otherwise, and the VG configuration time-bomb started clicking.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #224 on: June 30, 2008, 08:55:45 pm »
SKybolt I ever saw the picture of very large NASA's wind tunnel test model which had T-tail and engines mounted to VG wing. This shape might be nice candidete for SST. I will check my hard disk. I also understand Boeing's chief aerodymanicist's worry. One of the objective of NASA's model was to research deep stall characteristic of this shape. To install podded engins to the wing was one of the Boeing's great invention same as finite element analysis method for structural analysis.  In 1967, I was a junior high school boy, I shocked very much to know that FAA chose B2707-200. In Japan, including very famous aerospace enginnering scientist, we believed that FAA chose L2000 because A-12 already achieved mach 3 supersonic cruise. I could not understand why FAA chose such a complex and risky design. Simple is the best.   

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #225 on: June 30, 2008, 09:34:36 pm »
From what I remember, the reason Lockheed lost had to do (at least partially) with the fact that Boeing used it's political connections to ensure its securing the contract.  This may have been revenge for the CX-HLS contract in which Lockheed used it's military connections to land the contract, even though Boeing's design was allegedly considered better by many.

KJ_Lesnick


Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #226 on: July 01, 2008, 02:58:24 am »
Regarding the CX-HLS, the decision point was cost. Lockheed won because they underbid both Boeing and Douglas. Regarding the SST, I'm not convinced that the Boeing win was political. Maybe some considerations were given to a "contract balance" between large contractors, but every insider witness I read insist on solid technical grounds for going Boeing, first of all VG. Problem was that even the technically winning proposal wasn't viable from other points of view. The FAA did an extensive technical justification for the choice, and only one author saw and cited it. It stays put in the FAA archives, I think that any comments on the whys of the choice would have to start from that document. Shall see of this in the future. 

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #227 on: July 10, 2008, 09:31:01 pm »
blackkite

Quote
Long time ago, I heard that P&W JTF17A had thermal problem. Normally turbo fan engine is surrounded by rather low temperature fan flow but JTF17A had duct burner and engine is surrouned by high temperature combustion gas and engine temperature became high.


Skybolt

Quote
The 2000-7a and b had other problems as well. As far as noise, it didn't met the already untenable DC-8 and 707 standard. Moreover, its payload at 4000 miles sunk to 30.000 lbs due to ever increasing demand for reserve fuel. The double-delta had problems at subsonic speeds and the airlines were upset by the need to remain aloft circling waiting for landing on increasingly congested airports. Moreover, the climb rate was lower than the Boeing's one, so the noise footprint problem got even worse. Finally, and this became apparent at the Phase III evaluation, the 2000-7 was weight-wise at the limit, i.e. it had no more room for weight increases, any of those would have required a complete redesign.
(Emphasis mine)

Since the L-2000-7 was at it's limit, and would require a total re-design to enlarge, do you have any idea of what such a redesigned concept would look like (What kind of wings and engines would be used, etc.)?

Quote
Regarding compression lift, they didn't apply it simply because (I am oversemplificating, I must admit) there isn't anything like compression lift in the real world... The lift generated by the shockwave is compensated by additional drag. This was proved in the windtunnel at Langley since 1959, and later confirmed in flight testing of the XB-70.
While the shockwave(s) to produce the compression-lift effects would produce some drag along with the lift produced, it is possible to produce proportionately more pressure (in this case lift) than drag (especially with the use of oblique-waves).  There are many hypersonic proposals that were built around this principle, and to to the best of my knowledge, the XB-70 had one of the highest L/D ratios of it's day.

Quote
P&W risked of being eliminated because they resisted to rise the inlet temperature above 2000 F.
Couldn't they just use some kind of heat-reflector or thermal protection system (a heat-shield), to keep the heat from getting to the core of the engine, and/or use a little bit of air off of the fan-stages to provide air-cooling for the core? 

Quote
Regarding the CX-HLS, the decision point was cost. Lockheed won because they underbid both Boeing and Douglas. Regarding the SST, I'm not convinced that the Boeing win was political. Maybe some considerations were given to a "contract balance" between large contractors, but every insider witness I read insist on solid technical grounds for going Boeing, first of all VG. Problem was that even the technically winning proposal wasn't viable from other points of view. The FAA did an extensive technical justification for the choice, and only one author saw and cited it. It stays put in the FAA archives, I think that any comments on the whys of the choice would have to start from that document. Shall see of this in the future.
Thank you for clarifying the Lockheed / Boeing CX-HLS issue.


KJ Lesnick
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 07:30:27 pm by KJ_Lesnick »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #228 on: July 11, 2008, 07:46:00 am »
Lockheed simply stopped to develop the L-2000 design after losing the competition. When they returned to SSTs, in early '70s, they followed a different route, SCAT-15F arrow wing, on input from NASA.
It is not my opinion, it is NASA Langley's, clearly expressed in the report I posted. I oversimplified, naturally, but what emerged was that from the compression-lift as originally envisaged there wasn't much to gain. Waveriding the shockwave is a different concept, from the little of aerodynamic  I pretend to know.
P&W, sure they could, but they decided not, and only very late in the competition they accepted to rise the temperature. It is very difficult to judge after-the-fact so complex technical decision, since you don't know what was known then, and what was the options thought feasible.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #229 on: July 11, 2008, 12:55:18 pm »
Skybolt

Quote
Lockheed simply stopped to develop the L-2000 design after losing the competition.  When they returned to SSTs, in early '70s, they followed a different route, SCAT-15F arrow wing, on input from NASA.
Well, I obviously know that Lockheed gave up after losing ;D

I was wondering what route the design (L-2000) would have taken had they scaled it up to, say the size of the 2707 or the later HSCT, in either capacity or length with the same design ideology as the L-2000 (high L/D ratio, low-trim-drag etc, good low-speed handling, relative light-weight, simplicity over complexity -- not using variable inlets etc.)?

I know the SCAT-15F and cranked-arrows became a very popular design, but didn't they also suffer serious weight problems?

Quote
It is not my opinion, it is NASA Langley's, clearly expressed in the report I posted. I oversimplified, naturally, but what emerged was that from the compression-lift as originally envisaged there wasn't much to gain. Waveriding the shockwave is a different concept, from the little of aerodynamic  I pretend to know.
I'm confused.  I thought they were all wave-riders, and it didn't matter whether it was a wedge, a cone, or a flared ramp?

Quote
P&W, sure they could, but they decided not, and only very late in the competition they accepted to rise the temperature. It is very difficult to judge after-the-fact so complex technical decision, since you don't know what was known then, and what was the options thought feasible.
I guess you're right, most of us see better with 20/20 hind-sight.


Kendra Lensick
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 07:31:15 pm by KJ_Lesnick »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #230 on: July 11, 2008, 02:18:05 pm »
As a pure speculation, probably they'd decided to linearly scale-up the design, ending with something like the early iterations that produced the 2707-300.  SCAT-15F: when NASA returned on SSTs with the SCAR program in early '70s the requirements had become even more stringent, and kept tightening with time, being always just ahead of the technological state-of-the-art till the end of '90s in every respect: noise, boom, consumptions, and, newly, emissions, expecially NOx and particulates. And the airplane would have acceptable to the airlines. With those requirements on hand, nobody would have been capable to build a commercially viable SST. Something would have to give (noise, for example), but nothing gave.
No, the phenomenon is apparently similar but not the same. And, BTW, no SST used the compression lift idea. Read the NASA report, it is very interesting. Ditto for the report on the flight test of the XB-70s. Has been recently declassified and is available online (someone posted the URL on the forum some time ago in another thread). The compression lift "theory" was accidentally instrumental  in convincing the industry that a Mach 3 commercially viable SST was possible and that Mach 3 performance wasn't limited to military applications.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #231 on: July 11, 2008, 08:13:14 pm »
As a pure speculation, probably they'd decided to linearly scale-up the design, ending with something like the early iterations that produced the 2707-300.
I assume they would have went tailless... lower drag supersonic...

Quote
No, the phenomenon is apparently similar but not the same.  And, BTW, no SST used the compression lift idea.
I'm aware of that


Kendra Lesnick
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 07:31:54 pm by KJ_Lesnick »

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #232 on: July 12, 2008, 06:54:41 pm »
KJ_Lesnick, Skybolt. How about blended wing body double delta for L2000's redesign same as SR-71 and the Jozef's newest work. Passengers only see the sky but at night flight they see very gorgeous scene. After L2000, LOCKHEED changed their design philosophy for SST from double delta to arrow wing. Arrow wing has very high lift to drug ratio around 10 while B2702-300 is around 7. But low speed performance is poor and must apply active control technology. Please look arrow wing mother model of NASA's beautiful SCAT-15F. I used to read Japanese magazine and found that LH2 fuel SST is feasible. According to LOCKHEED design in 1973, 240 seat,M2.7,range 4200nm LH2 SST's maximun take off weight was 167ton while JP fuel SST's was 340ton. (see my post US SST post 1971) But how do we get LH2 fuel? High temperature gas cooling nuclear reactor or solar panel? Japan already constructed HTGR test reactor which reactor outlet gas temperature is 950 degree centigrade and will be connected H2 generating test plant.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #233 on: July 13, 2008, 09:04:25 am »
That SCAT-15F design shown is absolutely stunning.  I'm wondering why they didn't also add a slight forward-delta (a higher sweep up front, inboard) to the design.  I'd figure it would add the best of both worlds.  Vortex lift, the forward delta would work nicely at high mach and produce lift up front. 

BTW:  That LH2 SST seemed pretty damn impressive.  Too bad it never got the go-ahead.  It might have been completely clean in regards to NOx emissions 



Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2513
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #234 on: July 13, 2008, 03:39:26 pm »
Quote
Vortex lift, the forward delta would work nicely at high mach and produce lift up front. 

1) Vortex lift is at low speeds and high alpha and practically every delta develops it. However, Vortex Flaps would help as well, but they weren't around then, to the best of my knowledge.

2) I'm sure the A.C. is right where Lockheed wanted it, so there would be no need to add to it further up. It's a transport design, not a high alpha fighter. ;) As such, the wing shape is already optimized for cruise.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #235 on: July 13, 2008, 07:15:45 pm »
Sundog

Quote
1) Vortex lift is at low speeds and high alpha and practically every delta develops it. However, Vortex Flaps would help as well, but they weren't around then, to the best of my knowledge.
That is correct.  However having a very highly swept surface to generate a very powerful vortex which is then used to augment the vortices produced by the rest of the wing (double-delta) is more effective than just using a standard delta.

Quote
2) I'm sure the A.C. is right where Lockheed wanted it, so there would be no need to add to it further up. It's a transport design, not a high alpha fighter.  ;) As such, the wing shape is already optimized for cruise.
The Center of Pressure shifts rearward when you go supersonic.  If it's too much, trim-drag goes up.  I know the L-2000 got around that problem by having the forward-delta highly-swept and cambered, combined with a twisted rearward-delta which produced disproportionate amounts of lift up front so as the center of lift went back over the rest of the wing, this negated it (trans-sonically trim-deflections were moderate, as you went faster though the deflections progressively dropped as you reached cruise) allowing reasonably low trim-drag.

While this wing has a great deal of twist to it (which may have been used to negate the shift in the C/L), higher leading-edge sweeps allow for the shock-wave to be kept more easily behind the wing's LE, and allow greater use of conical-camber (which is better for both high and low-speed), and higher-sweeps also produce lower-drag.


Kendra Lesnick

 
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 07:33:40 pm by KJ_Lesnick »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2513
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #236 on: July 15, 2008, 11:28:02 pm »
Quote
The Center of Pressure shifts rearward when you go supersonic.  If it's too much, trim-drag goes up.  I know the L-2000 got around that problem by having the forward-delta highly-swept and cambered, combined with a twisted rearward-delta which produced disproportionate amounts of lift up front so as the center of lift went back over the rest of the wing, this negated it (trans-sonically trim-deflections were moderate, as you went faster though the deflections progressively dropped as you reached cruise) allowing reasonably low trim-drag.

While this wing has a great deal of twist to it (which may have been used to negate the shift in the C/L), higher leading-edge sweeps allow for the shock-wave to be kept more easily behind the wing's LE, and allow greater use of conical-camber (which is better for both high and low-speed), and higher-sweeps also produce lower-drag.

I saw the numbers for this design when I was back in school in the eighties, it's design was fine just as it is. It turns out Lockheed actually knows what it's doing when it comes to designing aircraft. ;)

The twisting on the wing (L2000) isn't about "disproportinate lift" it's about minimizing cruise drag. Granted, that includes minimizing trim drag as well, but it's also about keeping the flow laminar as much as possible in a conical flow field; which isn't necessarily better at low speeds, especially considering it's an off-design point.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2008, 11:31:30 pm by Sundog »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #237 on: July 16, 2008, 07:29:34 am »
During the '70s the focus of SST designs migrated from L/D to emissions and noise (both low speed and boom). And since then things have only become more focused on those.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #238 on: July 16, 2008, 11:03:52 am »
Sundog

Quote
I saw the numbers for this design when I was back in school in the eighties, it's design was fine just as it is. It turns out Lockheed actually knows what it's doing when it comes to designing aircraft. ;)
What was the L/D ratio anyway at supersonic speed anyway?  Over 8.0 to 1?

Of course, I know Lockheed is an excellent aircraft designer.  They have made mistakes in the past though and are not perfect. 

Quote
The twisting on the wing (L2000) isn't about "disproportinate lift" it's about minimizing cruise drag. Granted, that includes minimizing trim drag as well, but it's also about keeping the flow laminar as much as possible in a conical flow field; which isn't necessarily better at low speeds, especially considering it's an off-design point.
Well, as a rule of thumb, to minimize trim-drag aerodynamically (which Lockheed preferred) the wing has to either just naturally have a very low shift in the center of pressure, such as a highly-swept wing (or a swing-wing with it's wings all the way back), or the wing has to have means to produce extra lift up front to compensate (ie. a canard, or design the wing in such that it would produce lift at the forward most area of the wing in large amounts whilst supersonic ideally so at cruise the trim-drag levels are low enough to keep the elevon deflections minimum or flush -- a chine/strake as on the exemplifies this).

Laminar flow if possible is an excellent way to reduce drag overall, though, and I suppose the flow being less turbulent would improve the effects of the control-surfaces, requiring lower deflections for the same results.


Skybolt

Quote
During the '70s the focus of SST designs migrated from L/D to emissions and noise (both low speed and boom). And since then things have only become more focused on those.
Truthfully, even during the SST program (1963-1971) effort was made to reduce sonic boom (they just weren't very good at it), but I'd have to say that modern supersonic-airliner designs do seem to be far more focused on pollution, sonic-boom, and noise reduction, than L/D ratio.

And while I understand the need to reduce NOx emission, and I could understand the desire to reduce noise over the SST-design and the Concorde levels, (although I think current FAA regs are a bit over the top) but the plane's gotta fly good first! 


Kendra Lesnick
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 07:35:05 pm by KJ_Lesnick »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #239 on: July 17, 2008, 07:33:48 am »
Kendra, in a aircraft enthusiast world, first you fly a project for the sheer beauty of it, then you decide if it is economically or something-else-y worthwhile... we are not in an aircraft enthusiast world, I fear and regret...
Emissions: in a few months, NOx was only part of the problem, were risen fears for particulate, and water vapour and what-ever. As has been recently written, the SST, being economically weak for the airlines, was (is) an easy game for those who want(ed) to flex their PR muscles in shooting down some "big technology" project. As an OT rant, did someone notice in New Scientist a couple of weeks ago the lamentations on the fact that one US Federal  Agency has blocked for at least two years a gigantic private project of turning a large expanse of South-Western desert (actually, steppe) in a solar power field on account of endangering the ambient of a desert tortoise ? New Scientist went just a shy from a "Damn the tortoise, full speed ahead"... Contrappasso, so said Dante in the "Divine Comedy"...

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #240 on: July 17, 2008, 08:01:20 pm »
Kendra, in a aircraft enthusiast world, first you fly a project for the sheer beauty of it, then you decide if it is economically or something-else-y worthwhile... we are not in an aircraft enthusiast world, I fear and regret...
Emissions: in a few months, NOx was only part of the problem, were risen fears for particulate, and water vapour and what-ever. As has been recently written, the SST, being economically weak for the airlines, was (is) an easy game for those who want(ed) to flex their PR muscles in shooting down some "big technology" project. As an OT rant, did someone notice in New Scientist a couple of weeks ago the lamentations on the fact that one US Federal  Agency has blocked for at least two years a gigantic private project of turning a large expanse of South-Western desert (actually, steppe) in a solar power field on account of endangering the ambient of a desert tortoise ? New Scientist went just a shy from a "Damn the tortoise, full speed ahead"... Contrappasso, so said Dante in the "Divine Comedy"...

Skybolt... I guess you're right, aircraft building just for the sake of aircraft building, just like doing anything just for the sake of doing is not a good idea. 

However, I do not recall spefically saying that I objected to reducing NOx levels (Destroying the ozone layer exposing everybody to large amounts of UV just ain't cool, and while I got a nice tan and have never got a sunburn, even black people can get skin cancer...) -- I just simply said that the plane has to be able to fly well in addition to any other requirement entered into the equation.   


KJ_Lesnick



Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #241 on: July 19, 2008, 12:02:04 pm »
I'm with you, BTW, the ozone destruction problem by SSTs proved to be overblown. And the chemistry of high-altitude ozone was started AFTER it was given as proved that SSTs would have destroyed ozone... politics, you know. 

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #242 on: July 19, 2008, 10:08:19 pm »
Out of curiousity, (not that I think it would be right, but just out of curiousity) how bad would a fleet of 500 to 1,500 SST's the size of the B-2707-200 have actually caused in terms of ozone depletion rates?


Kendra Lesnick,
BTW:  This one's been puzzling me.  Wouldn't planes like the B-58, the XB-70, the Blackbird, and such have caused major ozone depletion as (especially the Blackbird and XB-70) flew really high and really fast. 



Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 04:20:14 am by hesham »

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #244 on: July 26, 2008, 08:31:10 pm »
North American really should not have stuck so closely to the XB-70 design.  It was great as a bomber, but not a transport plane (the bomb-bay, which on most bombers is in the tubular section of the fuselage, on this design is in between the engine-ducts -- cannot be turned into a passenger cabin leaving just the neck which isn't big enough)


KJ Lesnick

Offline Simon666

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #245 on: July 29, 2008, 02:48:08 am »
BTW:  That LH2 SST seemed pretty damn impressive.  Too bad it never got the go-ahead.  It might have been completely clean in regards to NOx emissions 
Surely you mean carbon emissions. Combustion in air of anything (including hydrogen) at high enough temperature causes NOx formation.

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #246 on: July 29, 2008, 08:42:41 am »
Simon666,

So it would still cause ozone depletion?

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #247 on: July 30, 2008, 06:46:07 am »
The real role of NOx in ozone depletion is debated. It's not the same as chlorine-compounds. At time, it seems that no-one really knows what's happening up there. As for the 2707-200 fleet ozone depletion, no-one has re-run the models with updated knowldedge on the upper atmosphere chemistry. If I have to make a score of the physics-related reasons of the SST program (and successors) failure, I'd put sonic-boom first and fuel consumption (economics) second, with ozone-depletion a distant fourth, after generic noise. Keeping in mind that the sonic-boom problem excluded using the SST on inland routes, and so impinging on the fuel-consumption (long subsonic-leg) and ultimately on the economics. There was then the problem of the government paying for a commercial product no airline was ready to pay for. If you read the economic-political press of the time, the polemics was centered on this more than on everything else. It was the position of &%$£"!)(/?ç Senator Proxmire.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #248 on: July 30, 2008, 11:01:14 am »
Quote
and the secret alternate configurations study commissioned to Boeing in 1966, looking an arrow wing designs....).
Found it, be damned !  B) Go in DTIC and search for report AD478511 "NASA SCAT 15-F Feasibility Study", actually is from 1965. Lots of drawings and charts, they even scanned in a full size blueprint in A4 chunks, Scott-style. A must have.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #249 on: July 30, 2008, 12:10:21 pm »
Sorry Skybolt, I downloaded that some months ago but didn't post it.  :(
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #250 on: July 30, 2008, 12:41:17 pm »
The real role of NOx in ozone depletion is debated. It's not the same as chlorine-compounds. At time, it seems that no-one really knows what's happening up there. As for the 2707-200 fleet ozone depletion, no-one has re-run the models with updated knowldedge on the upper atmosphere chemistry.

Are you serious that they've never done any further research?  I'm suprized they wouldn't have known the composition of our upper atmosphere..., couldn't you have just flown a U2 up there or something? 

When was the ER-2 first used by NASA?


KJ Lesnick

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #251 on: July 31, 2008, 10:14:30 am »
They did and do a lot of research, but the chemistry up there is very complicated and complex. The models and simulations still are not able to reproduce the actual behaviour of ozone. For example, the famous ozone-hole on the South Pole simply refuses to follow the simulations. Surely there are a lot of interacting factors, and doing research is not so simple: jet engine exhausts of research aircrafts, for example, alters the results. And the reactions must be followed for hours and even days. That's way NASA is looking at high-altitude not-jet powered drones (they even briefly considered nuclear powered airships to do the job, both radioisotope and reactor powered). 

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #252 on: August 01, 2008, 02:55:48 pm »
from what magazine this yummy stuff came from?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 01:34:58 pm by PaulMM »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #253 on: August 01, 2008, 05:09:04 pm »
from what magazine this yummy stuff came from?

Interavia?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2012, 01:32:20 pm by PaulMM »
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #254 on: August 03, 2008, 08:51:03 am »
I take it they were worrying about long-term reactions in the ozone layer, not just short term? 

Because if short-term they could have used an air-scoop located fairly forward on the plane to do the job.  The scoop wouldn't be affected by the jet-exhaust as that's in the back of the plane and the scoop's in the front.


KJ

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #255 on: August 04, 2008, 01:44:07 am »
Yep. The all difficulty is that the reaction chains involved are long and extremely sensitive in their effectiveness to things like solar radiation content, presence of particulate (and size of), presence of catalysts, temperature, mixing by winds, etc. In a word, it is chaotic.   

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4090
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #256 on: August 06, 2008, 12:17:34 am »
question
had Douglas ever made SST study or
they made only "Inter Continental Aerospacecraft" study like Hyperion, Pegasus, ICARUS ?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,4577.0.html

i know sound crazy to use Rocket to send passengers and troops
but to get around world in 45 minute beats every SST  ;D
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 02:27:44 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #257 on: August 06, 2008, 01:37:06 am »
BTW, it's not Icarus, it's Ithacus..
Yep, they did fairly extended studies at least thrice. First was in response to the SR-169 in 1958. Second, it was in 1962 bidding for the NASA SCAT studies (they lost, the awards went to Boeing and Lockheed, other losers were NAA and GD). Third, it was in the running-up to the formal 1964 competition. This is the best known effort, Model 2229, illustrated here in this thread. In August 1963 Douglas decided anyway to not participate to the competition.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 01:52:15 am by Skybolt »

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4090
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #258 on: August 06, 2008, 02:35:03 am »
it's ICARUS (Inter Continental Aerospacecraft - Range Unlimited System)
that later became civilian Pegasus and military Ithacus Sr./Jr. system

Quote
In August 1963 Douglas decided anyway to not participate to the competition.

interesting, because ICARUS pop up around 1964, thanks for info Skybolt


picture source Douglas, provided by Flateric (thanks for that )
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 02:40:01 am by Michel Van »
I love Strange Technology

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #259 on: August 06, 2008, 02:46:05 am »
I just can't understand what SSTOs are doing in this thread...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Michel Van

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4090
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #260 on: August 06, 2008, 05:07:29 am »
I just can't understand what SSTOs are doing in this thread...

yes i understand that
but is only to show Wat Douglas had in mind for faster passengers transport, as Competition to SST 
(more like "Think Different" approach ;D )
back to Conventional SST Design
I love Strange Technology

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #261 on: August 06, 2008, 10:34:16 am »
I take it Douglas's idea wasn't taken seriously?

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #262 on: August 07, 2008, 02:12:21 am »
Which one ? Ithacus ? No, originally it was (the original idea was earlier, late '50s, Scott has some material on that), but it hit the second-half of '60s starvation of funds regarding manned space projects. By '68 the NASA budget was barely supporting Apollo and a minimal follow-on program. As for the military budget, apart strategic systems (and after the traumas of Dyna Soar and MOL/KH-10), the conventional part of the budget was dominated by contingency (Vietnam). Moreover, the all concept of troop-carrying rockets is the extreme derivative of the "air transportable army" concept developed in second part of '50 by military men like Gavin and Taylor (all former paratroopers, BTW), that gave birth, among other things, to the Pentomic structure for the infantry divisions, but we are now veering seriously OT (and I fear the wrath of gods...  :D ).
As for the Douglas SSTs, the company itself didn't believe in them in first place. The changed their mind in '70s and 80s, but that is another story (and thread).

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #263 on: August 07, 2008, 11:02:48 am »
Ithacus was that Single Stage To Orbit idea right?

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #264 on: August 07, 2008, 03:23:02 pm »
Ithacus was that Single Stage To Orbit idea right?

No. Ithacus/ICARUS was a sub-orbital trans-continental transport. However, the same basic propulsion module would form the basis of the ROMBUS SSTO.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline b2707300sst

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #265 on: August 14, 2008, 03:09:54 pm »
The Boeing pfd is very helpful to obtain more insight to the Boeing concepts.  A friend had forwarded the link some time ago. It was a huge help figuring out exactly how the 2707-300 is designed. The landing gear technical sketches especially. The deflector plates are cool touch and were a lot of fun to render.
I've done several Boeing 2707-300 profile prints for my  blog. You may have to scroll a bit to view, but they are there. The most recent is a Lufthansa rotating with full afterburners, at the gate, and on a night mission at 75,000 going like a bat out of.....! Enjoy!

http://sstuff4u.blogspot.com/2008/03/posters-by-herb-greenwood.html
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 03:30:21 pm by b2707300sst »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #266 on: September 05, 2008, 04:43:49 am »
Hi,

the Boeing Model 733-790 and Langley advanced SST.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt6.htm

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #267 on: September 05, 2008, 01:15:36 pm »
-
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #268 on: September 05, 2008, 08:39:33 pm »
Oh! It's Lockheed L2000-1 offered for PHASE ⅡA study in Nobember 1964. Very precise model!
Please enjoy beautiful NASA SCAT-15F wind tunnel test model.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #269 on: September 05, 2008, 09:06:43 pm »
NASM has two very large (3 foot+) L-2000 models on "display" in a glass case in a  non-public area upstairs. Due to the tightly packed nature of the case and the lighting conditions, I had a hell of a time taking photos...

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #270 on: September 06, 2008, 04:42:24 am »
Oh! I want to go to D.C.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #271 on: September 24, 2008, 06:23:49 pm »
Boeing 2707-200 diagrams...


More:
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocsale.htm
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #272 on: September 25, 2008, 08:25:13 pm »
 I never saw such a detail general arrangement drawings of B2707-200! It's historically very important. Also L2000-7, please.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #273 on: September 26, 2008, 03:13:35 pm »
I never saw such a detail general arrangement drawings of B2707-200!

Then imagine how much better the full-rez versions are... hint, hint...

Quote
Also L2000-7, please.

Same here.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #274 on: September 28, 2008, 10:52:36 am »
Lockheed L-2000-7. Better versions at you-know-where...

Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #275 on: September 28, 2008, 08:59:15 pm »
Many thanks again Scott! Very beautiful pictures & drawing. But I believe this 3 side drawing is not represent final configuration of L2000-7A as you already knew. Final configuration had extended engine nozzle which end was go through the wing tailing edge as the picture clearly shows. We never see final 3 side drawings of L200-7A till today. It's very strange for me. Don't you think so?

Offline Barrington Bond

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 927
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #276 on: September 30, 2008, 12:05:23 pm »
Just credited as Boeing in From Above and Beyond the Encyclopedia of Aviation and Space Sciences Vol13.

Regards,
Barry

"It hasn't squeaked in a week!"

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #277 on: October 04, 2008, 02:54:47 am »
2707-200 fuselage nose section full-scale mock-up. Nose section was thought to be built by Northrop
from 'Northrop: An Aeronautical History'
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #278 on: October 04, 2008, 01:45:30 pm »
You're sure that's the 2707-200?  From what I remember the 2707-200 had the double-jointed nose -- the B-2707-300 had the single-joined nose like the L-2000

KJ Lesnick

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #279 on: October 04, 2008, 02:41:22 pm »
you are right, this is -300
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #280 on: October 09, 2008, 02:01:34 pm »
Some nice L-2000 mockup photos
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #281 on: November 05, 2008, 10:41:13 am »
Now, in higher resolution
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #282 on: November 05, 2008, 08:52:54 pm »
Flateric,

Thank you for the high rez photos.  Beautiful

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #283 on: November 06, 2008, 02:10:33 am »
Flateric! Many thanks for these really surprising pictures. I will try to find new unknown facts for me.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #284 on: November 23, 2008, 12:57:23 pm »
Here we are again, with this very popular thread.. 1963 was a pivot year for the original US SST competition. JFK announced it in June, just days after Juan Trippe revealed his exploratory order for Concord(e)s. NASA was working with a Boeing and Lockheed on refining (really, commercializing) some SCAT configuration. Almost everyone else was looking at the SST concept, even if someone denied this then and later. One of the hopeful was NAA, that had been excluded from the NASA contract on SCAT  but had re-entered the fray (this a really poorly known episode) thanks to a work-sharing agreement with Boeing, by which they did the tasks contracted  by NASA on two configurations (or, half the tasks contracted by NASA on all configurations, that seems nearer the truth). In parallel, they did work on their own concepts, derived or not from the B-70. Lttle is known on those activities (the documents are buried in the Boeing archives), BUT NAA used Le Bourget 1963 to go public. Unfortunately, what I've been able to find of their technical and PR activities in Paris amount to little more than model photos. I post them here to stimulate research.
First is a panoramic of five configuration they were studying in early 1963. Four were SCAT derived (you can recognize a SCAT 15-3 and a plain SCAT 15, both VG, and what seems a less-radical-version-than-NASA-one SCAT 4). The internally studied configuration is the one in the highest part of the photo.
Second is what is described as NAC-2000 concept (clearly related to the NAC-60 tendered a few months later in the FAA competition). Third is, above, another view of NAC-2000, and below, another view of the SCAT-15 derivative.
Fourth, is another configuration, could be a variation of the SCAT 15-3, but I'm not so sure.
Sorry for the low quality of the images, I'm working from poor originals...

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #285 on: November 23, 2008, 01:17:37 pm »
Adding to the score of concepts for SST dating from 1963, I think this will be a surprise for many. In 1962-63 Northrop was studying Laminar Flow Control using, among other things, a modified B-66 (aka X-21). The program was headed by Welko A. Gasich, one of the leading technical persons in Northrop. He presented some of the results of the LFC work to one of the last "Institute for Aeronautical Sciences" congresses (in the same 1963 they became AIAA) in early 1963. One of the possible uses cited for LFC was.. you bet, an SST. A model was displayed at the congress, and this is the sole photo I've been able to find. Note the suction slits on the wings, the canard and the vertical tail. They are exaggerated in size to make them visible at the model scale. Model number of the LFC SST is unknown, and how far Northrop went, the same. I'm trying and find the Gasich paper in the Politecnico di Milano library. I'll keep you updated. 
« Last Edit: November 23, 2008, 01:22:21 pm by Skybolt »

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #286 on: November 23, 2008, 05:56:40 pm »
 Oh! :o Forced laminar flow concept. I wonder it need frequent cleaning of small holes or filter  
    exchange. Also manufacturing is problem.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2010, 03:05:32 pm by blackkite »

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #287 on: November 25, 2008, 04:52:02 am »
Hi! I made a chart of Lockheed SST design evolution. Sorry for low quality. Enjoy.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #288 on: November 30, 2008, 06:05:08 am »
Hi! Lockheed L2000 mock up pictures.
(Source : Japanese AIREVIEW magazine in January 1967)

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #289 on: November 30, 2008, 06:10:46 am »
Lockheed L2000 mock up cabin and window cooling system pictures. Enjoy!
(Source : Japanese AIREVIEW magazine in January 1967)

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #290 on: November 30, 2008, 06:33:43 am »
B2707 VG model mock up cockpit and cabin pictures.(not B2707-300 mock up)

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #292 on: December 01, 2008, 07:43:06 am »
Thanx Hesham: SCAT 6

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #293 on: December 02, 2008, 09:11:26 pm »
Why did so many swing-wing SST's have a lower sweep angle on the glove than on the wing?  I figure it would be more advantageous to have the same sweep as the wing (fully swept)?


KJ Lesnick

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #294 on: December 13, 2008, 10:45:20 pm »
Hi! I get "SUPERSONIC TRANSPORT VOLUME A-V AERODYNAMIC REPORT 1964 January Lockheed California" from NTRS.(255pages). (But it removed now.) This document is a part of series of document for Lockheed CL823 Mach 3 Supersonic transport. CL823 was designed in accordance with the Federal Aviation Agency Request for Proposals dated 15 August 1963.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #295 on: December 13, 2008, 11:14:58 pm »
Specification of CL823 is as follows.
1.Cruising Speed : Mach 3
2.Cruising Altitude : 70,000ft to 77,000ft
3.Design Range : 3,470n.m.
4.passengers : 125 to 192
5.Ramp Weight : 453,000lbs
6.Maximum Take off Weight : 450,000lbs
7.Maximum Landing Weight : 280,000lbs
8.Maximum Zero Fuel Weight : 240,000lbs
9.L/D @Mach 3 : 7.25
In this document, I found interesting information about high performance Curtiss Wright TJ70A4 turbojet engine which skybolt used to taught us. And I realized that at first GE4 was turbofan engine. 

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #296 on: December 13, 2008, 11:43:11 pm »
This report also include loading condition of 125 passengers and 192 passengers.
I want to see especially Volume A-Ⅵ Propulsion Report.
FAA! Please release all reports for American SST.
I will not speak ill of FAA any more.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #297 on: December 14, 2008, 01:21:05 am »
nothing disappears without a trace...full text pdf goes here
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/AD377973

Thanks for discovery!
« Last Edit: December 14, 2008, 01:24:03 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #298 on: December 14, 2008, 03:28:53 am »
Many thanks again flateric. Worthy of Top Secret!!

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3322
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #299 on: December 14, 2008, 04:24:03 am »
Thanks Flateric :)

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10879
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #300 on: December 14, 2008, 11:16:47 am »
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #301 on: December 14, 2008, 02:44:05 pm »
Yes I remember very well! He know every thing,too.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #302 on: December 16, 2008, 10:19:49 am »
Domo arigatoo, Blackkite san

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #303 on: December 16, 2008, 07:57:36 pm »
Dear Skybolt! Recently I feel I must study grammar. I usually made mistake.
I surprise that you are in Italy now. Two weeks later 9/11 2001 terrorism in N.Y, I travelled Milan,Venice,Pisa,Florence,Rome and Pompei with my wife. We fascinated by Italy very much.
Very excellent country!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #304 on: December 26, 2008, 05:47:05 pm »
Nice photo print on sale at eBay, but $39.00 is rather out of my planning expences nearest time
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #305 on: December 28, 2008, 02:14:43 am »
Lockheed take on the SCAT-16: the CL-788. More drawings at my blog...


http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1548
« Last Edit: December 28, 2008, 09:13:46 pm by Orionblamblam »
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #306 on: December 28, 2008, 04:01:49 pm »
Oh! Shoulder mounted VG wing and T-tail. Engines location are very interesting. This configuration can avoid interaction between engine exhaust gas and horizontal tail stabilizer. Passengers visibility is excellent. Wing aspect ratio seems to be small. But VG SST was still heavy weight?

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #307 on: December 29, 2008, 06:18:18 am »
That was the primary problem for large VG configurations for transportation. Since you have to make room for passengers, you have to move the hinges of the VG mechanism outward, exacerbating the flexing moment of the hing box, that had to be reinforced, and so the weight went up. In turn, locating the engines added to the problem, look at where the hinges are in the Lockheed SCAT-16 NASA configuration are.

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #308 on: December 30, 2008, 07:54:59 pm »
Dear Skybolt! I realize the hinges of this design. Many thanks again.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #309 on: January 20, 2009, 03:40:13 am »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #310 on: January 20, 2009, 03:51:43 am »
AFRL's Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS) proposed modification for SST tests (1986)
Note also bits of AMSA mod appearing.

source
The Total In-Flight Simulator (TIFS) design and capabilities.

PRUNER, J. R., USAF, SYSTEMS COMMAND, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DIV., FLIGHT DYNAMICS LAB., WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OHIO; REYNOLDS, P. A., CORNELL AERONAUTICAL LAB., INC., BUFFALO, N.Y.
AIAA-1968-258
AMERICAN INST OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, FLIGHT TEST, SIMULATION AND SUPPORT CONFERENCE, 2ND, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., Mar 25-27, 1968.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline blackkite

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5583
  • Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #311 on: January 20, 2009, 04:26:57 am »
Hi flateric! Thank you very much again. This is the best B2707-300 mock up picture I ever saw.
It a really beautiful plane!

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #312 on: February 24, 2009, 07:59:31 pm »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Johnbr

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 693
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #313 on: February 25, 2009, 08:20:39 am »
They were of just a little off whereat they.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 09:18:41 am by Johnbr »

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #315 on: February 28, 2009, 10:17:35 am »


 I don't know this SST aircraft (artist drawing).

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #316 on: February 28, 2009, 10:43:42 am »


 I don't know this SST aircraft (artist drawing).

Looks like an early artists impression of the B-70. Possibly a magazine artists take on a minimal early verbal description of the design.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7924
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #317 on: March 01, 2009, 12:38:55 pm »
I hope, this picture wasn't posted before in this thread (which has
become a little bit confusing over the years ...  :-\  ): North American
concept with canards (from AviationWeek 6/63 ) :
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #318 on: March 02, 2009, 01:37:07 am »
The Hesham's picture has a resemblance with the supersonic cruise bomber model NACA tried in Langley in mid-50s. A B-70 without the cobra neck.

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #319 on: March 02, 2009, 09:33:45 am »


The Original concepts for the SCAT 4,15,16 and 17,and a modifications
for them.

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #320 on: March 02, 2009, 10:30:57 am »
SCAT 16 kinda looks like a proto-B1 of sorts.

Moonbat
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #321 on: March 02, 2009, 02:20:24 pm »
SCAT 16 kinda looks like a proto-B1 of sorts.

...Hell, SCAT-4 has "(C) 1966 Bruce Wayne Industries" written all over it!

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #322 on: March 03, 2009, 02:33:09 am »
Quote
SCAT 16 kinda looks like a proto-B1 of sorts.
SCAT-9, with its blended body, was more a precursor of final AMSA design.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #323 on: March 03, 2009, 03:15:51 am »
North American
concept with canards (from AviationWeek 6/63 ) :
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #324 on: March 03, 2009, 05:55:16 am »
SCAT-9

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #325 on: March 03, 2009, 09:36:44 am »
Hi,

astrange VG SST projects,the first look like the North American SST,
and the other look like the SCAT-16.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670023224_1967023224.pdf

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #327 on: March 05, 2009, 09:26:10 am »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #328 on: March 06, 2009, 03:57:09 am »
Actually, it IS the Concorde. NASA was contracted to study the flying characteristics of the Concorde, and they found it rather good. The FAA was even more alarmed...

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #329 on: March 11, 2009, 11:04:41 am »

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #330 on: March 12, 2009, 10:28:16 am »

Offline KJ_Lesnick

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #331 on: March 20, 2009, 07:24:32 pm »
Does anybody have a picture of the L-2000's inlet? 

I remember seeing in an article a picture of a model of the L-2000's inlet undergoing testing (presumably wind-tunnel)

I can't find it anywhere...


KJ Lesnick

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #332 on: March 22, 2009, 10:30:08 am »
Do someone have something on some of these (Douglas 1961, lower left GD 1959, Lockheed's left 1958 and North American SST 1964 projects - later look somewhat different from XB-70-follow-on SST project)? Others are surely known for me...

And From Flightglobal;
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1959/1959%20-%202699.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1959/1959%20-%202700.html

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #333 on: April 07, 2009, 11:25:23 am »
And, although already shown by flateric on page 1 of this thread, here
with a designation : Ths Douglas Model 2229, Mach 3 Transport :

A more info about Douglas Model-2229;
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1961/1961%20-%201743.html

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549

Offline OM

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 753
    • OMBlog
Re: US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971
« Reply #336 on: May 08, 2009, 02:55:06 pm »
...Came across this clip while searching for all things clips of the Kenny Everett Show: