There is a very nice hires picture of the 2707-300 mockup cockpit here :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shawnclover/5385331634

And , the Museum of Flight Restoration Facility apparently has a nice 2707-200 cutaway :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtalle/8202993685/in/album-72157632061228442/
 
Hi galgot -san!
Your next targets are B2707-300 and L2000-7B?
Of course both are ultimate realistic beauty which we almost get. ;)
 
Hi,

here is an artist drawing to SST aircraft of 1962,the upper one looks like North American
design,but the lower one is unknown ?.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1962-Supersonic-Transport-SST-Aircraft-2000-mph-Airliner-Airplane-Jet-INCO-Ad-/151875488242?hash=item235c7c09f2:g:S1gAAOSw14xWOq2U
 

Attachments

  • SST.jpg
    SST.jpg
    9 KB · Views: 468
  • SST  II.png
    SST II.png
    122.8 KB · Views: 216
Here is the design genealogy that that led to the Boeing 2707-300. This has appeared in Japanese in a posting back in 2007, and an English translation was requested but did not appear until an illegible copy of this was posted in Reply #489. I apologize that the image is not more legible, but I believe you can make out the model numbers. I added a more legible 2707-300 planform from another post so we could keep in mind the eventual result of this progression. The final image was reassembled from three images on a single sheet of paper and is from the paper "Design Evolution of the Boeing 2707-300 Supersonic Transport", by W.C. Swan of the Boeing Company, so I believe no Boeing proprietary information is involved. Of course, a better copy must exist in the Boeing archives. I do not know the source of the original paper. I hope this adds a little bit of order to the collection of Boeing and SCAT model numbers scattered across this thread. Now if we could find something similar for the Lockheed L-2000-7 . . .
 

Attachments

  • Boeing SST Genealogy C.JPG
    Boeing SST Genealogy C.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 366
Hi! I imagine it's something like this.
 

Attachments

  • LOCKHEED SST[1].jpg
    LOCKHEED SST[1].jpg
    388.5 KB · Views: 307
:p Thank you both ! Super nice .

blackkite said:
Hi galgot -san!
Your next targets are B2707-300 and L2000-7B?
Of course both are ultimate realistic beauty which we almost get. ;)

sorry for late response Blackkite-San.
Don't know yet. Still playing with 2707-200.
But I'm collecting doc on the Lockheed too... :)
 
From beginning to end...economic and route analysis prepared for United Airlines by North American Aviation, outlining what the NAC-60 could do for United Airlines
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141010_142819699a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142819699a.jpg
    124.9 KB · Views: 166
  • IMG_20141010_142805124a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142805124a.jpg
    156.2 KB · Views: 193
  • IMG_20141010_142723742a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142723742a.jpg
    784.3 KB · Views: 165
  • IMG_20141010_142645627a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142645627a.jpg
    103 KB · Views: 107
  • IMG_20141010_142605389a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142605389a.jpg
    125.1 KB · Views: 98
  • IMG_20141010_142537916a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142537916a.jpg
    112.4 KB · Views: 315
  • IMG_20141010_142516140a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142516140a.jpg
    167.3 KB · Views: 332
  • IMG_20141010_142501512a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142501512a.jpg
    78.9 KB · Views: 377
  • IMG_20141010_142434064a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142434064a.jpg
    26 KB · Views: 405
  • IMG_20141010_142402751a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142402751a.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 415
Part Two thereof...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141010_143057355a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143057355a.jpg
    141.1 KB · Views: 90
  • IMG_20141010_143117570a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143117570a.jpg
    147.6 KB · Views: 82
  • IMG_20141010_143125780a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143125780a.jpg
    122 KB · Views: 85
  • IMG_20141010_143146978a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143146978a.jpg
    117 KB · Views: 94
  • IMG_20141010_143048611a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143048611a.jpg
    168.8 KB · Views: 94
  • IMG_20141010_143038134a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143038134a.jpg
    122.9 KB · Views: 88
  • IMG_20141010_143027809a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143027809a.jpg
    143.6 KB · Views: 87
  • IMG_20141010_143013988a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143013988a.jpg
    172.6 KB · Views: 129
  • IMG_20141010_143006468a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143006468a.jpg
    148.2 KB · Views: 151
  • IMG_20141010_142851471a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142851471a.jpg
    141.6 KB · Views: 134
Part Three...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141010_143304760a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143304760a.jpg
    108.6 KB · Views: 82
  • IMG_20141010_143313955a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143313955a.jpg
    128.9 KB · Views: 77
  • IMG_20141010_143326470a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143326470a.jpg
    172.6 KB · Views: 75
  • IMG_20141010_143334470a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143334470a.jpg
    164 KB · Views: 74
  • IMG_20141010_143255666a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143255666a.jpg
    129.2 KB · Views: 68
  • IMG_20141010_143248779a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143248779a.jpg
    157.3 KB · Views: 69
  • IMG_20141010_143238400a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143238400a.jpg
    175.2 KB · Views: 65
  • IMG_20141010_143231886a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143231886a.jpg
    176.5 KB · Views: 68
  • IMG_20141010_143207992a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143207992a.jpg
    172 KB · Views: 73
  • IMG_20141010_143158262a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143158262a.jpg
    145.6 KB · Views: 72
Part Four...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141010_143530164a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143530164a.jpg
    73.3 KB · Views: 70
  • IMG_20141010_143519961a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143519961a.jpg
    85.4 KB · Views: 87
  • IMG_20141010_143443498a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143443498a.jpg
    121.7 KB · Views: 138
  • IMG_20141010_143429748a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143429748a.jpg
    113.9 KB · Views: 172
  • IMG_20141010_143415662a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143415662a.jpg
    113.7 KB · Views: 108
  • IMG_20141010_143407726a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143407726a.jpg
    100.2 KB · Views: 99
  • IMG_20141010_143356344a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143356344a.jpg
    170.7 KB · Views: 92
  • IMG_20141010_143349257a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_143349257a.jpg
    171.5 KB · Views: 93
Wow amazing item. :eek:
Thanks for sharing us.
Of course NAA could do it perfectly. They made B-70!!
 
From another source, there's actually a bit more. I'm not quite where I need to finish my research, but nearer to it.
 

Attachments

  • NAC 60 basic flight plan.JPG
    NAC 60 basic flight plan.JPG
    125.2 KB · Views: 80
  • NAC 60 sonic boom profile.JPG
    NAC 60 sonic boom profile.JPG
    52 KB · Views: 70
  • NAC 60 Operational Envelopes.JPG
    NAC 60 Operational Envelopes.JPG
    90.1 KB · Views: 67
  • NAC 60 INS data flow.JPG
    NAC 60 INS data flow.JPG
    86.9 KB · Views: 61
  • NAC 60 flight director and landing system displays.JPG
    NAC 60 flight director and landing system displays.JPG
    134.2 KB · Views: 66
  • NAC 60 INS control panel.JPG
    NAC 60 INS control panel.JPG
    89.6 KB · Views: 81
  • NAC 60 captain's panel.JPG
    NAC 60 captain's panel.JPG
    406.6 KB · Views: 78
  • NAC 60 flight director and landing system displays.JPG
    NAC 60 flight director and landing system displays.JPG
    134.2 KB · Views: 139
  • NAC 60 and flight control surfaces.JPG
    NAC 60 and flight control surfaces.JPG
    104.2 KB · Views: 176
  • NAC 60 cockpit part 1.JPG
    NAC 60 cockpit part 1.JPG
    531.6 KB · Views: 132
MaxLegroom said:
From beginning to end...economic and route analysis prepared for United Airlines by North American Aviation, outlining what the NAC-60 could do for United Airlines

That's some great stuff, much appreciated! A request, though... do you have a shot of the page with the legend for the cutaway? The page seen on the far left of this image?

IMG_20141010_142723742a.jpg
 
Thanks for reminding me. It was kinda late when I posted this, so there is no surprise that I forgot something.
 
Here's the key to the cutaway, or this handy wallpaper...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20141010_142709203a.jpg
    IMG_20141010_142709203a.jpg
    115.1 KB · Views: 181
  • NAC 60 cutaway1.jpg
    NAC 60 cutaway1.jpg
    387.2 KB · Views: 228
NAC-60 was planned to have Titanium alloy structure instead of stainless steel honeycomb sandwith which B-70 had.(B-70 experience feeed back?)
I only doubt about fuel leak that B-70 and SR-71 experienced.
But cruising mach number was lowered from mach3 to mach2.7......
How about compression lift theory appplication?
I can see wedge shape structure in the engine nacelle.......
 

Attachments

  • NAC 60 cutaway1.jpg
    NAC 60 cutaway1.jpg
    387.2 KB · Views: 613
  • xb70cutaway.jpg
    xb70cutaway.jpg
    602.4 KB · Views: 693
  • NAA NAC-60 Const.& Matrl.jpg
    NAA NAC-60 Const.& Matrl.jpg
    494.5 KB · Views: 721
Aarrrrrrgg....
http://www.ebay.fr/itm/BOEING-SST-MODEL-2707-MODEL-SPECIFICATION-MANUAL-L-K-/291616561660?hash=item43e5b399fc:g:UnkAAOSwFGNWR7CB

http://www.ebay.fr/itm/BOEING-SST-2707-200-2-DOCUMENTS-L-K-/291616573805?hash=item43e5b3c96d:g:AJIAAOSwiwVWR7Ek

http://www.ebay.fr/itm/BOEING-SST-CONFIGURATION-DEFINITION-MDEL-B-2707-TONS-OF-DIAGRAMS-/291616532402?hash=item43e5b327b2:g:KjIAAOSwcdBWR6Yx

Finished my model, and now some new highly detailled documentation appears ...
:'(
 
I'm bidding on these (and some others) but have no real hope of getting them... the same seller has sold a lot of things in the recent past, most going to a very limited number of buyers willing to spend a *lot* on them.
 
Hmmm, i'd be tempted to bid, but the postage to South Africa almost doubles the price.
 
Wow… see here : http://www.ebay.fr/itm/301798996022
$_57.JPG

$_57.JPG

Looks like the last iteration of the -200 with the swept canards ?
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-FLYING-REVIEW-INTERNATIONAL-AVIATION-MAGAZINE-MAR-1967-SST-SPECIAL-/291619274153?hash=item43e5dcfda9:g:gE4AAOSwd0BVwEpG
 

Attachments

  • Flying Review SST Special.jpg
    Flying Review SST Special.jpg
    336.7 KB · Views: 161
blackkite said:
NAC-60 was planned to have Titanium alloy structure instead of stainless steel honeycomb sandwith which B-70 had.(B-70 experience feeed back?)
I only doubt about fuel leak that B-70 and SR-71 experienced.
But cruising mach number was lowered from mach3 to mach2.7......
How about compression lift theory application?
I can see wedge shape structure in the engine nacelle.......
Yes, the dihedral in the wings comes from what was learned while developing the B-70, where some dihedral was added to the wing design of the second aircraft. I had expected the cockpit to rely on things learned from the B-70 as well, which it clearly did.

It seemed to me that the compression lift was a bit of a trade off. There was added life, but also added drag. North American and Lockheed expected to add speed to Mach 3 later. The Mach 2.65 promised by the NAC-60 was a bit slower than the 2.7 expected out of Lockheed's and Boeing's designs.

I lack, frankly, the expertise to determine if NAC-60 was any sounder a design than the others aerodynamically. If actual experience developing an aircraft that size to fly in that actual environment counts for anything, then I'd have trusted North American more than either of the others. The board making the decisions, however, had a definite bias in favor of variable geometry, and nicked both NAA and Lockheed for not having it. It tends to seem like a Murphy's law sort of thing to design a SST by throwing the one company with the necessary experience out of the competition in the first round.
 
"If that guy has any way of making a mistake, he will."
 
Hi!
I made a table for Lockheed L-2000-7A/B specification.(Design Phase ⅡC, Time limit 6/9/1966)
Source : Japanese aviation Journal magazine.
 

Attachments

  • L-2000.jpg
    L-2000.jpg
    130.7 KB · Views: 229
  • Horizons_5_7.JPG
    Horizons_5_7.JPG
    184.4 KB · Views: 265
Hi,

here is a clearer view to an artist drawing for early Lockheed SST concept.
 

Attachments

  • ETHBIB.Bildarchiv_Dia_240-352_29522.jpg
    ETHBIB.Bildarchiv_Dia_240-352_29522.jpg
    30.6 KB · Views: 1,060
RAP said:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-FLYING-REVIEW-INTERNATIONAL-AVIATION-MAGAZINE-MAR-1967-SST-SPECIAL-/291619274153?hash=item43e5dcfda9:g:gE4AAOSwd0BVwEpG
Now I need to go through the archives sometime. I know I actually had a copy of that magazine at one time...
 
Something I found on the NTRS, a McDD Supersonic design from 1978.... Not a bad looking bird if I do say so myself.

The results of an advanced supersonic transport aircraft/engine integration study to be used as a detail preliminary design case to assist in the assessment of noise standards applicable to future supersonic transports are summarized. The design considered reflects the application of the advanced technologies which are projected to be available for program initiation in the 1980-1985 time period.

Reference aircraft for ICAO Working Group E

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780024144.pdf
 

Attachments

  • DC-XXX-SST.png
    DC-XXX-SST.png
    214 KB · Views: 933
  • DC-XXX-SST-Interior-Layout.png
    DC-XXX-SST-Interior-Layout.png
    108.9 KB · Views: 889
Graham1973 said:
Something I found on the NTRS, a McDD Supersonic design from 1978.... Not a bad looking bird if I do say so myself.

The results of an advanced supersonic transport aircraft/engine integration study to be used as a detail preliminary design case to assist in the assessment of noise standards applicable to future supersonic transports are summarized. The design considered reflects the application of the advanced technologies which are projected to be available for program initiation in the 1980-1985 time period.

Reference aircraft for ICAO Working Group E

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780024144.pdf

Great find Graham,

it was called D-3230,I found before D-3233;
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1296.msg166358.html#msg166358
 
I'm not sure if this was mentioned here or elsewhere but I'm curious as to a proposal by Boeing to operate the B-2707-100 @ Mach 3 instead of 2.7: I'm not sure what modifications were needed to the wings, but I remember it produced substantial L/D ratios over the baseline design.

At Mach 2.7 the design would produce a L/D ratio of around 8.2
At Mach 3.0 an L/D of 9.2 or 9.3 was said to be doable.
 
NAC-60;

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19640210/20/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    205.6 KB · Views: 1,328
Back
Top Bottom