• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
46
Your first link downloads a 1976 newsletter from the University of Notre Dame. After eliminating all the debates about anything but education (the column about Ted Kennedy saving a woman's life was amusing), I found the following relevant snippet. Interesting.
 

Attachments

galgot

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
153
Website
galgot.com
Archibald said:
I dug out a couple of interesting documents about the Lockheed L-2000.
After they lost to Boeing the FAA claimed the full scale mockup. They moved it to their Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City and used the fuselage for SST evacuation tests in 1967.
There was I final report I found on NTIC.

After that the L-2000 mockup remained outside, until the weather ruined it and it was sold for scrap.

The Boeing mockup fate was even more astonishing. From Seattle, it was send to the opposite corner of the United States, to Kissimmee, Florida, sold for 30 000 dollars. Opened in 1976 was a SST museum. The mockup was so huge, a 300 ft building had to be build around it. When the museum went bankrupt in 1983, the building was bought by a church... who celebrated mass under the mockup wing (ain't that cool ?)
In 1991 it ended at Charles Bell Cape Canaveral junkyard, before being salvaged by the Hiller museum, crossing the United States, to California.
Yes, of the 2707-300 mockup, only the nose was saved. it's back in Seattle now, saw it there 3 month ago.
Dunno what happened to the first Boeing (2707-100) mockup...
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
84
Thank you Galgot. I thought it was still at the Hiller museum. Nice to see it finally ended in Boeing homeplace, Seattle, where it all started.

More stuff. The more I look into that story, the more it seems completely crazy.

April 25 - 26 1972, in varied newspapers

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&biw=1680&bih=936&ei=jUiJW9nIM8TYabLFjdAL&q=%22+it+had+been+in+the+works+for+15+years+and+that+more+than+%241+billion+was+poured+into+the+SST+program+%22&oq=%22+it+had+been+in+the+works+for+15+years+and+that+more+than+%241+billion+was+poured+into+the+SST+program+%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...28003.28003.0.28855.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.8pYJm3wcfUY

Transport Auctioned Off By Government— SST May Fly After All, But Not Under Own Power WASHINGTON (AP)

- The SST may fly after all—but not under its' own power. The 228-foot-long prototype supersonic transport, built at a cost of $10.8 million before Congress .scrapped the SST program last year, was auctioned off recently by the government. The high bidders were . Marks O: Morrison of Lyman. Neb., and Don Otis of Rocklin. Calif., who offered $31.119 for the huge plane. They were in Washington last week to confer with John H. Shaffer, administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration which owns the Boeing built plane. Morrison said they were relieved to learn thai, the government wants to keep it for up to a year to continue testing the.fuel, systems .in the mockup. "We don't have a place to put it yet. and we were worried we might have to claim it ' in 30 days, as the contract -, specified. Morrison.said in an interview. '

Why would anyone buy a football-length airplane denounced in Congress as a lemon even before it took to the air? .
"This is quite a historic bird." Morrison said, noting that it had been in the works for 15 years and that more than $1 billion was poured into the SST program before Congress scrapped it. "We plan a permanent enshrinement," Morrison said. "It definitely will be in exhibition hall; "We feel we would like to combine some: other related air exhibits with it," Morrison, said they are looking for a rural area near an interstate highway where land costs are not insurmountable and where there is a "good atmosphere—not a bar or a carnival or restaurant. This has got enough of the nation's pride in it to be displayed with dignity." he said.

Three states are being considered: Nebraska, with a site near Offutt Air Force Base and the cities of Omaha and Lincoln: Colorado, with locations near the urban transportation facilities at Pueblo or near the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs; and Kansas, with a site near Wichita, which is the center for many' small aircraft manufacturers.
Disney World in Florida, and Six Flags Over Texas also have expressed interest.
Morrison said it will cost at least $100.000 to move the plane. Current plans, he said, are to dismantle it into six or seven pieces and fly the sections to the plane's new home. That could be the only flight the SST ever makes.
Looks like Disneyworld and Florida won the day.

More of what happened next, 18 years later
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-08-02/topic/9008010865_1_sst-supersonic-transport-boeing

For more than a year after the SST being built by Boeing Co. was killed, there was a flicker of hope that the project might be revived. During that time, the metal model of the SST, a non-flying, pre-prototype airplane engineers were using to test design principles, sat in a hangar at Boeing's Seattle plant.

Boeing finally disposed of the SST in a sealed bid auction. Marks O. Morrison, a Nebraska millionaire, bought the airplane for $31,119 and dreamed of creating an aviation museum. He eventually joined forces with Don Otis of California.

Morrison and Otis, former pilots, said they couldn't bear to see the SST destroyed. Morrison had the money to fund the project. Otis, a scrap dealer who specialized in buying old rockets, airplanes, and other government junk, contributed the expertise to move the giant bird.

With Walt Disney World drawing a record number of tourists to Central Florida and the Kennedy Space Center just 60 miles to the east, Morrison thought the Orlando area would be an ideal place for the SST to be housed in a museum with other aviation and space artifacts.

And so in January 1973, the SST was taken apart, loaded on seven railroad cars and transported to Kissimmee. There it was reassembled on a huge concrete slab that had been poured in a cow pasture 15 miles east of Disney.

Some of the Boeing workers who built the SST in Seattle had taken it apart there, followed it to Florida and helped reassemble it.

Then on July 4, 1973, the SST Air Museum opened to the public. Initially it drew big crowds. It had a nice collection of historical artifacts ranging from a Mercury space capsule to several rare World War II airplanes.
And then, God stepped in ;D
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
84
so, here is a tentative timeline of that peculiar mockup numerous travels... :D

March 24, 1971
SST cancelled

February 1972
Mockup bought for $31 000, to be exposed at Bonneville Salt Flats (or... elsewhere). The deal fail

1973
February
Mockup moved to Florida
July 4
SST aviation exhibit center opens in Kissimmee, Florida

1981
The museum goes bankrupt

1983
Faith World buy the building with the SST mockup inside

1989
October
Oscalea New Life Assembly of God buys the building. Mockup still inside.

August 1990
Mockup cut into pieces and sold to Charles Bell, who brings it to his junkyard near The Cape

November 30, 1998
Charles Bell sell the lockup to the Hiller aviation museum, San Carlos, California

February 16, 2000
Charles Bell died.

February 2013
The mockup forward fuselage moved back to Seattle.
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
153
Website
galgot.com
To be more precise (sorry should have been earlier) it's at the Museum of Flight Restoration Center & Reserve Collection at Paine Field (Seattle...).
https://goo.gl/maps/xqD97SbC8Qp
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
84
Thank you for the picture, Galgot.

Picture of the SST Kissimee exhibit on flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/8767849@N07/sets/72157618299890370/

There is still an enigma: what happened to the earlier mockup ? - the 2707-200, the yellow, swing-wing one ?




 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
153
Website
galgot.com
Excuse-me , but that first Boeing Mockup was supposed to represent 2707-100 (or 733-467, internal? non-commercial designation ? or B 2707 "sans suffixe") . Note that one even changed in many in details shapes , see how the scale model fin shape is different from the full scale mockup presented at the same time .

The -200 was the even longer "canarded" one.

Found a vid showing the -300 mockup droop nose in action (very slooooww) while it was at the Hiller museum :
https://www.youtube.com/embed/HqEyLstiNPA
 

Attachments

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
84
I readily recognize that I'm a little confused about the pre 2707-300, VG variants. I think I mixed the original design of 1964 with the 2707-100 & 2707-200 you mention.
Here is how I saw things
- VG with the engines in the middle, below the swing wing. Looked a bit like Rockwell B-1 (the original 1964 design has shown in Science & vie)
- VG with the engines attached to the horizontal tail (2707-200)
- 2707-300 tailed delta

Looks like I missed one, probably the 2707-100 you mention. In fact I have difficulty differencing it from the 2707-200. And this also explain why I'm confused about the mockups.

Did they modified the 2707-100 mockup into the 2707-200 one ?
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
153
Website
galgot.com
Archibald said:
I readily recognize that I'm a little confused about the pre 2707-300, VG variants. I think I mixed the original design of 1964 with the 2707-100 & 2707-200 you mention.
Here is how I saw things
- VG with the engines in the middle, below the swing wing. Looked a bit like Rockwell B-1 (the original 1964 design has shown in Science & vie)
- VG with the engines attached to the horizontal tail (2707-200)
- 2707-300 tailed delta

Looks like I missed one, probably the 2707-100 you mention. In fact I have difficulty differencing it from the 2707-200. And this also explain why I'm confused about the mockups.

Did they modified the 2707-100 mockup into the 2707-200 one ?
Nope, there was no 2707-200 mockup. for sure Boeing SST projects configuration changed a lot and it's difficult to follow :)
Main ones were :
- 733-197 - "classic" VG , a bit like B-1 yes, but with engines in four pods under the wing.
- 733-290 - Same configuration but bigger and longer , 250 passengers. they tried to solve the problem of Jet blast burning the tailplane by moving the tailplane down with the 733-390, with no success. There was also some tries with a T-tail (dunno designation), but not adopted to avoid possible deep stall problem. Also big problem with acoustics on the back of the fuselage due to inner engines being close to it.
- 733-467 / 2707 (sans suffixe) /2707-100 - this is the first mockup, and this is when Boeing won the contract, hence I suppose the change of the "733" to a more commercial "2707". Solution for not burning the tailplane= moving the engines all the way back under the tailplane ... This is the one also with the twisted , two angle droop nose.
- 2707-200 - Same but bigger and longer. But then due to be even longer, problem with governs moment arm and other things, so added canards.
And that's where they found the thing was so long , heavy, that it would break under certain loads (like any other planes...) , so would require heavy structure reinforcement that makes the configuration too heavy, hence less range... ect...
- 2707-300 - Drop the VG, now tailed delta, this is the last mockup you wrote the timeline . But then time passes, noises became serious concern , Boom e all... Gov cut funding. End.

And in between these , a tons of lesser known variants . Fascinating.

Note most of what I've learn about this bird come from this very thread :)
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
84
Thank you, it is a clearer. I often think that 2707 was a "double joke": mach 2+707 or mach 2.7 which was the plane cruise speed.

The most striking aspect with the SST is its length, 300 ft or 90 m+ it would have been the longest plane even today, even longer than the An-225 Mriya at 85 m. Both 747 and A380 are pretty stubby in comparison. Both Spruce Goose and Stratolaunch have the longest span but pretty short fuselages (and the Spruce Goose was made of birch !)
It was the only way to pack 250 passengers, since going supersonic, you can't pile up passengers on a too wide fuselage or two decks. Most people don't realize that both Concorde and Tu-144 are nearly as long as a Boeing 747-100. Had the SST been build, it would have dwarfed even a XB-70 Walkyrie, which already dwarfed a SR-71. When one see how large a building does the XB-70 takes at Wright Patterson, imagine a SST in comparison). A XB-70 is similar in size to Concorde and Tu-144, the SST would have been a league by itself.

A 300 ft long fuselage, still the longuest today, and made of titanium to withstand mach 2.7. Even today, Boeing (and Lockheed) SST would be hard. Aeroelasticity wasn't that aircraft friend, for sure. And Lockheed had many, many bad surprises when building its SR-71 / A-12 - out of Soviet titanium, the supreme irony. Some issues were never solved, notably that SR-71s leaked fuel on the ground so much they had to tank behind a KC-135 just after liftoff. I wonder if Boeing would have ran into similar problems...

My personal hypothesis about "why the first mockup vanished without a trace" is that, considering the sheer cost of that thing, they dismantled it and recycled as much as possible into the 2707-300 mockup. Wood is cheap, but that thing was huge. Plus there was aluminium, too.
Some costs
- By 1971 government planned to spent $1.3 billion on the two prototypes
- the mockup cost $10 million
- they auctionned it for $32 000. There was a $40 000 dollar bid to turn it into a hot-dog stand. Sigh.

Apollo cost $22 billions, Concorde, $3 billion (from memory). The fully reusable Space Shuttle of 1969 was $ 10 billion, OMB kicked NASA for two years until they dropped that to barely $5 billion - and NASA, for once in its existence, managed to keep cost under control (I mean, "only" 20% above the traget, a little less than $7 billion).
1970 dollars of course - nowadays Apollo would be in the $130 billion. Guess why we never returned to the Moon ?

A case could be make that, if both Concorde and Apollo pushed the state of the art, then Boeing SST was like von Braun plan to go to Mars in 1982. Doable on paper, but fraught with major unknowns. Both would have been one hell of achievement for the Wright Brothers first flight 80th anniversary, in 1983...
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
153
Website
galgot.com
Just found this attached pict. there was TWO 2707-300 mockup ??!!
Note another droop nose in construction on the left. And the one on the right has an extra cockpit rectangular window.

Edit: or maybe like for the -100 , they did a complete airframe mockup AND a nose section ??
 

Attachments

galgot

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
153
Website
galgot.com
Thks Hesham.
Found this tri-jet variable wing image :

on this site :
http://beigleart.com/aviation-artwork-memorabilia/
The artist, Mr.Beigle, worked at McDonnell/Douglas, at the Advanced Design Engineering Group.
Any idea what that Tri-jet is ?
Note a lot of other projects images on his gallery , including a big six-jet transport...
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
84
galgot said:
Just found this attached pict. there was TWO 2707-300 mockup ??!!
Note another droop nose in construction on the left. And the one on the right has an extra cockpit rectangular window.

Edit: or maybe like for the -100 , they did a complete airframe mockup AND a nose section ??
I've seen a picture with the 2707-300 and a nose section, but I can't remember where...
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
84
The Kissimmee SST building, now a church, was build for Transpo'72. Marks O. Morrison bought the buildings to house the mockup. Never heard of transpo'72 before, and it blew my mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpo_%2772
 

Zeppelin

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
74
Reaction score
2
hesham said:
NAC-60;

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19640210/20/2
Was there ever any design links between the NAC 60 design and the Rockwell B1. The latter seems to have very similar ending intake arrangements plus the need to solve a large swing wing design ?
 

MaxLegroom

Why not?
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
136
Reaction score
3
I'd guess there was some similar thinking, perhaps some of the same engineers, but that'd probably be about it.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
819
Reaction score
35
I don't know if this one has been posted already. It gives a good insight of the economical challenges faced by Boeing at the time.

https://youtu.be/UJGNyjJedmM

From the video owner:

What may very well be the single rarest film in my entire collection, here's a classic promo for the B-2707-200! I was 6 years old in 1967, and so excited waiting for the 2707 to arrive. Film by the Boeing Company. For educational & non commercial purposes only.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,178
Reaction score
101
:eek: Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,807
Reaction score
212
TomS said:
:eek: Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...
Did you see those Braniff Jetson suits? ;D
 

RAP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
615
Reaction score
169
707 prototype used to simulate some aspects of the SST.
 

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,178
Reaction score
101
sferrin said:
TomS said:
:eek: Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...
Did you see those Braniff Jetson suits? ;D
Turns out these are Braniff uniforms too. Same era, even.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/01/06/the-1960s-pucci-air-hostess-uniforms-ideal-for-mile-high-stripping/
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,807
Reaction score
212
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
:eek: Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...
Did you see those Braniff Jetson suits? ;D
Turns out these are Braniff uniforms too. Same era, even.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2015/01/06/the-1960s-pucci-air-hostess-uniforms-ideal-for-mile-high-stripping/
That Boeing / Braniff SST "commercial" was definitely a child of the 60s.
 

MaxLegroom

Why not?
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
136
Reaction score
3
TomS said:
:eek: Lockheed should definitely stick to designing aircraft. Even for the era, those are some of the worst FA uniforms I've ever seen...
So, no appreciation for Pucci, then? I'd rather see this than the outfits I saw on a Virgin America flight from a few years ago. At that time, I was wondering who these people in '80s workout clothes were helping people with their carry on bags.

I enjoyed seeing these again, particularly the close up shot on the Lockheed SST.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,769
Reaction score
814
Hi,

here is a strange two concepts,one was in artist drawing form (right),and anther was in
wind tunnel Model form.

http://www.oltreilcielo.it/pic/1964/sv189-1-010.jpg
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,769
Reaction score
814
Also Northrop SST.

http://www.oltreilcielo.it/pic/1965/192-002.jpg
 

Attachments

galgot

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
153
Website
galgot.com
Nice ! First one with variable swept wing is Nasa SCAT 15.3 study, the other wind tunnel model is SCAT 16.
The others two , never seen before.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,769
Reaction score
814
galgot said:
Nice ! First one with variable swept wing is Nasa SCAT 15.3 study, the other wind tunnel model is SCAT 16.
The others two , never seen before.
Thank you Galgot,need a hard search.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
84
That's the SCAT-15F with the arrow wing. Even today, it remains an aerodynamic wonder. Supersonic Lift-to-drag ratio of 10, when both Concorde and SST were barely 7. NASA Langley did an outstanding job refining this shape, unfortunately they hit a brickwall: its low-speed flying characteristics were abysmal, a flying coffin not unlike a F-104. Only digital FBW could have tamed that beast stall characteristics, but not in 1965... a crying shame, because it was stunningly futuristic.
 

RAP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
615
Reaction score
169
Drawings from various AWST issues. Sorry if any of these are duplicates but I was too lazy to look through 60+ pages to check.
 

Attachments

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
24
That Boeing / Braniff SST "commercial" was definitely a child of the 60s.

You could have made a wing spar out of her (?) hair. Question mark because the model definitely has the face of a Cowboys quarterback.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,595
Reaction score
25
Thanks for digging those up RAP. I find the flight controls in the cockpit interesting (Is the right one the throttle?). Also, I find the water ballast interesting as well. I'll have to see if they used it to maintain the cg until enough fuel had burned off, then they could dump the water and just shift fuel around; or if the water was just for the subsonic to supersonic AC shift.
 

N1011N

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
These Douglas models depict different fuselage lengths, cunard size and sub / supersonic configuration. I would like to know who may have made these models. Any ideas?
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,321
Reaction score
182
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
N1011N said:
These Douglas models depict different fuselage lengths, cunard size and sub / supersonic configuration. I would like to know who may have made these models. Any ideas?
They certainly look like Douglas model shop products.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,769
Reaction score
814
N1011N said:
These Douglas models depict different fuselage lengths, cunard size and sub / supersonic configuration. I would like to know who may have made these models. Any ideas?
Welcome aboard N1011N,

and that needs a good search.
 

N1011N

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Thanks for your comments.

Were Douglas Factory Models made from resin too?
There are no markings or serial numbers.
The stand is perspex / plastic however I suspect it includes a metallic ballast given its weight.
I suspected Pacific Miniatures however have no proof!

On a side note, aside from details provided on this thread, is there any info regarding the two different variants depicted, i.e. weight, range, dimensions etc...
 

Attachments

Top