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

US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
Hi! Boeing 733-290 larger image and 3D model.

I have never seen 733-390 large drawing.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
Hi! Boeing 733-290 larger image and 3D model.

I have never seen 733-390 large drawing.
thanks, I didn't had that 733-290 image at that size :)

The 3d model is not correct, I wouldn't put 10 $ for it. For the -290 the nose wasn't suppose to drop like that and MLG is not like that. Also very simplified wing and all.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
This drawing shows Boeing 2707-200.(Please confirm drawing title.)
Single cranked nose and canard.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
This drawing shows Boeing 2707-100. Please confirm drawing title.
Double cranked nose and no canard. Fuselage length after vertical tail stabilizer is very short.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
And perhaps these drawings shows Boeing 2707. Please comfirm drawing title,
Small area vertical tail stabilizer and fuselage length after vertical tail stabilizer is long.
I can see two different horizontal tail stabilizer trailing edge shape.
What is the meaning 65A10191?
 

Attachments

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
All that Right.
There was a Boeing 2707 (sans suffixe),that is maybe originaly the 733-467,and that is the last two drawings you posted. The one with the tall fin, no canards, and one pieces droop nose. But even between these two drawings , one can see differences, see the under tail fin. Details changes from drawing to drawing as the design development goes.
The first Boeing Mock-up is that one Boeing-2707 (sans suffixe), with the tall tail.

xxha9e1z6q721.jpg

But then again different in details, like it had the two pieces droop nose of the 2707-100, and position of the under tail fin is again different. And even the model presented with the mock-up was different , having the later 2707-100 fin design :p

P40745.jpg image.php.jpeg

So I suppose they started working on the mock-up, planned to make it like the Boeing 2707 (sans suffixe), then design progressed to the 2707-100 with two piece nose before the presentation, and they incorporated that to the mock-up :)

65A10191 is the drawing designation, like the 2707-200 one you posted above is 65A10479. Don't know what "65A" stands for, but the higher the next number, the later the design development obviously. But someone more knowledgeable than me here could maybe tell us.
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
Oh thanks a lot brilliant galgot-san!!:)
And my next question. What is this?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
Hi galgot-san.
I think it's a B2707 later (final?) model.
Size is same as B2707-100? Ummm........
Drawing title is 2707.
 
Last edited:

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
Ah, if the drawing is titled B2707 then, you're right.
So they kept that B2707 designation even with the later fin...
Now one as to determine what changes made the designation change from B2707 to B2707-100... Tricky he ? :/
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
The location of the engine in left and right did not shifts to the front and the back(mockup shifts to the front and the back).
And fuselage line looks like B2707-100.
So now I think this drawing shows B2707-100(early design?) as you said.
Fuselage length seems to be 306' where B2707(mockup) length is 298'. Thanks again.:)
 

Attachments

Last edited:

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
yes :)
Wanted to do a chart like that too, with all the known plans available placed in chronology as I could, showing the evolution in the development.
But it would make a very big chart .
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
galgot-san. Of course only you can do that.;)
Now I can understand that following model shows B2707 same as Boeing's full scale mockup.

 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
B2707-100 had a very complicated shape horizontal tail stabilizer!:cool:
 

Attachments

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
I can't understand this model.o_O
It's a restored 1/60 PacMin model. It's a 2707-100, and i'm not sure it had the canards originally.
see this page : http://www.aviationmodels-online.com/for_sale/page_2/United_Boeing_SST_1.htm
although the text states it is an unusual -100 with canard, the last picture shows the model unrestored without canards.

pre-restoration.jpg

But there are some rare images of 2707-100 like with the canards.

If you take a plane at Haneda, at the JAL first class lounge, you can have chance to see this nice JAL 2707-300 (early 1969 model) :
fullsizeoutput_2194-1024x507.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
Thanks again gaogot-san!
Recently I become a fan of B2707-300 especially operational model. No doubt she's a perfect beauty.
Unfortunately I have no money to use first class.:D
I think also this picture is little strange,too.

 

Attachments

Last edited:

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
Hi Blackkite San, sorry for late response.
Yes , that is what i find too , 306' for the -100, and 318' for the -200.

...
I think also this picture is little strange,too.

Yeah seen this one too, its a mix between -100 and -200. Don't know if its 3d render or a doctored scale model picture.
still nice picture, but it's not "official" stuff" anyway.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
B2707-200 is heavy weight.:oops:

So so?
 
Last edited:

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
B2707-200 is heavy weight.:oops:

So so?
Not bad ! Still not very detailed, and low poly. what is that software ? is it for a game ?
Mind you , I would have to redo my -200 model now that I have more recent documentation finds.
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
A 2707-300 PPD cutaway plan (unfortunately bad quality) published in AWST January 5 1970.
PPD stands for Prototype Point Design, which is the prototype as if it were certificated and fitted out as transport aircraft.

1970010538_5.jpg

"configuration includes additions of 16 seats in fuselage aft section gained by design refinement. Two four-abreast rows are added at the rear, as well as an extra seat to each of eight four -abreast aft rows of the earlier design".
This is the 298 ft prototype. (Last known configuration before cancellation ?...).

Compare with the earlier 2707-300 configuration cutaway published in AWST December 9 1968 (and in other mags) :
This is the 280 ft earlier version.

1968120918_1.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
B2707-200 is heavy weight.:oops:

So so?
Not bad ! Still not very detailed, and low poly. what is that software ? is it for a game ?
Mind you , I would have to redo my -200 model now that I have more recent documentation finds.
Super!!!!:) I hope JAL version,too.


This is the software which use to make not bad model. I don't know the objective of this model.
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
Please also watch word file. You can see three side view of these aircraft.
Table data source is from Aviation Journal.(once existed Japanese magazine)

PHASE ⅡC_0001.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
Next-3.

16.JPG17.JPG19.JPG20.JPG21.JPGb733-1974aj8l.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,450
Reaction score
95
It is a shame that noone has produced a book about the US SST bringing all this material together.
Until then this thread is an excellent source
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,071
Reaction score
437
Thansk a lot uk 75-san!!
I perfectly agree your decent opinion.:)
NASA and FAA were also very bad not only Boeing at the day.:(
NASA also recommend VG at the day but Dr.Whitcomb........
I think that Douglas 2229 SST was gone with the compression lift theory. Perhaps wind tunnel test showed it was hard to fulfil range requirement.
 
Last edited:

MaxLegroom

Why not?
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
139
Reaction score
6
It is a shame that noone has produced a book about the US SST bringing all this material together.
Until then this thread is an excellent source
I agree, but there's actually more to be found. For example, I've yet to see the full reports on the Phase I designs. When I got some of the stuff I posted, I was looking also for a proposal for the NAC-60 similar to the ones I found the L-2000 drawings in, but I was unable to find it among the National Archives.
 
Top