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

US Supersonic Transport (SST) Program 1960-1971

MaxLegroom

Why not?
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
139
Reaction score
6
I'd tended to believe that the people designing the NAC-60 also looked at the B-70 and saw a number of things they didn't want to do again. Maybe for them, using compression lift was a mistake. One thing not to be repeated was the complexity of the Valkyrie's landing gear. I'd say that to go from the Valkyrie to the NAC-60, they were looking to simplify things. The military tends to tolerate maintenance costs the airlines wouldn't put up with.
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
557
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
These -197 docs are fantastic Blackkite-San !

These below come from Interavia magazine of dec1969. I beleive that is when Boeing released last known conf of 2707-300.
Clearer views of 969-404 variable sweep and 969-320 arrow wing models. Also a comparaison of these models and delta model 969- 302B.

interavia-décembre-1969-2.jpg
Note 969-404 ressembles a lot 733-390, with lowered tailplane (to avoid burning it) , but I can't decide if the dotted lines under the tail displays a hinged keel, or the tailplanes being hinged down in cruise ...

interavia-décembre-1969-3.jpg

"Poid à vide en ordre d'exploitation" = empty weight in operationnal order ( 1000 of Lb ).
"Poid maxi. au roulage" = rolling max weight .
"Distance franchissable" = Range (in NM).

And the last 2707-300 plan also published elsewhere

interavia-décembre-1969-1.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
”Note 969-404 resembles a lot 733-390, with lowered tailplane (to avoid burning it) , but I can't decide if the dotted lines under the tail displays a hinged keel, or the tailplanes being hinged down in cruise ...”
Thanks very impressive.:)

Following picture shows operational model. Please take care ventral fin position and leaped beautiful tail.

B2707 operational model.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
We have never seen detailed official drawings of Douglas 2229 SST.
If it is discovered, it is a very big event.
Air intake configulation between this drawing and official model which displayed in Santa Monica are apparently different (side view and front view).

The development of SST in the United States was more than 50 years ago, and I think many developers have passed away.
There may be a SST material in the relics of the deceased developer, and it is possible to go to internet market without explanation.
The U.S. SST investigation is about to approach the archaeological area.:D
(Archaeology is a study of human activities and their changes through the study of traces of material culture left by human beings (e.g., remains excavated from ruins).)
 

Attachments

Last edited:

MaxLegroom

Why not?
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
139
Reaction score
6
We have never seen detailed official drawings of Douglas 2229 SST.
If it is discovered, it is a very big event.
Air intake configulation between this drawing and official model which displayed in Santa Monica are apparently different (side view and front view).

The development of SST in the United States was more than 50 years ago, and I think many developers have passed away.
There may be a SST material in the relics of the deceased developer, and it is possible to go to internet market without explanation.
The U.S. SST investigation is about to approach the archaeological area.:D
(Archaeology is a study of human activities and their changes through the study of traces of material culture left by human beings (e.g., remains excavated from ruins).)
It passed that point a long time ago. Some of us have dipped into magazine archives, some of us live near, as in within a day's drive, of vast information repositories. Perhaps it's time to look for where the Model 2229 records would be...
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
I imagine that Jared-san can find some new information about the 2229.
NASA, FAA, Boeing, GE, P&W, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Washington D.C...........
 
Last edited:

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,656
Reaction score
241
...and the first XB-70 was really a pig of aircraft. To the point they demoted it to Mach 2.5 and no more.


The second one was better but ran into a
F-104 of course.

I'd tended to believe that the people designing the NAC-60 also looked at the B-70 and saw a number of things they didn't want to do again. Maybe for them, using compression lift was a mistake. One thing not to be repeated was the complexity of the Valkyrie's landing gear. I'd say that to go from the Valkyrie to the NAC-60, they were looking to simplify things. The military tends to tolerate maintenance costs the airlines wouldn't put up with.
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
557
Reaction score
252
Website
galgot.com
Post #175 by Skybolt regarding compression lift :
"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"
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
U.S.SST concepts. Not same scale.
 

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Hi!
Source : Skybolt-san's contribution in page3.
  1. All 733-197 type (733-197(prototype?) domestic type and, intercontinental type) wings were same size. And all type used same engine GE4/J4C.
  2. Surprisingly length of domestic type and intercontinental type were same.(249’ 5”) where prototype length was 203’ 10”.
  3. Main difference between domestic type and intercontinental type is take off engine power. Domestic type engine power is 85% dry power. Intercontinental type engine power is after burning power. So intercontinental noise is large.
733-197 base model and extended model.jpg733-197 base model data1.JPG733-197 base model data2.JPGsummary.JPG
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Lockheed CL-823 was a competitor of Boeing 733-197 at SST phaseⅠstudy in early 1964.
There are some data for number of passengers.


LockSST-PhaseI.jpgCL-823 MODEL.jpgCL-823.jpgimg57-300x156.jpgimg58-300x164.jpgCL-823 COCKPIT.jpgCL-823 CABIN.jpgCL-823 SPECIFICATION.jpgimagesHG3DX9MJ.jpgCL-823.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Hi! Lockheed CL-823 and Boeing 733-197 three side view comparison. Almost same scale.

CL-823 vs B733-197.jpgPHASE Ⅰ boeing base model.jpgCL-823 AND B733-197.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Phase ⅡA SST study in November 1964, Lockheed offered following designs.
All design had same wing, eigine, landing gear, flight station, vertical stabilizer, and take off gross weight. (Source : Lockheed horizons)
1. L-2000-1, Small intercontinental type, 170 seats, length : 65.23m(214ft)
2. L-2000-2, Large intercontinental type, 221 seats, Length : 68.8m(225.7ft)
3. L-2000-3, Domestic type,250 seats, Length : 74.9m(245.7ft)
Boeing offered B733-290.

Phase ⅡB SST study in 1965, Boeing offered B733-362.
Also studied SCAT15F and judged unfavorable because of poor low speed performance and high development risk.

Please try automatic translator. Very interesting site.

phase 2a.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Phase ⅡB SST study in 1965, Lockheed studied L-2000-4,-5 and-6. (Source : Lockheed Horizons)
L-2000-4 was a modified L-2000-2.
Design change points from L-2000-2 to L-2000-4 are as follows.
1. Slightly change to the leading and trailing-edge sweep angle.
2. Refinement of wing twist and camber.
3. Upsweep of the forward delta or chine for trim.
4. Addition of leading edge flaps for better subsonic and transonic lift/drag ratio.
The potential maximum lift/drag ratio at cruise for the L-2000-4 was about 8.3.

L-2000-5 was a SCAT15F.
L-2000-6 was a ( (L-2000-4)+(L-2000-5))/2.
Later L-2000-4 was developped into L-2000-7.


LOCKHEED PHASEⅡB STUDY.JPG
 
Last edited:

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,285
Reaction score
1,058
From L+K 22/1966.

1   22-1966.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
L-2000-7A AND -7B.JPG
Source : Lockheed Horizons
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Hi! Boeing 2707-200 model(upper one) and -100 model. Horizontal tail stabilizer shape is different from -100.

Boeing 2707-200.jpg2707-100.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Lockheed SST design improvement from phaseⅠ(1963) to phaseⅡA(June 1964)
(Source : lockheed horizons)
  1. L/D : 7.25 to 7.94
  2. Increase longitudinal stability at angle of attack 36degree.
  3. Complete elimination of pitch-up.
  4. The powerful wing leading edge vortex provide directional stability at 20degree angle of attack and side slip angle as high as 30degree.


Design change points.

  1. Wing area : 8370ft2 (778.6m2)to 9026ft2(839.6m2)
  2. Large basic delta wing area increased.
  3. Forward delta wing area decreased.
  4. Forward delta wing sweep back angle : 80degree to 85degree.
  5. Wing average thickness : 3.0% to 2.3%.
  6. Wing twist, camber increased.


Phase ⅡA design features.
(Range and minimum payload are FAA requirement)
  1. Number of passengers : 170 to 250(L-2000-1 : 170, L-2000-2 : 221,L-2000-3 : 250).
  2. Range : 4000 statute miles (6437km)
  3. Minimum payload : 30000lb(17280kg)
  4. Cruising speed : Mach3.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Thanks a lot galgot-san. Perhaps it's not necessary to think so seriously about this design.

Please enjoy 733-197 cockpit picture.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
In early 1964, FAA presented three U.S. SST plan, Boeing 733, Lockheed CL-823 and North American NAC-60.(Source : Aireview ( 航空情報 ) April 1964)
FAA U.S.SST presentation in 1964.jpg2.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Japanese explanation is as follows.

「The US supersonic transport project
Three proposals for a supersonic transport in the United States that have been attracting attention were announced by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration).
In the United States, aircraft manufacturers have begun developing supersonic passenger aircraft for five to six years.
However, the development cost of supersonic transport was so large that every company was hesitant to develop and produce it.
However, at the end of 1962, it was decided to produce a Concorde supersonic transport in the UK and France, so FAA was asked to submit design proposals for the supersonic transport from Boeing, Lockheed, and North American under the order of President Kennedy.
Also, P & W, GE, and Curtiss Wright submitted engine design proposals.
Three proposals for the aircraft were announced by the FAA this time, but the FAA plans to select the best design proposal for the aircraft and engine from the plans of each company by May 1964. (At present, the US government plans to subsidize 75% of development costs.)
As for engines, it’s believed that P & W has two types of turbofan engine plans, GE has one turbojet engine plan and one turbofan engine plan, and Curtiss Wright has one turbojet engine plan.
Looking at the aircraft drawings of each company, the shape, dimensions, and performance differ considerably among the company plans.
Boeing's proposal uses a variable sweep back angle system for the main wing. The FAA recommended the main wings with a variable sweep back angle system for each company, but this would be a problem in terms of mechanism and operating technology. Boeing has also announced plans to extend the length of the aircraft and install 227 passenger seats.
Lockheed's proposal is about twice as heavy as the Concorde supersonic transport in terms of weight and number of passengers, the largest of the three, and the fastest cruising speed Mach 3.
According to the Lockheed plan, the main wing is a double delta wing without a horizontal tail, and it is considered to increase the number of passengers by increasing the diameter of the fuselage.
The North American proposal has the same canard type of the XB-70, and does not have a mechanism to improve visibility because the angle of attack during landing does not large.
(same as XB-70 and Douglas 2229, but Sukhoi T-4 is different.:D)
The United States supersonic transport development competition is likely to become the biggest topic in the world's aviation in the 1960s.」


I think unknown P&W turbofan engine was a afterburning turbofan engine same as TF30.
What is the type of GE turbofan engine? GE4/J5 base engine?
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Hi! Tokyo Haneda airport JAL international route first class lounge exhibition model which galgot-san taught me.
This model shows B2707-300 prototype, not operational model. Enjoy.

【Haneda Airport International Terminal Complete Guide】The excitement does not stop before the trip in the space like a theme park.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Caption of this picture is as follows.
"The illustration shows a scale model of a projected supersonic airliner exhibited on the Lockheed stand No45 at S.B.A.C. exhibition."
(S.B.A.C. : Society of British Aerospace Companies) 

 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
Drag Reduction of the L-2000-7 (Source : Lockheed Hrizons)
Drag Reduction of the L-2000-7 was carried out by use of advanced aerodynamic techniques and methods developed by NASA.
These included, among others,

  1. Improvement in longitudinal area distribution.
  2. Optimization of wing camber and twist.
  3. Application of favorable interference principles.
  4. Adoption of leading edge flaps.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
(1) Improvement in longitudinal area distribution.
The L-2000-2 airplane was characterized by a Mach 2.7 equivalent area distribution of relatively low nose-fineness ratio and rather abrupt aft closure.
Progress refinements to the fuselage, wing, nacelle, and vertical tail geometries were adopted to obtain the improvement shown in Figure 28.
The increased nose-fineness ratio and the smoothed aft closure are apparent.
The L-2000-7 overall area distribution is substantially better than that of the L-2000-2 airplane and results in reduced wave drag.
 

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
(2)Optimization of wing camber and twist.
The camber and twist distributions of the L-2000-7 wing have been substantially altered from those of the L-2000-2 airplane.
Upward inclination of the forward fuselage and forward-delta surface introduced favorable longitudinal trimming moment with minimum drag penalty.
This change, in conjunction with increased wing twist and camber, has made it possible to improve the wing design at the trailing edge.
Figure 29 shows the nature and extent of these changes.
In addition, a leading edge flap been incorporated for use at all speeds up to and including the transonic region. The combination of this leading edge flap, the change in airfoil twist and camber and the improvement in the wing trailing-edge reflex is the source of marked aerodynamic improvements throughout the entire speed envelope.
 

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
410
(3)Application of favorable interference principles.
Another advanced aerodynamic technique, development at the NASA-Langley Laboratory, has been applied to wing contours in regions affected by the pressure fields generated by the large under-wing nacelles. Research results on the SCAT-15F model and others showed that favorable interference effects could be attained by altering wing contours in this vicinity of the nacelles.
This allows positive pressure fields generated by the nacelles to fall on forward-facing slopes of the wing.
Shown in Figure 30, this design refinement is referred to as “wing reflexing ” and its effects of favorable nacelle-wing interference have been realized both in drag reduction and improved longitudinal trim.
(Little looks like compression lift?)

(4)Adoption of leading edge flaps.
Lift/drag ratio improvements have also been accomplished in other portions of the high-speed flight spectrum by use of the leading-edge flap.
Tests at Cornell Laboratory and the NASA-Ames Laboratory have shown that deflection of the leading-edge flap results in drag reduction at Mach numbers as high as 1.4.
As shown in Fig 31, test data at model scale show a direct improvement of a full unit in lift/drag ratio at a Mach number of 0.92.
Although improvement due to leading-edge flap are reduced at higher transonic speeds, they are still significance.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top