• 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
5,963
Reaction score
342
Justo-san's contribution about Douglas 2229 SST three side view drawing is excellent. This drawing is the best we have. May be an official one.
Unfortunately no aircraft size in this drawing. If someone measure the length of full scale mockup of 2229 SST cockpit in Santa Monica, we can guess the size of this aircraft.

I like this commandment.
Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but understand.(Baruch De Spinoza)

 

Attachments

Last edited:

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
100
Justo-san's contribution about Douglas 2229 SST three side view drawing is excellent. This drawing is the best we have. May be an official one.
Unfortunately no aircraft size in this drawing. If someone measure the length of full scale mockup of 2229 SST cockpit in Santa Monica, we can guess the size of this aircraft.

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but understand.(Baruch De Spinoza)

Blackkite, the Douglas SST cockpit section at the Santa Monica Museum of Flying is also a scale model, probably around 1/5 or so, but definitely not full size. Still, measuring wouldn't hurt :)...

Martin
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
Thanks a lot!! :)
Museum of flying in Santa Monica also have a scale model of whole 2229 SST. If only we know the scale.......
Anyway detailed examination of this official model is necessary.

According to this model, the number of seats rows on this airliner is 26, and if there are six seats in one row, the total is 156 seats. If there are five seats in a row, there are 130 seats in total.



douglas-2.jpgdouglas-4.jpg
 
Last edited:

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
616
Reaction score
100
blackkite, keep in mind that supersonic planes tend to be slender due to drag considerations, and both the Concorde and Tu-144 hat rows with only 4 seats abreast. That roughly jibes with the description of the Douglas 2229 as a 100 seat aircraft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_2229.

Martin
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
blackkite, keep in mind that supersonic planes tend to be slender due to drag considerations, and both the Concorde and Tu-144 hat rows with only 4 seats abreast. That roughly jibes with the description of the Douglas 2229 as a 100 seat aircraft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_2229.

Martin
Thanks a lot martinbayer-san. I understand. 26 times 5 equal 130. Little small plane.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
Sonic boom consideration (Source : Lockheed Horizons, hard to understand for me.:D )
Since the completion of phaseⅡA, research and development in the sonic boom area has been concentrated in assimilating and applying the “near field ” sonic boom analysis technique developed by Carlson and Mclean of the NASA-Langley Laboratory. The work of Carlson and Mclean showed that, for an airplane of the length of the supersonic transport, the classic “near field” approach to sonic boom analysis represented an oversimplification of the sonic boom prediction, particularly in acceleration and climb. During this segment of the flight profile, the airplane is not at sufficiently low altitudes that it is not yet in the far-field.
Advanced near-field analysis technique became necessary in order to understand the true nature of the pressure waves emanating from the airplane. Near-field sonic boom analysis techniques shows significant differences in both the wave form and peak overpressure predicted for supersonic transport aircraft flying in the acceleration and climb-altitude region. In general, the peak overpressure, when accurately determined from near field theory, may be less than those anticipated from far-field consideration. Not only does the pose the problem of complete understanding and application of the near-field technique, but it also raises a second question as to shape changes in the airplane to maximize near-field effect. Study and analysis by near-field techniques revealed that changes in the total sonic-boom area progression with airplane length alter the near-field signature.
A total area progression following a three-halves power variation with length from the nose was found to produce a so-called “flat top” wave form which minimizes sonic-boom according to near-field theory. The principal part of the airplane that can be altered to vary sonic-boom area progression is the fuselage. Therefore, an extensive fuselage shape program was undertaken.
As shown in Figure 32, four different fuselage shapes were subjected to design study and wind-tunnel evaluation.

The first and third of these fuselages, designed “A” and ”C” in Figure 32, were basic five abreast seating, cylindrical fuselages, with area differences in the aft portions only. These variations have negligible effect on the near-field boom signature.

Fuselage “B” was developed to give a total sonic boom area progression following the optimum three-halves power relationship with length for a design Mach number of 1.8.
The additional area required in the forward region of fuselage “B” was obtained by increasing fuselage cross-section to six abreast.

Fuselage “D” represented another six abreast approach, but was aimed more at attaining a maximum length of six abreast seating than a three-halves power area distribution.

Complete design, wind tunnel, and cost analysis were performed on each of the four subject fuselage designs. Results of wind-tunnel model tests of all four fuselages in terms of supersonic maximum lift/drag ratio are shown in Figure 33.

Also shown in Figure 33, are weight-study results and manufacturing-cost estimates.

The drag and weight penalties associated with the “B” type fuselage were found to result in a very substantial payload loss as compared to fuselages of either type ”A” or type ”C”.

In addition, production cost of the ”B” type fuselage was substantially higher.

Since the ”C” type fuselage already achieved a good portion of the available near-field sonic boom reduction, and since its payload, cost factor, and interior arrangement flexibility factors were favorable, this fuselage was adopted for the L-2000-7 design.

Last picture source
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
Far field boom strength is same psf??o_O
 

RAP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
630
Reaction score
190
Boeing 733, sorry if this has been posted before.
 

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
Thanks! It was a very beautiful dream that we almost got.

Lockheed was fully prepared to start production of the L-2000 based on SR-71's experience. But surprisingly they couldn't accept the order.
And they did not complain about the subsequent events and kept silent.Their attitude was admirable.

Please enjoy L-2000-7 fuel tanks development. (Source : as usual)
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
Hi! Boeing 969-404 and 969-320.
Boeing selected the following three plans an alternative to the stalled 2707-200 SST.
1. 969-404 model
2. 969-302 model
3. 969-320 model

The 969-404 model was installed variable swept wing, with the engine back to the main wing.
The horizontal tail was said to design as not to suffer the exhaust gas flow in any state, but it is difficult to understand from the drawing.

The 969-302 type later became 2707-300 type SST with a larger wing area and number of seats.

The 969-320 model was designed based on NASA's SCAT-15F with retractable front wing.

969-404 and 969-320.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
These plan view shows early Douglas SST concept compared with Concorde. Upper one was SCAT-16 base design.(Justo-san and flateric-san's contribution)
Escanear0002.jpg
douglas632conceptsst.jpg
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
NAC-60 SST.JPG

I want to ask the moderator to devide this topic into each company's SST. For example Boeing, Lockheed, NAA, Douglas, Convair, Republic, Northrop, common,.........This topic become too big to check duplicate contribution.
 
Last edited:

Cdt Adama

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Hello all
After so many years, I got a plastic model of Boeing 2707-200 SST ... Nice plane :D
(I´llpost some photos shortly when finished)
Since I met the F14 Tomcat during an airshow many years ago, I fell in love with sweeping wings
Well, I was an RC modeler when I was young and I thought it would be a great idea to build a RC flying one... (Maybe a big one ?!)
Any photos, drawings details etc... would help a lot if you have any. (Igot already a lot here)
See ya soon guys crazy_pilot-533c.gif
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
528
Reaction score
215
Website
galgot.com
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
Oh wonderful staff.
Boeing B2707-100 with P&W JTF17 engine!!:oops:
Page 82 and 83 are important, because these pages explain the reason of design change.
969-404's horizontal tail stabilizer droop like a F-4 shape when cruise to avoid exhaust gas.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
Hi! -300.
 

Attachments

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
342
A: Milled titanium panels (intrados).
B: Full rib (extrados) and milled plate (intrados).
C: Titanium sandwich (intrados and extrados).
D: Bonded titanium intrados coating.
E: Titanium coating in glued panels, except for train housing extrados panels.
F: Titanium construction with welded corrugated sheet (longitudinal members).
G: Titanium rib stiffened vertically.
H: Possible solution in brazed stainless steel honeycomb.

1: Front beam.
2: Rear beam.
3: Inner flap.
4: Brazed steel honeycomb structure.
5: Inner flaperon.
6: Outside flap.
7: Spoiler.
8: Outside flaperon.
9: Leading edge flap.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top