• 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
6,496
Reaction score
1,270
Yes this subsonic liner is not 747.
Lockheed said this is 747 in this picture, but it's C-5.:rolleyes:
 

Attachments

Last edited:

MaxLegroom

Why not?
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
143
Reaction score
10
Impressive, but it belongs in the other thread about US SST programs, the one going up to 1971.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
234
Er yes, sorry, did it on my phone and the eyesight suffers after beer, could it be moved to the right place?
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
355
Website
galgot.com
Not sure this one as been posted before. A part from the NOVA episode "Supersonic Spies", that shows a lot of the first mockup :
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
355
Website
galgot.com
A video tour inside the 2707-300 mockup nose and cockpit when it was still at the Hiller Aviation Museum :
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,496
Reaction score
1,270
Anyway every SST are no doubt altimate beauty.;)
 
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
218
It's interesting to me that the designers seem to have been looking to minimize the need for specialized ground support equipment, hence the built-in hoist for the cargo containers and the proposed "bootstrap" system for engine changes. But this aircraft would surely have been flying in and out of a limited number of airports where providing the necessary GSE would have been no problem. We even have other drawings here showing dedicated terminals with specialized jetways for boarding. Seems a bit schizophrenic.
 

RareBird

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
It's interesting to me that the designers seem to have been looking to minimize the need for specialized ground support equipment, hence the built-in hoist for the cargo containers and the proposed "bootstrap" system for engine changes. But this aircraft would surely have been flying in and out of a limited number of airports where providing the necessary GSE would have been no problem. We even have other drawings here showing dedicated terminals with specialized jetways for boarding. Seems a bit schizophrenic.
Hi, Maybe I am misinterpreting your post but as pretty much all major hubs had to be substantially improved to deal with the arrival of the Jet, and then the Jumbo etc.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
218
It's interesting to me that the designers seem to have been looking to minimize the need for specialized ground support equipment, hence the built-in hoist for the cargo containers and the proposed "bootstrap" system for engine changes. But this aircraft would surely have been flying in and out of a limited number of airports where providing the necessary GSE would have been no problem. We even have other drawings here showing dedicated terminals with specialized jetways for boarding. Seems a bit schizophrenic.
Hi, Maybe I am misinterpreting your post but as pretty much all major hubs had to be substantially improved to deal with the arrival of the Jet, and then the Jumbo etc.
Not exactly. I was noticing that some features like the self-loading cargo system or the built-in hoists for engine swaps would be most useful flying from an airport without dedicated support for the SST. But I would not expect an SST to fly to airports without dedicated support facilities.
 

Dynoman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
810
Reaction score
95
Those costs are distributed across the 25 airports considered in the study to modify their runway, taxiway, and apron strength (study mentions that the weight and length of these new aircraft designs resulted in thicker overlays and increases in taxiway fillets or rounds). Consistently, the L-2000 required more money to strengthen the pavements than the other SST design (B-2707) or the high capacity Lockheed L-500 (which became the C-5A Galaxy) in all the airports considered.
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
355
Website
galgot.com
Yes, that is what i understood too. More work on the runways/taxiways/pavements = more money.
What i found funny is that the Lockheed design required so much strengthening of the pavement compare to the other . Maybe weight concentrated on much smaller LG surface spots ?
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,496
Reaction score
1,270
Ah It's not an APU.........:cool:
Thanks a lot as usual my dear galgot-san.:)
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
355
Website
galgot.com
Yes Sir :) APU on the L-2000 was to be placed here :
L-2000-APU.jpg
With an 2nd optional one on the left side :
L-2000-APU-2.jpg

At least that is on the last configuration that I know of.
 
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
6,496
Reaction score
1,270
Oh here!!:oops:Not tail. Thank you Sir.
 
Last edited:

MaxLegroom

Why not?
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
143
Reaction score
10
Yes, that is what i understood too. More work on the runways/taxiways/pavements = more money.
What i found funny is that the Lockheed design required so much strengthening of the pavement compare to the other . Maybe weight concentrated on much smaller LG surface spots ?
I'd consider this likely. The 2707-200 had 16 main landing gear tires spread over four bogies, the L-2000 had twelve tires on just two. These figures were daunting to look at, but 33 million dollars spread over several facilities isn't all that much, really, even for that time, and part of that was to be spent on updating facilities for Super DC-8 models already on order.
Boeing was considerate about this matter the 2707-300, if you note, has 24 main landing gear tires...
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
233
Reaction score
84
Another downside to spreading the aircraft weight across all of those wheels and bogies is that more of the tires are scrubbed sideways across the ground during turns, accelerating their wear. Tire replacement is apparently a significant operating cost for airliners. Boeing addressed this on the 2707-200 by making the main gear legs steerable (at least 2 of them IIRC) and didn't use another 3-axle bogie until the 777, where the tire scrubbing is reduced by an articulated bogie.
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
355
Website
galgot.com
The more i check about the Boeing SST designs , the more I think Boeing should have stuck with the 733-197 design... Or something of that size anyway.
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
233
Reaction score
84
The more i check about the Boeing SST designs , the more I think Boeing should have stuck with the 733-197 design... Or something of that size anyway.
The 733 configuration was apparently abandoned because of impingement of the engine exhaust on the aft fuselage and horizontal tail, although it seems that B-1 gets away with a similar configuration. Perhaps the B-1 was expected to go supersonic so infrequently that the rate of accumulation of damage to the airframe was acceptable.
 

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
609
Reaction score
174
The B-1b has its horizontal much higher and closer to the engines than the 733. This makes the angle much greater and thus less of an issue.

But all that is kinda mute as the 733-197 didn't have the pax capacity to be economical.
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
627
Reaction score
355
Website
galgot.com
The more i check about the Boeing SST designs , the more I think Boeing should have stuck with the 733-197 design... Or something of that size anyway.
The 733 configuration was apparently abandoned because of impingement of the engine exhaust on the aft fuselage and horizontal tail, although it seems that B-1 gets away with a similar configuration. Perhaps the B-1 was expected to go supersonic so infrequently that the rate of accumulation of damage to the airframe was acceptable.
Yes, But they did not found that tailplane burned by exhausts problem until the -290 apparently. Looking at a -197 plan, one can see the engines are lower than on the -290, maybe less interacting with the tailplane. Anyway we'll never know...

The B-1b has its horizontal much higher and closer to the engines than the 733. This makes the angle much greater and thus less of an issue.

But all that is kinda mute as the 733-197 didn't have the pax capacity to be economical.
So was the all program obviously (uneconomical). All i'm saying is a smaller plane would maybe have been at least technically feasible, instead of the latter (beautiful) monsters that were even less doable.
 
Last edited:

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
609
Reaction score
174
So was the all program obviously (uneconomical). All i'm saying is a smaller plane would maybe have been at least technically feasible, instead of the latter (beautiful) monsters that were even less doable.
iirc studies showed that ~250pax and mach 3 cruise was needed for airline profitability, which in turn would translate to orders and program profitability. Around then is when several of the competitors just dropped out, I think it was NAA who outright said that those targets were too ambitious. Boeing and Lockheed soldiered on and came up with massive airframes to meet those targets.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,795
Reaction score
382
So was the all program obviously (uneconomical). All i'm saying is a smaller plane would maybe have been at least technically feasible, instead of the latter (beautiful) monsters that were even less doable.
iirc studies showed that ~250pax and mach 3 cruise was needed for airline profitability, which in turn would translate to orders and program profitability. Around then is when several of the competitors just dropped out, I think it was NAA who outright said that those targets were too ambitious. Boeing and Lockheed soldiered on and came up with massive airframes to meet those targets.
Mach 2.7 was picked because it allows to cross the Atlantic in two hours rather than three for Concorde (which all time record was 2h52). And this allow three daily rotations instead of two, everyday, between 6 in the morning and 23 in the evening.

Paris - NY
NY - Paris

6 - 8
- 1 hour cleaning and refueling
9 - 11 - 1 hour cleaning and refueling

12 - 14 - 1 hour cleaning and refueling
15 - 17 - 1 hour cleaning and refueling

18 - 20 - 1 hour cleaning and refueling
21 - 23
 
Top