In the 1960s the arrival of the supersonic transport (SST) was seen as a logical conclusion. That urge concretized in the development and construction of two supersonic airliners: the Anglo-French …
Download this stock image: Supersonic Transport (SST) North American Aviation NAC 2000 aircraft, artistic rendering, 1960s - TDR1DE from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors.
Here is an interesting 1974 NASA report on testing a T-Tailed 733-290 like configuration, which I find even nicer than the 733-290. I believe it’s the same model as this one :
here is the model scale plan extracted from the report:
As noted by Skybolt before in post #224, T-tail was tested for the 733 before, being rejected because of deep-stall problem, But this was re-investigated later after the end of SST program to see if CCV would solve the problem , here an interesting extract:
The present study is part of an overall effort by the NASA to provide the technology base for the development of advanced supersonic vehicles. The configuration concept which is the subject of this paper is a derivative of one studied in the National SST (supersonic transport) program (references 1 and 2) and traces its ancestry to the SCAT 16 configuration of the SCAT
(supersonic commercial air transport) studies (reference 3). As studied in the SST program, the concept exhibited one of the highest ratios of payload to gross weight of all those submitted for evaluation.
The dominant feature of the configuration is its non-integrated, variable-sweep wing. The variable-sweep feature was utilized to provide high
levels of low-speed lift, good subsonic flight efficiency, and good supersonic
cruise efficiency with a relatively small, highly loaded wing which would
involve less structural design uncertainty than would the lightly loaded, large wings of competing concepts.
The primary reason for abandoning the non-integrated, variable-sweep concept during its development was a conflict between longitudinal stability
criteria of that time, and effects of the engine exhaust on the horizontal tail. Placement of the horizontal tail in a high, or T-tail, position would have eliminated adverse thermal and acoustic effects of the jet on the tail and would have prevented a venturi-like suck-down of the horizontal tail as the exhaust jet streamed between it and the ground during takeoff rotation, both of which were problems for a low-tail configuration.
However, a T-tail was generally known to produce a deep-stall problem as the tail dropped into the wake of the stalled wing and became ineffective. Because "stick pusher"
or attitude-limiting systems, which are dependent upon attitude and pitch- rate sensing, were not then considered permissible in commercial aircraft, the contractor conducting the SST study ultimately took the alternate route of integrating the wing and horizontal tail, and suspending the engine nacelles from the latter, before abandoning the variable-sweep approach altogether. Since that time, developments in stability criteria and in aero- electronic technology and an increased emphasis on CCV (control-configured vehicles) have opened the path to serious study of a T-tail solution of the problems of the variable-sweep SST.
"[B]Chris Sloan[/B] @[B]airchive[/B] Original Boeing 2707 SST model in the 1964-68 AstroJet livery on display at the American Airlines Annual Leadership Conference Expo courtesy of the C.R. Smith Museum."
Btw, I (we ) keep posting stuff in this monster thread, but if modos find it inapropriate i'll stop. For sure the thread is a wealth of infos on the SST, excellent reference, but it's also getting difficult to follow due to size and images posted 2 or even 3 times in the thread (my bad too...).
I think its the same design. Only , one model shows it in cruise supersonic configuration ( wing tips moved down like XB-70, and windshield in up position), while the others are in lower speed configuration.
Left side model's cockpit upper fuselage is rounded and canard seems to be small. And fuselage each side windows are 71 where other two windows are 84/85.
Left side model is short. It's a long range version same as L2000-7A?
Left side model's cockpit upper fuselage is rounded and canard seems to be small. And fuselage each side windows are 71 where other two windows are 84/85.
Left side model is short. It's a long range version same as L2000-7A?
Ah yes ! didn't noticed that. Would be nice to know what is writen of the coper plates on the stands... if they have something different from each other.
EDIT : seems its all writen "Douglas SST" ...
Btw, never really checked Douglas 2229 history. Wikipedia page is quite detailled :
"...After studying the design, Douglas concluded that the SST would not work economically, and declined to enter the Model 2229 in the National Supersonic Transport (NST) program in 1963."
Wise guys ...
Btw, never really checked Douglas 2229 history. Wikipedia page is quite detailled :
"...After studying the design, Douglas concluded that the SST would not work economically, and declined to enter the Model 2229 in the National Supersonic Transport (NST) program in 1963."
Wise guys ...
[/QUOTE]
R.E.G Davies, who worked in marketing at Douglas, based a book on why SSTs would never make sense.
Engineers are really hard work.
First he needs to have enough talent.
If he doesn't show his originality, he can't satisfy his customers.
His proposal is the best of all proposals and must be feasible.
Careful attention is required so as not to make mistakes.
He must study every day to get the latest information.
His work is really sober(Planning, Calculation, Development, Integration, Simulation, trade off study and make Fabrication/testing sequence), and he has to work hard until late at night.
Sometimes he has to sacrifice his weekend fun. If something happens, he first thinks it is his responsibility.
My question is , how can the leading edge go from sharp edge to "bulbous".
I don’t understand how the section can go from sharp to round…
Only found this illustration of something a bit similar (changing the LE section) , some complicated Krueger flaps ?
I don’t even understand exactly how these work, as the skin lay flat when closed, then its curved when opened…
Could it be this kind of thing on the 733-197 wing ?
Edit:
Ok, the example above show 747 Krueger flaps, here better image :
Patent here :
Still, don't think it would work on the -197 drawing, as it would have to bend the surface much more.
Plus it looks completely closed on the underside on the -197 drawing.
So maybe something like that :
Look at section f-f (LERX) and think at the sweep angle of blended section. The extended part is just hidden inside the outer shape and deployed to increase alpha tolerence before flow separation.
On the mig, the flap is rotated from a tangent recessed position. Nothing prevent you to carve a volume on the underside to have that flap tip bulbous.
anyway here is the small image :
Think is 733-636. Funny, I thought all arrow wings models would be numbered 969-xxx.
Looks like a -300 with delta wing swapped to a arrow wing.
Fast airplanes also have to fly well at low speeds to take off and land. Here, a technician is installing the nose landing gear on a proposed High-Speed Civil Transport model to prepare it for high-angle-of-attack tests in the 14- by 22-Foot Tunnel. The test section walls were in their closed position for these tests.
Fast airplanes also have to fly well at low speeds to take off and land. Here, a technician is installing the nose landing gear on a proposed High-Speed Civil Transport model to prepare it for high-angle-of-attack tests in the 14- by 22-Foot Tunnel. The test section walls were in their closed position for these tests.
Hi!
I compare Boeing B2707-300 prototype and operational.
Operational model is about 3.5m longer than prototype model.Wing front view slightly changed. Horizontal tail stabilizer moved higher position.
Outboard aileron area enlarged.
Operatinal model fuselage shape looks like L2000-7B.
Prototype model range : 3575nm, Operational model range : 3530nm
Hi Blackkite San,
Sorry , i think this one shows the -300 as intented as in late 1968 / early 1969, not specifically the prototype.
See configurations released by Boeing to the press at the period, and published with the very detailled cutaway plan in several magazines at these times, namely Interavia, AviationMagazine,
Flight International and Japanese AirReview (i think...).
Then in Late 1969 another configuration is released, with a new tailplane geometry. One short 280 ft production model, then a 286 ft prototype and a 298 ft Production model.
See the following montage, I love SST ornithology :
Ummm..........very difficult.
Horizontal tail stabilizer shape!!
Boeing planned domestic version and intercontinental version same as Lockheed L2000-7A and 7B?(Same as Douglas 2229?)
Ummm..........very difficult.
Horizontal tail stabilizer shape!!
Boeing planned domestic version and intercontinental version same as Lockheed L2000-7A and 7B?(Same as Douglas 2229?)
I don't know for the 2707-300, but back on the 733-290 yes, I saw two versions intended mentioned on the same Boeing 733-290 presentation.
One domestic and one intercontinental. Same dimensions but different weight (fuel and pax capacity I suppose). Sorry don't have the numbers, documents are not mines.
Edit : got the infos , here you go,
planned was 733-290 "Intercontinental" with
230 pax
500000 lbs Max ramp weight
219900 lbs operating empty weight
320000 lbs Max Ldg weight
264180 lbs Fuel capacity
16-40" main gear tires size
And 733-291 "transcontinental" (domestic) with
209 pax
425000 lbs Max ramp weight
205900 lbs operating empty weight
302000 lbs Max Ldg weight
204100 lbs Fuel capacity
16-38" main gear tires size
Both same external dimensions/shape and same GE4 engines.
This model is built very near to scale within a few inches of actual general dimensions and is fully textured. This model has animateable flaps, ailerons, landing gear, landing gear doors, elevators, and rudder. It is available in multiple airline liveries.
This model is built very near to scale within a few inches of actual general dimensions and is fully textured. This model has animateable flaps, ailerons, landing gear, landing gear doors, elevators, and rudder. It is available in multiple airline liveries.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
elpoderdelasgalaxias.wordpress.com
www.alamy.com
) keep posting stuff in this monster thread, but if modos find it inapropriate i'll stop. For sure the thread is a wealth of infos on the SST, excellent reference, but it's also getting difficult to follow due to size and images posted 2 or even 3 times in the thread (my bad too...).
www.renderhub.com
![Les_Ailes___journal_hebdomadaire_[...]_bpt6k3201019g_3.jpeg](/data/attachments/154/154511-2c7728d772d7cb8081870a6956046438.jpg)
