Boeing's Forgotten Failure
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 02. 2021
- We now have a discord: / discord
& Patreon: / foundandexplained
The Boeing 2707 was Boeing's answer to the Concorde. It could carry more passengers, fly further and at a speed that left the rival European creation in its wake. But Boeing's version of a supersonic aircraft would never make it to the market and leave behind a legacy of failure. What was the Boeing 2707? What would it be like inside? And why it was never built.
America always considered itself at the forefront of aviation technology. While it had been beaten to the market for the world's first jet-powered commercial transport, its Boeing 707 had cemented its place as the gold standard of aviation travel.
But the times were changing. New military technology had opened up the possibility of faster than sound commercial aircraft, turning all-day flights into meer hours, allowing passengers to eat one meal in one hemisphere, before catching the same sunset in another.
In 1962, when it became clear that the European Concorde would go ahead, with the dreaded soviets right behind, the American government gave a signal for local builders to start work on what would become the home-grown version of the supersonic transport. President John F. Kennedy tasked the Federal Aviation Administration with "national aviation goals for the period between now and 1970".
Many believed that the future lay in Supersonic transport, and aircraft designs like the Boeing 747 would only be a passing fad.
The race was on.
The aircraft would need to fly between Western Europe and the Eastern USA without stopping to refuel, a range of at least 3,500 nmi (6,400 km). It would also need to bring traveling fast to the masses, and have a seating capacity of at least 150 passengers.
But unlike their European counterparts, America had a trick up its sleeve. The Concorde design was built around a lightweight, traditional aluminum-alloy airframe.
America on the other hand had experience with other materials like titanium. A titanium airframe had been used on the famous A-12 Blackbird, with an estimated top speed of Mach 3.35 at 85,000' feet.
Thus this aircraft design would need to be built from a titanium structure and for lack of a better phrase, leave the rival Concorde back in the dust.
The US government would launch a contest between three different SST projects - One from Boeing, Lockheed and North American Aviation.
The North American Aviation NAC-60 design didn't make it to the final selection round after being deemed too small and slow.
Lockheeds version would be called the L-2000 and seat over 273 passengers.
The Boeing effort would be called the Boeing Model 733-197, It would have a variable geometry wing, which gave the airframe the ability to take off and land at lower speeds and in less distance than would a comparable fixed-wing aircraft. It would carry 277 passengers (30 first-class and 247 in economy) & be called the 2707-100.
In 1966, the two remaining designs, 2707 and L-2000 went head to head, with the Boeing 2707 ultimately winning the contract in 1967. Lockheed's L-2000 was judged simpler to produce and less risky, but its performance was slightly lower and its noise levels slightly higher.
Boeing's design for the aircraft would go through several iterations, with a -200 model having canards at the front of the plane. The titanium joint to swing the wings out proved much too heavy and was abandoned for a delta-v design. The Boeing 2707-300 seats only 234 passengers and would cost the program 2-years in delays.
Orders by October 1969, for 122 Boeing SSTs by 26 airlines, including Alitalia, Canadian Pacific Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Iberia, KLM, Northwest Airlines, and World Airways. The future was here.
What about onboard?
It had two aisles, with 2-3-2 row seating arrangement at its widest section, with the seats getting smaller as the body tapered off. In the main economy cabin, there were retractable televisions. In the first-class area, every pair of seats included smaller televisions in a console between the seats. But the cabin had tiny windows, only 6 inches wide.
Boeing was confident to have prototypes in early 1967 and the first flight could be made in early 1970 - with the first airline flying a Boeing supersonic transport by 1974.
Why was this incredible machine never built?
The first was the sonic boom. Whilst overblown, the fact is that sonic booms do cause ground issues and would be a significant factor to overcome. Secondly, environmental groups also claimed that 500 SSTs flying daily would deplete the ozone and cause increased humidity in the atmosphere. Lastly, and likely the most important, it came down to money. There wasn't any appitiate for big spending projects.
The cancellation of the program in 1971 had far-reaching consequences. Boeing had to downsize its workforce by 60,000 employees, and a downturn in the airline market.
I love Mustard. I am very aware that he did an excellent video on the American Concorde, and as such, I have chosen not to watch his before creating this. So If anything is similar, then it's merely a coincidence. For those who have now seen both, I hope I had added to the topic :)
He did? I had no idea
Me too btw I am Zedaph on discord and I luv mustard and you also :)
Where discord, i cant go in
@@ArnBrickJeff you have to click passenger :)
@@FoundAndExplained ^
I like how when the plane was split in half, the baggage start fall from the cargo
Yum pizza 😋
@@itstomatogear6806 wait what
What timestamp
@@dillongamer1131 0:30
yo mustard you got competition here
I just want to say how impressive the modelling is in this video, and how impressive the amount of information is. I loved the touch of the luggage falling out when you did the cut-away. And while mustard did a video like this, his was wider and was about all three, whereas this is more focused. So well done, and thank you for such a great video
I believe that all three aircraft in the 'contest' deserve their own videos. Wether or not thats a hint for a future video i'll leave up to you :)
@@FoundAndExplained
Yes make them!!
But also there was the Douglas SST, but they voluntarily withdrew citing complexities
@@sheldoninst Ah, yes, the Model 2229. I've definitely seen pictures of models of it that included a model of the cockpit.
@@rpsmith2990
Douglas actually had 2 design phases, starting with a typical 1950s model 2229 SST that was smaller and had front canards, but then in the 70s redesigned it to be much larger and look much much closer to Boeing’s 2707 fixed wing layout.
@digitized_fyre Yes, I agree with you, the luggage bit is quite funny. My mind must have wandered slightly as I was first watching it, and I did not notice it the first watch through. I had to rewind, and then fully got it. Sorta don't understand why I'm only first seeing this at already 2 years old, as I watch aviation stuff frequently on YT. Oh well.
7:58 IFE screens in the '60s? Now that's next level.
Hehe, yes I should have made it less modern than that. Really it would have just been a tape player - I flew on a 747 in the early 2000s and it was tapes still
@@FoundAndExplained The problem isn't with how what they're watching is played, but how it is displayed. TV's and monitors used cathode-ray-tubes or CRTs until the 2000's and their depth was based on the width (diagonally) of the screen. Even a small screen would have been jutting out of the back of the seat and getting in the way of passengers moving through their row. I really can't see a way to make that work back then.
That's wats I noticed first.
As an airline freak, I was counting on this beautiful project to become a reality, when I was on my mid twenties, however, as it was killed before birth, I settled to make my dream of flying supersonic by taking the last flight from Paris to Caracas, on the Air France Concorde in march 1983 when I was comming close to my forties, and I loved it.
How many were on that final flight!🤔🤔
@@waynehentley4332 We were only 75 on board and it was a memorable experience, never to be repeated I believe, as I am 77.5 years old, yet I don´t totally give up as I am counting on BOOM,
@@rafaelfleitas5038 What was the view like at 60,000ft compared to the cruising altitude of 35,000-40,000ft of normal subsonic airliners today?
@@waynehentley4332 Barely, we were only 50.
@@lee.gallagher It was great to be surprised by the view of a DC-10 and several 747s looking so tiny way down below us. Altogether, an unforgettable experience.
This plane looks more futuristic to me for some reason and this was in the '60s.
They were insane
The whole concept was rendered obsolete with the introduction of the turbo fan engine and the 747
The 747 could take passengers across the Atlantic for 1/10 the price with a higher profit margin
The 50s and 60s were a time of technological development and the fashion of that era was futuristic, retro futurism I think it's called
The 2707 DID look very futuristic, still does! Why I loved it and wished to see it built!
The US dodged a giant bullet cancelling the SST, the economics just didn’t make sense. I think one thing you didn’t cover enough was the fuel consumption issue with an SST versus a conventional airliner. My understanding is that the economics were already shaky but the 1973 oil crisis put the final nail in the coffin of the SST.
Your probably correct.... had Boeing or Lockheed flown these planes and temporarily created a short term market for these SSTs, I see them eventually dying and the industry reverting to the conventional wing+tube designs we now see, similar to the Shuttle era where expensive space planes were abandoned and now we’ve reverted to conventional rockets once again.
Indeed! Airline deregulation would've been much worst for carriers hosting such a plane.
The supersonic booms were also an issue. Ppl hated the sonic booms
Building an aircraft that can cruise at Mach 2 can be done with conventional turbojets and relatively common aerospace materials. Building Mach 3+ aircraft require a lot of titanium, which is expensive even today, and conventional turbojet can't handle Mach 3+ for a prolonged period, turboramjet is best suited for such speed.
Let’s level this out this was not a Boeing failure !
Just as Concord was not a failure.
This SS venture would never have been a commercial success in any stretch
The irony is the 747 was designed to do the jobs the SST could not, namely cargo carrying.
Ironically the 747 could haul passengers across the Atlantic far more efficiently than an SST.
The 747 is disappearing from passenger service but the cargo versions are still in production and selling well
The 747 is still popular but thr 757 and the 767(don't know if the 767 exists) seem to be replacing it. Boeing needs a new 747 type plane
Flew on Concorde. Grew up with aviation. Flown many times on hundreds of flights since that boom. Boeing and Airbus both have done amazing things to progress what is possible today. But wow! That moment was phenomenal.
0:00 Hey sir, your engine is hot!
Red lining
the thought of a mach 2 capable passenger plane sounds futuristic still today . if i didnt know better i,d think it was a pipe dream
Boeing spent an incredible amount of money on the 2707 and even had assistance from the government and it was still incredibly expensive. Boeing's coffers were seriously depleted by the 2707 project and in the end the queen of the skies, the 747 saved Boeing's bacon and the rest is history. The 747 is still flying today with a few 747-8 intercontinentals and many many cargo configurations criss-crossing the world. The Concord on the other hand is in that bin marked history and resides only in museums.
Agree - the 747 saved Boeing.
It's ConcordE, btw ;)
The concorde is in two bins. One is history. And the other is marked "future technologies".
haha
I very clearly remember when I was 12 years old seeing the TV news report that the U.S. Senate turned down federal financing for the Boeing SST. I was very disappointed!
My dad worked on this project and everything here checks out based on what he's told me. One thing I recall that wasn't in the video is that even after deciding on titanium for heat resistance, there were still concerns internally that the wings would overheat at maximum speed.
I thought that the Mustard video was ready the best one out there on this topic. But this one is also very good as it touches on some additional and unheard of aspects like interior plans. Very nicely done
The 747 would've likely existed regardless of whether or not the 2707 actually flew, considering one of the primary purposes of the 747 was for cargo. The distinct hump on the 747 was to allow the nose of the aircraft to lift open without having to move the cockpit. The 747 became the more marketable option simply because the ratio of passengers seated to fuel burned was more economical than what an SST could have achieved back in the 60's and 70s.
You should do one on the failure of the A380. Turnabout is fair play. Both the American SST’s and the A380 were vanity pissing contests.
The a380 was just badly timed. It would have been a huge succes if it was released a decade earlier.
When it's development started the market was still moving towards growing the hub and spoke model and the a380 was the answer to key airports reaching the limits of the amounts of airplanes they could handle.
By the time it was finished the market had changed away from the model it was designed for.
Which makes one wonder what boeing is thinking with their 777x. It will become the next a380, a niche aitcraft that can be lucky to sell enough units to break even. It isn't like they didn't have more urgent developments they should have spent those resources on that would actually could have made them some profit.
Maybe aircraft companies are more about vanity projects then about pragmatic product design afteral. Who knows.
The 380's not a failure, I've seen it landing and would die to get a first-class ride on it!
@@intercommerce you are looking at it from a passenger standpoint which is pointless. If it doesn’t make money it doesn’t make sense. Only Emirates could make it really profitable and that was because other than the flying crew they used basically slave labor to trim costs.
A mock up was in a new metal warehouse Church, in Kissimmee, Florida. I walked in it, about 1990.
It felt like it was being worked on one day, then stopped. Mid build.
It was massive! No right wing.
When it was sold. It filled 4 railroad cars.
That was a cool day!
Was just talking about this last night. Crazy coincidence
I'd imagine a world where most concept aircraft came into a reality.
Assuming the world is far bigger (planet size wise) with more population, while aircraft like Boeing 2707, 747X, 7J7, 7M7, Boeing Sonic Cruiser, MD-12, KR-860, Lockeed Double Decker Airliner, Concorde and 747-8i (passenger) with far more operator, and more, all while the current existing airliner exists.
It would be an aviation fan heaven, although there could be far more stronger environment, that could at least greenlight these operation without concern.
American airlines such as PanAm had many preliminary orders for Concorde. Through various shenanigans (like ban on supersonic overflight of land which, strangely enough, does not apply to US military) they were effectively barred from buying the aircraft they needed. So much for "free market".
The military ran tests over Oklahoma City to see how people would react to daily sonic booms, it was not pleasant and the noise and damage complaints from broken windows lead to the overland ban.
Also the military aren't held to that because they don't fly supersonic 24/7 like a supersonic airliner would.
@7-18 the luggage spilling from the cutaway is gold!!!
3:35 Wasn't the A-12 called Oxcart and it was the SR-71 was the Blackbird?
Correct. I even looked up to make sure and crossed my wires
Actually all of them are considered from the "Blackbird family" but yes the A-12 was called Oxcart
the A-12's secret project name was Oxcart. the name of the aircraft itself of the A-12 Archangel. the A-12 was the CIA's plane, then when the air force wanted a version, lockheed made the SR-71
If it wasn’t for the contractual agreements between Britain and France, I doubt the Concorde itself would have got off the ground either.
The math Boeing calculated was likely the same as the British government and that’s why Britain almost pulled during a last minute meeting.
Luckily for the world, both nations were at the point of no return as they had spent so much money already, abandoning the project at the point would have been so much worse.
Probably out of context but it's kind of funny that the Concorde is actually a upgraded carravele.
I didn't know that. How exactly?
@@imonymous well the planes manufacturers had big ambitions for the jet so the next step was Supersonic,they used the frame, kind of and well added stuff and it then became the concorde
@@imonymous You could kind of see it in the overall fuselage lines, especially at the nose and tail. It's really just a passing resemblance, but it's not too far-fetched to see how the same design team and multiple design iterations could lead to an entirely different plane that still shows some genetic relation.
Sud Aviation actually named their future SST "Super Caravelle" in 1961 before the agreements to build Concorde together with the british in 1962 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Super-Caravelle ). "Super Caravelle" was later used for an upgraded version of the Caravelle (version 10B from 1964)
7:12 -- Open the cross section and baggage fall off, love the level of detail ~ 😆😆😆
Great video dude. Keep the great work up
Appreciate it!
I like both your and Mustard's videos on aviation. Especially the fact that you cover aircraft that haven't been built makes it all the more interesting and addicting. I never knew about these things before I started watching your videos. Great work and please make more vids.
Thank you very much!
Nicely done video; however, I think the technical challenges of the 2707 were not sufficiently explained. If I recall, this plane was so ambitious (speed, and capacity namely) it was basically unbuildable with tech of that time. The titanium itself was untenable. I didn't know that the 787 polarized window technology was proposed for this model.
A really comprehensive video, loved it. Thanks 🙏🏻
7:15 those luggages falling was a very naive touch of humour, refreshing indeed in the middle of an ingeneering lecture!
An aerospace engineer once said in terms of the shear engineering obstacles its easier to put a man on the moon.
I chose concord on the vote, but watching this, I wish this was built and I could experience it. Personally loved the 2707-100 wing design, I wonder what the difference in stresses were for this aircraft variant compared to TU-160M and B1 variable wing was? I wish SST stayed around and they focused on efficiency in the engines instead of just turning to alternative aircraft designs.
My first flight was 13 hours from San Francisco to Seoul on a 747 at the age of 6. I'm sure if it was on a 2707 at half the time, it would've been a much better experience.
You would never be able to afford the ticket.
Idea: Do the Star Raker, a single-stage-to-orbit space plane.
Wow that design could easily hold up to today! What a Beautiful aircraft... that was never to be...I do hope we find a sustainable solution and eventually have a commercial widebody SST that will be amazing!
Great video, learnt a little something!
Edit: I woke up 30 mins ago and saw this,good timing friend
7:14 the animator forgot to remove the cargos before splitting the aircraft in half.
Your channel has 96% percent chance to get 100k subs in next month trust me, dude you make great quality videos
TBH the B2707 variable wings really look similar to the B1 lancers
Boeing borrowed the swing wing concept from their joint work with General Dynamics on the F-111.
Awesome video as always mate! I too like Mustard! The US SST program is something I've always found interesting!
Same here! Part 2 coming soon!
Thank you for making the video man!
Excellent! Glad you did this mini documentary...
My understanding from 1st hand sources (now long passed away) was that the wing reconfiguration required not only a delay as you correctly pointed out, but a request for a second round of funding... this is precisely the moment it got killed...
Lockheed was well aware of the sexiness of a swing wing, Boeing only had experience with large subsonic aircraft while Lockheed also had experience with large and small supersonic and subsonic alike.. from this
2 speculative points:
1) had Boeing been able to complete its prototypes and actually deliver to the airlines the few hundred aircraft they optimistically thought they could, there’s a good chance the Concorde would’ve had more sales, and also an outside chance Lockheed may have been funded by the govt to build their own for at least 2 US suppliers... this scenario would’ve probably forced Douglas to exit quicker.
2) had Lockheed been chosen instead, we certainly would indeed have seen at mínimum 2 prototypes built...
Either way, all three planes would’ve been prohibitively expensive for mass travel, and eventually I see them all being phased out...
I'm always at a loss why these concepts are called "American Concordes." American SST, yes, but the idea wasn't to copy it (as the Russians did). Concorde was the name, not the type. Is it simply for familiarity reasons?
because concorde was iconic and was first to the punch. Even the soviet supersonic plane was named "concordeski"
@@sujalshetty5986 the first ever supersonic plane was an American plane fyi
@@hongkong7358 i was not talking about X-1 FYI.
The Concord was a British & French Government collaboration ? It led to the creation of Airbus.
@@hongkong7358 so what? we're talking about an airliner, not a fighter jet, and the Concorde flew at TWICE the speed of sound.
4:56 - Here it would have been good to explain the name "2707".
In the 50s, the Boeing 707 revolutionized the airlines into the Jet Age. And now this design was looking to do the next revolution for this Mach 2+ Jet Age. So what to call a '707 for the Mach 2 Age'? A 'Mach 2 707'... Hmm, try 'Boeing 2707'.
The video failed to mention the escalating cost of aviation fuel. The Concorde which made it into service was a money loser for it’s operators.
It wasn’t “The American Concorde”, it was “The American SST”. Also, all of the Logos for Boeing show the Updated Logo (from 1997), which includes the McDonell ‘swish’, but the Original Logo was just the Logotype of BOEING, in Stratotype font. A detail that someone looking into the history of Boeing should know! And the new logo never appeared on the Boeing SST!
I love what Mustard did to the 2707, the clip wing design is just astounding, wonderful and ingenious, this one just looks like a oversized concord, but damn is it ever beautiful
Well that wing was ultimately unworkable for the engineers but it would have been great
@@FoundAndExplained I mean, if it was designed just in 2018 we ocukd have figured a carbon composition that would have been light enough to make it work
@@FoundAndExplained Personally, they should have went with a 35° wing sweep. Enough sweep for supersonic flight, but straight enough for low takeoff speeds.
I’ve been around long enough to be able to remember the height of the rise in technology in the 1960s and 1970s and the decision by Congress to slash public technology projects while raising the already glutinous (huge!) military costs. My dad worked for McDonell Douglas for 25 years and I ended up working for DARPA related companies for the first 11 years of my professional life (although it was in direct conflict of my personal views) and I was interested in aerospace technology since I was very young so I have a unique perspective of this entire situation. I know that you stuck to the public spending side of the economic situation during those times and let’s not forget that in 1973 there were huge lines at the gas pumps (while gas was 75cents/gallon) due to shortages rigged by the international oil companies who still have us by our wallets and purses! So those were strange times indeed, but they were kinda comical when you put them up against history and where we are now... I think that the US SST project was killed by environmental concerns which were very important at the time ( and now!) and the huge increases in military spending which has never been cut back no matter what economy looked like. In closing, I’d like to say that having a world-wide fleet of SSTs of about 500 jets making 50mile wide by 200mile long very loud and damaging sonic booms (with everything else connected to them) over the past 35 years would not only make living within the proximity of international airports just horrible. And who knows what this would have done with regards to every day life and we’d be in a much worse pollution-filled environment that I for one am glad that we don’t have to face along with everything else that we do today.
Just want to say I'm a VERY big fan of this channel. Great videos!
I really want to see more about the l2000 that’s one I really am looking forward to
epic! I really like the boeing 2707, and it's great to have even more good videos on it!
I was wondering about the "white swan" Russian Tupolev 160 bomber with the retractable wings. I wonder if they might get the idea to turn it into like a business jet and surprise us.
The prices for jet fuel today---leaving aside the war embargoes---would be ten times those of the 1960's. Remaining billionaire Russian oligarch---the ones Putin hasn't kill yet---would be the only customers.
As time went by i have got to learn more about how incredibly forward the developers pushed technology with Concorde.
To think how long ago this wonderful ‘lady’ was brought into this world.
The magic of Concorde is not yet topped.
💪✨
Most importantly if the USA was not so parochial there would have been orders for the plane. Development of the plane. Improved versions of the plane.
But the general motto is "If it isn't made in the USA don't buy it". Or "government subsidies are available for US industries but we don't interfere with the free market. No sirree"
The North American Aviation design was based on the mach 3 B-70 bomber, which flew in 1964. If the priority had been to get a design into the air and into production that would have been the route to go.
We have the B-70's successor, the B-1, already in service. Convert it for passenger use!
Having the Boeing 2000 would have been great 👍.
Excellent video
I noticed that many technologies shown in this plane weren't available at this time. TV Screens on every seat on 1970? Not until the invention of LCD screens. Not until the invention of digital or at least small format videotape until late 90s
This will be a great one
And btw IG fuel cost would be an problem for sure like going supersonic needs more fuel due to the after burner
New York to Tokyo in less than 5 hours. That would have been incredible although no SST had anywhere near the range to do make the trip non-stop. Once a plane goes supersonic the fuel consumption per passenger mile increases enormously. Fuel was cheap in the 1960s, but that would change soon thereafter.
Will you make a video about the hsa 1011 sst? It looks intresting and no one has made a video on it yet
Nice vid
“A-12 Blackbird”?!?!?
A-12 Oxcart, SR-71 Blackbird
Two similar by different aircraft. LOL
Thanks You!! I love your videos!! The animations/modeling are on point!!
Irony is that, if you look at the modern quiet boom projects they all have long and thin hulls that taper greatly as they go back, similar to this plane.
Excellent video. The only point missed is that several airlines, excitedly anticipating the 2707 actually placed orders for Concordes, in order to gain experiences with SST travel. Once the 2707 was canceled, those Concorde orders also evaporated. But - imagine TWA or Pan Am flying Concordes...
I've experienced daily sonic booms at Fort Lewis Washington in 1964 and NEVER heard of any broken windows. I miss sonic booms. If you have never experienced them, you can not speak about them with any authority.
Hopefully the new supersonic private jets from boom and aerion see the light of day and convinces boeing and airbus to finally take the next step forward and build a supersonic passenger plane in the next few decades.
Why r people so exited for a SST that only 1% of people could afford to fly on?
And less than that would !
very nice! I just stumbled upon your channel and I automatically joined the notification squad. Keep up the good work! :D :D
by the way, as a note for future videos, there's a clipping through the plane's model at around 11:25-11:26.
Thanks and sure
@@FoundAndExplained eey. thankies for the reply. do you happen to have any social medias we could follow?
Basically just a missile with wings. Different payload . Passengers. But just a missile with wings.
Yeah NEW VIDEO Good job done👏👏👏
0:02 beautiful shot, looks like a giant silver seagull :)
Awesome video! I can't help but notice how some of the earlier ideas look like a swing-wing B1 bomber. It just goes to show that just because something is technically feasible, the market might not be right for it's success. Going with the big slow 747 was the right choice for Boeing at the time and opened up travel to the masses, whereas the airline hub-n-spoke system was going away when the A380 showed up and it didn't sell nearly as well.
Convert the already-flying B-1 to passenger use!
Excellent video, Busines Jet are coming but let hope we will see passenger SST plane soon. "Merci beaucoup"
Great video - 3 comments:
1. The Bell X1 was a rocket aircraft and really did nothing to affect the commercial aircraft industry
2. Odd to see a McDonnell Douglas logo on the Boeing 2707-300... The globe logo was only used by Boeing after the merger with McDonnell Douglas in 1997
3. A future with more SSTs wouldn't not have made the Boeing 747 obsolete, as it was originally designed as a subsonic cargo plane. It turned out to save Boeing from bankruptcy, after the 2707 was cancelled
;)
good catch!
One question I’ve always had and never seen an adequate response is when Boeing realized the swing wing was too heavy, they transitioned to a fixed wing delta design but with an extended conventional tail, as opposed to near full length delta wing...
What pros and cons are there for this shorter delta wing plus conventional tail wings versus the full length delta designs used by Lockheed, NAC, Tupolev, and Concorde?
Thats a great question. I can't speak for the engineers who might read this, but my understanding was that it was a trade off to weight, speed and noise.
The L-2000 Lockheed design had a full length Delta wing, but it was much louder than the Boeing plane, and it required a longer runway to land at. By having as close as possible to conventual wings, it would make the Boeing plane quieter and lighter.
@@FoundAndExplained
Interesting, I would’ve thought Lockheed more than aware of such advantages being a company with wild aviation engineering skills probably more broad than Boeing’s, understanding that Lockheed had supersonic and subsonic experience vs Boeing’s subsonic only experience up to that point.
I understand that Boeing borrowed the swing wing concept from their joint involvement with General Dynamics in the development of the F-111.
@@FoundAndExplained
The other question would be about the engine pods... seems like both US designs had separate engine pods, BA Concorde and TU-144 having 2 pairs next to each other
Don't know, but North American, Convair, and Grumman got the swing-wing working in the B-1, F-111, and F-14. Just fill the proven B-1 with passenger seats!
The mockup currently sits in a restoration facility in Everett, WA.
Excelent video 👌👌👌
Very interesting indeed (might be even better than Mustard).
Quick question, wich program do you use for the 3D Renders?
They’re both excellent! Very different emphasis however... there are also a couple of other very interesting American SST videos out there as well.
when the b1-lancer gets pushed out service and sold to the public, i can see a few company's buying them up as a small supersonic passenger jet if we dont already fly supersonic as the norm in travel by that time
What are you smoking that makes you think the B-1B will ever be sold to the public?
Sounds like the 747 was imminent, if not already released, when the 2707 was cancelled. I think the 747 would have still been a success if SSTs had taken off.
no, Boeing were obsessed with the SST. It was Pan Am that insisted that the 747 be built.
You're right about both, 747 came first and was about passenger volume, SST was about speed. 747 would triumph regardless, the 2707 was more of a niche-market plane.
To the question at the end, it would be great to have a practical SST for Trans Pacific and Trans Atlantic flights (practical in having adequate range, providing compelling time savings, and able to support a viable business based on business class travel)
I think with current technology I think they could build it.
Imagine if Boeing stuck with military contracts.....the aviation sector would it had look much different.
Nice to see you again! How is the monorail ;)
It would be very different. I also wonder why Lockheed didn't try to enter the Boeing 737 catagory either.
@@FoundAndExplained
Or why didn’t Douglas follow through with their plans to build both a “twin 8” and also a “twin 10”.. these 2 designs would’ve definitely killed Airbus’ A300 early while it was fully reliant on govt funding. Instead, Airbus focused on killing McD and won out.
One question I’ve always had and never seen an adequate response is when Boeing realized the swing wing was too heavy, they transitioned to a fixed wing design but with an extended conventional tail, as opposed to near full length delta wing...
What pros and cons are there for this shorter delta wing plus conventional tail wings versus the full length delta designs used by Lockheed, NAC, Tupolev, and Concorde...
yey another cool videoooo
My Dad was the head of value engineering on that project! The US government wouldn't allow aircraft to go supersonic over the country. Thus, it became uneconomical. It cost more to shut down the project than to build a working model.
60,000 Jobs.
Do an image search of 'Will the last person leaving Seattle' and you'll get a grasp on how dramatic the cancellation of the SST program was.
We may have gone ahead and built the Boeing 2707, but it probably would have suffered the same fate as the Concorde. Not taking into account that the government was still subsidizing US airlines then, Pan Am had a study done in 1968 that showed flying the Concorde was only profitable if jet fuel remained at or below about 23 cents a gallon.
The Brits and French only built 18 production Concordes after the orders dried up during the oil crisis, leaving them to just Air France and British Airways - their financial woes with the planes could be the subject of its own video.
So I don't really agree with the last part of this video and it's 'it would be a different world' narrative.
Great video, thanks for posting.
So the swing-wing mechanism was too heavy? They seem to have got it working for the B1.
Which is why they should now just convert the B-1 into a passenger liner.
My favourite version is the Boeing 2707 200 the one that has canards and swing wings
The American SST program was a ruse to obtain titanium from Russia for the Blackbird program. No one knows exactly how many were built. Soviet sourced titanium also had the added benefit that when the planes were shot down over Soviet territory the metallurgical analysis would suggest that the planes were of Soviet origin. Titanium was too hard to work with. It drove the Skunk Works people insane trying to form it into a working airframe. The best way to go is the B-70 Valkyrie route - stainless steel honeycomb construction. And that was still a pain in the ass.
Boeing 2707-300 is a very nice Plane. A Queen of the Skys. It looks like better than the Concorde
Where they really screwed up was in not choosing the North American design. NAAC already had a viable design in the air and doing Mach 3+ speed runs in the form of the XB-70 and as such should have been the obvious choice from an experience standpoint.
Great vid! My issue would be the heavy pollution, and boom curtain. Supposedly the new SST's have worked on those issues. I cant wait to see them in the air. But yes in another dimension it would be awesome to see a multitude of SST's in the 80's. Kinda like how The Man in The High Castle did for the Nazi SSTs and various jets. If someone did a diff dimension 80's period piece featuring SST aviation... that would be sweet.
In 1968 as a ten year old kid, built a Revelle small scale kit of this cool aircraft idea......😁
This was not first try of Boeing at all.
When in 1958 was definitelly left idea of Valkyrie as 3 Mach bomber and continued as experimental plane of NASA for developing of spaceshuttles, it was not only project tied with this finished aircraft. Remember that in the staert of 60' this plane actually flew in the NASA services. And in the break between 50' and 60' existed also next variants of this project and yes... including civil passenger version with seats in 4 lines.
And Valkyrie is by my opinion still most beautiful and most elegant plane ever. Its design coming from 50' is simply awesome.
The initial swing-wing versions of the Boeing SST reminded me of the USAF B-1 Lancer and the Soviet/Russian Tu-160 Blackjack bombers. Also, the 747 would still have been built, but mainly in its original intended role as a cargo hauler. In the long run, the Soviet Tu-144 "Concordeski" was a bust, and even the Concorde benefited more from carrying cargo than people I believe.
Just convert the already-in-service B-1 to carry passengers!
Continue ur plane videos 😝 I Love It 💕
That's the plan!
@@FoundAndExplained yup. Awsome
If only titanium strength materials were available at this highlight of design.
They were, but only for military use
It’s been found and explained many times before !