does anyone have any actual pictures of the full mockup made SST. I gather boeing made one but i think Lockheed did not.. there has been pictures of the inside of one (seating and mockups of the cabin too). For those who do not remember this disasterous venture by Boeing the plane was supposed to carry about 200 passengers .fly at mach2 .
Boeing was very keen to show if off to the world as a concord beater but it was doomed from the start over costs and exactly who would want it(panam ,TWA
etc). In the end theyput all there spare cash into the B747 project ,where they knew Panam and TWA
would buy it and most of the other big US
Think Lockheed's was just "paper project".Boeing's i think was termed B7
33,according to mock up sketches in Aircraft Annual 1965!!
It was the Boeing 2707 SST - a quick Google Images search brought up this site with a few pix:
Do a search for "boeing 2707 mockup" on Google Images and more pix are available.
If I recall, there was an original version which would've seated 250-300 pax with a swing-wing design, but eventually they realised it was overambitious and scaled it down to a fixed-wing 200 seater.
The 733 i'm talking about,had swing wings,not fixed as in the 2707.Remember,i'm talking about 1965,when swing wings were "all the rage".Besides,i think the 2707 was a later take on SST.RB
starMonarA380 is right this aircraft was for over 200 passengers. it was the cancelling of this and the douglas/lockheed project that made the US
totry and ban concorde at kennedyairport. and onlyallow it in washington i believe.
Yes i will have a look atthose mockups pics (full size).
Iwonder if the douglas project/lockheed ever have a full mock up or was it just a pipe dream.
Boeings plane was simply too expensive tobuy and the fact that concorde had govts money to prop up the "dream"
The 2707 was the one that got closest to being built. Lockheed's version had a fatal design flaw, it would have burnt its tail off on takeoff so needed a complete redesign. The tailplane was sat right in the afterburner exhaust stream.
Boeing's design was good, and President John F Kennedy was the one to push for America to build a bigger, faster SST with Pacific range. It just wasn't feasible as NASA was soaking up the money and Boeing could never have financed it themselves. It was also extremely heavy and kerosene had slowly started climbing in price. US
money instead went to another design, the XB-70 long range supersonic bomber which got as far as actually flying.
In the 1960s, the most influential thinkers such as Juan Trippe saw the way forward instead as being slower and more efficient aircraft, and the 747 plus the various trijets emerged.
Concorde never got its redesigned wing either. Concorde 2 should have been built with low speed devices to get it off the ground at higher weights, but the funding never happened.
That discusses in a little depth Lockheed's initial desire to use variable geometry, eventually deciding on using a more Concorde-like design.
I never disagreed with starMonA380 about the 2707.All i said was the 2707 was a later project,the B7
33 came earlier & was just a paper project.
They didn't get built but to describe them as just 'paper projects' is maybe a poor way of putting it. Both Lockheed and Boeing took on the job, and were given starter funding to explore designs. It probably got further than just plans as in those pre-CAD
days huge amounts of scale modelling would have been done, so as well as Boeing's full size mockup there would be a lot of wind tunnel work and even modified smaller aircraft (as BAC did for the Concorde wing) doing handling testing.
Both would have got as far as cutting materials for the test items and building scale replicas as they were being paid to do so.