Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Boeing 2707; What Could Have Been?  
User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 22884 times:

I would like to pose a question. If the U.S. wouldn't have entered into a recession, and oil prices wouldn't have sky rocketed in the 1970s, do you think the Boeing 2707 would have still entered production? If so, do you think they would still be flying today, and would supersonic flight have continued to evolve to the point where supesonic flight on long-haul international would be common place today, or would deregulation have made supersonic flight a thing of the past anyway?

59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8202 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 22788 times:

There is a book called Cobra In The Sky by Edward A Herron (you can find second hand copies on Abebooks.com) which was about the (then) future swing-wing Boeing 2707. It's light on technical info, mostly a history of powered flight leading up to the great moment of American SST flying, but with some detailed speculative descriptions of 2707 flights, and what stood out for me was how awful the timings of the proposed transatlantic schedule was.

The first flight described in detail is an eastbound from New York to Paris, dep 2300 arr 0700, sure those times aren't too bad on the surface but the airborne time would have been only two hours - how ruined are you the next day? At least in seat 62K on a 747 you can get a few hours sleep on a six hour red eye. But when the total flight time is two hours...?

And the westbound return dep detailed is out of Paris 0830, arr New York 0530. Sure, the early bird catches the worm but 0530? Even with a line at immigration, you're still downtown two hours early for the big meeting. I am sure airline accountants would applaud such intensive use of the aircraft, and it is interesting to think the 2707 could have done two round trips a day, but Cobra In The Sky, while meant to create anticipation for the next step in air travel, just made the machine sound like a massive jetlag multiplier.

Btw - before I read this book (I found it in a secondhand bookshop in Vancouver in spring 2010), I'd never heard the 2707 called the "Cobra", although I quite like it. Anyone heard this name before?



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineKDTWflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22623 times:

Fuel price concerns aside, the growing environmental movement of the 1970s significantly challenged the Concorde's operations. Additionally the problem of sonic boom mitigation has yet to be solved on a widespread scale even today so I think the sonic boom factor would have met significant resistance with regard to flight over land which would also severely limit where the aircraft could fly. The Concorde was no stranger to these effects which is why it was forced to fly subsonic between JFK-IAD, and maybe DFW and MIA for a time? I can't remember how the scheduling played out. Subsonic aircraft IMHO had superior operating economics regardless of huge fluctuations in fuel prices.


NW B744 B742 B753 B752 A333 A332 A320 A319 DC10 DC9 ARJ CRJ S340
User currently offlineCrewchief From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22550 times:

Is there any truth to the rumor I heard that the 2707 could make it the entire way across the Atlantic with no payload, or half-way across with a full payload?

User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22509 times:

Quoting Crewchief (Reply 3):
Is there any truth to the rumor I heard that the 2707 could make it the entire way across the Atlantic with no payload, or half-way across with a full payload?

The original swing-wing design had some major range/payload issues, leading Boeing to drop the variable geometry wing for a more traditional delta wing.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 22454 times:

Quoting Squid (Thread starter):
If the U.S. wouldn't have entered into a recession, and oil prices wouldn't have sky rocketed in the 1970s, do you think the Boeing 2707 would have still entered production?

Yes.

Quoting Squid (Thread starter):
If so, do you think they would still be flying today

Absolutely not.

Quoting Squid (Thread starter):
would supersonic flight have continued to evolve to the point where supesonic flight on long-haul international would be common place today

No. Supersonic flight today is purely an economic problem, not a technical one.

Quoting Squid (Thread starter):
would deregulation have made supersonic flight a thing of the past anyway?

Yes.

Tom.


User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8827 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 22418 times:

If the 2707-200 went into service instead of the later proposed smaller 300 series, it would have likely only stayed in service for a few years and taken out of service do to the excessive maintenance costs of the double hinged nose and variable geometry wing. If the 2707-300 went into service It would have likely stayed into service a little bit longer that the 200 model do to less extensive maintenance costs but it would have likely not have the same service life of a subsonic airliner because flying at nearly Mach 3 nearly every day may wear out the hard to work with titanium skin faster that aluminum at subsonic speed. This is all conjecture but this may be a likely scenario.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4881 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 22300 times:

Quoting Crewchief (Reply 3):
Is there any truth to the rumor I heard that the 2707 could make it the entire way across the Atlantic with no payload, or half-way across with a full payload?

I think the 2707 design was a bit too ambitious - though no to the level of the designs of Sir Barnes Wallis or some of the others in the early days of the SST construction.

BAC/SUD Aviation, Tupolev and Lockheed probably had the most realistic designs of the lot.

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 6):
because flying at nearly Mach 3 nearly every day may wear out the hard to work with titanium skin faster that aluminum at subsonic speed. This is all conjecture but this may be a likely scenario.

I don't think this would be a problem. If the plane is adequately designed to cope with the forces (just as Concorde was designed to work perfectly well at M2.0) then there probably should be no problem. I'd say the heating cycles would even be beneficial to the longevity of the plane.

I do see a solution to the sonic boom issue being possible in the near future - and I do see it being possible to make a SST plane reasonably economical - though obviously not with the same fuel economy as a Cessna 162 - all things being relative. You have to make concessions for the extra speed.

Obviously we don't expect a B747-8i to have the same fuel economy as a Cessna 162, so we also shouldn't expect a very fast SST to also have the same fuel economy as a new B787 for instance. You'd have a trade off on what is acceptable extra fuel usage versus the improvement in speed and convenience for the paying passengers.

I still believe there is a market that will pay more to go much faster just for the added convenience. While that market will exclude the a.net USA crowd, away from here, that may be different. You have to serve an acceptable compromise that will make the paying passenger perceive a benefit for the extra money they pay.

I still believe the M2.0 to M2.4 speed bracket is the best solution (because airframe heating will not be so severe) - with the biggest savings in reduced journey times coming from establishment of supersonic corridors (free of political interference) and improvement in the rate-of-climb/acceleration of any future SST.

If it can climb/accelerate more quickly to 50,000ft+ and cruise speed, it will have great fuel economy and time improvements versus the previous SST generation. Similarly, a new SST without reheat is a given - since we nearly just about got that with the so-close-to-being-built Concorde B model.

[Edited 2010-08-25 18:41:44]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 22225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Mel Howart's Clipped Wings is a decent book on the political history of the US SST program along with the environmental movement that eventually killed it.



Quoting cpd (Reply 7):
I think the 2707 design was a bit too ambitious - though no to the level of the designs of Sir Barnes Wallis or some of the others in the early days of the SST construction.

The FAA played a very strong role in defining the technical aspects of the US SST and they helped set the Mach 2.7 speed limit.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 22151 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 7):
I don't think this would be a problem. If the plane is adequately designed to cope with the forces (just as Concorde was designed to work perfectly well at M2.0) then there probably should be no problem. I'd say the heating cycles would even be beneficial to the longevity of the plane.

Yes buit you would have to concede that the (now late) F-111 did not have what you could call exactly an acceptable solution to sealing the fuel tanks. And that is for military use. There would probably be many other systems that would prove troublesome over the temperature ranges encountered at M 2.7. Commercial use would be far more demanding to be mx friendly than the F-111 - I would think!!


User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 22010 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
No. Supersonic flight today is purely an economic problem, not a technical one.

In terms of what Boeing or Airbus could put on the market right this moment, yes. Either has the skill and knowledge to build a new SST. Thus the lack of a current generation SST is driven by economics.

Making supersonic flight economical, however, is a technical issue. Since the jet engine, we haven't seen any single technology make a major change in the size or speed of commercial aircraft. Progress has been incremental, and in most cases the same innovations that improve the economics of a fast plane can also improve the economics of a slow plane. The flying public seems pretty happy with the speed/economy balance of high-subsonic airlines. Thus, new technology won't really make an SST practical unless it can only be applied to high speed aircraft, or is revolutionary on the scale of turbine propulsion.

The day will come, but I'm fairly young and I'm not convinced I'll be around to see it...

Quoting cpd (Reply 7):
Obviously we don't expect a B747-8i to have the same fuel economy as a Cessna 162, so we also shouldn't expect a very fast SST to also have the same fuel economy as a new B787 for instance.

Interesting comparison; the 747 is MUCH more efficient than the Cessna 162, despite being 5 times as fast. Going to a 747 gives more speed, more comfort, and better economy. Going from a 747 to Concorde only gives one of those, hence why we are still running 747s.

Quoting cpd (Reply 7):
I still believe there is a market that will pay more to go much faster just for the added convenience

I agree, but I think that market may favor the supersonic business jet (SSBJ) over a high speed airliner. There are hundreds of large private jets out there, and a SSBJ similar in size to a G550 or Global wouldn't cost a whole lot more to run than a 737 or 757. You'd be giving up your full-size bedroom, but if your 14 hour trip now takes 6 hours, do you still need it?



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 21988 times:

Quoting dw747400 (Reply 10):
Making supersonic flight economical, however, is a technical issue.

There's some truth to that, but the fundamental issue is physics, not technology. Drag increases (at least) by the square of the speed. That means power required, and hence fuel burn, also increases with the square of the speed. Going Mach 2.7 will always take at least about 9 times more power than going Mach .9 (for equally sized airplanes), and that means the fuel economy hurdle is *huge*.

Quoting dw747400 (Reply 10):
Thus, new technology won't really make an SST practical unless it can only be applied to high speed aircraft, or is revolutionary on the scale of turbine propulsion.

True...basically something has to happen to remove the fuel hurdle, and that means decoupling cost of fuel from the economics of flight. There are theoretical technologies that might do this, but they're so far off in the future as to nearly be SciFi.

Tom.


User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21827 times:

These have been great posts. I have just recently become interested in the Boeing 2707 and have even been trying to find large models of it. The swing wing design really did seem to be too ambitious for the 1960's. But what I find so amazing about the 2707 was that even though there were huge technical problems to overcome, people in the 1960's had such optimism about their lives that even a project as ambitious as the 2707 were not deemed impossible, just extremely difficult, and with enough ingenuity all the pieces would come together and the bugs would be worked out. The Boeing 2707 speaks a lot about America's forward looking can do spirit of that generation.

User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4881 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 21802 times:

Quoting Squid (Reply 12):
These have been great posts. I have just recently become interested in the Boeing 2707 and have even been trying to find large models of it.

Really difficult to find them. I once read that someone had a scale model commissioned, but that's the only one that I can think of.

I've been trying to get hold of a large scale model of Aerospatiale Alliance (the Concorde successor). Nothing available anywhere, and very little information on the plane other than the basic planform and very basic technical details (MTF engines for instance).

Quoting Squid (Reply 12):
But what I find so amazing about the 2707 was that even though there were huge technical problems to overcome, people in the 1960's had such optimism about their lives that even a project as ambitious as the 2707 were not deemed impossible, just extremely difficult,

Well just look at Lockheed and the SR-71. Absolutely remarkable design - done in quite a hurry and resulting in a pretty good plane too. It could be done. Concorde captures the spirit as well - it pushed the bar a very long way for everything else in many areas unrelated to pure speed.

We don't have that optimism anymore - and that's really sad.

Quoting dw747400 (Reply 10):
Interesting comparison; the 747 is MUCH more efficient than the Cessna 162

But you have to put 173T of fuel in the B747 though, you don't with the Cessna (yes, I'm being simplistic).

But the point I'm trying to make is that there is a trade off for the speed, and that is increased fuel usage. But if the increased fuel usage comes at a speed of M2.3, carrying 250 passengers in multiclass configuration and quiet sonic booms, then that makes it more feasible. If you offered economy class at the price of a proper premium economy class (or a little bit more), and business class at a higher cost than normal business class, there should surely be some way to attract customers.

What we don't know is what the operating costs could be like - since nobody will even go so far as proposing a plane, so you can't even get a half decent estimation of costs. But even if the operating costs are reasonably higher than a ordinary subsonic plane, it could be possible that the extra speed will attract customers other than the previous Concorde clients.

It'd be an interesting thing - why don't we come up with a realistic new SST proposal here on this site? Propose some ideas - put forward technological ideas, etc and see what we come up with?

[Edited 2010-08-25 22:37:07]

User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21676 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 13):
But you have to put 173T of fuel in the B747 though, you don't with the Cessna (yes, I'm being simplistic).

But the point I'm trying to make is that there is a trade off for the speed, and that is increased fuel usage.

Yes. You'd need at least a 182 to hold that much fuel...

But seriously, I was saying that in THIS instance, the trade off really doesn't exist. Unless you plan on flying with two people on both the 152 and the 747. Then, yes, the 747 certainly burns more per person!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 11):
There are theoretical technologies that might do this, but they're so far off in the future as to nearly be SciFi.

That's what I'm getting at. To be fair though, in 1903 a 707 would have easily been classified as "SciFi". Sometimes the extraordinary happens a lot faster than you expect, but alas, I'm not holding my breath.

As you quite accurately assume, the chances that we'll see identical seat-mile costs at M.85 and M2.5 are very small. Nonetheless, as the costs do get closer, the question becomes how much are people willing to pay for that speed, and how many people are willing to pay enough to justify the development cost. I personally feel we are a long way away from seeing a new Concorde, but the economics are much more promising for a supersonic business jet.

[Edited 2010-08-25 23:37:53]


CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21647 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 13):

It'd be an interesting thing - why don't we come up with a realistic new SST proposal here on this site? Propose some ideas - put forward technological ideas, etc and see what we come up with?

Here's the problem. A Mach 2 plane has to be 3-4x stronger than a subsonic plane. Now, regardless of what you're building the plane out of, whether it's lead, aluminum, Al-Li, CFRP, or crystallized angels' tears, you need four times as much of it to carry the same number of people.

The problem with Concorde wasn't fuel burn, per se. At cruise it burned a bit less fuel per mile than the 747. The problem was that it was carrying ~25% of the people that the 747 was carrying.

Until we have a very inexpensive and renewable source of fuel, I don't think SST's are going to happen.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40076 posts, RR: 74
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21618 times:

Quoting KDTWflyer (Reply 2):
the growing environmental movement of the 1970s significantly challenged the Concorde's operations.




DAMN those enviornemntalist!      


Had there not been an oil crisis, deregulation and growing tree-hugger movement as well as the NIMBY factor, we would have seen a Boeing 2707 SST. Possibly an even more advanced model than the designs from the early 1970s.

So the blame goes to:
-Oil crisis
-Enviornmentalist
-NIMBY'S
-Deregulation



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineHNLPointShoot From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21565 times:

Quoting Squid (Thread starter):
I would like to pose a question. If the U.S. wouldn't have entered into a recession, and oil prices wouldn't have sky rocketed in the 1970s, do you think the Boeing 2707 would have still entered production?

Maybe, but barring fuel and environmental issues, there's still the problem of the sonic boom.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20368 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21543 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 16):

So the blame goes to:
-Oil crisis
-Enviornmentalist
-NIMBY'S
-Deregulation

You forgot GWB and Obema (who is a Muslim born in Ghana and Indonesia).   

OK, the NIMBY Environmentalists weren't worried about tree frogs or CO2. They were worried about the multiple daily "BANGBANG!" interrupting their lives. Even at altitude, Concorde made a frightful lot of noise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=annkM6z1-FE

The aircraft is going to have a smaller cabin, airfield restrictions, and a higher fuel burn. No airline is going to buy it unless it can be flown over land. There are some proposals to ameliorate sonic boom noise. None have been tested very much.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40076 posts, RR: 74
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21526 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
They were worried about the multiple daily "BANGBANG!" interrupting their lives.



Did the people in the Soviet Union complain about any sonic booms?
The TU-144 flew entirely over land and the Russians never complained.  


When I lived in southern California, we would hear Space Shuttle make a sonic boom en-route to Edwards Air Force Base.
It only lasted a second or two. It was no big deal.
I kinda liked it.  
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
Even at altitude, Concorde made a frightful lot of noise.




That's not "frightful", that's AWESOME!   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFlyNWA727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 21466 times:

Quoting Squid (Reply 12):
I have just recently become interested in the Boeing 2707 and have even been trying to find large models of it.

I'm not sure if you are talking about an actual model that you can put on your desk as a paper weight or actual photos of the mock-up, but here are two photos of the original 2707-300 mock-up Boeing made.

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk42/atafsw/Boeing2707-300mockupcolor.jpg

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/7/6/0804671.jpg



First flight aboard a Northwest B727-251ADV out of BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport, my hometown airport.
User currently offlineFlyNWA727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 21459 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
That's not "frightful", that's AWESOME!

I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be hearing this throughout the day or at 2am for that matter...

Concorde breaking the sound barrier --> http://youtu.be/annkM6z1-FE



First flight aboard a Northwest B727-251ADV out of BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport, my hometown airport.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40076 posts, RR: 74
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 21425 times:

Quoting FlyNWA727 (Reply 21):
I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to be hearing this throughout the day or at 2am for that matter...

Ah you'll get used to it.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3789 posts, RR: 29
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 21302 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
Did the people in the Soviet Union complain about any sonic booms?
The TU-144 flew entirely over land and the Russians never complained.

How many commercial flights? Virtually none, the service to Almaty was very short lived. Also, russia is much less densely populated.

Lets put it straigth: I hate ecologists, but the noise impact of SSTs is simpy not acceptable. Sonic Boom cannot be accepted over populated areas, and while Concordes powerplants might be "awesome power", 120 EPnDB ist not what I would call even closely to being acceptable today.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40076 posts, RR: 74
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 21217 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
Did the people in the Soviet Union complain about any sonic booms?
The TU-144 flew entirely over land and the Russians never complained.

How many commercial flights? Virtually none, the service to Almaty was very short lived. Also, russia is much less densely populated.




The comment about the Soviet Union was sort meant to be a joke.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 23):
Sonic Boom cannot be accepted over populated areas,




It can go super sonic once it leaves populated areas.
In many cases, existing subsonic aircraft reach the outer fringe of major populated areas within 20 minutes of takeoff or landings. The Concorde was already flying subsonic in it's descent.



Bring back the Concorde
25 Post contains images planemaker : And this is what is left of the mock-up which is located at the Hiller Aviation Museum (located south of SFO at San Carlos Airport).
26 StickShaker : In 1969 Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon. That sort of thing has to provoke an air of optimism. Regards, StickShaker
27 Post contains images Superfly : I agree! Too many pessimist, nay-sayers, efficiency 'experts' and bean-counters that have really curtailed scientific innovation in regards to aviati
28 cedarjet : It was exactly one hundred commercial flights. Really? We all - aviation industry included - owe a great debt to the ecologists for trying to keep us
29 Superfly : Flying on newer, advanced Boeing 2707s, Concordes, TU-144s across the Pacific Ocean in about 3 hours. environmentalist helped contribute to the demis
30 Post contains images tom355uk : The biggest problem with Concorde, was that it simply became too slow for the world it existed in. Paradoxically, although it cruised in excess of Mac
31 bwvilla : I'm sure you're right about the economics of supersonic flight being the main hurdle to a commercial supersonic air-service, but regarding the techni
32 StickShaker : Thanks Superfly - it took quite a few beers before it came into my head. Not sure if I can live up to it. Regards, Stickshaker
33 isitsafenow : If you look at post 20 you will notice the mock up was only 1/2 the airplane. There never was a full scale mock up built. Their were three companies v
34 Superfly : I've been inside of that. It has the cockpit of a 747-100.
35 tdscanuck : That's a partial mitigator, but the density drops off way slower than forth root of altitude when you're up high, so to offset the 9x drag increase d
36 Post contains links txjim : One need only to look at the magazines of the day. http://books.google.com/books?id=mio...sec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false although some pe
37 Baroque : Oh I like that word. Highly appropriate.
38 Aesma : I agree that an SST wouldn't be needed anymore for transatlantic flights. However for ultra long hauls it's another story, even if you can have a sho
39 DocLightning : Not so easy. This is the United States. There are no "unpopulated" areas. The sonic booms during the USAF tests in the 50's decreased cow's milk prod
40 Post contains links motopolitico : Sir, I heard all the same things about sonic booms, but it would appear that the Mythbusters have, at a minimum, cast some doubt on some of those ide
41 GDB : In the late 1990's, many of Concorde's pax (on BA at least), were the emerging Internet entrepreneurs! I know since the then BA res system was more w
42 Post contains links and images B2707SST : For general information on the 2707 design history and technical information, the best resource on the internet is probably Global Security's 2707 pag
43 planemaker : As several have posted, you can't get away from economics... and there is no way it can fly (pun intended). You only have to look at the airlines "ref
44 Aesma : I don't think the sonic cruiser is a fair comparison, it was only marginally quicker than other planes, basically useless (some argue the plan was to
45 planemaker : And it was only "marginally" more expensive... but the point is valid that there is not an economic market for speed.
46 Squid : Before the computer, it very common for aircraft makers to build mock-ups in order to begin tooling parts.
47 Post contains images FlyNWA727 : That's not entirely true. The Russian Tupolev TU-144 was faster than Concorde. The TU-144 had a max speed of Mach 2.35 (1,550mph) but its Achilles he
48 Max Q : During testing the Concorde, on the other hand has flown as high as 68000 feet and MACH 2.32. Both of those numbers were achieved without afterburner.
49 Post contains links alberchico : This link provides a technical description of the boeing 2707: right click and save http://www.emotionreports.com/downloads/pdfs/boeing.pdf
50 HBGDS : The tentative "yes" I see from other posters is warming to the heart, but overlooks other factors: Vietnam costing too much, and the environment. Sev
51 HBGDS : Until Cadcam and especially Dassault's CATIA appeared, all aircraft went through a mock-up phase. Concorde had its own, too, made of wood in 1:1 scal
52 B2707SST : A lot of it was just showmanship. Since Boeing was in competition with Lockheed for the SST contract, they wanted to impress the FAA, the airlines (w
53 HBGDS : Agreed, but the bigger achilles heel is that hey never solved the cabin noise. The diplomats invited to some SS flights in the mid 1970s all reported
54 Post contains images cpd : Before even opening the video, I would think that this is the famous 'Operation TESGO' video filmed by Concorde enthusiasts who went out to the locat
55 Stitch : The power of a sonic boom's impact varies with size and shape of an aircraft. So an F-18 fighter will have a smaller boom impact than a 300-seat SST.
56 mrskyguy : I always thought that Braniff had the most ambitious *plans* for use of an SST, but Pan Am wasn't far behind. Back in the Chuck Beard times (read: bef
57 cpd : And also the way it is flying. Certain manuevers will focus the bang - so care always had to be taken with SSTs flying at high speed near populated a
58 Aesma : Shaving 10% of a flight is not the same as shaving 50%. The fact there isn't a market for the former doesn't mean there isn't one for the latter. Did
59 rcair1 : Today we live in a world of continuous "crisis" - most far from real or critical. Why? Because it gives power to the people who want it (the power).
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Clipped Wings/What Could Have Been posted Tue Feb 21 2006 22:07:38 by Leelaw
About What Could Have Been: Iran Air Concorde posted Thu Feb 24 2005 08:54:31 by Lehpron
British Caledonian - What Could Have Been... posted Mon Jul 12 2004 03:31:01 by FlyCaledonian
767: What Could Have Been posted Sun Jan 25 2004 02:31:06 by Patches
747 - What Could Have Been posted Wed Aug 1 2001 04:40:56 by Sm92
What Could Have Been........... posted Sat Jul 1 2000 00:40:18 by UK FLY
The British Airliner & What Might Have Been posted Mon Apr 23 2007 19:42:12 by BilgeRat
What Could Have Caused This On The JAT 737? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 17:19:16 by JoKeR
What If The Boeing 2707 Was Built? posted Wed May 31 2006 19:29:35 by 747400sp
What If... The Boeing 2707 Became A Reality? posted Wed Dec 22 2004 07:44:11 by Zippyjet