| Anonymous, 13.10.2020 20:36 not really
|
| Ivan Bigovsky, 04.06.2020 17:59 Cheep yankie copi ov TU144
|
| Joe Snow, e-mail, 04.06.2017 22:57 The problem with SST's is they are limited in the routes they can fly. Trans-oceanic flights only, until the sonic boom problem is solved. You will not see an SST flying from New York to Los Angeles any time soon.
|
| srs, e-mail, 16.01.2017 21:14 so the latest is that DB Cooper had these heavy metals on his tie that link him to thsi craft. CALL THE FBI if you worked for Boeing's SST project!!
|
| Don, e-mail, 29.02.2016 14:32 You can own this restored 60" historical display model.
Search Boeing SST on Ebay. : )
|
| Forrest, 15.02.2015 06:41 "Orville, 17.11.2009
I was a member of the SST test team at the Boeing High Speed Wind Tunnel near Philadelphia, Pa."
While Orville was in Philly, I was working at Boeing's Supersonic Wind Tunnel at Boeing Field, Seattle.
We were testing vendor control systems for the engine inlet. The final configuration of the inlet (ramp vs spike) was never determined though models and mockups may show either. Went on to retire from Boeing on the F-22 program.
|
| Tony Martino, e-mail, 12.07.2014 19:33 I designed the rolling engine stand for the P & W SST engines. Are there any pictures available out there.
|
| Tim, e-mail, 22.09.2013 21:40 Continued from earlier post if the plane in the Hiller Museum is the plane from The SST museum in Fl. what happened to the rest of the mock-up i.e. wing tail and the rest of the fuselage
|
| Tim, e-mail, 22.09.2013 21:37 I'm wondering if the mock-up on display is the same one from the SST Museum in Kissimmee Fl. I would Love to know as I grew up playing in that mock-up as a child
|
| Paul Simon, e-mail, 09.03.2013 16:27 We need a plane that can fly from New York to Los Angeles in 3 1/2 hours no more than that. With all out technology today we should be able to do that very easily. The faster we go across country which means they'll be more airspace. I flew on the Concorde two times and I loved it. When I got to my meeting I was wide awake wasn't sleepy and wasn't jet Lag. We also need a high-speed train
|
| Larry Thorold, e-mail, 03.08.2012 23:06 When I served in the Air Force I had many occasion to have TDY's in the DC area of Boeing...one day while wandering about I had found a small wooden door that lead to the SST containment and boy what an afternoon I had wandering about the many 'stacks' of serialized titanium bars and equipment including a handful of the GE engines, holy cow, you could stand up inside the cowls and reach skyward and not touch the top of the cowl...they were huge!!! I ventured into the full scale(left side)model in the room and was amazed at the size of the interior(seating was 2x2 if I remember correctly and wasp shaped) and the crew compartment was very comfortable and well laid out...I pulled the 'reposition nose' handle and to my surprise the entire foreward assembly dropped to the takeoff/landing position, scared the hell out of me...the trans sonic wing design amazed me...that was a very memorable day for me and I'll never forget thinking that Boeing was on the right track 'in the day' of SST developement only to be politically squashed, I found this to be true many times over the next few decades within my Boeing Military Flight Test career at Edwards AFB following my military retirement...LT
|
| Tc, e-mail, 02.07.2012 05:35 I have two Lockheed items I am trying to find out if there would be an interest in. More importantly Are they still considered a classified item.
Supersonic Transport SST volume A-IV Structural Report
And
A large notebook marked Supersonic Transport Development Phase II-A Volume VI-A airframe design
Both have hundreds of pages filled with diagrams, test results etc. Any info on these would be appreciated. Thank you.
|
| William S. Vaughn, e-mail, 21.05.2012 04:39 In the early 70s I was visiting the F.A.A. facility in OK City when I stumbled across the 2707 mockup (ha ha - it was humongous and real hard to miss). It was open so I just wandered up through the cabin and proceeded to get a little "stick" time in the cockpit. I assume that this was the mockup that later ended up in a church in FL for a period of time.
|
| Eugene Schulte, e-mail, 26.11.2011 01:27 Charles: I read your account of SST.
I was a materials and process engineer and worked on the SST at Seattle.
I produced Boeing's first composites process specifications for boron and then carbon.
We intended to use boron unidirectional filaments applied to the spar caps to the floor beams.
I also got involved in the bonding preparation of titanium and drilling the stuff.
We all had a shot for developing a insulation material ;to prevent the fuel from boiling at cruse speed.
I remember the whole conversation. Probably a good thing that the project was abandoned but plenty learned from the effort.
I would like a local artist to do a pencil sketch of the 2707 for me. I still have my lapel pin.
If you can send photos that we can use for the sketch, it would be greatly appreciated.
Also I would be interested in the models
Thank you for help in this matter.
Eugene Schulte
Parks College of St. Louis University
940 393 1626
Age 77
|
| Howard Syder, e-mail, 09.09.2011 23:37 I was a design engineer on the the SST working on the droop nose structure. It was a very interesting project and when it was cancelled I thought it was the right decision but for all the wrong reasons.
|
| Mike, e-mail, 27.08.2011 05:46 Great write up.
May I use the image for my college essay?
|
| Mike Schofield, e-mail, 17.06.2011 18:17 I forgot to make it more interesting, 65,000 ibf in afterburner, x 4.
|
| Mike Schofield, e-mail, 17.06.2011 18:04 I may never see the SST mock-up, as my military days are over flying around. However you guys may be interested in the fact that the Paul Garber facility in Suitland Maryland, had one of the GE4/J5's for the SST, all 8 stages of it. It was complete and on an engine stand ready for insertion to an aircraft that never was. You may wish to check on its location, the Smithsonian at Dulles / Richard Hazy or whatever its name is has been opened for several years, and a lot is being transfered there. The Suitland facility is were all the aircraft are restored prior to display in the Smithsonian, and you need an appoinment to enter. Tours are usually on Wed's. There is a treasure trove of aircraft their.
|
| Mick Skinner, e-mail, 26.01.2011 11:41 As a licensed engineer on many Boeing A/C I am sure it would have been as succesful had it been built but it wasn't and to compare it to Concorde ( I am also licensed on it ) is not a fair comparison, Concorde was limited to 2.2 Mach as it was constructed mostly of conventional aluminum, the only Titanium being used on the propulsion nozzle area as Titanium is far more difficult to work and is more prone to cracking, this is not a good feature for an A/C in daily use and has a significant impact on cost in production and operation. Concorde on the other hand was built and operated very succesfully for many years and contributed an operating profit for British Airways even though it was hampered by limitations on supersonic flight over many countries. Boeing 2707SST on the other hand ( and this is only my opinion )was compromised by the additional costs of being too big,too fast and too soon. Had it been built in conventional aluminium I am sure it would have been equal in its success as all other Boeing pax A/C
|
| Richard Staight, e-mail, 31.12.2010 07:39 I have a photo of the mockup that I took in Florida in 1976 . I don't recall where exactly it was. We saw a sign on the road and stopped to see it. I also have a color shot of the interior.
I do not know how to post them on this site.
Perhaps someone will tell me
|
| Maurice Gunderson, e-mail, 02.12.2010 11:17 The mockup in the photo is displayed in the Hiller Aircraft Museum in San Carlos, California. It's a very good museum, and worth the price of admission just to see the Boeing SST.
|
| Chuck, e-mail, 07.11.2010 04:27 It was Democratic Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin who was key in killing the SST. I remember him saying the sonic boom would have an adverse effect on this cow's milk production.
|
| jeff, e-mail, 15.10.2010 02:38 HHHmmmmmm(?) kinda like the CF100? All about the upper crust wanting the best and "keeping up with the Jones's". But it's really funny, all it takes is some politicians on the other side of the fence to "ney" technology that we as humans drive to succeed. Funny that! Politicians are only good for thier term (pending on what country you live in) but engineers/developers/physisists and yes.... even dreamers work all there life for something to (pardon the expression)...fly.Maybe we should have told Albert Einstien to get lost? Wonder how much longer the war in the pacific would have lasted? Anyway..... Back your soldiers... or get in front of them!!!!!!!!! PEACE JLS
|
| Charles Field, e-mail, 24.08.2010 06:03 Previous e-mail address correction.
azsuperman@yahoo.com
|
| Charles Field, e-mail, 24.08.2010 06:00 I was employed as Technical Service Engineer at Titanium Metals Corp. of America (Timet) the Largest Titanium producer. They supplied all the Ti in heavy CIA secrecy for the Blackbird starting in 1960. The British and French knew nothing of it. Nor did anyone else.
Whenever I was around a British ehgineer/metallugist at a Major Air or Metals Show, I would always be kidded in a friendly yet serious way because America "Thought" we could build a titanium SST. Little did they know the Blackbird was flying. The Timet and AF money spent on the Ti metallurgy, especially, alloy developmet and how to roll high strength Ti was incredibly exhausting in time, money and new equipment. All in secret. I will never forget that Satrday in 1964 when Johnson, for political reasons announced the A-11, the Mach 3 interceptor. Goldwater was criticising Johnson because no new manned aircraft was in development. What a joke., can you immagin a mach 3 intercepter/fighter. It takes 50 miles to turn around. Two weeks later he announced a new Mach 3 bomber called the YF-12A, essentially the same aircraft, then two weeks later, he announced a new mach 3 reconisence aircraft, the SR-71. He screwed up the name..RS-71 was correct) We were instantly told to pass all media question to Timet's PR person. "We knew nothing" was the reply. Johnson did not authorize declassification because he did not want anyone to know that all were essentially the same aircraft.(Goldwater and I talked about this in his home three years before his death.) I can't repeat what he said (#@&*#). Remember he was a General in the AF Reserve.
Point being however, my metallurgy counterparts in the UK and France avoided me forever after because they were stunned and embarassed. The governments and Concord builders were in SHOCK. We joked about their mach 2 "kiddy cart but could say no more because the Blackbird was still classified. Boy, did we want to....
I was soon hired by GE to be responsible for all the materials and processes for the massive compressor and frame of the GE -4 SST, 60,000 pound thrust engine. Ninty percent was titanium.
The Seantor ? from Wisconsin led the huge very devisive battle to kill the SST program after millions upon millions had been spent and America had a titanium mach 3 qircraft flying. I stopped buying Wi cheese. That is when they "turned the lights out" in Seattle. I don't recall any discussion about environmental reasons for the death. Johnson and congress soon would need money for welfare and Vietnam.
In my opinion, even though distasteful It was correct to cancel the program. The economics to fly and maintain a titanium fleet of SST's would not have been justifible. The estimated passenger numbers were in the thousands but I did not believe it.
BUT, one or two should have been built for a flying scientific test bed and to keep from laying off hundreds of talented engineers.
The large tough question , "could an untried material like titanium sheet withstand 600F temperatures at stress and long term stability" had been answered.
Also Timet, a relative small company had commited millions for the design, development and actual construction of a first ever ten story continuously 36" sheet vacuum annealing line based on the governments assurance that an SST would be built. The Blackbird had been built with 3'X 8' batch vacuumed annealed sheets, the industry capability at the time. The cost nearly broke Timet.
If you desire a picture of Boeing's two full sized mock ups of the swept wing SST, (one in cruise mode and the other in landing mode) let me know. No cost. I have them on my PC photo library.
I could go on and on about titanium and secret stuff.. If any of you feel I'm wrong, please correct this 76 year old geezer. One last thing, Barry Goldwater and I were "neighbors" in Paradise valley, AZ for 30 years. I will also send you a photo of a framed famous comment he wrote and autographed to me.
Regards,
C. W. Field
PS, I will sell these two unique models for $250. Reportedly, they are the only models built by Revelle of an aircraft that never flew.
|
| Gabe, e-mail, 16.08.2010 18:33 Joe,
Your take on the SST is correct, but why the need to throw angry Limbaugh-esque insults around? Name calling is very immature for a man of your age. Be sure to rip up your monthly Social Security & Medicare checks (both fully socialized programs). You wouldn't want to be a dreaded socialist after all. ;-)
BTW, I still remember the SST logo with Snoopy riding atop it on the side of the Boeing plant.
|
| richard, e-mail, 04.04.2010 18:17 In answer to Matteo's question of 31 January 2010, the aircraft is located in the Hiller Aviation Museum in San Carlos CA, a bit south of San Francisco, just off 101.
See: http://www.hiller.org/sst.shtml
|
| Matteo, e-mail, 31.01.2010 20:01 Hi guys. Where could I find this airplane? Which museum?
|
| Sven, 08.01.2010 11:01 The Concorde project would have suffered a similar fate had it not been for the intervention of cabinet minister Anthony Wedgewood-Benn.The then Primeminister Harold Wilson asked him if the aircraft was "going to be allright".Wedgewood Benn knew that wilson meant would it be on budget and sell.He chose to interpret it as " would it fly".and answered yes. He knew that thousands of jobs would be lost if the aircraft was cancelled.
Wedgewood-Benn was a prolific diarist and the incident is well recorded in his memoirs.
|
| John Denchuk, e-mail, 08.01.2010 05:50 I have nothing to say !
|
| Richard Heteny, e-mail, 16.12.2009 16:42 The TU-144 NEVER EVER had american engines in it!
|
| Orville, e-mail, 17.11.2009 03:29 I was a member of the SST test team at the Boeing High Speed Wind Tunnel near Philadelphia, Pa.
Joe is correct.
The outcry from the people in the United States crushed the United States SST program. It was okay for the Concord to use our airspace. But we could not use our own air space.
After we moved the SST out of the Wind Tunnel we began testing the STOL and VSTOL jets. There was some uproar over those aircraft.
|
| Er-Jin, e-mail, 03.07.2009 12:21 I wonder what could've happened if the plane went into service...
|
| kareno, e-mail, 03.05.2009 01:57 it looks horribal swear it suck's for real
|
| Jim, e-mail, 04.03.2009 01:28 This larger plane would of been more profitable due to its size.
|
| Jano Heine, e-mail, 20.02.2009 12:30 Oh my God,such a shame it wasn't build after all :-(
|
| Brad, e-mail, 06.01.2009 21:28 Hey Dan
The XB 70 Valkyrie was a North American project and it did fly! See the NA page. It is too bad we never entered this race, though I understand the Concordsky (TU144) was engineered with american engines and avionics as a cooperative experiment after glastnost. I'd like to know where that led.
|
| evets, e-mail, 26.11.2008 16:42 Spot on, JOE.
I do think, however, if Boeing and Lockheed had partnered, they would have cornered the market on HST. Leaving from coastal cities and flying over open water, such as the Concorde did, they would have had time to further develop sonic noise suppression systems, and we'd all be flying on one today.
JMO.
|
| dan Wenger, e-mail, 26.07.2008 23:35 The Boeing program doesn't show the B-70 which was the design around which the SST program was based. The B-70 did fly and was originally thought to be something the Air Force could use in its inventory.
|
| Doug, 21.04.2008 00:47 Well put Joe.
|
| Joe, 29.11.2007 06:04 I would like to respond to David's inaccurate explanation as to why the SST wasn't built. Here are the facts. The environmental resistance to the project was so intense, the U.S. government pulled supplemental funding of the SST leaving Boeing with all the financial burden. I realize a socialist like David has little or no understanding of the fact that companies must recover developmental expenses. There was the fear that Boeing could not recover these costs. There is no government compensation in the United States like there is in socialist nations like the one time Soviet Union. Instead, Boeing developed the 747 which obviously became one of the most successful jetliners in history. An aircraft that only now has been rivaled. Profit is neccessary David for companies in the free world to survive.
|
| Idris, e-mail, 08.08.2007 21:57 They didn't fly it because at that time sonic boom supression had not been thought of as a way to quiet the jet at supersonic speed.
|
| .........., e-mail, 01.08.2007 06:16 lol change my name jetplaneguy:P
|
| .........., e-mail, 01.08.2007 06:15 so where is the plane anyway?
|
| .........., e-mail, 01.08.2007 06:14 lol it looks like the plane crashed then they rebuild it
:P my friend usa airforce pilot:)
|
| David, 30.07.2007 18:23 It wasn't built as America has an obsession with profit, and would not take a risk. The Europeans and Russians, on the other hand, did take risks, and so the history of aviation reflects reality. Rather than wishes. Concorde could not have been bettered by the SST, particularly the smaller version. That is why Airbus 380 will be successful over the caution of the Boeing approach.
|
| Paul, e-mail, 16.07.2007 02:06 It wasn't built. A plywood/bondo mockup was built (common in the 60s-70s), last on display (ASFAIK) near Disney World in Orlando, FL.
But I agree: It should have been built, if only to use as a Presidential Transport.
|
| David (Joyo Prower), e-mail, 07.04.2007 14:02 Damn. If it was built, then why was it never flewn?
|
| kang_cason@yahoo.co.uk, 24.11.2006 23:01 Build another one
|
