Boeing SST

1968

Back to the Virtual Aircraft Museum
  SUPERSONIC PASSENGER AIRCRAFTVirtual Aircraft Museum / USA / Boeing  

Boeing SST

The Boeing 2707 stemmed from President Kennedy's June 1963 call for a supersonic transport (SST) to compete with the Anglo-French Concorde. Unlike Concorde and the Soviet Tu-144, the US SST was to be made largely of titanium, making it capable of Mach 3. In 1966 Boeing's variable-geometry (swing-wing) Model 2707 was chosen over proposals from Lockheed and North American. Boeing built an impressive full-scale mockup and estimated future sales of 700 - 1000 SSTs. The technical challenges of a Mach 3 SST were greater than faced by its slower, smaller rivals.

The variable-geometry idea was abandoned in 1968 and a smaller fixed-wing version was planned, with test flights planned for 1970 and commercial service in 1974. Two prototypes were begun, but in 1971 the SST programme was cancelled. Increasing oil prices and environmental concerns were the excuses.

FACTS AND FIGURES

© The cabin of the full-scale mock-up had room for 277 seats - 30 first class and 247 tourist in a seven-abreast layout.

© The Anglo-French and Soviet SSTs were only Mach 2 capable because speeds above Mach 2.7 required much greater use of heavy and expensive steel alloys and titanium to withstand frictional heating.

© The 2707 was to have an 18-wheel undercarriage, with the main wheels grouped in four bogies with four wheels each, arranged to spread the great weight and not overstress the runway.

© The swing-wing version could sweep its wings between 20 and 72 degrees. Minimum sweep gave better take-off and landing performance.

Boeing SST on YOUTUBE

Boeing SST

Specification 
 CREW3
 PASSENGERS277
 ENGINE4 x 28690kg General Electric GE4/J5P afterburning turbojets
 WEIGHTS
  Take-off weight306175 kg675004 lb
 DIMENSIONS
  Wingspan54.97 m180 ft 4 in
  Length93.27 m306 ft 0 in
  Height14.10 m46 ft 3 in
 PERFORMANCE
  Cruise speed2900 km/h1802 mph

Comments1-20 21-40 41-60
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.

reply

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.

reply

.........., e-mail, 01.08.2007 06:16

lol change my name jetplaneguy:P

reply

.........., e-mail, 01.08.2007 06:15

so where is the plane anyway?

reply

.........., e-mail, 01.08.2007 06:14

lol it looks like the plane crashed then they rebuild it
:P my friend usa airforce pilot:)

reply

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.

reply

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.

reply

kang_cason@yahoo.co.uk, 24.11.2006 23:01

Build another one

reply

David (Joyo Prower), e-mail, 07.04.2007 14:02

Damn. If it was built, then why was it never flewn?

reply

1-20 21-40 41-60

Do you have any comments?

Name    E-mail


COMPANY
PROFILE


All the World's Rotorcraft


All rhe World's Rotorcraft AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com