Talk:Boeing 2707/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

Is Trans Am an airline? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Shalov (talk • contribs)

No it is not Trans World Airlines Was An Airline, also Pan American was, Pan American was Shortened to Pan Am, so I think they mean Trans World Airlines or I believe Pan American

In miniature

Uh, Charles A. Lindbergh was a vocal opponent of the SST. Are you saying that a company called Lindbergh made a model?

There was/is a plastic model making company named Lindbergh. No clue if Lucky Lindy had anything to do with it, or if the name was a complete coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.113.120 (talk) 06:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Error Regarding Boeing B733-390

The Boeing B-733-390 was a swing-wing aircraft that was very much a narrow-body. It's swing-wing did not blend into the tail when fully swept to form a delta, though it did have a large tail-plane they by no means merged, and it's engines were mounted under the glove The plane you are talking about is the B-2707-100. It had a swing wing with the wing blending in with the tail to form a delta/arrow in flight and had it's engines mounted under the enlarged tail. The design however was also a narrowbody, it had a fuselage width of 6-abreast (3-3) at it's widest with most of the fuselage being 5-abreast (3-2)

The early B-2707-200 model was the design that had the 7-abreast (2-3-2) fuselage-width. Originally the B-2707-200 was the same size as the B-2707-100 (306-feet), differing in the shape of it's tailplane and wider-fuselage. As time went on, the design was lengthened by 12-feet to increase it's passenger capacity. Aeroelastic problems that developed required a canard to be added. AVKent882 (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

outcry on environmental impact

This section still lacks any source, and was therefore removed. I did research and could not find any material re the matter. Who ever finds something substantial is welcome to revert the deletion. 88.67.176.39 (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling "sonic boom sst" immediately turned up all sorts of cogent hits. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Cruise flight

Can someone write in the article whether the afterburner of Boeing 2707 should be activated in cruise flight - or only activated for climb and acceleration like by Concorde?--Uwe W. (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The aircraft using either of the possible GE or P&W engine options required continuous afterburning (GE) or PCB (P&W "duct heating") for cruise flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.183 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

was developed? no it wasn't.

The very first sentence of the article is wrong. "The Boeing 2707 was developed"...no it wasn't. It was an American failure. Never developed. 93.219.169.162 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Concorde material on this page

My section in the talk page has been removed, because it was about Concorde.

Does all of the Concorde material on the substantive page deserve removing?

ArthurDent006.5 (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

This talk page page is for improving the main article page (Boeing 2707). Your post was about latter Concorde history and is not relevant to the Boeing 2707. However, the development of Concorde helped start this project and is therefore relevant. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boeing 2707/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

more inline refs required

Last edited at 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

DB Cooper

Analysts are suggesting that D.B. Cooper may have been an engineer or manager on this project. [1]

Kortoso (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesnt actually say that it is just another theory which is not relevant to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Too speculative to be mentioned here, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Geez, this guy's been everywhere since he disappeared... What's next, vacationing with Elvis? No. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Found a 2707-related video on YouTube

So, one of the statements says that the Boeing 2707 was intended to feature a glass cockpit, but no source for that is found. I wonder if this YouTube video of a 2707 mockup indicates that the 2707 was indeed planned to have a glass cockpit?

TransportFan2014 (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath section

The description of Airbus in this section can be confusing to a reader not familiar with its history.

The phrase when Airbus decided to end servicing arrangements in the current first paragraph of the Aftermath section leaves open the question as to how Airbus obtained such arrangements (the Concorde article has a similar defect). It would be better if the last paragraph of this section was moved to become the first paragraph, and modified possibly along these lines:

The SST race had several lasting effects on the industry as a whole. The supercritical wing was originally developed as part of the SST efforts in the U.S., but is now widely used on most jet aircraft. In Europe, the cooperation that allowed Concorde led to the formation of Airbus, Boeing's foremost competitor, with Aérospatiale becoming a main component of Airbus.

Also the first sentence of the Concorde section should be modified as follows:

By mid-1962, it was becoming clear that tentative talks earlier that year between the British Aircraft Corporation and Sud Aviation (later Aérospatiale) on a merger of their SST projects were more serious than originally thought.

Thoughts?Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Swing wing drawing in info box

I came to this article after watching a program that describes the USA's SST program, and they described this aircraft as being a swing wing, I believe at the time it won the government contract over Lockheed. It does explain in the article that they abandoned this due to weight and range concerns, in favour of the delta wing design shown in the drawing, but it might help the article to include drawings of the earlier design along with the later one.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)