Boeing 2707 - too ambitious 

It was named Boeing 2707 because that is the year when Boeing actually produces one

Just wanted to say how much I enjoy this channel bro. You put out really good quality video's so thank you Sky.

A Valkyrie-based passenger plane would've been awesome!

Very well done. It was both interesting and entertaining.

I like this guy & his presentation. Some good, solid information and some interesting video clips. No fluff

Oh HELL yes. Cannot wait to watch this one. Just finished an excellent book on the failures and missteps of the Tu-144, so I'm primed and ready for more SST content! Love this channel!

I love these! The topics, the narrative - all awesome. And I find intriguing the choice of music after 8:00 ... intriguing.

Great video. Very educational and entertaining, I appreciate all of your work you put into your videos. Thank you for the upload!

I grew up during those days but I never knew the comprehensive story behind those planes. Thanks, that was interesting and fun.

Good to see another one if your videos.. Very detailed and well put together as always. Thank you for your efforts

My dad, who was an executive for a European airline, toured the 2707 and 747 mockups in Seattle in the late ‘60s. I always envied his experience.

Great video, as usual. The SST was just too expensive to operate and the sonic boom problem insurmountable. Still, I am ready for the next paradigm shift in passenger plane evolution.

I remember that Revell made a plastic model kit in the 1970s. Since then it is on my radar of interest. Thanks for this video!

Right on time Sky. Now I get to eat my dinner with an excellent video on the American SST! Thanks.

thanks Sky I am always happy to see new videos from you, you have beaten the Discovery Channel, your videos are better and more often, i am really happy to see all your videos

Thanks for a well made documentary! Great narrative and images. Keep it up :)!!!

Thank you for the knowledge, now I can officially make a very fast and smooth paper airplane.

I think I'm right in saying this is the best and most detailed presentation of the American SST yet produced. Well done.

Great video. Always look forward to your vids. Thanks for making them. Z

They should have never stopped the Concord. I saw it once. It flew into the San Francisco Bay Area. Wheels up and down along with the nose up and down. The noise was just like any other jet a Beautiful machine.

Lovely Job, As Always, Young Brother SKY

I stumbled upon this amazing channel. its 4 am in the morning

Amazing collection of archive footage, and great scriptwriting, like in all your videos. Subbed!

That time lapse clip was awesome!

This is a juicy one Sky, well done! 👍👍

Bravo 👏 GREAT VIDEO THE BEST I TOOK THE TIME TO VIEW thank you 🙏 SIR’ for sharing 👍🙏 TY 🇺🇸

At the end of 1974, I was living near Toulouse in Southern France. One day, I was sitting on my bed reading a book when Concorde went overhead. The sonic boom was so loud and unexpected that I literally jumped off the bed. The windows vibrated but fortunately didn't break.

Good to see this video back!

I was sorry to see Concord go and never knew about the others. Thank you for the info.

nice one mate still some amazing aircraft came about b-1b lancer for example - you do a fantastic job & i love your channel - the series you did on the md-11 & business jets has been just fab - i love the way you bring history back to life

Good,knowledgeable video.I am an aviation buff.I, as a boy of 15 yrs,I made a Model of Concorde just by seeing the picture of it in a magazine,Reader's Digest,and displayed it in a Science Fair on behalf of my school and won first prize for the Concord Model! More videos plz!

Awesome! I'll watch this tonight over dinner. I can't wait for Boeing to put this aircraft on proper display (hopefully) at the Museum of Flight :D

The funny thing is that I was looking up supersonic planes and when I came to RU-vid this was the first thing on my recommended

I really enjoy your videos. Personally, I believe there is *nothing* that justifies the resources wasted on supersonic flight for self-important civilians. Having said that, I happened to be in the parking lot of a grocery store near Dallas Texas and happened to see a Concorde fly directly above, presumably in a landing pattern. It was cool, but WAYYYY loud, even at subsonic speed. Cheers!

A lot of cool history I didn't know, especially how old this dated and more reasoning for the huge layoff in Seattle at that time.

The Brits did an amazing job to pull it off, and get their Concorde in the air, and boy was it an amazing plane, and flagship. Watching the Skylon project with interest as it develops. The reaction engines technology is just mind blowing.

Excellent work! First class research.

In end, it wouldn't have saved the idea of an American SST, but Lockheed was probably the best bet for making it work. They had the most experience with high speed aircraft. Today, look into Boom Supersonic. Promising things happening there. The dream isn't dead, just taking a slightly different road. Thanks for featuring this ambitious aircraft, it's one of my favorites.

I visited Boeing in 1962 and was escorted through the 2707 flight simulator which at that time was a huge pile of hybrid digital and analog computers connected to a cockpit and monitors. At that time they also had a 727 airframe hooked up to dozens of hydraulic cylinders to simulate takeoff and landing cycles. Quite a fascinating adventure.

Excellent history video!!💖

Great video, as always!

Wonderful presentation! This is a must see.

I think you're doing a great job keep up the good work 👍👌

Awesome documentary!!

Thank you skyships as always, longtime subber. Thx for all your time, research, and editing. It's a damn shame that the 2707 didn't really get off the ground (groan). However, in this case, I think the politicians made the wrong choice. First of all, Lockheed had decades of experience with supersonic aircraft. The engineers knew way more about the effects of aerodynamic heating, and friction as well as pressure differences around the aircraft during transitional phases. They also opted to use a simple and proven slightly anhedral ogival wing design, because after all, if the Europeans have done that kind of research there is no point pushing boundaries if you don't know what the outcome will be. At the end of 1961, Kelly Johnson was appointed as lead consultant with his extensive knowledge of practical airframe design. And how Hibbard was appointed as the chief engineer. More importantly, management took a step back, and gave the entire project to the engineering board, because they didn't want any management distraction to interfere with progress. Wise choice. By April 62, this had developed into an arrow design with the engines buried in the wing for aerodynamic streamlining. However, the board of engineers managing this project instantly recognised the potential problems. That being, that the engines are taking up important room that could be used for fuel inside the wing, and maintenance by engineers in the future who need to climb into the wing to fix or maintain the jet engine is not a good design. Back to the drawing board. As of December 62 this older design hit the trashcan.. But in April 63, the engineers had produced drawings for a standard ogival wing with leading edges to eliminate the need for any canards, which would be very simple to machine, and fabricate, and provide a large amount of space for the fuel tanks. The engineers also projected the manufacturing costs for the L2000 would be at least half the cost of of it's main competitor at Boeing, if not even cheaper. With a standard range of 4000 miles, it was also much more practical. Carrying at least 30 tonnes of freight as well as 227 passengers, with a comfortable interior, this really should have been chosen as the SST. Political lobbying, corruption and brown envelopes were changing hands. OK, I don't know about that last bit come up but political lobbying and corruption really was involved in this decision - the FAA were swamped with representatives from bowing, as well as having many friends in senior management cover being promised corporate tax cuts if they're design was the chosen SST. That's disgusting. By July of 63, the engineering board at Lockheed, led by chief engineer Hall Hibberd. It's important to remember that Kelly Johnson sat on this table too. Although he wasn't in charge of the L2000 design project, he was a very valuable consultant on supersonic airflow and aerodynamic effects and drag. By the end of 63, they had chosen the JTF/17 and GE4/J5 as the potential power plants. However it soon became clear, and as pointed out by Carrie Johnson, that the plane wouldn't be able to fly in a supercruise mode due to it's weight, size and guide vane inlets on the engine cowling. The engineers knew that this was an important discovery, because it would mean it wouldn't have the required range to cross the Atlantic, or fly from the west coast to Hawaii etc. This would severely limit its marketing potential. Johnson told Hibberd to make the wings and body out of Hiduminum (a strong alloy but very light, as used on Concorde, and use stainless steel honeycomb on the leading edges of the nose and wings and vulnerable areas where extra heat will pose problems. The use of Hiduminum would not only reduce the weight substantially, but also allow it to travel faster without causing structural damage. It's cheap to produce the alloy and nickel can be added to make it more heat resistant in problematic areas above Mach 2.35. the problem though, is that nickel was quite expensive to mix into a complex alloy, and so had to be used in just the vulnerable ateas. Kelly Johnson also proposed to Hibberd, that the leading edges be made of honeycomb stainless steel - as above Mac 2.35 would reach more than 130 degrees. Any faster and it would get hotter, and even the hiduminum would start to soften, and anyway, there was tons of data, produced when Concorde was on the drawing board, and it would be foolish to ignore the groundbreaking research by the British and French. Kelly Johnson and Hall Hibberd's proposal, was that the plane wiould be flying no faster than Mach 2.5 - due to the materials technology available on the day, unit costs for manufacturing, and how much the airlines would be willing to support the purchase of these very expensive aircraft, and maintenance of very complicated and expensive aircraft engineering just for the sake of another 200 mph. They won't bite. Kelly Johnson ain't stupid, or naiive, and he knew that compromises had to be made. They0 chose Mach 2.5, because he knew that he didn't have to build an aircraft out of Titanium. This would add about $20 million per aircraft on purchase price. No, Sirs, we lower the maximum cruise speed to a little over Mac 2.4, and allow the aircraft to supercruise, and you'll have reached your goal, of producing an aircraft that flies faster, more economically, and carries more passengers than the Concorde. At a unit cost of half of what Boeing will end up charging because of a titanium airframe. Kelly also knew that Boeing didn't have the expertise or engineering.skills and processes involved to engineer or produce an entire aircraft out of Titanium. Kelly Johnson obviously had first-hand experience of this during the SR-71 project+ a manufacturing technology that Lockheed haven't shared with the rest of the aerospace industry at that time. By the beginning of 1964 the fnal design was released to the FAA and American Government. They were confident that they had a winning design that was not only cheaper, but that could be flying and fully tested within just a 5-year period. But of course, the lobbying allowed one of the most stupid decisions ever, to take place. A politicians went with a fantasy dream that had no hope of succeeding. As Kelly Thompson said, "We have so much experience with supersonic aircraft, and knowledge of how to build them, as well as build them within a fixed budget - but what we don't do is use corruption to lobby the congressman." It was a farce. Lockheed had already known that they would need multiple fuel tanks in order to call the airframe and the air conditioning colour as well as the ability to pump the fuel around the plane to order the centre of pressure depending on speed, altitude, pressure and temperature. The Lockheed engineers were lightyears ahead of Boeing. Unfortunately the politicians heads were in the dream World fantasy scape. And of course they would believe anything Boeing told them, even though Lockheed had a finished design on the table that would fly within just a few years easily. Politics, eh?

Almost 100,000 sub congrats!

Finally, the best video ever of Boeing 2707 is finally back Thank you SkyShips Eng

Another excellent documentary. Informative and entertaining!!!!

Very informative. Thank you.

I was fortunate enough to be working for a company and had to run between Europe and the US every other week. My promotion got me the perk of using concord if I wanted to. IF IT WANTED TO? Hell, I didn't cross the Atlantic any other way for a solid year or longer. It was in the mid-1990s before the Concord did itself in.I live in California but would often fly to NYC on a Red-Eye and hop on Concorde to my trip to Paris or London. It was an amazing experience. My wife and I were invited to a New Years' day celebrations on Concorde. We saw the midnight pass and the sun come up in over twenty nations that evening. The cost of the journey was $4k each passenger, with deep discounts for Concorde Frequent Flyers. A few years later we played "Santa" and deliver gifts to children in cities all around the globe. What an amazing experience that was. I became friends with Joan Collins and her sister Jackie and spent two Christmases with them - one in Paris and the other in London. While Jackie's books were steamy, however when she filled you in on what really happened to her and others, the book soon paled when compared to the truth. Donald and Ivanka Trump frequently flew Concord. None of the celebs liked him and most avoided conversation with him at all costs. He was a LOUT and everyone knew it. The Concorde experience gave me memories most men in their 30's would never have. Whatever my company paid for those tickets, they were worth their weight in gold just on the basis of who I met and became friends with on those flights.

I was a boy living in Oklahoma City, and remember the period of sonic boom testing there. The windows would rattle. Us kids thought it was wonderful.

Awesome to learn again something I learned in the 80's. Very informative.

This is amazing! Kudos

Very interesting and informative. Did not know anything of this. Thannks!

I worked for Pratt-Whitney R & D in W. Palm Beach in the 1960s. We were in a competition with G.E. for the SST engine contract. I worked on the cockpit simulation using two Beckman analog computers for engine dynamics. Exciting times for our industry. We lost the competition for the engine contract to G.E., resulting in the loss of jobs for many P&W employees (luckily I kept mine!).. The resulting cancellation of the whole SST project ended up costing the jobs of many GE and Boeing team members. Such were the dynamics of the aerospace industry in the 1960s-1970s.

My dad worked on the Boeing mockup. I still have a print of the sst flying over Seattle. It was given to him by his supervisor.

Ty SKY👍👍

Great document, thanks.

I just love this videos from. RU-vid is blissful place because of such channels... Wow

Interesting video. The carbon fiber Boeing 787 Dreamliner has got to be the best jetliner out there. So smooth and quiet, who cares if it goes fast, there are lots of movies to watch.

@10:25 re:the tail mounted engines,."... a gorgeous solution. Not realized in the end of course but still gorgeous." Sky after that comment I'd LAMO! . As a 60 yr old child of the Apollo Program. I remember that aviation promise. It was to be the Boeing 747 first then followed closely by the Boeing 2707 SST. For us the inauguration of 747 flights in 1970 was a source of national pride.

GREAT video. Couldn't click on it fast enough.

Excellent video, nicely done! Probably the best choice Boeing ever made was to stop the process of designing/building this aircraft and focusing on the 747 which is one of the most successful planes ever built. The fact that they made the 747 to be such an excellent cargo plane as much as it’s been an excellent passenger plane is the reason it’s been so popular for so long and still flying to this day with cargo carriers as the A-380 dies a miserable, expensive death. Airbus was way too late to the party and not thinking enough to the future when they designed it, although it sure is a beauty! Saw my first one in person while taxi’ing a runway at LAX enroute to Hawaii, pics and vids don’t do that behemoth justice.

Again, a great video. 👍🏻

A good well rounded analysis.

Excellent vid bro.

YEES! My favourite airliner.

Well covered and informative.

In 1979 my family visited the SST museum in Florida - Titusville or Kissimmee - where they had a full-size mock-up of the 2707 that we toured. It was such an extraordinary aircraft, and I could never understand why it was cancelled. Now I understand. It was probably for the best. It would have been by far the most impressive and capable SST out there, but it would also have been the most colossal financial catastrophe among them. I wasn't an aerospace worker then, and maybe I don't appreciate the financial catastrophe brought on by its cancellation - I dunno. (As an Apollo kid, I was still reeling from the cancellation of Apollo, even in 1979.)

Great vid.

Fast flights and soft landings to you to Sky :)

really good video. Keep it up :)

Circa 5:06. Engineers built a mockup of the plane and can't get it out the door. Ha! "This is typical." Basil Fawlty.

It failed because it was too expensive to operate - My father was head of procurement for a major airline at the time, and we discussed it -

My dad worked at Boeing . He took me to see the mock-up during it's development . A mural was painted on the side of the plant that housed it visible to passing motorists on Hwy (old)99. It remained years after the project was cancelled.

Not bad for the unreleased aircraft:)

Great Video !!!

The intro was awesome

First job post-VAW-11 was on the B-2707 (interiors for WDTA) @ Boeing's Plant 2 (watched the Duwamish flow by from the lunchroom windows). Too much fun . . . The race we won . . . But then Feds hacked . . . And we were sacked . . . ! But moved intact . . . To B-747 & AF One . . . !

That intro lol. I expect each aircraft category (jet fighters, commercials, supersonic transports) to be like that now.

As a young boy, I remember my dad telling me about the soon to be produced SST. I don't remember when it occurred to me that it was not going to happen. I guess I got distracted with boyhood things. Years later, I remember feeling like governments were not to be trusted after Watergate and SST.

Haha! That intro is brilliant

Very instructive

Another great video

Very detailed in making aircraft.

I was always of the impression the main reason for Concord's retirement was Airbus stopping support. Because there were so few planes and aircraft manufacturers also have a high legal liability exposure for their products it's not a good enough risk/reward for Airbus to continue supporting them even though they were still operating profitably for BA and AF. Without manufacturer parts support you can't maintain airworthiness certificates and that means no registration or insurance. Soon the same will happen with the A380 while the 747s and DC-10s will still be flying on as cargo jets.

Hi Sky. Love your videos. I do have one request... could you please use imperial as well as metric/IS standards. Newtons are meaningless for thrust and torque here in North America, as is kilowatts for power. We use lbs, ft/lbs and horse power. It might add a bit to your time, but it would probably save many man-hours of viewer time having to constantly convert. No, I am not American, I am Canadian, and yes we use the metric system for almost everything, except, those relating to the aforementioned units. And for the most part, in the aviation industry, we use miles (distance), knots (speed) and feet (height), and pascals for barometric pressure. I think Russian and French planes are the only ones I have seen in metric. Almost everything else uses imperial.

it would had been an amazing machine. to bad that it was killed just like the xb70. And speaking of the xb70 PLEASE MAKE A VIDEO ABOUT IT! its my fav xplane a true legend!

"Noise abatement", at virtually every major airport, was a battle which the SST had zero chance of winning, and the program was cancelled in 1971. The "during ocean crossings only" requirement, was thought to be a way towards resumption of the American SST program, which had been 'back burnered' until more acceptable technology was developed. The bear market which ensued after the 1973/1974 stock market crash, and by October, 1973, the OAPEC Oil Embargo - completed the trifecta which combined to ditch the program forever. If there are any C-22's still flying, they'd very likely be the only examples of the 727 without those horrific "hush kits". A ride in a 727 which isn't "corked",,, that'll never happen again...

Excellent!

Looking at a tu 144 from the front always reminds me of the clangers for some reason

No mention of the Tu-144 crashing spectacularly at the 1973 Paris air show? That had a *big* impact in the SST race, as the U.S. felt less need to compete in a space where the Soviets had so publicly failed.

It would not be the last time people dreamed of some super fast airliner... I recall getting in an argument with two businessmen when I was an engineering student (some 20 years ago), in which they were convinced that a Mach 6+ aerospace plane would transport people from Washington D.C. to Tokyo in 30 minutes (or was it 90?). I was arguing that it would never happen, based on the history of failure of such programs (not to mention the cost and inefficiency of such high-speed flight), and was told I was being short sighted. Definitely wise to keep a healthy skepticism about the "next big thing" that is going to change the world. Not because world-changing technologies don't happen, but because they are rare and there are a lot of pipe-dream ideas out there. It's also good to know the environment that the technology is going into... cost, risks, regulations, etc.

I miss the Concorde I thought when I went on it that this is how all airplanes are going to be in the future boy was I wrong

Nice video excellent well done

16:03 The B1 Lancer is the end result of all that development. The Military liked it.

Still have the Revell plastic model I built about 1968 as a 12 year old. It's 2 planes, one streamline and the other with dropped nose, wings out, and gear down.

Hello Sky! When are we going to get the Il-62 film? :)

How lucky that that project was grounded! It could have happened that Boeing have all his new planes grounded and with the Europeans snatching an enormous market share!

Hi Sky. I have to say that I generally like your work very much. It is objective and goes deep enough to make these short videos very interesting. I have issues with this one however. In my opinion you should restrict your aircraft profiles to aircraft that actually came into existence. This project was never built. I think there are enough aircraft that became reality to concentrate on without going off into the realm of what might have been.