U.S. Supersonic Transports - Lockheed L-2000 and Boeing 2707

The United States' Supersonic Transport (SST) program was initiated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in 1963. The program aimed for a Mach 2+ aircraft capable of carrying 300 passengers with intercontinental range. The US aimed to outstrip the British Aerospace/Aerospatiale Concorde and Soviet Tu 144 programs through the use of advanced technology and materials. By the late 1960s contracts had been let to prime contractors Boeing (airframe) and General Electric (engines) but the program was four to five years behind the European and Soviet efforts, which had graduated to supersonic flight testing while the US program had yet to pass beyond the mockup stage. In 1971 the slow pace of technical development, environmental concerns, high costs, and questions over the commercial feasibility of the aircraft led Congress to cancel the program.
This video includes silent footage of both the Lockheed and Boeing SST mock-ups.

[@lwatcdr]

The Boeing mockup of the -300 was In Orlando FL for a long time when the tourist attraction went belly up a church bought it. They used the building for their church and held Sunday School under the wing. I saw it when I was a kid. Even got to go inside and see the massive engine.

[@GRAHAMAUS]

Love the overhead bins at 5:00. Looks like something from Kubrick's 2001 - retro-futuristic!

[@ColdFusion]

Very nice i had never heard of this plane prior to this video.

[@binaway]

Getting out of the SST race was a good decision. The bigger the SST the more expensive and hard it would have been to build. Over 1000 747's built proved a much better commercial decision than 16 production Concordes with only 8 sold for less than production the costs and 5 given away to the two operators. The people that say the USA couldn't have built an SST are idiots. What the US manufactures also couldn't have done was make a profit building an SST.

[@alexrebmann1253]

People say that the USA could not build a SST but USA built the SR 71 and the XB 70 Valkere which was faster.

[@UNOwen1]

It was a beautiful - if unrealized - project. It's interesting to note that some features of the L-2000 are rough versions of ideas now being studies to be incorporated into next generation HST's. the video you posted is a wonderful tribute. With the musical accompaniment, I almost feel as though I'm watching the part of 2001: A Space Odyssey where we see the Pan Am (sigh) moon trip. Grand!

[@PauloSergioMDC]

Thanks for sharing this, it's the most I've ever seen of the two. Looks like the Lockheed was the better design, judging from the undercarriage, which could better distribute load, and the nose.

[@stk1970]

Beautifully produced video, Bomberguy.

[@DEP717]

Oh yeah, I built a model as a kid (It was the 80s and I saw a very small scale model kit so I got some money I'd asved and snapped it up!) Imagine Mach 3 in a passenger plane! I love the individual nacelles for all four engines. Looking at the full size mock up, that's just beautiful! The gear on my little model hinged down too, but this is much more detailed ;) Bomberguy, thanks for posting!

[@sofsots]

Mr Bomberguy, you have maybe the best aviation videos in tube!

[@FSXairpilot]

this footage of the planes ir really really really rare!

[@urushira]

Actually,America presented designs for an axial flow afterburning jet engine in 1937 which was to be used in the then proposed Lockheed L-133 Star jet. Realities of war however superceeded development of the aircraft, and the one existing example of the J-37 which was finally completed in 1947 sits in the Air force museum.. America didnt steal anything from anyone. The SST's all deserve their place in history. The concorde is a magnificent aircraft, But so were the others.

[@deltavee2]

You have put an unimaginable amount of time and effort into this and as you now well know from the reviews, it is all cheered most heartily and widely accredited for your editing work. I can't imagine where you get all this material from, but it is thoroughly appreciated. Something that gets almost no mention, though, is the music accompanying. Swing and classical violin concertos sharing the same airspace :{) Your musical knowledge must be encyclopedic, and that also deserves a tip of the hat.

[@TheCharlie359]

A pipe dream that never got off the drawing board, the US failed with SST and Russia with the TU-144, only the Anglo/French Concorde can be held in esteem, now that was a truly beautiful plane an one the actually flew commercially!

[@kapasvonkapas]

Concord was at the end the flying miracle that left the ground and push technology and imagination to their limits. After a distinguished carrier its now a reminder of what human mind can do, of what Europe can do!

[@Grommo]

Also remember that the design team of Convair which produced America's first deltas and the convair B58 hustler bomber was led by Alexander Lippisch, designer of the Me163 The automatic instability sensing systems which keep the B2 in the air were first used on the 1935 Flettner FL-185 Single rotor helicopter. Most top engineers from German co's were employed in American aerospace in senior positions. Wehrner Von Braun designed the saturn 5 which put Americans on the moon.

[@Golditz95]

If the L-2000 was chosen, you think it would've flown?

[@countofelysium9070]

Probably, because it was planned as a fix wing aircraft from the beginning. A lot of time and resources were wasted on the sweeping wing design of the boeing and in the end they came to the conclusion that mechanism is to heavy so they had to redesign the whole wing. Likely the Lockheed engineers also would have made the plane slower than originally planned so they could have used aluminium instead of expensive titanium like the concorde. Imo the L-2000 was the superior design.

[@MrShobar]

No. Same result.

[@abreumatheus]

this is a super video!! the projects are amazing!!!! thanks for this great video.

[@MrGhostwhowalks]

Thanks for producing this vid bomberguy. The music is well chosen. I find it sad that gov't in 71 canned the sst project. This plane, while still taking 'droop nose' apparently from Concorde, looked liked it had some things going for it. If I could go back in time (& had say) I would make them persevere with the swing wing variant (the engineering must have posed incredible problems). Can you imagine if this had succeeded as swing wing? Dang - I'd want a ticket.

[@medicpack6]

back then it was way ahead of its time

[@Phos9]

Even among SSTs the L-2000 looks exceptional, almost like some sort of creature.

[@HazeGreyAndUnderway]

I say the Hustler was the most beautiful bomber ever built. Mach 2 is a wonder speed for an aircraft of that size and shape. B-58 = True genius.

[@MadamOst]

One thing is certain, all 3 of these planes the French, Russian and American were beautiful jets to look at. There was an artists sensibility that came with those designs. Just think if they had been working with each other instead of against each other what kind of magnificent bird might have come from that..

[@Photobyke]

Concorde was borne out of several other military projects at the time, which were cancelled (mostly due to pressure from the US). The Caoncorde wasn't really a white elephant due to the fact that a lot of aerospace technology was developed and improved because of Concorde, and that it was developed using technology from shelved military projects.

[@northwesttravels7234]

The forward section of the 2707 mockup is in the Museum of Flight restoration center in Everett.

[@northwesttravels7234]

flic.kr/p/xWeJb9

[@FM2S]

Ah, some historical mistakes, what ocuuried in the concord accident a few years ago was not the design, but some pieces left in the runway by a previous plane, an Antonov if I remember well. The design of the conorde is actualy marvelous

[@JBofBrisbane]

Concorde was undoubtedly a technological success, but spending hundreds of millions of 1960s dollars in development and then building just twenty of them (six of which were developmental aircraft) can only be considered a commercial disaster. Probably the fuel crisis of 1973 was the last nail in the coffin for SSTs.

[@trailkeeper]

I was in the SST prototye as it sat in a warehouse/hanger of some sorts, when I was about 10, maby it was Florida, can't remember right now. I think the first plane to break the sound barrier was there, i went in that also, and some other plane, it was hot that day.

[@SpeedyNeutrino43]

I can't understand people who complain about flying "only" 550 mph. You're sitting there in a pressurized cabin with AC or heat, being served meals and drinks and watching tv. then napping if you choose. All this while you're hurtling through the air at 550 mph. Just outside that plexiglass window is an environment that would kill you in just a few seconds from very low temperatures and sparse oxygen. You're almost experiencing a miracle and don't realize it.

[@Gruntol5]

The aspect ratio of the Boeing 2707 must have been the highest of any aircraft. It's hard to imagine how it would stand up to the rigours of multiple landings and take-offs over 30 years.

[@TheIntruder5150]

Ours would have been the best: 1800 MPH, and 300 passengers. Sadly never came to pass, as we all know.

[@SpeedyNeutrino43]

Thanks for the comment. I feel the same way about having to drag my carry on in what sometimes seems like a marathon. About 20 years ago I had to do this very thing at Heathrow airport. My tongue was hanging out and I almost missed my connection.

[@s2k997]

I wouldn't say that, the most effecient turbofan in the world was designed because of the Concorde project, and because of the sonic boom effect it made it actually raised questions and research into sonic dampening technology and requirements now deployed on every plane, Airbus or Boeing. I'd also say it helped end the race for speed, before subsonic aircraft often used to leave thier engines on full with no care for efficiency, when it was no longer a competition things got sensible.

[@1crow]

I think exactly the same every flight I take; it's a friggin' miracle. Although, I do gripe about having to haul my carry-on a 1/2 mi. to make a tight connection...

[@manafao]

Thank you.

[@deltavee2]

Either one of those or a civilian version of the B-70 (as mentioned below by Scooter George) would have made one helluva Air Force One!

[@biped19]

WOW, the Boeing 2707 was even more ballsy; a variable geometry wing!

[@Energonorama]

It's true, it holds many records, maybe they kept that quiet across the atlantic. London to New York - 2hrs 52mins New York to New York (around the world) - 31 hours 27 minutes. It can cruise at mach 2 @ 60,000ft.

[@MerleOberon]

In all the comments, no one mentions sonic-boom...it's what kept the Concorde from flying over land, thus severely curtailing its routes...and one big reason the US SST was killed...it couldn't fly coast-to-coast.

[@AGrandt]

Correct, the question never definitely answered was why the pilot made the manoeuvres he did, it's been suggested that it was evasive actions to avoid hitting a French jet that was getting a bit too close.

[@MrVinColt]

I remember seeing the last Air France Concorde flight out of Dulles the pilot flew so low to shake the every window for miles around ..

[@X-Soft]

The Boeing supersonic concept seemed to have one remarkable advantage over the Concorde : The dynamic wing concept might have allowed the plane to start and land at a slower speed than the Concorde had to (with it fixed wings) and therefor it would have had a reduced risk of a broken tyre.

[@Grommo]

Well he's basically correct in stating that the axial flow jet, afterburner, turboprop, swept-wing, delta-wing, swing wing, all flying tailplane, vectored thrust, mach2+ winged aircraft, radar absorbing coated flying wings, air to air, television guided, wire guided, infra red guided, cruise and sam missiles, combat and transport helicopters were all developed in Germany prior to or during ww2. The EMW A 4B is the basis of the x15. Flying wings do not require computers.

[@JeffersonJaikar]

Hats off!!

[@LarryTheTubaBoy]

Because large-capacity subsonic planes like the 747 were cheaper to fly. In short, airlines didn't want to pay to fly SSTs when they could fly slower, cheaper planes. This is also the main reason the Concorde was decommissioned.

[@alembicbassman]

Don't forget Concorde was downed by a non-standard part falling off a DC-10 taking off before Concorde, the part cut Concordes tyre which disintegrated and ruptured the fuel tanks.

[@CalPhotoGuy]

The single largest concern in airline and air freight is fuel cost. Current engine and airframe technology give best efficiency at today's cruising speeds. A plane built for .95 mach cruising would be a lot more expensive and less efficient. This would lead to higher ticket prices and would likely hurt the company operating it. So the sonic cruiser isn't too likely in the near future, if ever.

[@biukucanoe]

Where did you get this footage? I've never seen this before on any TV show or film. Love the Brahms violin concerto BTW.

[@RobloxianX]

If only the L-2000 was chosen, it would have likley been completed and would have easily destroyed any chance of the Concorde becoming popular. Just imagine that, instead a 50000 dollar ticket on Concorde, for a modern day First Class ticket (10000 dollars), you could fly in an L-2000, going Mach 3 at 76550 feet above the earth's surface. And for an actual Concorde priced ticket, you could fly in the world's only Supersonic Buisness Class. The 2707 is a prime example of "Don't bite off more than you can chew". Lockheed was experienced and would later go on to build the L-1011 TriStar, one of the most loved planes of the 20th century.

[@ba3cool]

Futuristic .... Even by modern standards. Just shows were taking a few steps back

[@mrmakemakkara]

very nice videos tov toda

[@pinbret]

things like that will work when we have a civilized world. I think Lockheed aircraft had the best candidate. can you imagine your next trip to Australia from the west coast of the US in the same amount of time as LA to San Francisco in the DC 3

[@ToyKingWonder]

Wonderful video. And some additional comments. It certainly is a consideration that part of the failure of the Concorde was its inability to secure routes over the continent of the US, and others, because of noise. The Americans looked at the economics of the cost of operation of the plane and its limitations, and the cost/benefit analysis just indicated it was not worth it. It amazes me the stupidity of some of the comments here.

[@HazeGreyAndUnderway]

If the B-58 was ever adapted to a transport, that would be awesome.

[@lukeshytalker02]

if you read the info youll see it was started in the 60's and cancelled in '71 so its probably over 40 yrs old too

[@charger19691]

The Concorde was a beautiful aircraft.

[@CaptBubble]

Funny, last time I played this piece with an Orchestra it was by Tchaikovsy! (Much better timpani parts than Brahms!) UK/France spent £X million making Concordes which flew for decades. US spent 4 times as much and got wooden mock-ups. Neither US nor USSR had the aerodynamic/ structural expertise at that time.

[@_Firzen_]

Çok tatlı uçakda bi uçarken görseydik be brom

[@evans32]

@gryffindor41 so that pilots can see the runway when they are landing and its not the cabin its just the pointy bit at the front to make the aircraft aerodynamic at high speeds it is just like the concorde one

[@blindandwatching]

Something like the Boeing Sonic Cruiser will be built in the next 20 years for long distance routes. Cruise at @0.95 mach would bemuch more affordable and make cross Pacific, and London to Rio de Janiero much faster. Interestingly the London to Rio route was the only route that consistently was profitable for the Concord.

[@Fu22yPumper]

okay, mach 3 passenger jets in the 60's and tons of people still want to say that the sr 71 is still the fastest plane? how could it even be conceivable that we couldn't progress any further in the last fifty years? we went from first flight to supersonic in less than 50 years, there has to be more and i want to see it.

[@blindandwatching]

And the big sub-sonic Boeing 747 crushed SST out of business. The English Electric Lightning did super cruise, which was a great asset, but she didn't have a powerful enough radar, range, or weapons load.

[@NickB1967]

@SCOTSDOC: And yet, the Tu-144 met a fiery end at a Paris Air Show 17 years later.

[@nesher666]

Both Germans and the Brits were working on it (without knowing about eachother's research). The brits were faster (Whittle) an copyrighted the patent, but the british government did not show enough interest in it and the research slowed down. "Whittle's counterpart" -> Ohain raised the attention of Heinkel, then later he enjoyed their full support. Although the world's 1st turbojet engine was british, the 1st jet powered plane became the He-178 and the 1st serial combat AC was the Me-262.

[@omarawilson2853]

I think it would have been cool if one 2707 was finished in secret

[@greenseaships]

Oh great, THANKS... Now I gotta build one of these radio controlled. Jeez...

[@circusboy90210]

@hectiky society should change to suit technology not the other way round if houses were built to higher standards, the economy would boom with the sonic booms. technology should never be suppressed.

[@pipercub123456]

@ansumdave... As I remember, the USA was very busy helping mighty Britain during the early part of WW2 with the Lend-Lease program???? I tip my hat to America, for trying to keep it's nose out of Europes problem's.

[@DavidCurryFilms]

We actually gave the americans the plans for the Miles M52 as part of an agreement. But we never got their expertise in return. A little while later they knock up the X-1 which looked suspiciously familiar...

[@tl6973]

@cypris2002 : I have to say that the TU-144 got airborne before Concorde. What's your source?

[@CheetahFoxx]

@RemZone79 Actually, the concord hasnt been too successful either. But the US still has the blackbird, the B-1, the Valkyrie, the Hustler, and the X-15. Plus, the US made F-104 was a mach 2 fighter that was sold and used by other countries all over the world. We also still have the best strategic bomber of all time: the B-52.

[@cubdukat]

At least the model of the Lockheed got put to good use. Anyone remember the movie "SST: Death Flight?"

[@itsmegp46]

@bigisezhi The Concorde entered commercial service in 1976 and flew continuously for 27 years. Up until the crash, the Concorde was the safest operational passenger airliner in the world in terms of passenger deaths-per-miles travelled with zero. The crash was caused by debris dropped on the runway by another jet. The debris struck the Concorde and after a chain of unrecoverable events, it crashed. 9/11 killed nearly 30 regular Concorde customers putting the final the nail in its coffin.

[@barthoedemaker]

Thumbs up if you feel ashame people in the 60's had supersonic transport, but today we don't have....

[@ObiTrev]

@AirForceRabbits Hell yes! We made it to the edge of space with that thing, bu the direction moved from planes to rockets unfortunately.

[@bigisezhi]

Let it be said that THIS was the moment when cost and performance reached their most impractical pinnacle and a financial retreat was the only answer available. The Anglo French Concord never made a single CENT..or EURO throughout it's entire operational lifetime. Even the Europeans had to just let the hope and dreams of supersonic transport finally die a normal death after the fiery crash of Air France Flight 4590. Practicality always wins in the end.

[@itsmegp46]

@bigisezhi I read somewhere that the Concorde first (and thats all they had) class ticket was about 20% higher than a standard first class seating in say, a 747.

[@JSAirways]

isn't it kind of sad, that we already had the technology so many years ago but stil up to this day haven't come up with a safe comercial supersonic jet?

[@TheCharlie359]

Fair enough, i stand corrected, but 105 flights hardly compares to the thousands made by Concorde over 20 years!

[@itsmegp46]

@bigisezhi I'm not all together sure about that. Once the Concorde flew, the US SST was cancelled there was really no incentive to continue research and improve the breed. Don't forget, the original Dash 80, (the 707 prototype) did not have the range to cross the Atlantic. But additional research, improved engine, body, etc. made history. The biggest reason any supersonic commercial jet never succeeded was because most countries, including the US, forbade supersonic flight and its sonic boom.

[@carmadme]

@number1spielbergfan where was the concorde you went on ive been on one and the seats were leather and the trays had clips on them to hold your wine glass still

[@DavidCurryFilms]

It seemed odd that a fueltank would be ruptured by piece of rubber flung from a tyre, not metal. It must have been going pretty fast at the time?

[@trekkeruss]

Where do you get the idea that there are no windows? They are plainly visible in the video. But even if they aren't, what is shown were merely mock-ups, not actual planes.

[@stormrider620331]

Look up the XB-70 this is the Airforce Mach 3 bomber that actually got off the ground and was fairly succesfull for the time (mid 60's) Very expensive also ,,price tag of some 5 plus billion dollars for the 2 aircraft and some 80-90 flights

[@mlcircle]

@tl6973 TU 144 first flight: 31 December, 1968. Concorde first flight: 2 March, 1969.

[@DeltaEagle7700]

True. However, in order for those SST to be successful, it would have to fly supersonicly over land and the ocean. Flying supersonicly over the land was the problem. It creates the sonic boom. Witch in return, disturbes the peace. Flying over the ocean was no problem. That's why there was only 2 buyers for Concorde.

[@StereoSpace]

I disagree that only government funding would allow development. Virtually every other civilian airliner in history has been developed with private investment, including the 747. The reason the technology did not get developed was because Congress passed legislation making it illegal to emit sonic booms over land. That killed the market.

[@MrShobar]

Wrong. The government funding (through the FAA) was essential and was solely to satisfy the staggering developmental costs of the airplane. No private company could financially handle this.

[@AGrandt]

They probably spent less time to test the design, in order to be the first. And as it turned out, the TU-144 was flawed, and not just in that it crashed in Paris, but if I recall, they never managed to crack the secret that the British and French engineers spend so much extra time to develop, details the Russians never managed to copy in sufficient detail. The Concorde was the first plane to supercruise, a feat partially made possible because if it's wings, the Russians never got that right.

[@therearefreasamongus]

Just to set the record straight, the fastest airplane in the world us the SR-71 Blackbird. The fastest manned airCRAFT in the world is the X-15, and the fastest aircraft of all time is the X-43, which is unmanned.

[@bigisezhi]

@itsmegp46 Just the extra fuel required alone would break the bank,let alone the extra maintenance and exotic materials necessary to fly MUCH faster than a speeding bullet.They had to strip museum pieces for the parts to continue to fly her. The Concord would have had to be of a much larger scale than the mere100 passengers(British Airways)92 passengers(Air France)to be truly successful. Plus, the upper end first class passenger market truly collapsed post 9/11 and has never recovered since.

[@SpeedyNeutrino43]

I've been a commercial pilot for 20 years....no, nothing so grand as a jet, much less an airliner....and everytime I go up I think about the pioneers like Orville and Wilbur Wright, Glen Curtis, Louis Bleriot and Otto Lilienthal. To this day when I step aboard a commercial airliner I'm mindful of the hostile environment I'm about to be in, safely transported in comfort. Usually I'm surrounded by whining, complaining people who are upset over things as trivial as the meal they were served.

[@Farmerpilot13]

The concorde worked.........it just used a lot of fuel... as expected since it had to use its afterburners to go supersonic...it was retired in part because of rising fuel costs

[@CaptBubble]

Correct, TU 144 WAS flying before Concorde. I never said it was not! It also went slightly faster, with a longer range and bigger payload. Also true is the fact that their industrial espionage system stole much design data from the British and French. Also true is that they did not get the crucial structural/aerodynamic data, so TU 144s frame could only take half the G of Concorde, leading to several catastrophic failures and a much shorter career, mostly relegated short local flights

[@blueboby]

Hello everyone i am an extreme aviation enthusiasist and i just want to say that I completely respect america, and i live here its classic and everything but, most of the aviation technologies and ideas were stolen from german aircraft... and russian aircraft. bottom line is that America are best at IMPROVING exist technologies. and i thank them for that because when I look in a concept aircraft book, i see all those beutiful experimental planes! oh and bomberguy you have the best aviation vids!

[@itsmegp46]

@bigisezhi I don't know how much money the SST was losing, but at $15,000 a pop, Paris to NYC, someone was making money. They served the best food, champagne, etc., delivering me to Paris or London in 3 1/2 hours. I'll be able to tell my grandkids when they're old enough, I did something they probably won't be able to in their lifetimes. And yes, it was a gorgeous plane.

[@andrelgemina136]

Beautiful l 2000 and 2707

[@andrelgemina136]

Hm kind of reminds me the l2000 is kind of familiar to the TU 144

[@lordofbore]

true ,dont get me started on the "specail relationship" remember the TSR2?

[@Bomberguy]

The US SST contract was $440M and it was canceled, actual cost ? Concord development cost 6X what was planned, over 1.1 Billion Pounds (approx $2.5 billion US). But in terms of GNP the relative cost to Britain and France was much higher. Concord was a brilliant aircraft but it never really made any economic sense, it was a smart move for the US to kill their SST program. However, Concord laid the groundwork for Airbus and that is probably it's greatest legacy!

[@Laxpowertoo]

I think the US military tour going on in the far east at the time may have added to a lack of government funding for costly projects like this. I still think its a shame they cancelled. Who knows what would have come out of this.

[@EATSLEEPJD]

Hope supersonic transport becomes a big deal again, Or bring the modified version of the Concorde back.

[@SingularlyDatarific]

You know what would be revolutionary? If the comments section stopped bickering about their respective countries and talked about the damn plane featured in the video.