Boeing's Forgotten Failure

The Boeing 2707 was Boeing's answer to the Concorde. It could carry more passengers, fly further and at a speed that left the rival European creation in its wake. But Boeing's version of a supersonic aircraft would never make it to the market and leave behind a legacy of failure. What was the Boeing 2707? What would it be like inside? And why it was never built.

America always considered itself at the forefront of aviation technology. While it had been beaten to the market for the world's first jet-powered commercial transport, its Boeing 707 had cemented its place as the gold standard of aviation travel.

But the times were changing. New military technology had opened up the possibility of faster than sound commercial aircraft, turning all-day flights into meer hours, allowing passengers to eat one meal in one hemisphere, before catching the same sunset in another.

In 1962, when it became clear that the European Concorde would go ahead, with the dreaded soviets right behind, the American government gave a signal for local builders to start work on what would become the home-grown version of the supersonic transport. President John F. Kennedy tasked the Federal Aviation Administration with "national aviation goals for the period between now and 1970".

Many believed that the future lay in Supersonic transport, and aircraft designs like the Boeing 747 would only be a passing fad.

The race was on.

The aircraft would need to fly between Western Europe and the Eastern USA without stopping to refuel, a range of at least 3,500 nmi (6,400 km). It would also need to bring traveling fast to the masses, and have a seating capacity of at least 150 passengers.

But unlike their European counterparts, America had a trick up its sleeve. The Concorde design was built around a lightweight, traditional aluminum-alloy airframe.

America on the other hand had experience with other materials like titanium. A titanium airframe had been used on the famous A-12 Blackbird, with an estimated top speed of Mach 3.35 at 85,000' feet.

Thus this aircraft design would need to be built from a titanium structure and for lack of a better phrase, leave the rival Concorde back in the dust.

The US government would launch a contest between three different SST projects - One from Boeing, Lockheed and North American Aviation.

The North American Aviation NAC-60 design didn't make it to the final selection round after being deemed too small and slow.

Lockheeds version would be called the L-2000 and seat over 273 passengers.

The Boeing effort would be called the Boeing Model 733-197, It would have a variable geometry wing, which gave the airframe the ability to take off and land at lower speeds and in less distance than would a comparable fixed-wing aircraft. It would carry 277 passengers (30 first-class and 247 in economy) & be called the 2707-100.

In 1966, the two remaining designs, 2707 and L-2000 went head to head, with the Boeing 2707 ultimately winning the contract in 1967. Lockheed's L-2000 was judged simpler to produce and less risky, but its performance was slightly lower and its noise levels slightly higher.

Boeing's design for the aircraft would go through several iterations, with a -200 model having canards at the front of the plane. The titanium joint to swing the wings out proved much too heavy and was abandoned for a delta-v design. The Boeing 2707-300 seats only 234 passengers and would cost the program 2-years in delays.

Orders by October 1969, for 122 Boeing SSTs by 26 airlines, including Alitalia, Canadian Pacific Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Iberia, KLM, Northwest Airlines, and World Airways. The future was here.

What about onboard?

It had two aisles, with 2-3-2 row seating arrangement at its widest section, with the seats getting smaller as the body tapered off. In the main economy cabin, there were retractable televisions. In the first-class area, every pair of seats included smaller televisions in a console between the seats. But the cabin had tiny windows, only 6 inches wide.

Boeing was confident to have prototypes in early 1967 and the first flight could be made in early 1970 - with the first airline flying a Boeing supersonic transport by 1974.

Why was this incredible machine never built?

The first was the sonic boom. Whilst overblown, the fact is that sonic booms do cause ground issues and would be a significant factor to overcome. Secondly, environmental groups also claimed that 500 SSTs flying daily would deplete the ozone and cause increased humidity in the atmosphere. Lastly, and likely the most important, it came down to money. There wasn't any appitiate for big spending projects.

The cancellation of the program in 1971 had far-reaching consequences. Boeing had to downsize its workforce by 60,000 employees, and a downturn in the airline market.

[FoundAndExplained]

I love Mustard. I am very aware that he did an excellent video on the American Concorde, and as such, I have chosen not to watch his before creating this. So If anything is similar, then it's merely a coincidence. For those who have now seen both, I hope I had added to the topic :)

[Hygix_]

I like how when the plane was split in half, the baggage start fall from the cargo

[digitized_fyre]

I just want to say how impressive the modelling is in this video, and how impressive the amount of information is. I loved the touch of the luggage falling out when you did the cut-away. And while mustard did a video like this, his was wider and was about all three, whereas this is more focused. So well done, and thank you for such a great video

[rafaelfleitas]

As an airline freak, I was counting on this beautiful project to become a reality, when I was on my mid twenties, however, as it was killed before birth, I settled to make my dream of flying supersonic by taking the last flight from Paris to Caracas, on the Air France Concorde in march 1983 when I was comming close to my forties, and I loved it.

[TigerChamp]

7:58 IFE screens in the '60s? Now that's next level.

[TigerChamp]

This plane looks more futuristic to me for some reason and this was in the '60s.

[porschekaiwi]

Flew on Concorde. Grew up with aviation. Flown many times on hundreds of flights since that boom. Boeing and Airbus both have done amazing things to progress what is possible today. But wow! That moment was phenomenal.

[SN]

3:35 Wasn't the A-12 called Oxcart and it was the SR-71 was the Blackbird?

[rangerjones]

@7-18 the luggage spilling from the cutaway is gold!!!

[jamesricker]

The irony is the 747 was designed to do the jobs the SST could not, namely cargo carrying.
Ironically the 747 could haul passengers across the Atlantic far more efficiently than an SST.
The 747 is disappearing from passenger service but the cargo versions are still in production and selling well

[BrokebackBob]

Boeing spent an incredible amount of money on the 2707 and even had assistance from the government and it was still incredibly expensive. Boeing's coffers were seriously depleted by the 2707 project and in the end the queen of the skies, the 747 saved Boeing's bacon and the rest is history. The 747 is still flying today with a few 747-8 intercontinentals and many many cargo configurations criss-crossing the world. The Concord on the other hand is in that bin marked history and resides only in museums.

[NickPoeschek]

The US dodged a giant bullet cancelling the SST, the economics just didn’t make sense. I think one thing you didn’t cover enough was the fuel consumption issue with an SST versus a conventional airliner. My understanding is that the economics were already shaky but the 1973 oil crisis put the final nail in the coffin of the SST.

[nuucha]

I thought that the Mustard video was ready the best one out there on this topic. But this one is also very good as it touches on some additional and unheard of aspects like interior plans. Very nicely done

[myMotoring]

7:14 the animator forgot to remove the cargos before splitting the aircraft in half.

[MrEricSir]

My dad worked on this project and everything here checks out based on what he's told me. One thing I recall that wasn't in the video is that even after deciding on titanium for heat resistance, there were still concerns internally that the wings would overheat at maximum speed.

[johnscanlan]

I very clearly remember when I was 12 years old seeing the TV news report that the U.S. Senate turned down federal financing for the Boeing SST. I was very disappointed!

[scottgamedev]

Great video dude. Keep the great work up

[FranciscoPartidas]

I noticed that many technologies shown in this plane weren't available at this time. TV Screens on every seat on 1970? Not until the invention of LCD screens. Not until the invention of digital or at least small format videotape until late 90s

[shamanbhattacharyya]

I like both your and Mustard's videos on aviation. Especially the fact that you cover aircraft that haven't been built makes it all the more interesting and addicting. I never knew about these things before I started watching your videos. Great work and please make more vids.

[DiegoWeissel]

7:15 those luggages falling was a very naive touch of humour, refreshing indeed in the middle of an ingeneering lecture!