Jump to content

Talk:Boeing 2707

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ArthurDent006.5 (talk | contribs) at 06:31, 3 June 2015 (Concorde material on this page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Question

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]