Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Monday, September 17, 2018

LIBRARY

SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, INC.

485 Lexington Avenue, New York 17, N. Y.

Status Report on the Boeing Model 733-

Supersonic Transport

S.N. WEINER
AIRPLANE DIV., THE BOEING CO.

S O C I E T Y OF A U T O M O T I V E E N G I N E E R S

National Aeronautic and Space Engineering

and Manufacturing Meeting
Los Angeles, California 911G
October 5-9,1964
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Monday, September 17, 2018

Status Report on the Boeing Model 733-

Supersonic Transport

S. N. W e i n e r
Airplane Div., The Boeing Co.

ABSTRACT In most respects, the Model 733 will be a substantial

step forward. It will provide:
At The Boeing Company the development of the Model
733 high performance, variable sweep, SST is progress­ • Excellent reliability and safety
ing steadily. This paper describes the SST technical • Excellent handling characteristics in all flight
progress made to date and the problems associated with regimes
such progress. The operational compatibility of the • Advanced system technology
Model 733 with large current subsonic jets and existing • Improved structural life
terminal facilities is also discussed. In addition, the • Lower airport community noise
performance and economic levels considered necessary
to justify design and fabrication of a production prototype Economics—when fully developed—must prove to be
vehicle are reviewed. at least equivalent to and we hope substantially better
than those of subsonic jets due to high unit work capacity,
not to mention passenger appeal. This has been typical
of previous successful new designs and is considered a
requirement in the case of the SST.
The Boeing Company is now engaged in Phase n-A of
the U. S. Government's supersonic transport competition
under direction of the Federal Aviation Agency. This
second competitive phase, which represents a significant
milestone in the development of a practical and profit­
able airline vehicle, is fast coming to an end. I will
discuss the progress made to date in the development of
the Boeing Model 733 variable sweep, high performance,
supersonic transport and the problems associated with
such progress. I will give you my impression of the
overall program technical status at The Boeing Company
and will review certain factors specifically.

The present phase of the U. S. program is highly

competitive. We may be sure, too, that when this pro­
gram results in the development of a U. S. SST, the
competition will continue keen with our French and
British friends across the Atlantic. This is as it should
be, for if history has taught us anything, it has taught us
that everyone concerned benefits from competition in the
long run.

We are all interested in the SST because it offers a
substantial improvement in speed and service to the
traveling public. Our business as aircraft manufacturers
has always and, will always, be based on these factors—
and so the SST is immensely important to us.
Development of the SST has been difficult because its
range-payload suitability (and hence economic accept­
ability) is so sensitive to the level of technology. We can
now design what we believe would be a satisfactory SST .
Acceptable operational and economic characteristics can
be predicted with a fair degree of confidence. In fact,
we are at a point where actual SST flight hardware is
needed to continue the present pace of technological i m ­
provement.
In response to the FAA request of August 1963, Boeing
submitted in January a basic proposal for the airplane
illustrated in the first slides designated the Model 733-
197. The salient characteristics of this airplane were:
• Cruise speed — Mach 2.7
• Variable geometry wing
• Augmented turbojet engines.
• Conventional structure using titanium alloy
• Design gross weight — 430,000 pounds
• Payload/Range design point — 30,000 pounds/4000
statute miles
• Passengers (tourist) — 150
In addition, Boeing submitted as an alternate pro­
posal, an airplane with a higher gross weight which

1
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Monday, September 17, 2018
would accommodate a greater payload and would thus
show a lower seat-mile cost. The intercontinental v e r ­
sion of this airplane grossed 520,000 pounds and carried
214 passengers—a payload of 43,000 pounds over the
4000 statute mile design range.
733-197
Evaluation by the FAA and by designated airlines in­
dicated that although the designs submitted were poten­
tially capable of achieving the desired performance and
economic characteristics, further effort should be under­
taken to more fully explore and evaluate design improve­
ments directed towards minimum seat-mile costs.
Phase II-A accordingly places prime emphasis on im­
proving the economics of the SST. At the same time,
community noise criteria are spelled out in greater de­
tail and are specifically established at levels below those
typical of today's jet transports. Design for and verifi­
cation of airport compatibility is a further objective of
the Phase II-A work statement.
Airline recommendations and evaluations, airport
operators' suggestions, and the FAA scoring of our
Phase I design, have all been valuable to us in the
continuing work under Phase II-A, giving us excellent
guidance for the work to be done up to November 30,
1964 in improving basic aerodynamic, propulsion,
structural, sonic boom, and noise characteristics of
the airplane.
Our SST is based on our extensive commercial sub­
sonic transport experience. Most of the design criteria
and philosophies governing structural, systems, and com­
ponent design are identical to, or extensions of, those
used in our subsonic programs. Those new approaches
necessitated by increased speed, temperature, and
altitude in the final analysis lend themselves to con­
ventional treatment.
For instance, the decision to cruise at speeds above
Mach 2. 2 entails the use of new structural materials such
as titanium or steel. This, in a sense, is equivalent to
the transition many years ago from wire, stick, and
rags to " d u r a l " , but with the aid of far greater technical
and fabricating resources than were available to aviation
in the 1930's.
2
As another example, we were delayed in obtaining
the desired performance during design of our first jet
bomber (B-47) until we solved the swept wing stability
and engine placement questions. The SST's equivalent
problem was the determination of the exact shape of the
bowed and variable cambered wing. This has been r e ­
solved as a consequence of massive doses of pure r e ­
search backed up by thousands of wind tunnel testing
hours.
There are many important and necessary similarities
between the SST and today's subsonic jets. Some of these
emphasize the degree of compatibility between the sub­
sonic jet and the supersonic jet in the areas of structure,
crew and passenger environment, operations, and
ground handling.
COMPATIBILITY
Structural Compatibility
In the fabrication of the SST, we plan to take advantage
of our structural experience and use the skin-stiffener-
frame basic assembly method, the same we have e m ­
ployed to produce several thousand large commercial and
military jet aircraft. Titanium alloy, one of the mate­
rials we currently expect to use generally for the SST
airframe, has many appealing qualities. The potential of
titanium is so great and its weight effect so marked on
the overall operational economy that it justifies our sub­
stantial development effort in tooling, fabrication and
inspection methods. Titanium has an excellent weight
to strength ratio, temperature stability, corrosion r e s i s ­
tance, and weld characteristics, all of which are d e s i r ­
able for the basic airplane structural material. These
superior qualities coupled with proven methods of con­
struction should provide primary structure with a long
operating life. The price of titanium is relatively high
at present, but aluminum was once very expensive too.
The present trend in titanium price reduction should con­
tinue, but at an increasing rate as more and more of this
material is used.
One of the structural items on which we have made
real progress is the wing pivot. We can design and build
a pivot with suitable functional and structural integrity.
The design problems are straightforward in nature. The
airlines have assisted us in the establishment of our
latest pivot configuration which will meet their mainte­
nance and operational objectives. We are confident that
the variable geometry wing is justified by its significant
safety and performance advantages.
Crew and Passenger Environment
Although the factors of radiation and ozone are new
considerations in commercial aircraft design, they can
be dealt with reasonably, using technology now available
to us. We are aware of the concern of flight personnel
and airline operators in this area. We will continue to
accumulate and examine data to assure that the crew and
passengers are adequately protected before the airplane
begins scheduled commercial service.
The more conventional aspects of cabin environment
such as temperature and pressure were developed for the
SST from the sound technology base we have established
in creating and monitoring our subsonic transport fleet.
The same problems characterize the SST, but only with
the recognized differences in magnitude due to the higher
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Monday, September 17, 2018

potential noise levels and cruise altitudes, inverse PERFORMANCE COMPATIBILITY

temperature differential, and the greater rates of ascent L O W SPEEDS
and descent. The selected cabin altitude design point,
cabin noise levels, and environmental control system of
the Model 733 will provide passenger and crew comfort
better than those of contemporary commercial transports. t- 180 ^ 160
I

£160 1140

Airport Compatibility
LU

Q_ «>/
^t ol20
o
a:
-.f^p^
The Boeing Phase II-A supersonic transport will also
be largely compatible with current and projected airport O S: IOO
and terminal facilities, and a i r traffic control aids. Its 5 120
l_.
100 200 300 400 500
U150 200 250 300
speed flexibility in controlled traffic zones will equal or GROSS WT - 1000 LB LANDING WT - 1000 LB
surpass the best of the present large jets.
I 1 SHADED AREAS INDICATE
NORMAL FLIGHT WEIGHT
Ground Support Equipment and Maintenance
This slide shows a typical arrangement of ground
support equipment around the SST. The servicing and
equipment requirements a r e not significantly different
from those of today's jets. For example, the existing PERFORMANCE COMPATIBILITY
pattern and flow characteristics of today's fuel hydrants FIELD LENGTHS
are satisfactory. Note the conventional location of the
electrical power c a r t , toilet and water servicing units,
baggage loader, galley service truck, air conditioning
trucks, etc. It is noteworthy, in the case of the Model 12,000 7000

733, that the wings can be swept after landing to i m ­ . >»

fei 10,000 - i 6000
prove taxiing clearance and to minimize terminal ramp
space requirements. 2S
5 8000 ^ S 5000 fd r
'**SEA LEVEL
<->ui STD DAY
= 6000 £ 4000

RAMP SERVICING
K 150 200 250 300
GROSS WT - 1000 LB LANDING WT - 1000 LB

LOADING BRIDGE I I SHADED AREAS INDICATE

NORMAL FLIGHT WEIGHT
ELECTRIC POWER

BAGGAGE LOADER
GALLEY SERVICE
AIR CONDITIONING
FUEL HYDRANT TRUCK
LOADING BRIDGE
AIR START
BAGGAGE TRAIN
Runway Characteristics
One of the primary design objectives of the SST is
compatibility with runways, taxiways, and aprons being
used for current subsonic jets. As airplane weight i n ­
c r e a s e s , the ability to meet this goal naturally becomes
more difficult. The use of more than the normal number
of wheels or landing gears directly affects the complex­
ity, cost and weight of the airplane. Our latest SST
configurations minimize airport reconstruction because
up-to-date physical characteristics data received from
the major airports of the world were used to determine
the landing gear and wheel arrangements.
Flying Characteristics
The supersonic transport should present only for­
ward steps in the continuing search for improvements
in flight characteristics. In our endeavors to make the
SST equal to or better than today's passenger transports,
variable sweep gives us an effective way to meet these
objectives. Takeoff and landing speeds and handling
qualities will be excellent. Further, field length does
not present a problem; the airplanes we have been work­
ing with during and since Phase I require generally less
field length than today's Intercontinentals for takeoff,
landing, and stopping. There is real promise that flight
characteristics, control and handling qualities, and
weight and balance characteristics will also be better
than those of today's jet transports. Flying the SST
should require no special crew skills or changes to
present medical or physical standards. With aids which
more accurately simulate airplane functional charact-
istics, crew training requirements could very well be
reduced from today's levels. The 707 pilot will feel at
home in the SST, and we a r e refining control systems
to make his job even easier.
In regard to the SST control system, there is one
point I wish to emphasize - simplicity in a modern a i r ­
liner is not necessarily a virtue. Simplicity must be
tempered to provide the safety and performance demand­
ed for passenger transportation. We know from our
commercial experience that the airlines of the world in­
sist that simplicity be combined with safety and reliabil­
ity. On the 707/720/727 programs all airlines have
readily accepted an added device if it met their high
standards of safety and reliability and was associated
with a significant performance improvement. As exam­
ples , I cite the leading edge installations of our latest

3
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Monday, September 17, 2018

707 Intercontinental models and the trailing edge flap
system of the 727. Both combine pronounced gains in
safety and performance with outstanding reliability.
tential SST problem—we must determine a more rational
means of defining the SST's noise elements. It is i m ­
portant that the correlation between human tolerance of
noise annoyance and measurement standards be achieved
as an early program milestone.

Community Compatibility
Sonic Boom
Noise Sonic boom is still our largest unknown and it con­
As mentioned, an objective of the Phase n - A com­ tinues to impose restraints in size and economics upon
petition i s reduction of Phase I noise levels. For i n ­ the SST designer. A flight profile with its counterpart
stance , the noise level at the three mile point from start overpressure profile illustrates our defined Phase II-A
of takeoff has been dropped from 112 to 108 PNdb, and objective. These objectives were established by the
the level at one mile from the landing threshold from 121 FAA a s design criteria for use during the competition
to 118 PNdb. Likewise, an airport takeoff noise level of phases. Further research may permit changes in the
118 PNdb has been established at a distance 1500 feet to allowable overpressure profile, but we have found,
the side of the runway. Since some of these noise levels although it is somewhat restrictive to do s o , that we can
are less than those characteristic of current large jet attain good payload-range and economic levels within
aircraft, and since noise is primarily a function of engine the 2. 0 and 1. 5 psf limits shown. The relaxation of
thrust and exhaust velocity, the lower SST noise levels sonic boom objective limits should be seriously consid­
are not easily attained. The next slide illustrates the ered in certain airline SST applications.
airport versus community noise relationship during take­
off with the shaded block indicating the noise allowables
specified for Phase II-A. This slide shows that if the
airport can accept a slight increase in acceleration noise
level, a relatively significant increase in takeoff thrust SONIC BOOM
reduces community noise appreciably. In the approach
case, both jet and fan engine noise can now be expected to FLIGHT PROFILE
70,000
fall within the boundaries shown for the variable sweep 60,000
airplane. Recent suppression investigations are most 50, 000 ■ . M 0
encouraging. For example, as shown in these slides we ALTITUDE - FT
40, 000
/ " M I.U
expect to make significant progress in this direction. 30, 000
20,000
10,000
0 —\—
SONIC BOOM OVERPRESSURE
3.0
AIRPORT AND COMMUNITY NOISE
2.0
A P - PSF
; v(
TAKEOFF APPROACH s 1
STD TAKEOFF POWER MAX 1.0
3° GLIDE SLOPE
GROSS WEIGHT STD DAY
140,LOW APPROACH- z-\—r.
POWER SETTING !<*. 0 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500
FORV/S ' „tS^r DTSTANCE - N. Ml

~-FAA PHASE HA

SONIC BOOM
0 80 90 100 110 120 20 40 60
COMMUNITY NOISE - PN db %MAX. DRY POWER EFFECT OF L O W ALTITUDE TURBULENCE
O N S O N I C B O O M SIGNATURE
MIC 1 MIC 2 MIC 3
EUSHADED REGIONS INDICATE POTENTIAL
IMPROVEMENT WITH MECHANICAL
SUPPRESSORS ON BOTH INLET AND NOZZLE

Other trades a r e available during the approach. Some

AP
noise reduction compared to current jet operations may
be obtainable by using steeper glide slopes and other p r o ­
cedural changes under consideration. The all-weather
landing capability may well have a complementary appli­ ♦ l.spsFfNrv
cation in this regard as may further development of the AP —H——^:—r
Model 733'fedow speed approach characteristics. Our
work on increased glide slope is still progressing; how­ MICROPHONE 1
ever, our efforts to date indicate that some increase MICROPHONE 3
over todayfe approach angles of 2 1/2 and 3 degrees may
be feasible.
Data from sonic boom tests conducted at Oklahoma
In the discussion of SST noise criteria one word of City have been encouraging in one sense in that only a
caution is very much in order. We know from experience very small percentage of people have objected to the
with current jets that today's favorable and unfavorable booms. Because of meteorological effects, a variation
reactions do not necessarily correlate with the types of in pressure readings resulted, even with the relatively
noise measurements presently in use. This poses a po­ controlled conditions under which these tests were con-

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Monday, September 17, 2018

ducted. The variations in recorded boom intensity D.O.C. - SONIC BOOM TRADE
apparently had no statistical effect on public reaction. RANGE = 4 0 0 0 STAT. M l .
Thus, at present we have little assurance of the validity
of any arbitrary set of design limits. No significant
structural damage occurred. We can report, too, that
the number of daily complaints steadily decreased as the
test program progressed.

RELATIVE D.O.C.
OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES AND REQUIREMENTS

Payload-Range
The maximum gross weight or size of an airplane is
a function of the task it is expected to accomplish, and
of the technology available to the designer. The size of
the SST i s , of course, a very important design consider­
ation. What is the optimum size for the international
operator — the domestic operator ? Can an airplane
designed for reasonable profit on most international
routes be used as a base for meeting the differing r e ­
quirements of the various shorter range operations ? We
are continuing to concentrate much effort on the problem
of airplane sizing. Sonic boom overpressure tends to
limit gross weight of the SST and so it also plays a major
role in establishing payload-range capabilities at super­
sonic speeds. The next slide shows the payload capabil­
ities of various weights of SST's designed for limiting
sonic boom overpressures of 1. 7, 1.8, 2.0, a n d 2 . 3 p s f
at the design range of 4000 statute miles. (These over­
pressures are shown as finite lines to make the point,
whereas the Oklahoma City tests indicate in reality they
should be shown as bands.)
AIRPLANE SIZING
50,000
1 1000 ST. Ml
A P = 2.3 PS F / ^
45,000
RANGE.
Y'''
.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
RELATIVE GROSS WEIGHT
The technology represented in the size and sonic boom
trade curves is better than that reflected in our Phase I
proposal, and we are confident that the higher levels are
attainable.
For a variety of reasons, it is important that the SST
have subsonic flight efficiency consistent with the primary
supersonic cruise mission. Variable sweep maximizes
subsonic capability in relation to supersonic capability.
On subsonic flight segments, which will comprise approx­
imately 10 to 15 percent of SST schedules, our January
proposal airplane provided a range at high subsonic
cruise speed about ten percent greater than at supersonic
cruise. Subsonic range capability of our latest configura­
tions may be increased by changes being considered for
the airframe and engines. By the way, subsonic range
has a secondary effect on overall range because portions
of the SST mission reserves are proportional to subsonic
efficiency.
<^£o
1J_

A
40,000
'^
PAY-
LOAD 35,000 ■^ ^ - ~
SST SPEED SELECTION
ENGINE MAY JE rfyv 1.7
LBS
SIZED BY AIRPORT
ANDC JMMUN
30,000 ENGIN ESIZED BY
NOISE 1
" C U M iAND BRUISE
25, 000

20,000 PERCENT CHANGE 4

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
IN OPERATING
GROSS WEIGHT - 1000 LBS
EMPTY WEIGHT

The curves also indicate how small reductions in

sonic boom overpressures constrain improvement in the
payload to gross weight ratio at large airplane size. STRUCTURES
Note that sonic boom overpressure limits gross weight
and therefore payload. This overall relationship makes CRUISE MACH NUMBER
the selection of fixed design limits on overpressure very
difficult.

Sonic overpressure similarly has a marked effect on SST Speed

economics as is shown on this "normalized" curve. The
previous data are shown here in terms of DOC at fixed
range. Using a 30,000 pound payload and a 2 psf sonic
boom overpressure as a reference, this slide shows in
terms of economics the penalizing effect of lower over­
pressure values on increases in gross weight and hence
payload.
How fast should the SST cruise ? Many factors such
as temperature effect on structure and system weight;
seal, fluid, window, and other material development;
fabrication, maintenance and operating costs; flight p r o ­
file and block time all had to be carefully considered and
weighed before the initial optimum operating speed could
be established. This plot illustrates how a rise in Mach

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Monday, September 17, 2018

number results in increased stagnation temperature and Analytical Methods

operating weight empty for a titanium airplane operating
at 60,000 feet. A comparison of structural, systems,
and engine weight increases is also indicated. In addition,
a general indication of economic trend is provided. The
rate of change of these factors had, of course, to be fully
considered in the selection of the best initial speed for
operation. The ability to increase this speed will in turn
be related to the effect of speed on cost, weight, and
reliability.
A first approximation of SST comparative economics
is provided by applying the FAA Phase I Request for
Proposal's Direct Operating Cost formula to present and
future subsonic airplanes on the one hand and to our p r o ­
posed SST designs on the other. This method, while
lacking in some respects, at least brings to the problem
consistency of ground rules. As can be seen by the curve,
we did not meet the economic standard of the subsonic
jets with our Phase I offering last January 15th.

The gap between subsonic and supersonic economics

ECONOMICS
It is clear that before we can sell a supersonic t r a n s ­
port we will be required to prove the economic feasibility
of the purchase. The SST must not only be a money
maker in competition with 707/DC-8 aircraft, but it must
be capable of providing monetary returns comparable to
those expected from larger, higher capacity projections
of today's subsonic models. Just as technical advances
were required to obtain the performance we need for the
SST, so may a new look at the factors used in evaluating
economics be in order.
can and is being narrowed. As has been noted so far in
this discussion, we know we have made real progress in
defining and understanding the design trades involved in
the creation of an SST and we have made significant
technological progress. The next slide portrays the
economic trend we anticipate will result from our r e ­
search and design improvement efforts as compared to
the Phase I level of technology. The bands shown for
future technology illustrate the reason for our reluctance
to depend on long range forecasts which are so precise as
to be presented only by the width of a line.

ECONOMIC COMPARISON
There are only three major variables that the a i r ­ IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY
plane manufacturer can control which affect operating
costs. One, the airplane price; two, fuel consumption
(this responsibility is partially related to drag, but is
also shared with the engine manufacturer); and three,
the airplane maintenance characteristics. We can, of
course, affect operating revenues by making the airplane
attractive to the prospective passenger, but at the
moment I am speaking specifically of the cost side of the
equation. Our effort is being directed toward the best
possible performance and reliability at the lowest price.

We must be as factual as possible in our market

forecasts of airline fleet requirements because of the
direct relationship to airplane unit price. As an exam­
ple, if our market forecast is too low, the airplane
price is unrealistically high, confirming the negative
nature of the original estimate. Obviously, accurate
market forecasting permits more realistic airplane
pricing. In the case of the SST, accurate forecasting is SST DIRECT OPERATING COST EVALUATION
,1963
VO DOLLARS
essential to the successful continuation of the program. COST '* O W L t » K > ADJUSTED
ACCOUNT PHASE I RFP METHODOLOGY LEVEL
CREW BASE PAY + HOURLY PAY + G.W. PAY + MILEAGE *63%
PAY BASED ON I960 EXPERIENCE
INSURANCE RATE 5% ON FIRST COST -55%
FUEL
ECONOMIC COMPARISON 1 K / U . S . GALLON -16%
MAINTENANCE A/C LABOR = f (WEIGHT) I
SUPERSONIC - SUBSONIC ENG. LABOR - ((THRUST 8, TBOI I
A/C MATERIAL = I (COSTI I
-13%
ENG. MAT. = f (PRICE & TBOI I

BURDEN 89% OF DIRECT MAINT. LABOR + 23% OF ♦23%

DIRECT MAINT. MATERIAL

DEPRECIATION A / C - 1 2 YEARS TO 15%

PERIOD ENG - 7 YEARS TO 15%
A/C SPARES (10*1 12 YEARS TOO
ENG. SPARES (50%) 7 YEARS TOO
ANNUAL 3000 BLOCK HOURS 3285 BLOCK HOURS
UTILIZATION

As with the market forecast discussed earlier, we must

employ realistic cost factors. The level of economics
shown on this slide compares Phase I cost factors ad­
justed by preliminary cost analysis inputs which we be-
 Downloaded from SAE International by North Carolina State Univ, Monday, September 17, 2018
lieve to be realistic. This belief is based upon the com­
parison of actual in-service economic performance of
our subsonic jets with the early economic analysis and
forecasts we made for these aircraft. Although the
percentage level of those items adjusted downwards is
considerably lower than that of the items adjusted up­
wards, the decreases are associated with items of
greater cost significance.
One comment in regard to fuel. Boeing has con­
ducted detailed and comprehensive studies of fuel
and fuel prices based on supply and demand and refinery
costs in the petroleum industry. It would appear reason­
able to expect jet fuel prices to decline in the future, at
least in 1964 dollars. Our thinking for the present in
the development of our SST is that it may be much better
to plan on using today's fuels in the expectation of price
improvements during the intervening years than to lean
at this time toward special fuels with increased costs.
In passing on to the next slide, which indicates the
improvement to be gained from application of the ad­
justed costing factors shown on the previous illustration,
let me summarize by saying that we feel we can provide
the airlines of the world with an airplane that has the r e ­
quired potential work capability and economics.
ECONOMIC COMPARISON
ADJUSTED D.O.C. LEVELS
The operators of this airplane can have a great deal
to do with whether the industry realizes this potential.
Careful management will be required to control costs,
especially in the accounts affected by utilization and de­
preciation, labor, and in-flight operations. We feel that
increasing efficiencies in these areas represent worthy
targets.
Incidentally, we are presenting the following to the
major airlines of the world for their consideration:
1. Some revision to scheduling policies to permit
SST utilization at annual totals considerably in excess of
3000 hours.
2. Early morning and night departures should be
considered as having possibly greater application to the
SST. For instance, a 6 or 7 AM departure from the
west coast would permit a half day's work after arrival
in New York. Likewise, a 10 or 11 PM departure from
New York will result in a reasonable local time arrival
on the west coast.
3. Adjustments in maintenance, turn around proce­
dure, and dead time should be analyzed to increase work
output. The SST has substantially more work potential
than subsonic jets, but this feature must be fully ex­
ploited in order to produce income in profitable relation
to cost.
4. Perhaps some work is in order with insurance
companies to lower rates through a more equitable in­
surance plan which would lessen the risk to any one
underwriter and maybe incorporate a new approach to
self-insurance. The safety record of subsonic jets and
the safety level established for the SST support such
action.
5. Changes in present flight profiles and operating
techniques must be considered to establish those most
efficient for the SST, or at least to obtain the best avail­
able flight profile.
6. All-out efforts must be made to hold the line or
reduce costs — particularly in labor manhours expended
per seat mile.
As can be seen from this slide, the combination of
improved technology and a realistic cost analysis shows
promise of meeting our initial goal — that of equaling
the best of subsonic airplane operating costs.
An important economic factor I mentioned a moment
ago is on the revenue side of the profit equation. To be
thorough and fair in our analysis we should also credit
the SST with whatever it deserves in terms of passenger
appeal and market responsiveness to innovation and
speed. This is very subjective, I know, but it is also
vitally important as passenger appeal has a direct effect
upon the economic attractiveness of the SST.
CLOSING
I have given you a brief review of some of the key
elements of the Boeing SST program and have discussed
development problems and recent technical progress. I
believe we have now reached a point where the technical
research and development progress justifies the next
major step in the SST program — the design and fabrication
of a production prototype SST test vehicle. The
performance and economic levels of which we are
assured support such action.
We are confident that the overall performance, opera­
tion, and maintenance of the variable sweep Model 733
SST will make it a major long term contributor to the
continuing success of the world's air transportation
business.