Curtiss Aircraft List

In the "Fana de l'Aviation" #186, at least, is it allowed to post a scan here?

Tophe said:

In the "Fana de l'Aviation" #186, at least, is it allowed to post a scan here?

Click to expand...

Low-res, medium-sized scan, I guess so. Something like a 500 pixel wide pic would do. Don't forget to add the credits.

From "Le FAna de l'Aviation" #186 of May 1985 (from the book Docavia #22 'Hawk 75'), here is the H-81A with its civilian experimental code:

When I came across this wonderful document on eBay, I couldn't help recreating it here for the enjoyment of all the Curtiss and/or U.S. Army Air Corps lovers around... Shame the Navy Hawks were not included in the genealogy! (title is my own).

One of my favorite photos from the Curtiss archives is this August 1, 1930 photo of experimental modification of a standard Model J-1, Curtiss Robin . (with Wright J-6-5 Whirlwind)
Seems to be a quite an unusual experiment with overhead floating ailerons. (and you can see the original ailerons are still normal on the wing) Close inspection shows a fairly elaborate and involved mounting and operaing system, It appears to have a chain in the operating cable links. I hope you enjoy the novelty as much as I do.. re-designation was model J-3

Very nice, Joe! No, I don't think I ever saw that variant before. Fantastic!
I have found one unusual variant though, a Robin 4C-2 with leading edge slats:

The 1946 Curtiss Aircraft List

joncarrfarrelly said:

You have to bear in mind that the Curtiss list was generated after the fact in 1945 and was primarily based on, quoting D & H, "C-W Report 5789" and "miscellaneous correspondence and records". The authors point out that while the list is a Curtiss generated document it nonetheless has numerous errors and anomalies that don't match other Curtiss records. Also it seems that all published project lists have been based on this Curtiss document thus repeating and compounding its errors, anomalies and omissions. They conclude that a lot of research remains to be done.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I recently ran across a paper copy (actually a photostat) of what appears to be the same list. I don't have the Schiffer book, so I don't know if they reproduced the list or transcribed it. So, for your viewing pleasure - the Curtiss Aircraft List.

.

.

...and the last set. Enjoy!

Thanks a lot aim9xray a worthy contribution

aim9xray said:

For what it's worth, I recently ran across a paper copy (actually a photostat) of what appears to be the same list. I don't have the Schiffer book, so I don't know if they reproduced the list or transcribed it. So, for your viewing pleasure - the Curtiss Aircraft List.

Click to expand...

This is fabulous! So much better to have the original company document! Curtiss aircraft were my reason for becoming an independent aviation researcher in the first place... so you have no idea what it means to me! Thank you so much.

Marvellous.... This will keep me of the streets for a while. Thanks.

Thanks so very, very much! -SP

Ditto. A wealth of information for the discerning Curtiss researcher...

Stargazer2006 said:

Ditto. A wealth of information for the discerning Curtiss researcher...

Click to expand...

The Curtiss models list has been a pet project for me for over two decades. The 1945-46 version of the company list is extremely interesting but close scrutiny reveals quite a few mistakes that must surely be the result of scribes copying data which had already been copied before...

Since the list is based on the so-called "1935 System", and was gradually expanded over the years, each revision likely brought its lot of typos and inadequacies as much as valuable information. It's really clear for instance that the bottom of the pages usually present types that were omitted and rediscovered once the list had been typed... (see the bottom of page 8 in particular). There must have existed several versions of this list between 1935 and 1945. Perhaps not one every year but at least a handful of them. One can assume, despite the mistakes mentioned above, that the 1945 version has integrated previously omitted types.

Obvious bloopers can easily be put to rest: multiple confusion between the letter "L" and the number "1" for instance, or between the letter "A" and the number "4". Some are a little more subtle but can easily be corrected by any serious Curtiss researcher: N-9 instead of N-8 for Model 5, R-6 and not "Q-6" for the 1922 Army Racer, P-1F and not "81-F" for Model 34M, O-1E and not C-1E for Model 37I, XF7C-1 and not XF1C-1 for Model 43, XBT-4 and not "KBT-4" for Model 46... These are only a few of them but it shows you how very cautious one must be when dealing with such a document, even if it emanates from the source. Scribes were employees, not researchers or historians. They probably didn't even know about the things they typed.

Another, more subtle and upsetting problem is to be found in the way the lines were drawn to separate the types, especially in the first few pages. There are cases when the line splits the info of a type in two, while in other cases the line is missing and gives the impression that two separate types belong to the same number. Also, if type numbers in the first column are placed on the same lines as the aircraft type that they designate (which seems logical), this doesn't mean that the aircraft type immediately below also pertains to the same number. It may or it may not. There are cases when it clearly does, and others when it clearly doesn't, and the author simply attempted to place the types chronologically. Perhaps also the numbers are not always correctly aligned: see Model 43 for instance. The number ought to be on the next line...




A researcher such as Peter Bowers, a specialist of Curtiss lore and author of the Putnam book on the subject, must have had access to a similar list considering the precise sub-type numbers he provides. However, there is a significant number of designations in the 1945 document that do NOT appear in Bowers's book... just as there are quite a few bothering differences and inadequacies. Perhaps the document that Bowers accessed had more accurate or up-to-date data, perhaps not. But if I'm to trust the 1945 list and compare it to what Bowers (and subsequently all other sources on Curtiss) have written, there are some obvious problems. Here are a few of them:

• Model 3: the list clearly gives it as the Canada night mail of 1916. Bowers said that the Canada was omitted in the 1935 system. The C-1 Canada prototype of 1915 was a bomber for Britain, not a U.S. mailplane, but still according to Bowers, there were 11 more Canadas unaccounted for. The 1945 list seems to indicate that the production variant was used as an early mailplane in the U.S... However, the C-1 prototype was built in Toronto (hence its name) but these Canada aircraft are said here to have been produced in Buffalo. Was the Model T triplane boat (also known as the Wanamaker Triplane) given by Bowers as the Model 3 because it was in the same box as the Canada? There is actually nothing here to indicate that the triplane received a model number in 1935.

• Model 7: Bowers gives two distinct aircraft under that number, the Model FL triplane flying boat, and the Judson Triplane, but the list makes them one and the same. Close scrutiny of the photos of these types does not prove that they were identical but they have enough in common to justify their receiving a common model number.

• Model 20: Bowers and others give this as the Crane, an amphibian development of the MF-Seagull, and date it 1924. If you look at the list you will see that the Crane is NOT the Model 20, it comes just before it. And it's not related to the Model 19 that comes before it either. Also, the date "1924", which was repeated all over, is illogical: 1°) the MF Seagull was a dated design by 1924, and 2°) the 1935 system followed a chronological order, so there is no way a 1924 design would have made it as the Model 20. So either it WAS part of the Model 20, along with the Seagull (and therefore "1924" is a typo for 1920 or 1921) or it was a 1924 and it can't be the Model 20.

• Model 34: The first aircraft listed under that number is just plainly wrong. It is the F4C-1 "aluminum alloy design", also known as the Curtiss-Hall "Iron Duke", is quite different from the Hawk series, and has its own entry as the Model 39 later on. However, the engine given for it, the Curtiss S-3, is not correct, since the F4C-1 used a Lawrence J-1. This wrong entry (with typos on top) may explain the rumors that the XPW-8A had a forgotten Navy equivalent designated "F5C-1" which of course doesn't appear in any photo or document.

• Model 48/51: there is great confusion throughout this list as to which variant of the Fledgling fell under which number. Bowers states that military variants were Model 48 while commercial or civilian variants were Model 51... It sounds nice and logical, but that's not what the list suggests.

• Models 84I, 96 and 98: According to the 1945 list, the last sub-type of the SB2C Helldiver series was given to the BT2C-1. Now Bowers and all the others claim that the BT2C-1 was the Model 98... but that's not what this document says at all! Model 96 is given for the XBTC-1 and Model 98 for its XBTC-2 development!

These are only some of the most blatant examples, but there are quite a few more puzzling or upsetting differences between the "official" version we've read in the books and the information provided by the company-produced list. Which would you rather trust? Hard to tell. One document alone is not enough, and if Bowers and the others had access to more accurate versions of the list, or could back up their claims with perhaps captions at the back of company photos or in the corner of blueprints, they still may be right...




Finally, a few interesting elements I noticed in the list:

• Model 30 (NBS-1) = Design L-85-1

• Model 31 (CS-1) = Design H-510-1

• Model 36 (NBS-4):already named the Condor before evolving into the B-2.

• Strangely enough, the O-13D observation type is not listed as a Falcon but as another Flegling... Another typo? That is probable.

• Model 42 (R3C): appears as another Lark. Given the use of the name Lark for the Model 41, it does seem extremely strange that it would have been also used for the R3C Navy Racer, as this list suggests. But if it's true (and after all, Curtiss used identical names for sometimes extremely different designs) then it has never been written before in any Curtiss book or article.

• Model 43 (XF7C-1): prototype was not called Seahawk but just plain Hawk.

• Model 48 (N2C-1): the production N2C-1 is said here to have carried the strange company name Short Pan!

• Model 87: a Hawk 75A-6 proposal was a transport variant of the P-40E!

• A variant of the undesignated XP-10 gull-wing pursuit is given as the YP-10 but it could also be a typo.

• Among the most unexpected types built by Curtiss we find the Vought XFU-1 and O3U-1, the Boeing XF7B-1, The Ireland N-2 and N-2B flying boats, and a Rodgers flying boat.

Thanks so much for these clarifications Stephane! -SP

As this topic was becoming confused and unmanageable, I've decided to split it into separate threads. This here topic will be me for the 1935 model system and general discussion or questions. Specific topics are now as follows:

• The original L- designations can now be discussed here:
  http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21232.0

• The Curtiss-Wright CW- designations and P- projects can be found here:
  http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21234.0

• The fake "Model 83" would-be French XP-46 fighter is now here in the Alternative History section, where it belongs:
  http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21233.0

CW- or not CW- ?

elmayerle said:

So the numbers without "CW' appear to be from the main plant while the ones with "CW" are from the St. Louis plant? That would seem to make some sense. Where was the main plant? I know they did operate a government plant in Columbus, OH, but were ordered to transfer the entire operation to NAA.

Click to expand...

Although the Curtiss and Wright companies merged in July 1929 to become the Curtiss-Wright Airplane Co., no attempt was made at first to unify the various products being produced at the various factories. Only the Saint-Louis factory, which took over the Travel Air designs, developed one. Sin-3ce the Travel Air types were known by their numbers (Travel Air 4000, 6000, etc.) it seemed logical to simplify it as Travel Air 4, 6, etc. The unallocated numbers became the recipients for the new designs: CW-1 to -3, CW-5.

However, the rest of the company's facilities had no easy numbering scheme. It is only in 1935 that someone decided that some sense had to be made of it all and introduced a proper design numbering system (actually there was an obscure numbering "L-" system before that, but it would seem that it must have seemed obscure even to those Curtiss-Wright archivists!).

Certainly full of zeal but unaware of many prototypes and models, they elaborated a system that went back, not to the very first Curtiss aircraft of 1908, but to 1916. Quite a few of these early types were allocated a number, but others weren't and were omitted. even for one specific type, some versions were identified while others were overlooked. Numbers were more or less allocated in chronological order, BUT that didn't apply somehow to the HAWK and FALCON series, with Models 35 and 38 immediately placed after Model 34 and 37 although they came 6 years later.


Factories

elmayerle said:

Where was the main plant? I know they did operate a government plant in Columbus, OH, but were ordered to transfer the entire operation to NAA.

Click to expand...

Curtiss plants evolved in time. The earliest aircraft were hand-built at Hammondsport. Then factories were set up in Garden City, Buffalo and Saint-Louis. Because of its smaller capacity, Garden City was generally in charge of developing and producing the prototypes, while the production as such was given to either of the other two factories, with Kenmore being added for production of mostly military types. Much later on Columbus was added for wartime production. Toronto was also used at one point for Canadian production, and the various companies taken over by Curtiss in the post-Depression era retained their local facilities, such as Montreal for the Curtiss-Reid Rambler.


The Curtiss SX4-1

hesham said:

Model-29 SX4-1 flying boat glider.

Click to expand...

Given in retrospect the design number "29", this was a special private glider boat built for Glenn H. Curtiss's personal use. The only other similar designation known is SX5-1, which was the Curtiss-Bleecker helicopter (which did NOT make it in the 1935 list, perhaps because it was not purely a Curtiss design).


Smithsonian looting?

Skybolt said:

There is something at the Smithsonian, were the shreds of the Curtiss Aircraft Division ended up after major looting.

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on that?

XA-43 and XP-87 model numbers

nugo said:

but XA-43---Model 100 (source: AAHS Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1 - Srping 2007)

Click to expand...

Maveric said:

We listed the XA.43 as Model 92, but Aerofiles as Model 100 http://www.aerofiles.com/_curthyphen.html

Click to expand...

If the number "92" was allocated to the XA-43 (before it became CW-29), then in all logic it can't also have been the Model 100.
The Model 100 does not appear in the 1946 list, but one can assume that it might not have been allocated at the time the list was drafted.
My belief is that if that number was ever allocated, it must have been either to a very different A-43 proposal, or to the XP-87 before it was changed to CW-29A. I do not have access to the journal of the AAHS Society (if I did I probably would never leave home again!) so unless someone has it we can only speculate.
The reason why these were not CW- in the first place is mysterious. Perhaps they were not planned to be built at Saint-Louis in the first place?


What tenders?

memaerobilia said:

Design #74; Army Observation Type II; Falcon; 1934; Kenmore plant; not built
Design #89; Observation; Twin engine proposal, not built
*Correction: I see that design #89 IS on the list, but was accidentally typo'd as a second #88..leaving a blank spot for 89.

Click to expand...

nugo said:

74 Army Observation Type II Falcon---in which competition was involved ?
78 Pursuit (proposal only) Single-seat midwing---in which competition was involved ?
89 Observation Twin engine proposal Never built---in which competition was involved ?
93---XSB3C-1 and XA-40
and Model 83---?

Click to expand...

hesham said:

I think the Model-80 was for X-608 competition,which led to develope Lockheed P-38,
and the Model-83 was for USAAC Circular Proposal 38-385
also I think the Model-78 was submitted to the same tender as Vought F4U.

Click to expand...

• Design #74 — It came after the Raven and predated the Owl. Perhaps a competitor of the Douglas O-46?

• Design #78 — The fact that it is described as a "single-seat midwing pursuit proposal" excludes the F4U tender because of the term "pursuit" which was only in use in the Army (Navy fighters are always listed as such in the Curtiss list). Also, I noted the existence of a three-view drawing of a "CP40 1/2 low wing fighter proposal" (probably in an old AAHS issue) which corroborates the fact that this was most likely a CP40 proposal.

• Design #80/80A — hesham claims this was for the X-608 Draft Spec. What makes me wince here is the term "fighter" in "Interceptor Fighter Proposal with extension shaft" and "Interceptor Fighter Proposal". As I said this was never used for Army projects!

• Design #83 — Its description as an "Attack Bomber" proposal with a P&W R-1830 engine is an indication that it can only be an Army project. Indeed, the word "Attack" was not used by the Navy until 1948 (before that such types were refered to as "Scout Bombers" or "Dive Bombers"). As Design #83 is from 1938, hesham is right, and it was most likely submitted to Circular Proposal CP 38-385, the March 1938 twin-engine attack bomber competition which produced the Douglas 7A, Stearman X100, Martin 167, North American NA-40 and Bell Model 9.

• Design #89 — In the version of the list provided by aim9xray, the number is properly allocated and not a duplicate of #88. Observation tenders are not as documented as those for combat types. Still, the fact that this is described as a "Twin engine observation" proposal kind of limits our options... Observation types in that period were all single-engine... except for two 1941 types: the Douglas O-53 Havoc, which was cancelled, and the Lockheed O-56 Ventura, which was partly cancelled and redesignated as B-34/B-37. As the date 1941 fits in the Curtiss-Wright list, we can assume that Design #89 was submitted against one of these, perhaps both.

• Design #93: I could be wrong but the A-40 looks so different from the XSB3C-1 that I truly doubt it was ever assimilated to that number. Do we have any clue to this? Not in the Curtiss list anyway!

Jos Heyman said:

Marvellous.... This will keep me of the streets for a while. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Haven't gone out much these past few days I must admit...

From Le Fana 282,odd designation.

In connection with the pilot Etcheverry I came across three Curtiss types: Oriole, Mercury and Wilson! Guess Wilson is a hoax, Oriole is No. 17 but which one is "Mercury"???

wieesso said:

In connection with the pilot Etcheverry I came across three Curtiss types: Oriole, Mercury and Wilson! Guess Wilson is a hoax, Oriole is No. 17 but which one is "Mercury"???

Click to expand...

Never came across either the name Mercury associated to Curtiss type before. I believe this must have been a Mercury trainer using a Curtiss K-6 engine, hence the confusion. I know they typcally used the OX-5 engine, but it is not impossible that other engines were used. Worthy of note is the fact that the Mercury company was based in Hammondsport, just like Curtiss, which probably only added to the confusion.
As for "Wilson", again, it could have been a Wilson type with a Curtiss engine. The only Wilson company I found in those years was Al & Herbert Wilson, Ocean Park, Calif., but since it's a common name, it could have been another Wilson.

I wasn't able to find any pictures online, just mock ups really. Will post if I can locate one!