OS-113 - 1948 US Navy Interceptor Fighter (alternatives to the F3H Demon)

Bill S

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
17 May 2008
Messages
678
Reaction score
1,401
Mark N sent me an email that someone on the forum was looking for info on the V-362.

Two things working against my info. The microfilm is horribly dark and was not the
clearest to start out with.

Here goes: It comes from reel 176 page 408

V-362 Interceptor Design Study
Powered by two XJ-40 Westinghouse Jet Engines
Length is 52'-0"
Span is 45'-(6)" the 6 could be an 8 or 9 or even 5
Height is 19'-0" again the 0 is difficult to read.

Attached is the scan that fits the 1024 max size for the forum
Enjoy!

If I find something else out I will let you know.

bill
 
This is the best I can can do at short notice. Will take another stab later. It may need tracing in a vector graphics package.

[Updated]
 

Attachments

  • CVS-14079_V-362_Interceptor_Design_Study-drawing.jpg
    CVS-14079_V-362_Interceptor_Design_Study-drawing.jpg
    192.8 KB · Views: 994
Maybe with a RAW format it would be easier to apply some deconvolution.
 
Mark N sent me an email that someone on the forum was looking for info on the V-362.
Click to expand...

It was me :)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,536.0.html


Thanks a lot for that gift!

Antonio
 
Great work, Paul! Couldn't have done better myself. How much time did you spend on this one? And what version of PS do you use?
 
About 45 mins, mostly in GIMP 2.6 on Linux. I'm going open source these days. Its got some nice wavelet based denoising plugins.

Data panel, mostly readable.
 

Attachments

  • Data Panel.jpg
    Data Panel.jpg
    112.8 KB · Views: 645
As an aside, Bill, the image resolution isn't limited to 1024, its the file size which is limited to 1024kb. You can upload 2000, 3000 pixel images provided they aren't larger than 1024kb.
 
overscan said:
As an aside, Bill, the image resolution isn't limited to 1024, its the file size which is limited to 1024kb. You can upload 2000, 3000 pixel images provided they aren't larger than 1024kb.
Click to expand...

My mistake, the eye saw 1024 and thought image not file size.
I could send a larger one this evening, however you have done
quite a bit to help the original.

bill
 
Mark forwarded me a higher resolution copy (4000 pixels), which is what I used. I don't think theres much more can be done, given the source.
 
overscan said:
Mark forwarded me a higher resolution copy (4000 pixels), which is what I used. I don't think theres much more can be done, given the source.
Click to expand...

Agreed. That particular reel of microfilm is dark, grainy, and some images are slightly out of focus.
I will keep an eye out as I travel through the reels.

bill
 
Thanks, Bill. This is definitely Vought's submission to the SD-24F specification which ended with the F3H Demon. Being a tailless design, derived from the F7U, it wasn't seriously considered as the tailless F4D was already on the cards and they wanted a conventional backup design.
 
overscan said:
Thanks, Bill. This is definitely Vought's submission to the SD-24F specification which ended with the F3H Demon. Being a tailless design, derived from the F7U, it wasn't seriously considered as the tailless F4D was already on the cards and they wanted a conventional backup design.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that, but I don't see folding wings (the outriggers are outboard of where the wing fold might be) or a tail hook. Two J40s also seem to be overkill. Both the Grumman and McDonnell proposals were single engine.
 
Hmmm. Good points there - I didn't really look at the drawing :)

V-362 is described as a USN interceptor though. Also given how underpowered F7U was, two engines might be sensible :)

Wouldn't you agree there are breaks in the wing surfaces that could allow wing folds? Theres no reason why the outriggers can't be outboard of the folds if they are only needed for takeoff & landing when the wings are down.
 
overscan said:
Hmmm. Good points there - I didn't really look at the drawing :)

V-362 is described as a USN interceptor though. Also given how underpowered F7U was, two engines might be sensible :)

Wouldn't you agree there are breaks in the wing surfaces that could allow wing folds? Theres no reason why the outriggers can't be outboard of the folds if they are only needed for takeoff & landing when the wings are down.
Click to expand...

There appears to be a join line where the break occurs in the ailevon but normally a drawing like this would show the wing fold arc. Also, it's a single-wheel bicycle arrangement and the outriggers would be critical on a rolling carrier deck even it was dual wheel.

The height quoted of 19' is also a problem, since operation from the Essex class meant being compatible with the 17" 6" height of hangar deck.

As far as the F7U being underpowered goes, it wasn't on paper. As it happened, the weight kept going up and Westinghouse not only didn't provide the thrust increase projected, the thrust went down to achieve a reasonable durability and reliability.

However, there was a Vought proposal for the interceptor requirement for which the McDonnell and the Grumman single engine J40 powered candidates were finalists and this might very well be it.
 
Here is a three view from the drawing number right before the previous one I posted, CV-14078 also V-362.
I used a different feature on the scanner/camera to get a better capture.

bill
 

Attachments

  • CVS-14078_V-362_Side_View.jpg
    CVS-14078_V-362_Side_View.jpg
    194.3 KB · Views: 925
  • CVS-14078_V-362_Front_View.jpg
    CVS-14078_V-362_Front_View.jpg
    206 KB · Views: 794
  • CVS-14078_V-362_Top_View.jpg
    CVS-14078_V-362_Top_View.jpg
    204.4 KB · Views: 717
Interesting, and completely different to the first version posted. Quite similar to the earliest P.1103 layouts in some respects.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Where at? And how complete is the collection (and, more to the point... anything on the Pluto/SLAM missile configuration)?
Click to expand...

Vought Retiree Club facility at the Vought Plant. I think the National Archives might have copies of the same as well.
As for the collection being complete, no I don't think so. There are sections cut out of different reels and I have
seen several different lists, but not seen the reels. As for Pluto/SLAM I don't know as there is a small hand made
index that was created when they were looking for info relevant to their restorations, the rest is a tedious, time
consuming roll through the films.

bill
 
Nice finds Bill - thanks!

Getting a strong itch to get back down there in November....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
One of the most interesting of all the post-war US Navy competitions has to be OS-113, which called for a carrier-based interceptor fighter. Below are the identified proposals:
  • Grumman G-86
  • Lockheed L-183
  • McDonnell 58
  • McDonnell 60
  • North American RD-/RE-/NA-1544
  • Republic NP-48/-200
  • Republic NP-49
  • Vought V-362

The winner, of course, was the McDonnell Model 58, which was evaluated as the XF3H-1 Demon and produced in quantity in the F3H-1 and F3H-2 versions.
 
Posted by Pometablava elsewhere
USN New Carrier-Based Interceptor Requirement from 1948 involved six manufacturers with eleven projects

Douglas D-571
Grumman G-86
Lockheed L-183
McDonnell Model 58
McDonnell Model 60
Republic NP-48
Republic NP-49
The rest are unkonwn designs

The Vought V-362 does not appear in Tony Buttler's book but is listed on Bernard Millot's "Les Avions Vought" (Docavia) as an USN Interceptor project from 1948). Anybody has more info on it?

It is not clear which project was the winner. The official decission probably was to McDonnell. Model 58 was produced as the F3H Demon (later redesignated F-3). However, Douglas D-571 was also produced as the F4D Skyray (later redesignated F-6).

Source: American Secret Projects Fighters from Tony Buttler

About Republic's NP code, plese see here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,314.0.html
Click to expand...
 
As it turns out, the Vought 362A which they eventually proposed was very similar in configuration to the XF7U (which was about to fly for the first time) except it had a visual-assist radar in the nose and was powered by two Westinghouse J46 engines. The armament was two "baskets" holding 12 folding fin rockets each instead of 20mm cannon; the baskets extended from the lower portion of the mid-fuselage. It had the two-position main gear (aft for landing, forward for takeoff) that was subsequently incorporated on the F7U-1.

A 362B was also discussed with the Navy. It was powered by a single J40 like the Grumman and McDonnell proposals. It was similar in layout to the F7U but had a single tail and a wing more sharply swept and thinner. It was slightly faster than the 362A (which met the speed requirement) but inferior in climb performance and stall speed. My guess is that it was presented to 1) demonstrate the amount of thought that went into Vought's selection of the 362A configuration and 2) put the knock on the J40-powered competitors.

The above is summarized from Vought's cover letter to BuAer dated 16 September 1948 for "Informal Engineering Proposal - Submission of." Neither Bill or Mark have yet uncovered a three-view of the proposed 362A or B.

Speculation: As previously noted, the 362 design studies which Bill and Mark have found don't show folding wings and one has a non-folding tail too tall for hangar deck of the existing carriers. Since this was to be an interceptor, primarily launched in response to an incoming threat as opposed to loitering at a Combat Air Patrol station, Vought may have initially been considering a beneficial tradeoff between minimum weight (deletion of folding hardware and structural joints, a single tail) and the need to fold the aircraft or even strike it below.
 
The attached illustration was provided to the Navy in Douglas Report ES 21341 dated 31 December 1948. All four airplanes are described as intercepters. It's possible that Douglas proposed one or both of the 592s for the OS-113 requirement as a hedge against the Navy not wanting to risk both its high performance programs on tailless concepts.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas 1948 Interceptors web.jpg
    Douglas 1948 Interceptors web.jpg
    136.7 KB · Views: 621
Tailspin Turtle said:
The above is summarized from Vought's cover letter to BuAer dated 16 September 1948 for "Informal Engineering Proposal - Submission of." Neither Bill or Mark have yet uncovered a three-view of the proposed 362A or B.
Click to expand...

Hey Tommy,

I found two more V-362s this afternoon. On resembles a F-86D without the horizontals. From the top view the other is a cross between a F7U and an Etendarde. I will work the scans up later this week.
 
From the Vought Archives
 

Attachments

  • CVS-14084_V-362.jpg
    CVS-14084_V-362.jpg
    252.1 KB · Views: 478
  • CVS-14072_V-362_General_Arrangement.jpg
    CVS-14072_V-362_General_Arrangement.jpg
    159 KB · Views: 410
Super! Thanks for digging those out. From what I can find in the National Archives, the Vought 362 that was finally proposed was an F7U-1 with a longer nose and two J46s.
 

Attachments

  • Vought 362 3Vu web.jpg
    Vought 362 3Vu web.jpg
    118 KB · Views: 1,137
This is a very interesting:

From Aviation Week,1949,Vol.50, No?, page 11(INDUSTRY OBSERVER):

"McDonnell Aircraft Corp. of St. Louis has a new experimental contract for a supersonic Navy jet fighter. McDonnell got the nod in a recent Navy supersonic fighter competition that involved eight other aircraft manufacturers"

This is a competition of OS-113/XF3H-1 or ? ( 9 manufacturers responded and supersonic fighter competition)
 
nugo said:
"McDonnell Aircraft Corp. of St. Louis has a new experimental contract for a supersonic Navy jet fighter. McDonnell got the nod in a recent Navy supersonic fighter competition that involved eight other aircraft manufacturers"
This is a competition of OS-113/XF3H-1 or ?
Click to expand...

Considering the date and the description, yes, it can only be the F3H competition. The other McDonnell interceptor design from that timespan did not lead to any contract (Model 60, also submitted to OS-113). The next interceptor design for the Navy (Model 71, circa 1950) did not lead to any contract.
 
Tailspin Turtle said:
Super! Thanks for digging those out. From what I can find in the National Archives, the Vought 362 that was finally proposed was an F7U-1 with a longer nose and two J46s.
Click to expand...


Tommy that is what I am finding as well.


bill
 
From the Vought Heritage Archives.


I found this V-362B Armor and Tank general arrangement this afternoon.
It has a different nose and inlet design than the previous V-362 drawings
that I posted.


bill
 

Attachments

  • CVS-21568-V-362B-Armor-and-Tank-Arrangement.jpg
    CVS-21568-V-362B-Armor-and-Tank-Arrangement.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 1,459
This is starting to look like a V-362/362A thread so I will quit with this drawing from September 1948
showing the V-362 with a shorter more rounded nose that earlier iterations.
From the Vought Heritage Archives.


bill
 

Attachments

  • CVS-21588-V-362-Electronics-Install.jpg
    CVS-21588-V-362-Electronics-Install.jpg
    76.2 KB · Views: 1,221
Here is a drawing showing the rocket packs for the V-362.
12 2.75" rockets in each pack.


Courtesy Vought Aircraft Heritage Foundation


bill
 

Attachments

  • CVS-21582-V-362-Armament-Install.jpg
    CVS-21582-V-362-Armament-Install.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 1,030
Bill S said:
From the Vought Heritage Archives.


I found this V-362B Armor and Tank general arrangement this afternoon.
It has a different nose and inlet design than the previous V-362 drawings
that I posted.


bill
Click to expand...

Also note that it has a low wing as opposed to the midset wing of the previous variants.
 
Bill S said:
From the Vought Archives
Click to expand...

Do you have any info on projected performance of the J42 (Nene) powered version?

Piotr
 

Attachments

  • CVS-14072_V-362_General_Arrangement.jpg
    CVS-14072_V-362_General_Arrangement.jpg
    159 KB · Views: 935

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom