Douglas Designations

[hesham]

I believe D-459 (XB-42) when modified to XB-42A in Santa Monica became DS-740. -SP

I think that's impossible Steve,you know Douglas D-727 was export version of F4D-2,
and it appeared in 10/1957,how come the XB-42A was gived the designation DS-740,
and that Mixmaster ended its life in 1949 ?!.

 

[Steve Pace]

It's just my belief - need proof. -SP

 

[Stargazer]

I have DS-459... AND Model 740 myself. Douglas designations are pretty complicated. Both numbers were used for the A-42, but perhaps not in the same system or sequence.

 

[hesham]

I think that's not right,one exception,if this aircraft used for testing anything during 1950s ?.

 

[Stargazer]

I think that's not right,one exception,if this aircraft used for testing anything during 1950s ?.

I can give you lots of examples where the Douglas system just wasn't "right". Possibly something to do with Santa Monica vs. El Segundo... I think Steve was right about the fact that a change in factory could result in a change in numbering system. True, the "740" is odder than the rest, and should be taken with caution. But it is by no means the only oddity in Douglas designations... :

 

[hesham]

Stargazer,even Steve wants a proof for that,what's yours ?.

 

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,even Steve wants a proof for that,what's yours ?.

Why are you attacking me on this subject? I never claimed it was true, just said it wouldn't be the first incoherence in Douglas designations.

 

[hesham]

Stargazer,


I never attack anyone,but I want to say; Douglas D equal DS,no different,even Tony Butler
said that, the XB-42 and XB-42A were given the designation D or DS-459.

 

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,


I never attack anyone,but I want to say; Douglas D equal DS,no different,even Tony Butler
said that, the XB-42 and XB-42A were given the designation D or DS-459.

Did I question this? hesham, so please stop this nagging at once.
You are trying to create an argument when there is no need for that.

499 = XS-3 Stiletto (1949 project)
509 = DC-4 for 86 passengers (1938 project)
1004 = Skybus (1945 project)

Neither the 500-999 series nor the 1000+ series is the continuation of the 100-400 series. They were used at the same time!

1009 = postwar pressurized DC-4 (1945 project)
558 = Skystreak (1945 project)
490 = XC-114A prototype (1945 project)

This shows that the three systems were used at the same time, and so they can't be in the same chronology.
Most likely each was used by a different factory (Long Beach, Santa Monica, Tulsa).

 

[hesham]

Stargazer,


I try here to explain a history fact,that's the Douglas company used two series
500 and 1000,but the 500 one was related to 100-400 series and followed it,
I can answer on your question;


- for 1000 series,it was begun at late of 1945,and not related to 100-999 series,and it
was called "Model" not "D".


- for D-499 (X-3 Stilletto) the request began at December 30,1943,and the design done
in June 30,1945.


- for D-509 (DC-4) was post war civil model of 1945,and not in 1938.


- for D-558 was in late 1945.


- for D-490 (XC-114A) was appeared in early 1945.

 

[Stargazer]

the Douglas company used two series 500 and 1000,but the 500 one was related to 100-400 series and followed it

If the 500-series continued from the 400-series, then explain this: the last designations in the 490 range were for 1945 projects. So supposing the series just continued into the 500-series, why do we have:

• DS-527 = DB-7A (1940)
• DS-531 = A-20A Havoc (1942)
• DC-5-535
• DS-538, -539, 543 Invader (all from 1941)
• DS-552 = A-24B Dauntless (1942)

... and I'm only giving a few examples. So you see, your theory is WRONG. These aircraft in the 500-series were from a different series; they were ALL developed and built at the El Segundo Division (formerly Northrop) and consisted mostly of combat aircraft. The 500-series continued up into the 900- numbers, although by that time it wasn't El Segundo anymore and not just combat aircraft.

for 1000 series,it was begun at late of 1945,and not related to 100-999 series,and it was called "Model" not "D".

Again, totally WRONG. There are DS-, D-, TS-, DTS- and DM- designations throughout the 1000-series. When there already was an aircraft type designation (DC-4, DC-6, etc.), then the Model number was suffixed to it exactly as it had always been done (DC-4-1009, DC-6-1198, etc.). When there wasn't, the project could be refered to as a proper Model, a Design Specification (DS-1131, DS-1289, etc.), a Type Specification (TS-1119) or later a Douglas Type Specification (DTS-). Sometimes several designations existed for the same project (the DTS-1910A is also called the DC-8-1910A; the Model 1333 is also called the DS-1333; the DS-1225 is also found as the DTS-1225). The difference between these prefixes is a bit obscure but probably denotes different stages in the development of the program. Also let's not forget the many mistakes done over the years by various historians/authors, like systematically adding D- prefixes to Douglas projects for instance.

You are probably right though in saying there were only two systems. However the REAL continuation of the 400-series was the 1000-series. The first projects in that series are from 1945. When Douglas acquired the assets of the first Northrop company, their numbers were still only in the 200 range. They probably decided that the new branch's designations would start at 500. They hadn't planned that at some point in the future the Long Beach designations would rejoin the El Segundo ones and that the two systems would be in conflict.
In fact, there is a strong possibility that there may have been a few duplicates before someone decided to jump straight to the 1000 range of numbers: indeed, we have DC-4-509 (my mistake here, you're right, 1945) which definitely wasn't El Segundo and doesn't fit in the 500 chronology.

 

[Stargazer]

SOME INSIGHT INTO DOUGLAS'S EARLIEST MODEL NUMBERS

The earliest Douglas Model number properly identified is "109" (as in DC-1-109). What about the first 108? Did they exist? Were they used at all?

A finding aid recently published on the web has enabled me to lift at least a corner of the veil.
It is entitled The Donald Douglas Collection of Corporate Documents, Engineering Drawings and Library Materials 20-01-07 and was prepared by K. Williams.
Published by the Museum of Flight Archives in Seattle, it is unfortunately full of typos but after some adequate processing and cross-referencing it I have been able to extract some useful data from it.

The second and most interesting part of the 141-page document is entitled "Douglas and Davis-Douglas Company Engineering and Model Drawings" and lists all the company drawings that are part of the museum's collection.

A list of 990 distinct entries is provided (with a few near-duplicates), each pertaining to a particular company drawing. For each entry we get the following information:

• MANUFACTURE – This is in fact the name of the manufacturer as it appears on the document. Most of the time it is "The Douglas Company" but sometimes it's "Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc.", "The Douglas Aircraft Company", "Davis-Douglas Company" and even "Courier Monoplane Co - Long Beach, CA" (more on that later). Two entries are "Boeing Airline Company" and one is "Bendix Products". Altogether a not very revealing or interesting piece of data.
• MODEL – This is a very interesting element but you have to clear all the typos first: "O-24" for O-2A, "C-478" for C-47B, "XOL" and "XDL" for XO-2, "XO-1A" and "XO-19" for XO-14... all the result of some badly calibrated OCR software (but of course working from vintage scans probably didn't help). Hyphens are often missing, so you can get "O2B", "O-2-B" or "O-2B" for exactly the same type...
  Interesting entries here are the 1925 "XNO-1" (an Army Night Observation project); the 1927 "Milan III" (related to the M-3 mailplane?); "Douglas Special Observation Plane", the initial company name of the XO-14; the Model "COD" (for Corps Observation Douglas, maybe?); as well as the presence of an obscure 1929 type, the Courier Monoplane Co. MT-1 (Douglas involvement, if any, is not known).
• DRAWING NUMBER – Surprisingly, this is the most interesting piece of data in the list. Why? Because many of the drawing numbers give us a key to the early model numbering system used at Douglas! Once the list has been reordered by drawing number, a clear pattern suddenly emerges.
  Each distinct Douglas model has drawings that start with a distinct number! Earliest found is "4" (although the type is described as "unknown") and the last is "48", which is the 1927 M-4S mailplane.
  Sequence of numbers is perfectly chronological and matches almost exactly the sequence of the constructor's numbers, but of course not exactly because some models were never built, and also because the order in which the contracts were obtained did not always match exactly the order of construction.
• TITLE – Unsurprisingly, a description of the drawing. Usually technical details, but sometimes you get full plans ("Douglas Bomber B-43 Model Plans" sure sounds good!). If anyone's near Seattle... (hint, hint).
• DATE – When it's known, this provides a range of years that shows for how long a certain model was studied/developed/modified at Douglas. There are however a few typos here too, some of which become obvious when reorganizing the list by Models (identical model, identical date, drawing numbers in the same sequence but totally different year is a good sign of that).

Below is a small chart of the early model numbers that clearly emerge from analyzing all this data. Of course, the types described as "unknown" may not necessarily remain unknown if someone with a good knowledge of early Douglas planes could actually go through these documents.
It is also likely that some of the many documents that have no drawing number indicated might contain Detail Specification numbers or other elements of identification of some kind.
(NOTE: In case any of you should think the whole thing is a figment of my imagination or that I drew hasty conclusions, I can send you by e-mail the Excel file which contains my reworking of the original data, in case you're interested).

4		?		nd
9​		O-2		1924-29
10​		DT-2B		1924
11​		Commuter		nd
12​		M-4		1925-28
13​		DOS		1924-30
14​		DAT, C-1		1924
16​		XNO-1		1925
18​		T2D-1		1925-29
20​		?		nd
22​		?		1926
26​		O-2BS		1927
27​		XA-2		1925-27
28​		Navy Training Plane		nd
29​		O-2C		1926
31​		Milan III		1927
32​		Douglas Special Observation Plane, XO-14		1927-28
36​		Type XII Bomber		nd
39​		?		nd
48​		M-4S		1927

 

[hesham]

Stargazer,


I agree with you about 1000 series,many un-logical number in it,but I discovered that;
the "DS" series was carried its design specification number and not the company designation
number,and for example,the XA-26 was called DS-536.

 

[hesham]

And also here is a 3-view to Douglas DS.543 or A-26C.

 

[Stargazer]

MEA CULPA! I wrongly assumed a couple of posts above that "XNO-1" could not be a proper designation related to a Douglas project.

In fact I just came across this piece of information:

The first D-12 engines received by the Navy were rated at 350 hp at 1,800 rpm. The contract weight, limited to 720 lb with reference to the
latest improved CD-12, was found to have been reduced by 52 lb. The Navy did not regard its first D-12 engines in their true capacity as power
plants for high-speed or fighter airplanes but used them as a sort of smaller and improved Liberty on a series of newly evolved Torpedo or
Observation aircraft which barely passed the 100-mph mark. These aircraft were the Douglas XNO-1, Martin MO-1, and Martin M2O-1;
also, the Curtiss CT ended its career with two D-12 engines installed.

So it was not "N" for trainer coupled with "D" for Douglas in the U. S. Navy system, as I imagined. In the very early stages of that system, the order was reversed. Constructor-Number-Mission instead of Mission-Number-Constructor. So logically it should have been an observation aircraft (a Douglas design built by the Naval Aircraft Factory, given the "N" letter). Except... it WASN'T! The N.A.F. did indeed build NO-1 and NO-2 aircraft but these had nothing to do with Douglas at all!

Douglas DID have an XNO-1/XNO-2 project... but in the ARMY system, a Type VIII Night Observation design!

Sorry if this confused anyone. It's not the only case where the early Navy and Army designations collided. Douglas had an O2D in the Navy and an O-2D in the Army (hence the importance of properly hyphenating!).

 

[hesham]

Hi,


also to proof my word about DS meant the Specification number and not Douglas
company designation;


DS-339 was for DB-7B
DS-354 was for DB-7C
DS-531 was for A-20 & A-20A
DS-434 was for P-70

 

[Stargazer]

also to proof my word about DS meant the Specification number and not Douglas
company designation

PROOF? Of what? Stop this. You didn't prove anything. Proof is when you can provide a whole bunch of conclusive and repeated elements, not isolated bits here and there. Let me remind you that your initial argument was that part of the list was Specifications while another part was Models. Now you're saying you want to prove they were all Specifications? You are a bundle of confusion...

I admit I also made the mistake of using the word "Models" (sounds more catchy, eh?) when referring to the early numbers recently discovered, but they were not. The Douglas numbers were first and foremost Specification numbers. Always were. From the earliest aircraft to the latest MDD products. Prefixes varied (DS, TS, etc.) but they were not considered as models. "DC-3", "DB-4", "DF", "M-4", these were models. Military designations too were used as "Models": "O-2", "B-23", "C-47", etc.

Now why do we sometimes get "D-" Models"? Because when the aircraft design was considered for production and didn't fit in the DC-, DB- or other model series, they used the prefix D- followed by the Specification number. That's why the aircraft built to Detail Specification DS-557 became simply the Model D-557. Now why did they drop the "D-" from time to time (e.g. Model 1317), I don't know. What matters is that these Model number were DERIVED from the Specification number, but the two designations were distinct. One followed the other. Not all DS-, TS-, SS-, GS- Specifications led to a model.

The Model DC-3 that was built according to Detail Specification DS-294 was designated DC-3-294... The DC-3A that was built according to Detail Specification DS-405 was designated DC-3A-405... The DC-6 that was built according to Detail Type Specification DTS-477B was designated DC-6-477B... The DC-6B that was built according to Detail Specification DS-1198 was designated DC-6B-1198... It always worked like that.

hesham, you are kind of forcing me to attach part of a document I'm not supposed to share... but I'll post just two page of it as an example. I think it's necessary because otherwise you will go on and on about this nonsense. Here is an extract from the Douglas Specifications List (I don't have it in full, only parts of it) and you'll see clearly the Specification columns and the Model column which is distinct.

 

[hesham]

Stargazer,


obviously you don't understand what I meant,so please close this conversation.

 

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,


obviously you don't understand what I meant,so please close this conversation.

I spent an hour just preparing the above to explain things better to you, even posted two docs I'm not supposed to share, and you can't even appreciate. You keep wasting my time and energy on this forum. If it depended on me you'd be banned.

 

[AM]

Hi Stargazer!

Magnificent documents! ! ! Maybe you have some more pages?

 

[Maveric]

Yes Star, we want more...

 

[nugo]

Hi All!
Yes Star, we want more...my friend Stargazer2006

 

[AM]

Hi all !!!

From Swissair catalogue:
DTS-1225 = DC-6B
DS-1237 = DC-6B (reg. HB-IBA & -IBE)
DS-1807 = DC-6B (reg. HB-IBI)

From e-bay:
DS-1289C = DC-7C-1299C
DS-1933 = Design Specification for the DS-1289C

From Internet (DoD document):
DS-2345A = DSV-2C (SLV-2A)

Regards

 

[hesham]

My dear AM,


you meant the DC-7C taken the designation DS-1289C ?.

 

[circle-5]

Douglas C-124 Globemaster II model numbers.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

after study Douglas list well,I can say that,in 1945 the company started two new series,
Model-1000 up to 1967,and D-1500 (sometimes called Model also),the mystery comes
from McDonnell-Douglas,we find MD for ASMT contest was Model-953,we can ask from
where it came ?,we can say the MD began also a new series from Model-900 in 1967 as
I suggest.

Also in 1976,and after amalgamated,the MD continued D-1500 series up to D-3000s.

 

[Jos Heyman]

Hesham

What list are you referring to? The forum discussion does not show a 'list' in the postings of the past three years or so. Please clarify this a bit better.

 

[Steve Pace]

Where's Skyblazer? I miss his inputs. -SP

 

[hesham]

My dears Jos and Steve,

it was just my suggesting,and when you search in Douglas list,you will find many
mysteries,such as Model-953 for AMST ?.

 

[Jos Heyman]

This topic is getting too much like an uncontrolled shambles and I think I will withdraw from this discussion for the time being

 

[aim9xray]

it was just my suggesting,and when you search in Douglas list,you will find many mysteries,such as Model-953 for AMST ?.

I believe that you are referring to the Boeing 953 military transport family; the Model 953-280 was the starting point for the YC-14 AMST.

In the Douglas series, "953" is in the midst of reserved numbers for "Advanced Commercial Transport Studies".

You have previously reported McDonnell Douglas studies leading to the YC-15 AMST as being in the D-915 family http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,512.msg162759.html#msg162759

 

[boxkite]

Douglas Model 2235 -> manned aerodynamic reusable spaceship (MARS) circa 1961

Source: Space Shuttle - Developing an Icon by Dennis Jenkins, Vol. 1, page 129

 

[AM]

Hi

Douglas DTS-1135 = DC-6A (DC-6A-1135)

https://books.google.ru/books?id=QOPpnQAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Douglas+Aircraft+Company%22&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif87nX95fXAhXIF5oKHTZxD5c4ChDoAQhhMAk

 

[fightingirish]

The most suitable topic so far to post the following blog post.

Douglas DC-5 Three View Drawings
A nice set of three view drawings for the Douglas DC-5 aircraft. From Execuform. Credit: Greg Kuklinski

Pictures: https://postimg.cc/gallery/2ztcxdzjo/
Source: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2017/12/douglas-dc-5-three-view-drawings.html

 

[RyanC]

SOME INSIGHT INTO DOUGLAS'S EARLIEST MODEL NUMBERS

The earliest Douglas Model number properly identified is "109" (as in DC-1-109). What about the first 108? Did they exist? Were they used at all?

A finding aid recently published on the web has enabled me to lift at least a corner of the veil.
It is entitled The Donald Douglas Collection of Corporate Documents, Engineering Drawings and Library Materials 20-01-07 and was prepared by K. Williams.
Published by the Museum of Flight Archives in Seattle, it is unfortunately full of typos but after some adequate processing and cross-referencing it I have been able to extract some useful data from it.

The second and most interesting part of the 141-page document is entitled "Douglas and Davis-Douglas Company Engineering and Model Drawings" and lists all the company drawings that are part of the museum's collection.

Those two documents are now "dead". Mind uploading them?

 

[boxkite]

Source: Airbus : la veritable histoire by Pierre Sparaco (p35)

 

[hesham]

Source: Airbus : la veritable histoire by Pierre Sparaco (p35)

Wow,great find my dear Boxkite.

 

[nugo]

Hi All!

Douglas Model 689---DC-9 ?

There may be an error.
Maybe Model 889 or 869, who knows ?

 

[hesham]

Hi All!

Douglas Model 689---DC-9 ?

There may be an error.
Maybe Model 889 or 869, who knows ?

I think my dear Nugo is right.

 

[Stargazer]

SOME INSIGHT INTO DOUGLAS'S EARLIEST MODEL NUMBERS

The earliest Douglas Model number properly identified is "109" (as in DC-1-109). What about the first 108? Did they exist? Were they used at all?

A finding aid recently published on the web has enabled me to lift at least a corner of the veil.
It is entitled The Donald Douglas Collection of Corporate Documents, Engineering Drawings and Library Materials 20-01-07 and was prepared by K. Williams.
Published by the Museum of Flight Archives in Seattle, it is unfortunately full of typos but after some adequate processing and cross-referencing it I have been able to extract some useful data from it.

The second and most interesting part of the 141-page document is entitled "Douglas and Davis-Douglas Company Engineering and Model Drawings" and lists all the company drawings that are part of the museum's collection.

Those two documents are now "dead". Mind uploading them?

Not at all, Ryan, but I'm afraid I could only find the first one on my HD. Here it is: