SOR 182 / System 476L - contenders for C-141

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
16,538
Reaction score
19,544
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
In a manner, it may be a little bit of both. Given the T-Tail is in the foreground of the illustration, I would not be surprised if this is a Convair illustration of the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter.

While Convair's proposal in the the competition to build what would become the C-141 would lose to Lockheed-Georgia's, all was not lost. Convair San Diego was chosen to be a subcontractor on the program, manufacturing the C-141's tail assembly.

Valley News (Van Nuys, California), November 2, 1961, Page 123,
"Another California company today had been approved as a major subcontractor on the giant jet cargo transport being developed by the Lockheed-Georgia Co. at Marietta. Ga. The Convair Division of General Dynamics Corp. at San Diego was approved by the U.S. Air Force to build the tail assembly, a contract totaling several million dollars for the first five aircraft. Received Subcontract Follow-on work and subsequent contracts would extend for several a in this major U.S. airplane program."

There are also photos in the SDASM collection of the C-141's tail being assembled at Convair San Diego. Here's one below:
https://flic.kr/p/7WVT9L
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/4559744400/
 
Pioneer said:
Convair Model 63 mockup
Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
More pictures showing the Convair (San Diego) Model 63 mockup and (wind-tunnel) models were uploaded at SDASM flickr Archives today. :cool: See also ASP 2: US Airlifters 1941 to 1961, pages 254-256.
Here a few appetisers:
https://flic.kr/p/2pHkGCD
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHkGCD

https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eF
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eF

https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eL
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eL

https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eA
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eA

https://flic.kr/p/2pHrmMF
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHrmMF

https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1Uy
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1Uy

https://flic.kr/p/2pHqh9h
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHqh9h
flic.kr

23_0036700 Convair Negative Image

87370710 :Piction ID--Plane model molds and other parts---Please tag these photos so information can be recorded.---- Digitization of this image made possible by a grant from NEH: NEH and the San Diego Air and Space Museum
flic.kr flic.kr
https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1Ws
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1Ws

https://flic.kr/p/2pHsxtW
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHsxtW

https://flic.kr/p/2pHkGDv
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHkGDv
 
Last edited:
fightingirish said:
More pictures showing the Convair (San Diego) Model 63 mockup and (wind-tunnel) models were uploaded at SDASM flickr Archives today. :cool: See also ASP 2: US Airlifters 1941 to 1961, pages 254-256.
Here a few appetisers:
https://flic.kr/p/2pHkGCD
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHkGCD

https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eF
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eF

https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eL
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eL

https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eA
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1eA

https://flic.kr/p/2pHrmMF
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHrmMF

https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1Uy
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1Uy

https://flic.kr/p/2pHqh9h
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHqh9h
flic.kr

23_0036700 Convair Negative Image

87370710 :Piction ID--Plane model molds and other parts---Please tag these photos so information can be recorded.---- Digitization of this image made possible by a grant from NEH: NEH and the San Diego Air and Space Museum
flic.kr flic.kr
https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1Ws
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHs1Ws

https://flic.kr/p/2pHsxtW
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHsxtW

https://flic.kr/p/2pHkGDv
View: https://flic.kr/p/2pHkGDv
Click to expand...
I think I see why the Convair design wasn't selected. Those rear doors are hideously complex, would be a nightmare to keep working right!

There's a reason why pretty much everyone has settled into a 2-piece rear door, split horizontally (unless you need to carry some very outsized cargo, then you do the C-5C 3-piece doors).
 
Turns outwe have the model mockup. Bringing it to LAX Airliners Show on June 1 at Embassy Suites Hotel
 

Attachments

  • DSC01364.jpeg
    DSC01364.jpeg
    687.7 KB · Views: 39
  • DSC01365.jpeg
    DSC01365.jpeg
    750.3 KB · Views: 37
  • DSC01367.jpeg
    DSC01367.jpeg
    628.9 KB · Views: 36
  • DSC01369.jpeg
    DSC01369.jpeg
    630.8 KB · Views: 36
Scott Kenny said:
I think I see why the Convair design wasn't selected. Those rear doors are hideously complex, would be a nightmare to keep working right!

There's a reason why pretty much everyone has settled into a 2-piece rear door, split horizontally (unless you need to carry some very outsized cargo, then you do the C-5C 3-piece doors).
Click to expand...
Maybe the engine arrangements? Two engines on a single mount for each side made it too easy lose both engines in an accident or in combat (think of an engine going kaput and shooting shrapnel as compressor gears flew). To my recollection, no USAF aircraft after the B-52 ever had such an engine arrangement (Well, the Lockheed Jetstar, but that wasn't a combat aircraft). There's probably an advantage to placing two engines so close together in terms of thrust utility, but I'd bet USAF saw the risk as outweighing the advantages. The B-52 was developed at a time when Jet tech was in its infancy and turbojets were still relatively weak and you needed lots of them for a big plane with heavy loads. But just a decade later we had engines with exponentially higher thrust and that was no longer a problem. I recall that Boeing proposed a BUFF-like 8 engine arrangement for E-3 early in its development, but that obviously died on the vine. Even the early Douglas and Lockheed CX-HLS 6 engine proposals had all engines on their own mounts.
 
Last edited:
DesScorp said:
Maybe the engine arrangements? Two engines on a single mount for each side made it too easy lose both engines in an accident or in combat (think of an engine going kaput and shooting shrapnel as compressor gears flew). To my recollection, no USAF aircraft after the B-52 ever had such an engine arrangement (Well, the Lockheed Jetstar, but that wasn't a combat aircraft). There's probably an advantage to placing two engines so close together in terms of thrust utility, but I'd bet USAF saw the risk as outweighing the advantages. The B-52 was developed at a time when Jet tech was in its infancy and turbojets were still relatively weak and you needed lots of them for a big plane with heavy loads. But just a decade later we had engines with exponentially higher thrust and that was no longer a problem.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a risk, but I don't remember any B52H both-engines-in-the-pylon failures. And C141 used mostly the same engines as the B52H. (Retiring the C141s was what let the USAF delay re-engining the B52s, they were able to cannibalize a lot of spare parts from the -141s)




DesScorp said:
I recall that Boeing proposed a BUFF-like 8 engine arrangement for E-3 early in its development, but that obviously died on the vine.
Click to expand...
That was an interesting proposal to improve range. Replace all the TF33s with twice as many TF34s, I'm assuming to allow some engines to be turned off in flight. The Japanese P-1 does the same thing. Has 4x 13klb thrust engines instead of 2x 27klb, and they shut down the two outboard engines in patrol flight.
 
Scott Kenny said:
That was an interesting proposal to improve range. Replace all the TF33s with twice as many TF34s, I'm assuming to allow some engines to be turned off in flight. The Japanese P-1 does the same thing. Has 4x 13klb thrust engines instead of 2x 27klb, and they shut down the two outboard engines in patrol flight.
Click to expand...
Fairly normal trick for four-engine MPAs. The RAF used to do it with Nimrods, and I think the USN did it with P-3s.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom