Douglas XB-31

[Stargazer]

Fantastic post, ACResearcher, thanks a lot for clarifying this most complex subject!

Oh, lucky you, being able to visit NARA and browse through the Sara Clark Collection. This is one of my fondest dreams!!!

 

[Antonio]

To me, one of the most valuable posts to date. Many thanks ACResearcher. I can imagine the deep feeling of happiness I'm going to enjoy opening your book at home.

Antonio

 

[ACResearcher]

Re: The REAL XB-31

Gentlemen, many thanks for your kind comments. I aspire not only to share GOOD information based on original documents but to tell where and how I found them. This is not always the case among researchers. My hope it to encourage more real research and less "gathering" to which I referred.

I have literally hundreds of pages of documents from both XC-218 and XC-218 A laying out criteria and subsequently analyzing the manufacturers' submissions. Many of these documents are hand written and significant number of the drawings are also done by hand. I'm looking forward to redrawing them to produce good representations. I should probably mention that the drawings in my earlier post were done by and copyrighted to me, although there isn't a lot anyone can do with them without the other views.

When it hopefully comes out late in 2015 (if it doesn't it is my fault as I'm currently working on the Vol II of Consolidated Mess), there will be MANY corrections and revelations on what is the current state of knowledge on American Bomber projects.

Thank you again for your comments. I'm glad I was able to add some useful information to the discourse here.

AlanG

 

[Jos Heyman]

Thanks for sharing this information with us. It only took almost 75 years to get this correct . Fantastic.

 

[thonthon42]

Re: The REAL XB-31



Very, very interresting ! As said Arthur Clark, the truth will be stranger still ...

Very respectfully but friendly

Tonton

 

[lark]

If this is the kind of info which will be published in
your new book , than we realy have to expect something exeptional !
Thanks ACR..!

 

[royabulgaf]

This makes so much sense. I always wondered why the Lockheed, Consolidated, and Boeing submissions were clearly similar while the Douglas so-called B-31 was a massive outlier.

 

[Stargazer]

This makes so much sense. I always wondered why the Lockheed, Consolidated, and Boeing submissions were clearly similar while the Douglas so-called B-31 was a massive outlier.

And I always wondered why the XB-31 appeared under two distinct inhouse designations that were so far apart in sequence from each other... :

 

[ACResearcher]

Re: Douglas XB-31- Design update

I was recently given copies of original Douglas 3-views of a number of aircraft immediately pre-dating the Model 423. Specifically, they are the Model 412, 413, 415 (C-74) and 416.

ALL these projects have the same nose shape - i.e. very bullet-shaped with the bug-eye canopies - as the 423. Most are transports tho there is one bomber project. I would LOVE to find copies of 3-views for Models 333 through 411.

What has become clear is that at some point between the Model 332F/XB-31 Douglas became enamored of this very sleek shape/bug-eye combination and used it on at least five design studies, including the 423, plus actually building aircraft with the bug-eye - the C-74 and the XA/B-42.

I'm not in any position to redraw these designs yet, but Googling the C-74 will certainly give you a sense of the round, sleek design that would also have been the Model 423.

Until they changed the canopy to a more useful form, that is.

AlanG

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Douglas XB-31- Design update

I'm not in any position to redraw these designs yet

If they're not meant for inclusion in your book, why not just SHARE them? If you or your source don't want us to have quality copies, you could at least make small size images (say, 500 pixels wide for instance) so that we can see what they looked like.

 

[ACResearcher]

Sky, I will be using them in my book, but I'm 1000 miles from home with no way to scan and redraw them.

I'll do at least several of them when I get home in a couple weeks.

Alan

 

[AL]

Can you give us a hint of what the title or the scope of the book will be?

 

[ACResearcher]

AL and all,

Sorry if it seems like I'm teasing with the references to the future book, but I did want to share some information where appropriate.

I'm afraid I can't tell you any more about it for now and I'll tell you why.

For one thing, it has been known to happen that someone announces an upcoming book, model kit, etc. and an unscrupulous person or company will drop everything and push out a book/kit on the exact same topic. I intend to avoid this as I know that what I put in my work has been as thoroughly researched from original documents and sources as I can do it. My book on the B-24 - "Consolidated Mess" - and Tony Buttler and my book on "American Secret Projects, 1937-1945" is another. Same is true of my article in the most recent "The Aviation Historian" quarterly on American Ramjaegers, a study to armor U.S. fighters in order to enable them to ram enemy bombers.

Second, there are a few folks out there that are insanely jealous and angry that their long-cherished, self-aggrandizing position as "Researcher Extraordinaire" is usurped. For instance, once again referring to "Consolidated Mess", one of the "Extraordinaires" spent MONTHS harassing both me and my publisher for stealing his "intellectual property" for producing a book about the B-24. His position seemed to be that since he had THOUGHT about doing a similar title (the guy cannot write a simple sentence, so it would have been interesting if he could have even found a publisher who would work with him - doubtful - that I had broken the law. He was constantly threatening law suits, etc. Perhaps the ultimate act was a scathing review he wrote of the book back in October of....2011, I think. Amazon had put in their site that the book would be published in October. As it turned out, it wasn't published until the following May due to publishing schedules and the fact that I had come across a mother-lode of information and photos that answer all the hanging questions in what I thought to be the final copy. So...this guy does a thorough hatchet job on a book he's never seen that hasn't even been published. This guy has been kicked off at least four different websites since to disagree with him is to invite wrath of the most incoherent and virulent type.

When I have sent the final copy to my publisher I shall not only tell everyone about it but start to share some specific items to give everyone a sense of what the final product is like. I'd love to share more because I think the info is really cool.

This may not seem like much of an explanation, but I can sadly assure you that it is all 100% true. I'm sure when "Consolidated Mess, Vol II: The Glassnose B-24s" comes out he will thoroughly trash it, but probably once again not under his real name. He is, when all things are considered, a coward. This, of course, is only my opinion based on my experience.

I hope this kinda sorta answers your question.

I do thank you for your interest and support.

AlanG

 

[Orionblamblam]

I would say "welcome to the internet," but the fact is that this sort of thing has been going on for a little short of forever. I'm sure that the first time a Tiktaalik decided to clamber out of the water, another one claimed that it was actually his idea.

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks Alan for explaining.

It's really, really sad to hear there can be such a**holes out there having all latitude to do potential damage to dedicated and serious researchers such as you. Trying to steal from others or to get credits for others' work is bad enough, but not being able to produce a worthwhile book and preventing others from doing so is a lot worse.

 

[Clioman]

REALLY looking forward to seeing the resulting product, Alan. And really good to meet you F2F in the reading room over the last few weeks!

 

[Vahe Demirjian]

Does anybody have copies of the project documents for the Model 332 designs, since we know that XB-31 was allocated to the Model 332 and not the Model 423?

 

[RyanC]

it's mentioned that the original design was a bomber version of the DC-4

I have found documentation in the Robert Patterson files at the Library of Congress that mentions a possible "DC-4 Bomber" production program. Could it be this?

 

[ACResearcher]

Ryan,

I'd love to see those documents if you don't mind sharing them.

To answer an implied question in your posting, however, Douglas developed bomber versions of BOTH the DC-4E and the more standard DC-4. I've been debating putting my redraws of the latter online so folks could do a fairly straight-forward modification of the Revell 1/72 DC-4 into a bomber version.

The Model 332 was quite separate from either of the above - the DC-4 bomber being in the 400-range of projects - and the version the AAF liked the best was the 332F. I'm still trying to track down drawings of A-E that can be confirmed as such. I believe I have most of the documents analyzing the various entries to R40B/XC-218A, as well as the original submission for the 332F.

Once again, I'd love to see copies of those documents.

AlanG

 

[RyanC]

ACR, those are AFAIK all the pages dealing with the potential DC-4 bomber program.

Heres the cover letter for the 1856 program.

 

[hesham]

Thank you Ryan.

 

[RyanC]

I'll post the complete thing today. I've been a bit busy, so I've only posted excerpts; and it takes time to get a large resolution image that goes beneath this board's 1.7 MB limit for individual JPEGs.

Here's a different document stating that Douglas is working on a "R-40B". Could this be the XB-31/DC-4?

 

[RyanC]

Part I of "1856 Program" paperwork I found.

Cover slip says nothing but:

Air Corps. Bombardment Airplane.

So you're not missing much.

 

[RyanC]

Part II of "1856" program

And that's it.

 

[ACResearcher]

Very interesting documents, Ryan. I now have another major mystery to try and unravel: Was the DC-4E/DB-4 bomber the "DC-4 bomber" referred to (and there were three designs for it), or was it an early bomber version of the DC-4??? In either case, the XB-31 was NOT the DB-4. The aircraft were quite different from one another, as was the Model 332F/XB-31 from the later DC-4 bomber which is quite clearly based on that transport.

Thanks very much for sharing those documents, etc.

AlanG

 

[lark]

In his article about the XB-19 " Un Géant Précoce ,le Douglas XB-19 " René J.Francillon wrote :

... On 30 August 1938 ,Douglas recommended to abandon the program (of the XB-19) and instead to go on
with a more modest project ,the DB-4 which was derived from the DC-4 (the one with the 3 tailfins ,who would become
the DC-4E) The Material Division opposed because the Air Corps saw the plane as a flying test banc for it's later
heavy bomber projects...

Translated from : Air Magazine N° 47 -October 2009. Page 6.

 

[RyanC]

I now have another major mystery to try and unravel: Was the DC-4E/DB-4 bomber the "DC-4 bomber" referred to (and there were three designs for it), or was it an early bomber version of the DC-4??? In either case, the XB-31 was NOT the DB-4. The aircraft were quite different from one another, as was the Model 332F/XB-31 from the later DC-4 bomber which is quite clearly based on that transport.

What dates are each design?

Odds are it's the design closest to (as in published before) this document -- SEP 1941.

 

[ACResearcher]

Ryan,

The dates are precisely what makes this such an interesting question.

The DC-4E first flew in June, 1938. The first C-54 flew in February, 1942. The date on the documents of 4-23-41 makes both possible, and may lean a bit to the DC-4/C-54 design since the DC-4E had already proven itself unacceptable.

This is the fun of REAL research - digging through the mountains of past junk (like the Model 423 being the XB-31) and finding the nuggets of reality hidden away. The documents you found are perfect examples of good research and the treasures to be found. Original Source documentation is the only truly reliable source of knowledge.

AlanG

 

[Bazinga]

Love source files. Here are some articles about the 100t transport and bomber I snapped from italian and french mags. So second hand as it is not manufacturer but written in 1940 so still close enough to consider true.

 

[hesham]

Love source files. Here are some articles about the 100t transport and bomber I snapped from italian and french mags. So second hand as it is not manufacturer but written in 1940 so still close enough to consider true.

I sent them before ?!,here;

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-bombers.242/page-4#post-297703

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-bombers.242/page-3#post-210869

 

[juanT]

Hi
from "Aero Modeller" (06-1939).

 

[lark]

Hi
from "Aero Modeller" (06-1939).

Excellent find !

Can you show us some text from this Aero Modeller article ?
Thank sin advance .

 

[jcf]

There's no related text, just the three pages of drawings.

 

[Tonton-42]

I did this print back in 2006:

Close up of the nose:

Engine details:

These drawings are absolutly superb ! But where to find a good 3 or 4 line views detailed enough to draw a possible flying model ? I despair of finding such a treasure ...

 

[archipeppe]

This is my personal contribution, dated back 2009....

 

[Tonton-42]

This is my personal contribution, dated back 2009....

View attachment 719851

Thank's a lot ! Undoubtedly superb and I plundered without shame this beautiful representation put in my personal aeronautical Pantheon for some years ! However I would like to find a more technical drawing like the front view above the color profile ... As it is a project that has not taken off from the drawing board, it is probably a wishful thinking on my part but we can dream right ? And will I have to take out paper and pencils to achieve my "secret project" ...

 

[lark]

There's no related text, just the three pages of drawings.

Thanks JCF,
The drawing from the Aero Modeler (06-39) is perhaps
the earliest ever seen of this Douglas heavy bomber idea.
I still think it's realated to the XLRB-2 who later became the XB-19.

 

[ACResearcher]

Lovely 3-view by Archipeppe, but it is NOT IN ANY WAY the XB-31.

While I've not yet been able to nail down specifically what the design was for, I suspect it was to be a follow-on project to the B-36. There were many of these.

IIRC, I posted a side-view drawing earlier of the Douglas 332F, the final version of the 332 for the XC-218A/R40B contest which ended in 1940 with the B-29 and the B-32 coming out the winners. I have numerous questions about Douglas's ability to produce this bomber given all the other types of aircraft they had in production.

Please feel free to ask any questions or for me to repost the drawing of the 332F (done from original Douglas drawings).

AlanG

 

[Arjen]

@archipeppe 's 3-view shows the same design as the Douglas XB-31 - Model 423 in U.S. Bombers by Lloyd S. Jones, Aero Publishers 1980.
I will scan some images, more to follow.

 

[ACResearcher]

I knew Lloyd well. In this case, as well as the Sikorsky LBR-3, he was incorrect and knew it.

However, if you wish to continue to hold on to aged, incorrect research please be my guest.

AlanG