North American Aviation NA/NR series...

[Sabrejet]

Trouble with these NA- series numbers is that many detailed design studies tend to fall down the gaps. Thus, the 'Super D' (an interim 1954 Interceptor based on the F-86D) isn't covered, but did get many engineering manhours expended on it. Ditto the 'Super H', which again didn't earn an NA- number but is effectively the link between F-86 and F-100. It would appear to be a case of being government-funded or not, since the TF-86s, NAKA F-86 etc did gain unique NA- numbers, even if their AMC funding is only shown as a symbolic single dollar.

 

[hesham]

First batch of the NAA projects list, from NA-159 to the end of the NA-XXX numeration.

Two notes:

First for Devi, note that a couple of dozen of NA numbers were used to designate missiles and space projects

Second for everyone: what WAS the NA-237 ? ??? FBX - Development of USAF Fighter Bomber system.... Any idea of an FBX specification, timeframe 1957-58 ?

Tomorrow second batch

Source Kevin Thompson North American Aircraft 1934-1999 Vol 2 Narkiewichs/Thompson, Highly recommended etc etc etc

I hope that,if someone has this book to repeat sending the whole
list,it's not clear,and many thanks.

 

[Stargazer]

For the sake of easier reference, I've cleaned and compiled the nine pages available of NAA's Airframe Contract Record previously shared in this topic in the form of a single PDF file. Worthy of note:

• The dates of issue at the top of the pages are not all the same, indicating origin from three different versions of the same document (1January, 1954, 27 July 1956 and 20 March 57);
• The last page was enlarged from a very low quality scan, which I tried to improve somewhat, and reading may therefore be a little more difficult on that page.

I"ve done a similar PDF for the Engineering Hours Data tables, but the file is a little too large for this forum (17 Mb). If anyone is interested, I can send it by e-mail of via WeTransfer.

 

[drgondog]

As we know: Fokker Atlantic----General Aviation------North American Aviation....

General Aviation(ex-Fokker) GA-15-----NA-15
General Aviation(ex-Fokker) GA-16-----NA-16

NA-15---------XO-47,observation aircraft
NA-16---------trainer aircraft
NA-17--------- ?
NA-18---------trainer aircraft
NA-19---------basic trainer BT-9,BT-9A
NA-20---------NA-16-2H
NA-21---------high altitude,twin engine bomber---XB-21
NA-22---------BT-9...
NA-23--------BT-9B
NA-24-------- ?
NA-25--------0-47A
NA-26--------BT-9D, BC-1(?)
NA-27--------NA-16-2H
NA-28--------NJ-1
NA-29--------BT-9C,Y1BT-10
NA-30--------Y1BT-10
NA-31--------NA-16-2H or NA-16-4M (?)
NA-32--------NA-16-1A, 1 to Australia
NA-33--------NA-16-2K, 1 to Australia
NA-34--------NA-16-4P, 30 to Argentina
NA-35--------Vega 35
NA-36--------BC-1A
NA-37--------NA-16-4R, 1 To Japan
NA-38--------NA-16-4M, 2 to Sweden
NA-39--------XB-21
NA-40--------pre-B-25 "Mitchell"

Old thread but a comment might be useful.

GMC --->acquired Fokker Atlantic Aircraft and re-organized as General Aviaton Manufacturing Company 1929. GMC Board member Ernest Breech named CEO
GAMC acquires Pittsburg Metal Airplane Co after Fokker F.X crash in March 1931.
Fokker resigns, replaced by Pittsburg owner Herb Thaden, GAMC acquires Pilgrim 150 (future GA-43) from Fairchild.
Virginius Clark replaces Thaden late 1931.

North American formed as holding company in 1928 and acquires holdings in Douglas Aircraft, Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor, Transcon Air Transport, Pitcairn Aircraft (Eastern Airlines), Sperry Gyroscope and others by 1931, then acquires Berliner-Joyce.

In late 1933 NAA acquires GAMC.

In 1934 GMC acquires NAA, begins selling NAA investments. GAMC chairman Breech hires Kindelberger from Douglas to replace Clark. Douglas, in turn hires inner core of GAMC future management from Douglas. Kindelberger closes all plants save Dundalk, MD and relocates ex-Fokker and Berliner Joyce survivors to Dundalk. The twin engine version of GA-43, the GA-38, is halted. The last GA-43 is sold, but only approx. 5 were ever completed and all off-shore. Kindelberger correcly undesstood that it could not compete ith twin engine Boeing 247, Douglas DC-2 and DC-3. Charge number GA-15 for XO-47 opened.

Jan1, 1935 GMC re-organizes North American as a manufacturing company and absorbs all GAMC assets into the 'new' NAA. The production orders for SOC Naval Float Plane floats provided primary cash flow at NAA while the NA-16 (BT-9 prototype) was constructed.

The NA-16 was never GA-16, The prototype XO-47 was the last GA charge number opened before merger into NAA.

I have not found the exact hire date of Edgar Schmued at GAMC in 1931, only that he worked for Anthony Fokker for a very brief period before Thaden replaced Fokker.

Take what you want and leave the rest. The ownership trail is tortuous but extracted from the NAA published book "Kindelberger", Presntation Data Group, Columbus Division of NAA, under direction of E.L. Foster, 1960

 

[drgondog]

Trouble with these NA- series numbers is that many detailed design studies tend to fall down the gaps. Thus, the 'Super D' (an interim 1954 Interceptor based on the F-86D) isn't covered, but did get many engineering manhours expended on it. Ditto the 'Super H', which again didn't earn an NA- number but is effectively the link between F-86 and F-100. It would appear to be a case of being government-funded or not, since the TF-86s, NAKA F-86 etc did gain unique NA- numbers, even if their AMC funding is only shown as a symbolic single dollar.

FWIIW, before DoD 7000.1 & 2 it was common for one program to draw funding from another during the development phase.

As you know, the timecards would record accurately but often accrued until executive mgmnt sprinkled holy water on the final bucket.

 

[Stargazer]

The NA-16 was never GA-16, The prototype XO-47 was the last GA charge number opened before merger into NAA.

Absolutely! Not only that, but it's a grave mistake to attribute the GA-15 and NA-16 to the Atlantic Fokker line of design. Indeed, the AF-15 was the "Flying Lifeboat", or USCG FLB/PJ-1/PJ-2; the AF-16 was the O-27/B-8 twin-engine series for the USAAC; and then two more designs came: AF-17 was the XA-7 attack plane for USAAC, while the AF-18 was the XFA-1 fighter for US Navy.
None of these Fokker designs had anything to do with North American. It just so happened that the Fokker line was taken over by General Aviation at the same time as North American, but the Fokker aircraft continued to be called "General Aviation AF-" to the end. If there is any logic in GA allocating the number "15" to the XO-47 prototype (and it's a big "if"), perhaps it has to do more with the former Berliner-Joyce company, acquired by NAA, which had produced about fourteen designs before acquisition.

 

[drgondog]

Absolutely! Not only that, but it's a grave mistake to attribute the GA-15 and NA-16 to the Atlantic Fokker line of design. Indeed, the AF-15 was the "Flying Lifeboat", or USCG FLB/PJ-1/PJ-2; the AF-16 was the O-27/B-8 twin-engine series for the USAAC; and then two more designs came: AF-17 was the XA-7 attack plane for USAAC, while the AF-18 was the XFA-1 fighter for US Navy.
None of these Fokker designs had anything to do with North American. It just so happened that the Fokker line was taken over by General Aviation at the same time as North American, but the Fokker aircraft continued to be called "General Aviation AF-" to the end. If there is any logic in GA allocating the number "15" to the XO-47 prototype (and it's a big "if"), perhaps it has to do more with the former Berliner-Joyce company, acquired by NAA, which had produced about fourteen designs before acquisition.

Shhhhhhh. Greg will go catatonic if his Fokker theory ' as the reason North American could build the Mustang in such a short time' - goes down in flames.

I agree with everything you cited but would opine that Fokker lost his Chief, Design Noorduyn when GMC acquired Fokker Atlantic in 1929. Fokker was long gone before AF-15, of which only 5 were built and unclear to me where the hull was built (NJ or Netherlands). The only possible design that he could have had input to after GMC was the AF-16 X/YO-27. Schmued started GMAC doodling on the XA-7 (YO-27 mod) when Thaden was Chief, Enineering. Clark was Chief, Design from late 1931 through mid 1934 and came with (brought by) the Fairchild Pilgrim 150? It became GA-43 before first flight in 1932 so maybe Clark brought the naming convention

I just laughed and laughed at Greg's antics - and was appropriately blocked when I ran a few facts under his nose. It is, of course, his sandbox.

You raise a good question'why GA-15' for an AAC 1934 RFP, when the GA-43 (ex-Pilgrim 150) arrived from Fairchild along with Clark in December 1931? Equally interesting to me is 'why GA-38' for the twin engine version of the GA-43 scrapped by Kindelberger in 1934?

 

[Stargazer]

You raise a good question'why GA-15' for an AAC 1934 RFP, when the GA-43 (ex-Pilgrim 150) arrived from Fairchild along with Clark in December 1931? Equally interesting to me is 'why GA-38' for the twin engine version of the GA-43 scrapped by Kindelberger in 1934?

Not just GA-15, GA-38X and GA-43, but also GA-46 and GA-50. I think that basically the General Aviation takeover meant they put "GA" as a prefix for just any program that was in development, whether it be Clark/Fairchild or Berliner-Joyce (except, as I said, for the American Fokkers which remained AF-). Your point about the latter end of the Fokker list having little to do with Fokker is spot on, of course. The more I research the subject and the more I'm convinced that the missing 14 types in the NAA list are the Berliner-Joyce models that existed when NAA took over in 1930. The fact that all of Berliner-Joyce's military types (FJ, F2J, F3J, OJ for the Navy, and TP-2/P-16/PB-1 for the Air Corps) appeared AFTER NAA's takeover of the company certainly reinforces that hunch. It would have been easy to build upon the earlier B/J designations (of which SCM-2, CM-3, CM-4, CM-5, CM-6, CM-9 are known to me). Slots 10 to 14 could easily refer to the P-16 series, the OJ series, the F2J and the F3J, all of which appeared between 1930 and 1934.

 

[drgondog]

Not just GA-15, GA-38X and GA-43, but also GA-46 and GA-50. I think that basically the General Aviation takeover meant they put "GA" as a prefix for just any program that was in development, whether it be Clark/Fairchild or Berliner-Joyce (except, as I said, for the American Fokkers which remained AF-). Your point about the latter end of the Fokker list having little to do with Fokker is spot on, of course. The more I research the subject and the more I'm convinced that the missing 14 types in the NAA list are the Berliner-Joyce models that existed when NAA took over in 1930. The fact that all of Berliner-Joyce's military types (FJ, F2J, F3J, OJ for the Navy, and TP-2/P-16/PB-1 for the Air Corps) appeared AFTER NAA's takeover of the company certainly reinforces that hunch. It would have been easy to build upon the earlier B/J designations (of which SCM-2, CM-3, CM-4, CM-5, CM-6, CM-9 are known to me). Slots 10 to 14 could easily refer to the P-16 series, the OJ series, the F2J and the F3J, all of which appeared between 1930 and 1934.

Do you have a definitive date for Fokker's resignation from GAMC. Intuitively, after March 1931 crash of F.X which killed Rockne, but I haven't found the date.

 

[Stargazer]

Do you have a definitive date for Fokker's resignation from GAMC. Intuitively, after March 1931 crash of F.X which killed Rockne, but I haven't found the date.

I have just checked in the venerable book Fokker - The Man and the Aircraft (Harleyford/Harborough, 1961), which states the following:

"Irrespective of the Fokker crash and the Byrd clash, a rupture between General Motors and Fokker was unavoidable, because profitable cooperation no longer existed. Both sides realized that they had made mistakes. Matters reached a head. One day it was rumoured that Fokker was to withdraw from the technical lead of his American enterprise; but this he emphatically denied. However, next day, July 10th, 1931, discussions by the Board of the General Aviation Corporation decided the fate of the company.​

It was a stormy meeting. Nevertheless, General Motors had a placid announcement prepared that Fokker had retired as 'Director of Engineering' and that the conference had proceeded in harmony. In fact it was a verbal fight with vital issues at stake. General Motors did not easily give up a name, they used Buick, Chevrolet, Olds, etc., and Fokker, a famous name in aviation, was the only name in aviation they could exercise. On the other hand, they were adamant that Fokker himself would have to go. Fokker, realising this, was out to get the maximum of concessions and his attorney, Wallace Zachry, represented him well. As a result, he retained entitlement to his pay of $50,000 per year for the five-year contract period and also obtained unrestricted right to use his trade-name Fokker. On the debit side he lost the physical assets of his company."​

 

[Arjen]

I have a copy of Dwarswind - Een biografie van Anthony Fokker by Marc Dierikx, Sdu uitgevers Den Haag 1997.
Dierikx writes Fokker resigned as GAMC's technical director after a meeting of the Board of Directors on 10 July 1931. That ended his career as an aircraft constructor in the USA.
It ties in with @Stargazer 's reply.

 

[drgondog]

I have just checked in the venerable book Fokker - The Man and the Aircraft (Harleyford/Harborough, 1961), which states the following:

"Irrespective of the Fokker crash and the Byrd clash, a rupture between General Motors and Fokker was unavoidable, because profitable cooperation no longer existed. Both sides realized that they had made mistakes. Matters reached a head. One day it was rumoured that Fokker was to withdraw from the technical lead of his American enterprise; but this he emphatically denied. However, next day, July 10th, 1931, discussions by the Board of the General Aviation Corporation decided the fate of the company.​

It was a stormy meeting. Nevertheless, General Motors had a placid announcement prepared that Fokker had retired as 'Director of Engineering' and that the conference had proceeded in harmony. In fact it was a verbal fight with vital issues at stake. General Motors did not easily give up a name, they used Buick, Chevrolet, Olds, etc., and Fokker, a famous name in aviation, was the only name in aviation they could exercise. On the other hand, they were adamant that Fokker himself would have to go. Fokker, realising this, was out to get the maximum of concessions and his attorney, Wallace Zachry, represented him well. As a result, he retained entitlement to his pay of $50,000 per year for the five-year contract period and also obtained unrestricted right to use his trade-name Fokker. On the debit side he lost the physical assets of his company."​

Thank you - IIRC Pittsburg Metal Aircraft was purchased by GAMC shortley thereafter and the owner Herb Thanden took over Engineering.

I am confused by the passage, however. as GMC absorbed all the Fokker assets in 1929 from Fisher and renamed the enterprise General Avisation Manufacturing Company at the time? Based on above, Fokker had a passage in his contract circa 1929 for the pay and retention rights to his name - before the crash two years later?

 

[Arjen]

Dierikx writes one of the factors in play was that GMC didn't want to be associated with the Fokker brand anymore - not after Knute Rockne died in the crash of a Fokker F10A. Fokker's contract with GAMC ran from 1929 until 1934 - well past his resignation as technical director in 1931.
Fokker himself intended to use the brand name in the USA after 1931, but never got round to it.
Away from the bookshelf now, will have another look at the book tomorrow.

 

[Arjen]

The way I read Dierikx, Fokker retaining the right to use the Fokker brand name in the USA was decided in July 1931.

Fokkers beproeving was echter nog niet voorbij. Op 6 juli 1931 benoemde General Motors Herbert Thaden als de nieuwe hoofdingenieur en algemeen bedrijfsleider van General Aviation. Het was een beslissing waarin Fokker niet was gekend, maar die erop gericht was Thaden de taken van zowel Anthony Fokker als van Albert Gassner over te laten nemen. De benoeming zou vier dagen later, op 10 juli, in een vergadering van de Raad van Bestuur van General Aviation bekrachtigd moeten te worden. Hier kwam het tot een krachtmeting. Fokker, het voortdurende zagen aan de poten van zijn stoel inmiddels meer dan beu, begreep wat er komen ging en had zijn verdediging gereed. Sinds de overname door General Motors was zijn positie binnen de onderneming steeds verslechterd. De uiteindelijke consequentie van de beslissing van General Aviation om de traditionele Fokker-constructiewijze de rug toe te keren diende zich nu aan: Fokker zou uit zijn leidinggevende positie worden gestoten. Als goed zakenman had hij tevoren nagedacht over de prijs die General Motors daarvoor zou moeten betalen. In ruil voor het opgeven van de titel van technisch directeur en het beëindigen van zijn directe bemoeienis met General Aviation, eiste Fokker dat General Motors zou goedvinden dat hij zijn positie als lid van de Raad van Bestuur zou uitdienen tot aan het einde van zijn contract in 1934. Op die voorwaarde had Fokker in mei 1930 ingestemd met het uitbreiden van het General Motors-belang in de Fokker Aircraft Corporation tot meerderheidsaandeelhouder. Van groter belang voor hem was echter dat de Raad van Bestuur ermee akkoord ging hem het volledige recht op de merknaam Fokker terug te geven, inclusief de rechten voor productie en verkoop van Fokker-vliegtuigen in de Verenigde Staten. De beslissing hield in dat de Fokker Aircraft Corporation als dochteronderneming van General Aviation geliquideerd zou worden en dat de naam “Fokker” niet langer gevoerd zou worden op door General Aviation gebouwde vliegtuigen. Een en ander stelde beide partijen tevreden: Fokker kon gebruik blijven maken van zijn opgebouwde reputatie, en General Aviation zou zichzelf lossnijden van de naam Fokker en de associaties die deze naam inmiddels opriep met de Rockne-crash. In een verklaring voor de pers, die Anthony Fokker en zijn advocaat Carter Tiffany al vóór de bijeenkomst hadden opgesteld, verkondigde Fokker dat de breuk met General Aviation geheel zijn beslissing was, genomen om zijn handen vrij te krijgen voor de oprichting van een International Fokker corporation. Die International Fokker Corporation zou zich gaan bezighouden met het bouwen en verkopen van vliegtuigen naar Fokker-ontwerp. Daarvan kwam niets. Toen Anthony Fokker na de vergadering van Io juli 1931 naar buiten stapte, was zijn carrière als vliegtuigbouwer in de Verenigde Staten ten einde. In het gezelschap van Carter Tiffany en diens vrouw Anne, persoonlijke vrienden van hem vanaf het begin van hun associatie in december 1927, begaf Anthony Fokker zich aan boord van zijn jacht Helga en voer weg in de ondergaande zon.

Machine-translation, lightly edited:

However, Fokker's ordeal was not over yet. On July 6, 1931, General Motors appointed Herbert Thaden as the new chief engineer and general manager of General Aviation. It was a decision in which Fokker had no say, but which was aimed at Thaden taking over the duties of both Anthony Fokker and Albert Gassner. The appointment should be confirmed four days later, on July 10, at a meeting of the General Aviation Board of Directors. Here it came to a test of strength. Fokker, now more than tired of the constant attacks on his position, understood what was coming and had his defense ready. Since the takeover by General Motors, his position within the company had continued to deteriorate. The ultimate consequence of General Aviation's decision to turn its back on the traditional Fokker construction method now presented itself: Fokker would be ousted from his leadership position. As a good businessman, he had thought in advance about the price that General Motors would have to pay for this. In exchange for giving up his title of technical director and ending his direct involvement with General Aviation, Fokker demanded that General Motors agree to allow him to serve his position as a member of the Board of Directors until the end of his contract in 1934. On that condition, Fokker had agreed in May 1930 to expand General Motors' share in the Fokker Aircraft Corporation to become a majority shareholder. Of greater significance to him, however, was that the Board of Directors agreed to give him back full rights to the Fokker brand name, including the rights to produce and sell Fokker aircraft in the United States. The decision meant that the Fokker Aircraft Corporation as a subsidiary of General Aviation would be liquidated and that the name "Fokker" would no longer be used on aircraft built by General Aviation. This satisfied both parties: Fokker could continue to use his established reputation, and General Aviation would cut itself free from the Fokker name and the associations this name now evoked with the Rockne crash. In a statement to the press, which Anthony Fokker and his lawyer Carter Tiffany had prepared before the meeting, Fokker announced that the break with General Aviation was entirely his decision, made to free his hands to establish an International Fokker corporation. The International Fokker Corporation would be engaged in building and selling aircraft based on Fokker designs. Nothing came of that. When Anthony Fokker stepped outside after the meeting of July 1, 1931, his career as an aircraft manufacturer in the United States was over. In the company of Carter Tiffany and his wife Anne, personal friends of his from the beginning of their association in December 1927, Anthony Fokker boarded his yacht Helga and sailed away into the setting sun.

Fokker: A Transatlantic Biography by Marc Dierikx, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington 1997, was translated and edited by the author to Dwarswind.
If your Dutch is rusty, you can also read the book in English.

 

[drgondog]

The way I read Dierikx, Fokker retaining the right to use the Fokker brand name in the USA was decided in July 1931.

Machine-translation, lightly edited:


Fokker: A Transatlantic Biography by Marc Dierikx, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington 1997, was translated and edited by the author to Dwarswind.
If your Dutch is rusty, you can also read the book in English.

My Dutch is 'rusty', Arjen. At some time in this general timeframe, Ernst Breech while remaining a GMC Board Member, took either CEO or Chairman of GAMC. I struggle with concept of Anthony Fokker in any path between Breech and the Board of Directors of GMC.

One thought remains on that subject. Name Fokker to the Board, pay him $50,000 per year (or $150K) and tell him to just stay at home during Board meetings.

Absent articles of incorporation, I would speculate that GMC acquired all the remaining assets (plant, personnel, existing contracts) of Fokker, awarded Fokker the Fokker 'names', plus exclusive rights to produce F-10 and earlier designs - to avoid trailing and future liability to GMC for another F-10 crash.

I don't argue Dierikx rendition of the agreement, but wonder why GMC would agree to Fokker remaining on the Board of Directors? I don't have access to any source documenting the entry of Ernst Breech, but July 1931 looks like a good date for GMC to replace Fokker entirely - at operational and Board level - and be done with him. I do know that Breech was Chmn of GAMC when he hired Dutch Kindelberger and have seen references that Breech was also acting GM at that time in mid 1934.

Thank You.

 

[Arjen]

One thought remains on that subject. Name Fokker to the Board, pay him $50,000 per year (or $150K) and tell him to just stay at home during Board meetings.

That´s how I would understand it. I believe Fokker didn't return to the USA until January 1934, when he traveled there to seal his agreement with Douglas to become their sole agent in Europe - except in the Soviet Union.

 

[drgondog]

That´s how I would understand it. I believe Fokker didn't return to the USA until January 1934, when he traveled there to seal his agreement with Douglas to become their sole agent in Europe - except in the Soviet Union.

Did any more F-10s ever sell in Europe?

 

[Arjen]

None. Of the PAA F-10A aircraft, three were passed on to Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, four were passed on to Aerovias Centrales - both PAA subsidiaries.
All other F-10 and F-10A aircraft remained in the USA.
Wings for the F-10 were produced in the Netherlands, identical to F.VIIb/3m wings. The longer wings for the F-10A were produced in Glen Dale (as Dierikx writes - Wesselink spells it as Glendale - probably wrong).
Construction of the wings was a precision job for skilled woodworkers. Dutch production wing-sets performed well enough on the F.VIIb/3m and F-10.

 

[drgondog]

None. Of the PAA F-10A aircraft, three were passed on to Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, four were passed on to Aerovias Centrales - both PAA subsidiaries.
All other F-10 and F-10A aircraft remained in the USA.
Wings for the F-10 were produced in the Netherlands, identical to F.VIIb/3m wings. The longer wings for the F-10A were produced in Glendale.
Construction of the wings was a precision job for skilled woodworkers. Dutch production wing-sets performed well enough on the F.VIIb/3m and F-10.

Glendale is a surprise. Not Peterboro? Did Fokker subcontract them or did Fokker Atlantic once have a plant there? Another curiosity. When Dept of Commerce mandated two or more engines in 1932, that spelled the end for the F-10 and 10A so where did remaining inventory go?

 

[Arjen]

@drgondog Glen Dale, West Virginia, as explicitly mentioned by Dierikx. He writes the F-10A's wings were made there.
Dierikx writes that in 1930, Anthony Fokker's position with GAMC was 'director of engineering', Albert Gassner was 'chief engineer'.

Another source, Nederlandse vliegtuigen - Deel 1 - Nederlandse vliegtuigbouwers in het buitenland by Theo Wesselink, Dutch Aviation Publications 2014, presents a slightly different view, with Teterboro, New Jersey instead of Peterboro:
- Seven F-10s were built in Teterboro with Dutch-made wings, two of which were later converted to F-10A
- The first F-10As were also built in Teterboro, with US-made wings and a fuselage made in Teterboro
- Soon after the F-10A's introduction, production switched to Glen Dale (Wesselink confusingly spells it as Glendale)

When Dept of Commerce mandated two or more engines in 1932

I'm a bit confused now The F-10 and F-10A were trimotors. Fokker Universals were single-engine aircraft.

 

[drgondog]

Brain Fart to finger clutch - I meant Teterboro and yes the F-10 and 10A were trimotors. What I meant is the emergence of the modern twin engine 247 and DC-1/-2 killed the trimotors as well as Dept of Commerce killing single engine commercial. Strictly opinion.

 

[Arjen]

I think you are right about the 247 and DC-1/-2. As Dierikx writes, Anthony Fokker himself saw they were the future of air travel, he just didn't have the funds to go big on all-metal monocoque construction.
In 1934, Fokker signed his deal with Douglas to make money from the new breed of aircraft by selling them, not building them himself.

 

[drgondog]

He not only didn't have the funds, but he didn't have shop floor expertise in sheet metal, Monocoque design approach - nor the technical design base that was leading Boeing, Martin, Douglas and Lockheed for both aerodynamics, airframe structures and production tooling to ask for an investment. His team was wood, linen and cloth based.

I suspect that GMC nudging GAMC to acquire Pittsburg Metal Aircraft in 1931 was considered a personal threat to Fokker. The timing was right for is feud, and Thaden replacing him.

 

[Arjen]

His team was wood, linen and cloth based.

Fokker was planning to make the switch to all-metal aircraft, but it wasn't until 1939 that Fokker's first all-metal aircraft took off - the prototype of the T.9 bomber, the only T.9 to be built.

The airliner market couldn't wait that long.

 

[drgondog]

The way I read Dierikx, Fokker retaining the right to use the Fokker brand name in the USA was decided in July 1931.

Machine-translation, lightly edited:


Fokker: A Transatlantic Biography by Marc Dierikx, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington 1997, was translated and edited by the author to Dwarswind.
If your Dutch is rusty, you can also read the book in English.

Arjen - what page is the narrative on for the details surrounding Fokker's deal as you translated fo me?

Regards, and thanks

 

[Arjen]

@drgondog Pages 176-177, near the end of chapter VII - Verdriet en tegenslagen. I don't have the English edition, I hope chapter numbering is identical to the Dutch edition.

 

[sienar]

Does anyone know what this 2-seat Navion like light aircraft might have been? Reaching post mock-up status is pretty advanced.

from Flying May 1947

 

[hesham]

Does anyone know what this 2-seat Navion like light aircraft might have been? Reaching post mock-up status is pretty advanced.
View attachment 730653
from Flying May 1947

May the answer is in Airlife's book,but it's in anther house ?.

 

[hesham]

Does anyone know what this 2-seat Navion like light aircraft might have been? Reaching post mock-up status is pretty advanced.
View attachment 730653
from Flying May 1947

May the answer is in Airlife's book,but it's in anther house ?.

Is that the answer ?.

 

[Stargazer]

Is that the answer ?.

Of course not. The Ryan Model 72 was not just a mockup, it was a bona fide prototype. And it was not a two-seater either.
Besides, if you look further up, you'll see that the two-seater project was from North American, not Ryan.

 

[hesham]

May the answer was not in Na series but in D sequence,as I guess ?.

 

[Stargazer]

May the answer was not in Na series but in D sequence,as I guess ?.

The NA- sequence was only for produced types (with only a few exceptions where production was cancelled).
So yes, obviously, the 2-seat Navion derivative would have been a "D", no doubt about that.

 

[hesham]

May the answer was not in Na series but in D sequence,as I guess ?.

May it was D2,D8 or D9 ?.