OS-111 & XVA(H1) Navy Heavy Bomber projects (alternatives to Skywarrior)

[_Del_]

The Navy evaluation stated that the bicycle gear was "probably satisfactory for field landings but is an unknown quantity for carrier work". My impression is that there was no particular difficulty landing either the B-47 or the B-52. The U-2, of course, is notoriously difficult to land.

The B-47 was notorious for porpoising if both mains did not contact at the same time, like the U-2. B-52 porpoises, too, but is much more forgiving. Still you can see many B-52 videos with a pretty good bounce or two at landing. Making contact with both mains at the same time on a pitching deck might be problematic. Porpoising over the wire might be a potential disaster. Not sure what the spool up time is on a J40, but turning a porpoise into a go around on a flightdeck might be pretty hazardous if you miss the wire. Porpoising beyond or onto the front edge of the deck is likely a bad day, too. Those things might have played a role in the official skepticism, I don't know.

Early advice in the -47 was to deploy the ribbon chute (not to be confused with the smaller drogue frequently used on approach) when porpoising, even if you were not in contact with the ground at the time. The trucks could take a lot of abuse, and ending the oscillation was more important than potentially blowing a tire. Eventually guys just deployed the ribbon chute immediately prior to touch down.

I tend to agree that arresting gear probably quiets the porpoising problem quickly. It could very well work, but I can see why they might be cautious.

 

[Pioneer]

[Belated] :-[ Nice find on Reply#71 Tailspin Turtle

Thanks for sharing mate!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[allysonca]

Northrop's proposal.... One of many iterations and my favorite. Wingspan is 22 inches and carved from Jelutong. Enjoy!

 

[billybob]

Wow! Looks fantastic well done

 

[masher47]

The N-59A above evolved from Model P.D. 1053 according to Jared's fine Secret Aerospace Projects of the U.S.Navy. The following posts are from the actual proposals made to the Navy which he included in his book.

 

[hesham]

The N-59A above evolved from Model P.D. 1053 according to Jared's fine Secret Aerospace Projects of the U.S.Navy. The following posts are from the actual proposals made to the Navy which he included in his book.

Thank you dear Masher47,

and do you have a drawing to P.D.1053 ?.

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

From what I've read so far, the requirements seem to dictate the following

• Capacity for a 12,000 pound nuclear-bomb
• Radius of around 1700 nm while carrying payload
• Weight no more than 100,000 pounds
• Folding wings and suitable for operating off carriers
• Crew of 3
• Defensive turret

Was there any g-load requirement for the XVA(H1)?

 

[velithcoigor]

Nice- thanks!

 

[Bill S]

Here are more drawings and artist concepts of the L-187-2 and L-187-7. I also added a drawing that Lockheed provided to the Navy as they recognized their design would not meet the range requirements and offered alternatives. As usual with my images from NARA, not everything is perfectly flat. just be aware there might be some distortion. I go for quantity over total quality when I am bingeing at the archives.

 

[elmayerle]

Any idea of what the proposed turboprop engines for the L-187-7 were? The nacelles look too compact for them to be T40s but I'm not certain what other turboprops would be available of the necessary power - P&W T34 perhaps?

 

[velithcoigor]

Any idea of what the proposed turboprop engines for the L-187-7 were? The nacelles look too compact for them to be T40s but I'm not certain what other turboprops would be available of the necessary power - P&W T34 perhaps?

 

[velithcoigor]

Any idea of what the proposed turboprop engines for the L-187-7 were? The nacelles look too compact for them to be T40s but I'm not certain what other turboprops would be available of the necessary power - P&W T34 perhaps?

Maybe that will help...

 

[MadRat]

If its for educational purposes its within fair use. Unfortunately he needs to add historical context or offer a lesson.

 

[Antonio]

Any idea of what the proposed turboprop engines for the L-187-7 were? The nacelles look too compact for them to be T40s but I'm not certain what other turboprops would be available of the necessary power - P&W T34 perhaps?

Maybe that will help...

Edited post

 

[velithcoigor]

If its for educational purposes its within fair use. Unfortunately he needs to add historical context or offer a lesson.

Please delete. Excuse me.

 

[Arjen]

Any idea of what the proposed turboprop engines for the L-187-7 were? The nacelles look too compact for them to be T40s but I'm not certain what other turboprops would be available of the necessary power - P&W T34 perhaps?

From the deleted material: Allison 503 / XT-44A with extended shafts and twelve-bladed propellers.

 

[Bill S]

If its for educational purposes its within fair use. Unfortunately he needs to add historical context or offer a lesson.

My mistake, apologies to @velithcoigor .

 

[Bill S]

Any idea of what the proposed turboprop engines for the L-187-7 were? The nacelles look too compact for them to be T40s but I'm not certain what other turboprops would be available of the necessary power - P&W T34 perhaps?

It was three Allison 503 [XT-44A] engines in a triangular arrangement. From the Lockheed report the attached scan.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Posting some information or images in the context of a post is generally okay. Whole sections of, or entire, books and magazines is generally not.

 

[Bill S]

Convair's entry into the OS-115 was this "Navy Special Attack Long Range", the drawing numbers start with SD-48. Is this the model number?
NARAII RG402

 

[aim9xray]

Probably not. Drawing numbers appear to be of the format:

LL-YY-NNNNN

Where
LL = Location; SD or FW (San Diego or Fort Worth)
YY = Two-Digit Year (48 in this case)
NNNNN = Four or Five Digit Drawing Number*

*apparently a "sparse" numbering system (not all numbers used).

HTH!

 

[Bill S]

Probably not. Drawing numbers appear to be of the format:

LL-YY-NNNNN

Where
LL = Location; SD or FW (San Diego or Fort Worth)
YY = Two-Digit Year (48 in this case)
NNNNN = Four or Five Digit Drawing Number*

*apparently a "sparse" numbering system (not all numbers used).

HTH!

Thanks, that makes sense.

 

[Kiltonge]

Aviation Week article on the design of the A3D, 13 Dec 1954

 

[Basil]

Any idea of what the proposed turboprop engines for the L-187-7 were? The nacelles look too compact for them to be T40s but I'm not certain what other turboprops would be available of the necessary power - P&W T34 perhaps?

It was three Allison 503 [XT-44A] engines in a triangular arrangement. From the Lockheed report the attached scan.

Highly interesting configuration and the only 12-bladed contra rotating propeller I have ever heard of (besides the gearless GE36, which had 16 blades). Any info if the propeller blades had a supersonic profile?

 

[Bill S]

Two pages from the Convair Long Range Special Attack SAC to add to your information.

 

[Bill S]

A couple of model photos of the Convair Class VA Long Rang Special Attack proposal. With and without the Bomber/Fighter pod. It was not clear from the photos which pod is being represented.

 

[Grux]

Sorry, I don't know much about Air Force weapons. Could someone tell me where I can find related information on this project. Thank you very much!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Northrop's proposal.... One of many iterations and my favorite. Wingspan is 22 inches and carved from Jelutong. Enjoy!

That's gorgeous!

Not sure it looks big enough, unless that canopy is hiding side-by-side seats...

 

[Bill S]

From NARA files, Republic NP-50 Simplified General Arrangement and Maintenance Access drawings.

 

[CaseyKnight]

A couple of model photos of the Convair Class VA Long Rang Special Attack proposal. With and without the Bomber/Fighter pod. It was not clear from the photos which pod is being represented.

That looks like the early development of the B-58. I think it was called GEBO or GEBO II (I forgot)

 

[elmayerle]

It was three Allison 503 [XT-44A] engines in a triangular arrangement. From the Lockheed report the attached scan.

It makes you wonder if the proposed XT-55 would have had a similar configuration. It used three T56 gas generators much as the XT-54, which would have gone into the XB-55 used two T56 gas generators (essentially an improved XT-40).

 

[Scott Kenny]

It makes you wonder if the proposed XT-55 would have had a similar configuration. It used three T56 gas generators much as the XT-54, which would have gone into the XB-55 used two T56 gas generators (essentially an improved XT-40).

I'd assume so.

I'd also assume that it would have just as much trouble with the gearbox as the XT40 and XT44.

 

[Bill S]

SAC for the Douglas 594A OS-115 Proposal from NARA II

 

[Bill S]

SAC for Douglas 1186 OS-115 Proposal from NARA II

 

[Bill S]

Continuing the series, SAC for Douglas 592-2 OS-115 Proposal, NARA II

 

[Bill S]

SAC for Douglas 592-1, OS-115 Proposal NARA II

 

[CaseyKnight]

Supposedly the Model 593 had a conventional (tail-dragger) landing-gear.

 

[hesham]

NP-50,

Concept Model NP-50 Two Engine Jet

nyheritage.contentdm.oclc.org