OS-113 - 1948 US Navy Interceptor Fighter (alternatives to the F3H Demon)

[hesham]

One of the most interesting of all the post-war US Navy competitions has to be OS-113, which called for a carrier-based interceptor fighter. Below are the identified proposals:

• Grumman G-86
• Lockheed L-183
• McDonnell 58
• McDonnell 60
• North American RD-/RE-/NA-1544
• Republic NP-48/-200
• Republic NP-49
• Vought V-362

The winner, of course, was the McDonnell Model 58, which was evaluated as the XF3H-1 Demon and produced in quantity in the F3H-1 and F3H-2 versions.

Now we can add;

Vought V-362B
Douglas D-591,D-592 & D-592A

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

BuAer's Recommendation for Procurement dated 24 November 1948 states that seven manufacturers submitted 13 designs. Unfortunately, there was no list of the specific designs in the memo other than there were eight conventional swept-wing, three delta-wing, one variable-sweep wing, and one tailless swept wing. The 12 designs listed above (plus the Douglas 591A which is specifically mentioned in the recommendation as being identical to the D-571 then under contract that became the F4D) do not correspond with the number of configurations in the recommendation: there is one too many swept-wing tailless (my guess is that Vought submitted one of its conventional swept-wing V-362 designs at the last minute) and one too few variable-sweep designs (the author of the recommendation might have confused the Grumman G-86 proposed with the XF10F then under contract). North American informally suggested an “alternate” design that deleted the rocket booster; it was mentioned in the recommendation but doesn’t appear to have been counted as a separate design. (Of special interest is that the North American proposal mentioned a “coke-bottle” fuselage that reduced transonic drag based on World War II German research – e.g. "Küchemann Coke Bottle” – which predates Whitcomb’s NACA work.)

With respect to the number of manufacturers noted in the Aviation Week article, there was a eighth manufacturer, Consolidated Vultee, mentioned in the recommendation; it submitted information on its XF-92 but this was not considered a proposal by BuAer. There may well have been a ninth “proposal” that BuAer considered unworthy of even a mention, much less consideration.

 

[hesham]

Thank you for this Info my dear Tailspin.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

Thanks to a lead from AIM9XRay, I bought on EPay Estimated Weight and Balance Reports for the McDonnell Model 58 and Model 60, both dated September 13, 1948.
Attached are the scans of the interior arrangements for both. The reports themselves are heavily faded (blueprint type paper/printing but will try to scan them to see what I can bring out.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Beautiful scans Mark.

Send me the raw scans of the report if you like and I'll try working my Photoshop skills to make it readable

 

[Sundog]

Thanks Mark! I think I'm as impressed by the quality of the scans as the drawings themselves. Nice work.

 

[Pioneer]

Wow, look at the the length of that nose wheel oleo strut!!

Thanks for sharing BillS

Regards
Pioneer

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Early F3H Demon - Model 58

McDonnell Aircraft Model 58

A copy of the 3-view drawing and other info of the proposed McDonnell Aircraft Model 58 aircraft. This was a single afterburning engine J...

aviationarchives.blogspot.com

 

[acegeek9992]

Hi,

also I think the Republic NP-48 and NP-49 were involved in this competition.

Where would the intakes be on the NP-48?

 

[Bill S]

Hi,

also I think the Republic NP-48 and NP-49 were involved in this competition.

Where would the intakes be on the NP-48?

The intake is under the fuselage forward of the wing. Here is a damaged photo of a model and the GA (which does not show it clearly).

 

[kocovgoce]

why wings like this something about super sonic flight or for better wing thrust?

 

[Bill S]

The NP-48 is described as "an aircraft of minimum size with thin, variable incidence, swept back, inverse tapered, nose slotted wings and a thin, swept back "V" tail." This design was in conjunction with the development of the XF-91 for the Air Force. The advantages listed was desirable stalling characteristics and no tip stall. Their wind tunnel tests showed that the drag rise at transonic and supersonic speeds was approximately 25 per cent less than that of a conventional taper wing with the same sweep back.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The NP-48 is described as "an aircraft of minimum size with thin, variable incidence, swept back, inverse tapered, nose slotted wings and a thin, swept back "V" tail." This design was in conjunction with the development of the XF-91 for the Air Force. The advantages listed was desirable stalling characteristics and no tip stall. Their wind tunnel tests showed that the drag rise at transonic and supersonic speeds was approximately 25 per cent less than that of a conventional taper wing with the same sweep back.

Aerodynamically the reverse taper helps alleviate tip stall and general stalling characteristics of swept wings. However it is structurally very inefficient and results in a heavy wing, so the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. The highly swept wing generally gave way to delta, slightly swept or unswept wings instead.

 

[acegeek9992]

Hi,

also I think the Republic NP-48 and NP-49 were involved in this competition.

Where would the intakes be on the NP-48?

The intake is under the fuselage forward of the wing. Here is a damaged photo of a model and the GA (which does not show it clearly).

Sheesh. Talk about discreet intake placement!

 

[Bill S]

North American submitted the RD-1544, as noted elsewhere in this thread, as a design to meet the OS-113 requirements. Here are a few things I picked up at NARA II recently. Rather than retype the introduction, I posted that page as well. Happy Reading!

 

[Bill S]

For your viewing pleasure here are three images of the RD-1544 model. Models serve the great purpose of bringing the design to life.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Cheers Bill, nice work.

 

[TomcatViP]

Notice that the airfoil is notably thinner than that of the F-86A or FJ-1 (or even F3H Demon), something that could cast doubts on NAA claims of an easy service introduction as a Naval fighter.

 

[acegeek9992]

North American submitted the RD-1544, as noted elsewhere in this thread, as a design to meet the OS-113 requirements. Here are a few things I picked up at NARA II recently. Rather than retype the introduction, I posted that page as well. Happy Reading!

Why does this remind me of the YF-93A?

 

[Sundog]

North American submitted the RD-1544, as noted elsewhere in this thread, as a design to meet the OS-113 requirements. Here are a few things I picked up at NARA II recently. Rather than retype the introduction, I posted that page as well. Happy Reading!

Why does this remind me of the YF-93A?

NACA Intake ducts.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

North American submitted the RD-1544, as noted elsewhere in this thread, as a design to meet the OS-113 requirements. Here are a few things I picked up at NARA II recently. Rather than retype the introduction, I posted that page as well. Happy Reading!

Why does this remind me of the YF-93A?

NACA Intake ducts.

Also, both roughly contemporary North American designs.

 

[Bill S]

General Arrangement and Inboard profile from Grumman Report A-251 Outline Specification, Single Seat Interceptor Fighter, Grumman Design 86, September 20. 1948 [NARA II]

 

[Bill S]

Model photographs of the Grumman 86 [NARA II]