Projects from Howard Aircraft Corporation

Stargazer

ACCESS: USAP
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
25 June 2009
Messages
14,661
Reaction score
5,819
Howard unknown 1940 cabin trainer project

The Howard Aircraft Corporation of Chicago does not seem to be covered anywhere on this forum, and it's a great injustice considering the beautiful racers and utility transport types they produced. That's probably because they are all either very well-known and documented or not considered as rare or "secret". The company's DGA-18 though, was a much less known low-wing radial-engined tandem-seat primary trainer that remained a prototype. It was briefly marketed for both the civilian and military markets as the DGA-125 (after its engine power) and more powerful DGA-160. The outbreak of the war killed all prospects for the civilian version; the success of the Fairchild M-62 Cornell and Ryan ST military trainers doomed the DGA-125 to oblivion.
I have just become aware of there being what seems like a development of the DGA-18, an enclosed cabin derivative with comparable dimensions but slighly increased wing area and retractable gear. Could it have been a competitor of the Fairchild PT-23? Or the Ryan PT-25? Whatever the purpose, it remained a paper project only.
The plan below was found on eBay and is entitled "Scale Comparison of Howard DGA-125 and RP(?) Primary and Secondary C.P.T.P. Trainers". It is dated October 30, 1940. I do not know what the complete designation of the "RP" was as the zoomed photo doesn't show it in full (it could be RPT). I believe "Secondary trainer" is just an alternate wording for "Advanced trainer". According to Wikipedia, the Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPTP) was "a flight training program (1938–1944) sponsored by the United States government with the stated purpose of increasing the number of civilian pilots, though having a clear impact on military preparedness."
Anyone ever heard of that advanced trainer proposal by Howard before?
 

Attachments

  • item17072.jpg
    item17072.jpg
    69.2 KB · Views: 851
  • item17072_b.jpg
    item17072_b.jpg
    60.1 KB · Views: 841
  • item17072_c.jpg
    item17072_c.jpg
    53.4 KB · Views: 817
  • item17072_d.jpg
    item17072_d.jpg
    51.8 KB · Views: 809
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Howard unknown 1940 cabin trainer project

Hi Stargazer,


of course I know Howard company,but I also heard about DGA-145,with
145 hp Warner Super Scarab engine,may it wasn't it,but the company
had many gaps in its series,and that aircraft may be one of them.
 
Re: Howard unknown 1940 cabin trainer project

Wonderful stuff, thanks for sharing, new to me but a very attactive design and the overlay of the two was clearly meant to show that the advanced trainer was so similar to the original primary trainer that it would be a low-risk proposition. Too bad it remained on paper. Cheers, Matthew
 
Interesting info from The Vintage Airplane (August 1974): Two freighter projects that never came to existence under Howard but were apparently copied and built by others... Any ideas? The only transport project by Howard that I know of is this undated "Howard-Nebesar" twin-boomer:
 

Attachments

  • Howard-Nesebar (Tophe).GIF
    Howard-Nesebar (Tophe).GIF
    205.7 KB · Views: 141
  • Howard-Nesebar.gif
    Howard-Nesebar.gif
    21.5 KB · Views: 135
  • freighters.gif
    freighters.gif
    73.7 KB · Views: 645
Answering my own post because I actually found one of those Howard projects tonight, in an old Howard advertisement...
 

Attachments

  • Cargo-Carrier.jpg
    Cargo-Carrier.jpg
    209.7 KB · Views: 180
Great find my dear Stargazer for the second project,


and for Howard-Nesebar aircraft,we displayed it here with some details in Les Ailes
Journal;


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21372.msg210963.html#msg210963
 
Skyblazer said:
Answering my own post because I actually found one of those Howard projects tonight, in an old Howard advertisement...


My dear Skyblazer,


here is a more info and drawings to Howard project;


http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=X9wDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    481 KB · Views: 140
  • 2.png
    2.png
    358 KB · Views: 129
  • 3.png
    3.png
    760.3 KB · Views: 96
Here's the part of the article that talks about the Howard project:
 

Attachments

  • Howard text.gif
    Howard text.gif
    285.8 KB · Views: 86
Skyblazer said:
...Obviously this is not one of them.

This being said, thanks a LOT for finding more on the Howard transport ...

Then it's better, I think, to add that thread to this one about Howard Aircraft.
 
hesham said:
Very strange,the two aircraft was for Howard ?.

No, no. That's not what Jemiba said. He said that since the Barr airliner was on the same image as the Howard type, it was best to leave them together.

Personally I would not have merged these, but anyway...
 
I'm not quite happy with this solution, too, but the alternative would be another theme
spread about several threads, giving even more room for misunderstandings, to my opinion.
Maybe a thread (in the patents section) with the links to the Barr patents (or even better,
with the full pictures) and appropriate cutouts or excerpts from the Popular Mechanics article
would do the trick ?
 
Meanwhile, here's a Howard project I had previously overlooked, a 1938 twin-tailed airliner very much in the vein of the Lockheed 12, Beech 18, Barkley-Grow T8P1 and such.

Please note that this has nothing to do with the postwar Lockheed Lodestar conversions by Howard Aero, an entirely different company.
 

Attachments

  • Howard airliner model (Popular Aviation, April 1938).jpg
    Howard airliner model (Popular Aviation, April 1938).jpg
    73 KB · Views: 196
Skyblazer said:
Meanwhile, here's a Howard project I had previously overlooked, a 1938 twin-tailed airliner very much in the vein of the Lockheed 12, Beech 18, Barkley-Grow T8P1 and such.

Please note that this has nothing to do with the postwar Lockheed Lodestar conversions by Howard Aero, an entirely different company.


Great find Skyblazer,


and certainly it was from DGA Missing series.
 
Meanwhile, here's a Howard project I had previously overlooked, a 1938 twin-tailed airliner very much in the vein of the Lockheed 12, Beech 18, Barkley-Grow T8P1 and such.

Please note that this has nothing to do with the postwar Lockheed Lodestar conversions by Howard Aero, an entirely different company.

A big surprise from; L+K 13/1969,

DGA-10 was a high wing twin engined light transport monoplane Project,could carry 5 to 9 passenger,as I discovered it and dear Stargazer.
DGA-14 was developed from DGA-11,but powered by one 330/350 hp Jacobs L-6 engine,maybe a Project only.
DGA-16 was a trainer version of DGA-15,Project.
DGA-17 was an ambulance version of DGA-15,Project.
 

Attachments

  • 30.png
    30.png
    177.6 KB · Views: 67
  • 31.png
    31.png
    134.1 KB · Views: 43
  • 32.png
    32.png
    110.6 KB · Views: 38
  • 33.png
    33.png
    173.1 KB · Views: 44
A few more images:




 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    108.5 KB · Views: 46
Last edited:
Hi Hesham!
Perhaps, we could split and merge this topics, to separate Howard from Babb, and in the same time - remain them interconnected.
The topic, that you mentioned above contains important drawings from the Babb's patents, allowing to understand the internal layout of poropsed cargo plane, including design of hinged upper part and other features.
 
A big surprise from; L+K 13/1969,

DGA-10 was a high wing twin engined light transport monoplane Project,could carry 5 to 9 passenger,as I discovered it and dear Stargazer.
DGA-14 was developed from DGA-11,but powered by one 330/350 hp Jacobs L-6 engine,maybe a Project only.
DGA-16 was a trainer version of DGA-15,Project.
DGA-17 was an ambulance version of DGA-15,Project.

I hope to make a complete list for this company in Designation Systems section,

 
Does anyone have a picture of the Howard UC.70C and the UC.70D?
 
I hope to make a complete list for this company in Designation Systems section
So now we have all the designations from DGA-1 to DGA-18 except DGA-13, but it is very possible that this was never allocated for superstitious reasons.
Note that there is also a Dickenson-Howard DGA-21, which is a new homebuilt incorporating design features from both the DGA-15 and DGA-6 airplanes (15 + 6 = 21).
 
I hope to make a complete list for this company in Designation Systems section,

That L+K text is actually somewhat confusing. It says that more than 600 DGA-15P derivatives were ordered by the air force with different wireless instalation and double doors. These were built as trainers under the designation DGA-16 and ambulance as DGA-17. Then it talks about variants for the Navy, the GH-1/2/3 and NH-1. The only other mention of DGA-16 I found is here: https://www.aviationarchaeology.com/dbListUSN4152.asp where they claim that DGA-16 is company designation for NH-1, but that might be a typo. The "air force" variants and "Navy" variants mentioned in L+K seems to me to be actually the same thing, with the DGA-16/17 MIGHT be company designations of GH resp. NH.
 
That L+K text is actually somewhat confusing. It says that more than 600 DGA-15P derivatives were ordered by the air force with different wireless instalation and double doors. These were built as trainers under the designation DGA-16 and ambulance as DGA-17. Then it talks about variants for the Navy, the GH-1/2/3 and NH-1.
This is the first time I've heard of the DGA-16 and -17 designations being used for the military versions, but after all, it is possible. I don't think L+K would have invented it, so they must have had access to a source for it.
The only other mention of DGA-16 I found is here: https://www.aviationarchaeology.com/dbListUSN4152.asp where they claim that DGA-16 is company designation for NH-1, but that might be a typo.
Why a typo? If DGA-16 was the trainer version, then it makes perfect sense, since "N" was the Navy prefix for trainers.
 
This is the first time I've heard of the DGA-16 and -17 designations being used for the military versions, but after all, it is possible. I don't think L+K would have invented it, so they must have had access to a source for it.

Why a typo? If DGA-16 was the trainer version, then it makes perfect sense, since "N" was the Navy prefix for trainers.
Because if you click on the "Howard NH DGA-16", the detailed page claims NH to be DGA-15. That 6 might be the typo. https://www.aviationarchaeology.com/listPages/Navy/asp/USN_Type_NH.asp
 
Because if you click on the "Howard NH DGA-16", the detailed page claims NH to be DGA-15. That 6 might be the typo. https://www.aviationarchaeology.com/listPages/Navy/asp/USN_Type_NH.asp
I see. Or perhaps Howard's had different inhouse paper designations for the military versions that the customers were unaware of? Lo and behold, here is what I just found in the book The Aircraft of the World, by William Green and Gerald Pollinger (Hanover House, 1956):

1743282818389.png

Okay, so the book claimed that all Navy versions were DGA-16, not differentiating the trainers from the transports. Still, to me this is a sign that L+K probably had it completely right and found the designations in another, even more accurate source than that William Green book.
 
And here's more! From Jane's American Fighting Aircraft of the 20th Century and Jane's Fighting Aircraft Of World War II:

1743283244671.png

Why was it there all along and we didn't see it?
Probably because we were so sure of the DGA-15 designation that we considered it a typo...
 
Chill, ok?
There IS a typo, or at least some inconsistency. On one page aviationarchaeology clains NH is DGA-16, on another that it is DGA-15. Both can't be right. Can you dig it?
L+K claims that a variant unknown to all your sources, ordered by the AIR FORCE in more than 600 examples, is DGA-16/17. It does NOT claim that GH and NH are DGA-16/17. They don't have it in any way completely right.
To quote myself,
"The "air force" variants and "Navy" variants mentioned in L+K seems to me to be actually the same thing, with the DGA-16/17 MIGHT be company designations of GH resp. NH."
I wrote that. Not L+K. The text says that the US Navy ordered "them", not saing specifically if it means DGA-15 or DGA-16/17, instead it says that DGA-16 are trainers and DGA-17 are specifically ambulance (which GH-1/2 are not). So there is a lot of uncertainty and more importantly the 600+ nonexistent air force machines.

Edit: also there are other books, mudding te waters. Altough much newer and less detailed about this stuff.
Johnson, E. R. United States Naval Aviation, 1919-1941. McFarland, Jefferson 2011. ISBN: 978-0-7864-4550-9.
Andrade, John M. U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Midland, Earl Shilton 1979. ISBN 0-904597-22-9.

Sadly my digital copy of the latter book is missing the pages with G designations. I'd trust the Jane's more about it anyway, though.
 

Attachments

  • Snímek obrazovky 2025-03-29 235236.png
    Snímek obrazovky 2025-03-29 235236.png
    178.9 KB · Views: 7
  • Snímek obrazovky 2025-03-29 235333.png
    Snímek obrazovky 2025-03-29 235333.png
    110.1 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Chill, ok?
I absolutely don't know why you've imagined I was annoyed, angry, or upset in any way.
My response was enthusiastic because we were making progress!
And with my two finds actually confirming what L+K had written, I was shocked that none of us had ever noticed what was right before our eyes all the time: that there was a DGA-16 designation mentioned in various texts as pertaining to the naval variants of the DGA-15, since I've researched this stuff for decades and never noticed it until today.

I wrote that. Not L+K. The text says that the US Navy ordered "them", not saing specifically if it means DGA-15 or DGA-16/17, instead it says that DGA-16 are trainers and DGA-17 are specifically ambulance (which GH-1/2 are not). So there is a lot of uncertainty and more importantly the 600+ nonexistent air force machines.
Sadly my digital copy of the latter book is missing the pages with G designations. I'd trust the Jane's more about it anyway, though.
L+K may have overlooked the existence of the GH versions. The letter "G" indicated utility/small transport (single engine) category. These could fulfill a variety of different missions:
  • GH-1 was a US Navy and Coast Guard personnel transport. 34 were delivered in 1942.
  • GH-2 was US Navy and Coast Guard aerial ambulance. 131 were delivered in 1942.
  • GH-3 was a US Navy and Coast Guard personnel transport with a 122-gal fuel tank. 115 were delivered in 1942.
NH-1 was a Navy-only instrument trainer with a third set of controls in the rear seat. 205 were delivered in 1943.

Altogether, 465 examples of the military version were delivered, all called "Nightingale" by the US Navy. It is less than the "600+" mention in L+K, but let's not forget that BuAer #56484/56683 was an order for 200 NH-1 aircraft that was cancelled.
 
Maybe I'm spending too much time on Quora but you sounded passive-agressive to me. Mea culpa.
Letectví acknowledged the existence of GH models, it's my copy of U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials that lacks them. If anybody have a physical copy of the book and posted the info about them it would be great.
I'd really like to know where Němeček, the author of the LK article, got the info... Here's also what Fahey's US army Aircraft 1908-1946 has to say about DGA:
 

Attachments

  • Snímek obrazovky 2025-03-30 032132.png
    Snímek obrazovky 2025-03-30 032132.png
    125.9 KB · Views: 10
I recall reading an article on Howard in a 1960s issue of Air Progress (IIRC). Story goes that Howard was unhappy (pissed) at the Navy GH Nightingale name for the aircraft, preferring his DGA designation. When asked what DGA stood for, he replied "Damn Good Airplane!"
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom