Douglas (possibly) airlifter model, perhaps related to MPLE program

[allysonca]

OK, here is a good one....


Douglas, Lockheed, Boeing? In my 59 years of collecting I've never had one of these. Not original base (Lockheed) so no help there. It looks to have had pushers. Perhaps Counter Rotating Props on the inboards?


Looked in all my resources and come up blank. It looks to me to be Douglas as the finish is a lot better that the usual Lockheed. It's wood and the control surfaces and doors are finely scribed.

 

[Triton]

Interesting model. Thank you for sharing, allysonca.

 

[aim9xray]

A wild guess: Fairchild.

 

[Jemiba]

The fuselage reminds me of the Douglas 2085 : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2105.msg189927.html#msg189927

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Cool - but bigger photos might be useful? Hard to make out details.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Very odd design. High aspect ratio wings, large nose radome, no visible place for engines except maybe those pods.

 

[Stargazer]

Very odd design. High aspect ratio wings, large nose radome, no visible place for engines except maybe those pods.

Unless... the shape/length of wings and the absence of place for engines indicate this is an "air trailer" kind of transport... a competitor of the Temco 122.

See: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9331.0.html

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I was thinking glider, but I didn't think that idea survived past WW2.


I think it might be something along those lines.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Wild guess: anyone seen a drawing of the Douglas CG-19 (1946) cargo glider?

It could also be a later Douglas cargo glider design.

CG - Cargo Glider (1941-47)


Frankfort CG-1
Frankfort CG-2
Waco CG-3
Waco CF-4 Hadrian
St Louis CG-5
St Louis CG-6
Bowlus-Dupont/ Douglas CG-7
Bowlus-Dupont/ Douglas CG-8
AGA Aviation CG-9
Laister-Kauffman CG-10 Trojan Horse
Snead CG-11
Read-York CG-12
Waco CG-13
Chase CG-14
Waco CG-15 Hadrian
General Airborne Transport CG-16
Douglas CG-17
Chase CG-18
Douglas CG-19
Chase CG-20

 

[Jemiba]

Tried a quick and provisional sketch from what I can see on those photos. The wing is
quite far aft and the "radome" could be either a clamshell or a swinging nose, I think.
The large pods under the kink of the wing probably house the main gear legs.
Transport glider seems quite plausible to me.

 

[circle-5]

Cool - but bigger photos might be useful? Hard to make out details.

I agree, so here you go...

(Courtesy of Sir George Cox Collection)

 

[Jemiba]

That's it ! ... eraly in the morning ! And we were plain wrong !!!
Any information about company/designation ?

And not to forget : Many thanks for sharing !

 

[Michel Van]

now with the push propellors, can it be we looking at a Convair design ?
those propellor look susceptibly used on B-36 and XC-99
fuselage has some similarly to XC-99

from size of model propellors i guess that this plane is half the size of XC-99
that's rough the size of C-130 Hercules
so is this a contender for C-130 General Operating Requirement ?

 

[Stargazer]

The shape of the wings is very U-2 like... I'm leaning towards Lockheed at this stage, though they haven't done many pusher propeller designs... Just an opinion, I could be totally wrong.

 

[circle-5]

now with the push propellors, can it be we looking at a Convair design ?
those propellor look susceptibly used on B-36 and XC-99
fuselage has some similarly to XC-99
from size of model propellors i guess that this plane is half the size of XC-99
that's rough the size of C-130 Hercules
so is this a contender for C-130 General Operating Requirement ?

Based on the flight deck size and roll-on access below the cockpit, I would say this is definitely much larger than a C-130. Probably in the C-124 to C-132 class, but with the speed and maneuverability of an Me-323.

So far, we have an equal number of votes for Fairchild, Douglas, Convair and Lockheed. I don't want to play favorites, so I'll say Boeing. The winner gets to not spend an evening with Kim Kardashian.

 

[Jemiba]

... so I'll say Boeing. ...

Well, it reminds me on a Boeing proposal, shown in Aviation Week 1975, although that probably was
just intended as an experimental aircraft.
It nearly would expect struts here, too, if we would get a view of the underside. With the wings far aft
the whole aircraft looks quite unbalanced.

 

[Stargazer]

I think it's much earlier than that. I wonder if it could have been a contender for the same spec as the unbuilt Boeing C-127 (which was also a four-prop transport with cranked wing roots, except the props were tractor and the wing was low):

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,9984.0

 

[Stargazer]

Wild guess: anyone seen a drawing of the Douglas CG-19 (1946) cargo glider?
It could also be a later Douglas cargo glider design.

I thought this question had been answered but apparently not, so here is a link to the topic on the CG-19. You'll find it was quite a different design:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5663.0

Also, our mystery transport seems to be more late 1950s-/early 1960s-ish.

 

[Jemiba]

I think it's much earlier than that....

Not to be misunderstood, I didn't try to put it in a direct time-wise relation. It's just an example
for a high set gull wing by Boeing. So, maybe in 1975 there already was some experience with
such designs, but it's a big "maybe" !

 

[Michel Van]

apropo Boeing

this transporter wing design remind me of that Boeing Model 497
cranked wing roots is used to higher the fuselage for carry a container
In the two big gondola is the lading gear install

now instead replace the container with the fuselage and Push propellors.
but had Boeing ever proposed post war Push propellors ?
the only i know were Douglas and Convair

 

[circle-5]

It nearly would expect struts here, too, if we would get a view of the underside.

Here you go, Jens. The design was roll-on / roll-off for loading and unloading efficiency, with rear clamshell doors and a single front door containing the radome. I assume this front door would swing open to one side, which was popular at the time -- swing-up doors would not appear until the CX-HLS designs, around 1965. Note inboard engine heat exchanger intakes are split-off to the sides, because of the main gear housing obstruction of the forward pod areas.

(Courtesy of Sir George Cox Collection)

 

[Jemiba]

Many thanks ! Apart from the underside details, it's a nearly perfect shot of the planform,
a very good starting point !

 

[lark]

I know it sounds strange,but the wingshape made
me think about a Dromedary concept...

 

[fightingirish]

Hi folks,
while using the search function in this forum to find the suitable topics to post Tony Chong's new blog entries regarding Northrop's cruise missile concepts, I got one search result to the topic 'After SLAM came CLAM, and then CLAMP' .

Yep, they were from 1960. I attach the missile launcher concept published in AW&ST in April 1964. Propulsion was to be twin regenerative turboprops. No BLC, apparently. The cruise missile is said to be air-breathing, there is an hint of a ventral intake in the original (the copy is abysmal, sorry, will try to scan again the original but the screens in old AW&ST were very coarse). By this time is is possible that the missile launcher concept was already called "Maple".

This missile launcher concept, esp. fuselage, wings and tail, looks quite similar to this unknown US transport project. But the propulsion housings on the wings look different.
I hope, my founding will give this topic a next step forward.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I know it sounds strange,but the wingshape made
me think about a Dromedary concept...

Yes, it also reminded me of some of the nuclear powered aircraft proposals.

 

[Jemiba]

Good find ! A modified transport seemst to be a logical choice, fitted with the
an engine for very long cruise flights and a weapons bay ...

 

[circle-5]

I hope, my founding will give this topic a next step forward.

Yes you did, fightingirish! This looks like a 2-engine version of the same airframe. The similarities are numerous and unmistakable.
We're almost nearly part of the way somewhere, which is much better than yesterday. Thank you.

 

[Stargazer]

We're certainly getting somewhere here, though I'd personally see this one as a competitor design rather than our mysterious aircraft...

 

[Skybolt]

Sorry to resurrect an old topic... Actually the similarity between the AW&ST concept drawing lauching cruise and the transport model makes a lot of sense... I've been away in these years, but my research contniud, albeit at lower tempo. Maple was in reality MPLE, for MultiPurpose Long Endurance aircraft. Roles would have been: stand-off cruise missile launcher (intended weapon: CLAM), airborne command post, cargo and troop transport, tanker and possibly maritime patrol. A SOR was written to cover MPLE in February 1963 but I didn't find out the number. If some of you (hi, Lark....) senses a similarity with the concept from the Korea War era of composite bombers, missile launchers and cargo transports, you are not alone....

 

[circle-5]

Hey Skybolt -- good to have you back!

 

[Skybolt]

Hi all... And a little comeback gift... http://www.c141heaven.info/dotcom/pdp54/pdp54_001.html No drawings, but a lot of background info on VERY little known programs.... (Georgia Lockheed still is a big unknown)

 

[Stargazer]

(Georgia Lockheed still is a big unknown)

I couldn't agree more... Is it normal that navigation stops at page 17? (the "Next page" link is not working)

 

[hesham]

Hi all... And a little comeback gift... http://www.c141heaven.info/dotcom/pdp54/pdp54_001.html No drawings, but a lot of background info on VERY little known programs.... (Georgia Lockheed still is a big unknown)

My dear Skyblot,


please,can you send to us those a background info on very little known programs for Lockheed-Georgia.

 

[Skybolt]

Page 17 is the last slide uploaded. Don't know if it was the last slide of presentation E-456 or simply from there on it started covering topics not-C141 related.
@Hesham: everything I have, I'll publish...

 

[hesham]

OK my dear Skybolt and many thanks.

 

[allysonca]

One thing I should have mentioned is that the model came from a friends estate, and he was a programmer for General Dynamics. He was the source for a lot of things that go bump in the night that GD made and I received modles like the Fish and Kingfish, a plethora of F-16's with strange wings and the FX twin engine proposal. There were many concepts that he scrounged and saved from the trash over the years that we traded. I always kept the big models and the small ones went to the Cox collection.

Oh.... The Navy swing wing F-22, the huge Stealth Bomber concept, and the A-12's in various configs were from my friend as well.

 

[Stargazer]

One thing I should have mentioned is that the model came from a friends estate, and he was a programmer for General Dynamics.

Does this mean there is a big chance for the model to be of a Convair/GD model?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Ally,

You're singin our song with this model talk.

 

[lark]

...Maple was in reality MPLE... great to have you back Marco.

 

[melwalker1186]

now with the push propellors, can it be we looking at a Convair design ?
those propellor look susceptibly used on B-36 and XC-99
fuselage has some similarly to XC-99

from size of model propellors i guess that this plane is half the size of XC-99
that's rough the size of C-130 Hercules
so is this a contender for C-130 General Operating Requirement ?

I see the similarities to the convair but I just find the wing design to be too weird.