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

allysonca

allysonca

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
11 March 2011
Messages
286
Reaction score
981
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.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0004 copy.jpg
    IMG_0004 copy.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 1,174
  • IMG_0002.jpg
    IMG_0002.jpg
    16.1 KB · Views: 1,161
  • IMG_1565 copy.jpg
    IMG_1565 copy.jpg
    17.7 KB · Views: 1,129
A wild guess: Fairchild.
 
Very odd design. High aspect ratio wings, large nose radome, no visible place for engines except maybe those pods.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was thinking glider, but I didn't think that idea survived past WW2.


I think it might be something along those lines.
 
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
Click to expand...
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • unknown_glider.gif
    unknown_glider.gif
    22.7 KB · Views: 974
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Cool - but bigger photos might be useful? Hard to make out details.
Click to expand...

I agree, so here you go...

(Courtesy of Sir George Cox Collection)
 

Attachments

  • High Aspect-Ratio Transport Project 01.jpg
    High Aspect-Ratio Transport Project 01.jpg
    86.3 KB · Views: 787
  • High Aspect-Ratio Transport Project 02.jpg
    High Aspect-Ratio Transport Project 02.jpg
    87.3 KB · Views: 274
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 !
 
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

768px-Convair_XC-99_in_flight_c1948.jpg


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 ?
 
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.
 
Michel Van said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
circle-5 said:
... so I'll say Boeing. ...
Click to expand...

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.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing_laminar_flow-cont_transport.jpg
    Boeing_laminar_flow-cont_transport.jpg
    52.1 KB · Views: 741
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Wild guess: anyone seen a drawing of the Douglas CG-19 (1946) cargo glider?
It could also be a later Douglas cargo glider design.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
I think it's much earlier than that....
Click to expand...

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" !
 
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

index.php


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
 
Jemiba said:
It nearly would expect struts here, too, if we would get a view of the underside.
Click to expand...

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)
 

Attachments

  • High Aspect-Ratio Transport Project 04.jpg
    High Aspect-Ratio Transport Project 04.jpg
    74.4 KB · Views: 631
Many thanks ! Apart from the underside details, it's a nearly perfect shot of the planform,
a very good starting point ! ;)
 
I know it sounds strange,but the wingshape made
me think about a Dromedary concept...
 
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' .
Skybolt said:
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".
Click to expand...


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. :)
 

Attachments

  • Maple.gif
    Maple.gif
    669.3 KB · Views: 521
Last edited by a moderator:
lark said:
I know it sounds strange,but the wingshape made
me think about a Dromedary concept...
Click to expand...

Yes, it also reminded me of some of the nuclear powered aircraft proposals.
 
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 ...
 
fightingirish said:
I hope, my founding will give this topic a next step forward. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
We're certainly getting somewhere here, though I'd personally see this one as a competitor design rather than our mysterious aircraft...
 
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....
 
Skybolt said:
(Georgia Lockheed still is a big unknown)
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more... Is it normal that navigation stops at page 17? (the "Next page" link is not working)
 
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...
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
allysonca said:
One thing I should have mentioned is that the model came from a friends estate, and he was a programmer for General Dynamics.
Click to expand...

Does this mean there is a big chance for the model to be of a Convair/GD model?
 
...Maple was in reality MPLE... great to have you back Marco.
 
Michel Van said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

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

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom