Register here

Author Topic: The Other Designs That Went Up Against The Lockheed YC-130 Hercules?  (Read 22818 times)

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1575
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
In 1957 the USAF put forward a Request for Proposal (RfP) to the aircraft industry for a Tactical Air Command Transport as a replacement for its large and venerable fleet of Fairchild C-82/C-119 Flying Boxcar, and Douglas C-47 Dakota.
This competition would eventually be won by the Lockheed Model 82, which would become the famous and versatile workhouse the C-130 Hercules.

But the Request for Proposal was answered by three other aviation / aerospace companies. These three other companies were Fairchild with a four- engine, long wingspan variant of the C-119 Flying Boxcar; Boeing with their Model 495; while the remaining company was Douglas (design unknown).

The above information on the other three companies is all that I have.
Does anyone have any information, drawings and specifications on these other submitted designs?

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: The Other Designs That Went Up Against The Lockheed YC-130 Hercules?
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2006, 02:30:20 pm »
Hi all, since I'm new here, i feel obliged to post something for a start :). I choose this topic, that's going unanswered till now. Here's a fine 3-view of the Boeing submission. Source: Naval Institute Press's Boeng Aircraft since 1916. Data that I have: Four P&W T-34P-6 (5700 HPs each), Span 140 ft, lenght 112 ft 10 in, gross weight 143.500 lbs

Regards!

« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 05:20:30 am by Jemiba »

Offline TinWing

  • What-if addict
  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 885
Re: The Other Designs That Went Up Against The Lockheed YC-130 Hercules?
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2006, 04:10:30 pm »
Hi all, since I'm new here, i feel obliged to post something for a start :). I choose this topic, that's going unanswered till now. Here's a fine 3-view of the Boeing submission. Source: Naval Institute Press's Boeng Aircraft since 1916. Data that I have: Four P&W T-34P-6 (5700 HPs each), Span 140 ft, lenght 112 ft 10 in, gross weight 143.500 lbs

Regards!



I just wanted to mention that your 260KB .tif file would only be 48KB as a .gif.

Incidentally, the T-34 was also proposed for the cancelled turboprop derivative of the Lockheed Super Constellation.

Offline Chris707

  • CLEARANCE: Restricted
  • Posts: 17
Re: The Other Designs That Went Up Against The Lockheed YC-130 Hercules?
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2006, 06:47:31 pm »
These are 1948-ish designs *IIRC*, but they may well have had a lot to do with Fairchild's eventual C-130 competitor...




The 6-engine variant kind of looks a lot like a tadpole, doesn't it?

Chris
---------------------------------
Speculative Warplane Designs
http://www.dataviewbooks.com

Offline Tophe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1151
    • Forked Ghosts
Re: The Other Designs That Went Up Against The Lockheed YC-130 Hercules?
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2006, 08:42:26 pm »
Your first picture is titled C82-2a, does it mean this is a Packet II? Nice... ;D

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
The "real" YC-130 competition ?
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2006, 02:57:28 pm »
Well, the accepted wisdom on the competiton that back in 1951 produced the Hercules run as: USAF asked four companies to tender proposals; they were Lockeed, Boeing, Douglas, Fairchild. All tendered four engine aircrafts; Lockeed won. The Boeing project has been published in another topic; nothing is known on the Douglas one; the Fairchild is rumoured of being inspired by the C-119; Lockeed design was Preliminary L-206, later Model 82. Right?
Well, today, doing research on old issues of Aviation Week (1951) and looking for something else (early american civilian jet transport concepts) , I stumbled in a news (Issue for July 9, 1951, page 16) saying that Lockeed has just won the competiton. What initially caught my eye was the summary describing the competiton as a "five-company contest". More surprises were to come: i summarize them here. If someone wants the entire article, I can scan it and send but this is the essential.
All that follows are form AW (in brackets my comments)

USAF invited nine companies to the competiton: Lockeed, Boeing, Douglas, Chase, Airlifts Inc (more on this later), Fairchild, Martin, North American, Northop.
The LAST FOUR declined (Fairchild out!!!) :o

The five remaining submitted nine desgns in all: five powered by Allison T-38 turboprops; three by Allison T-40 (paired T-38s); one by piston Wright R-3350 Compound (until now it was supposed that requirement was for turboprop aircraft; moreover, from some hints in the articles, i.e. explicitly citing one or another proposal as four-engine, it may be inferred that some proposals, probably the T-40-powered ones, were two-engine).
Douglas proposed three different projects, one was the R-3550 one; Chase Aircraft submitted three; Airlifts Inc submitted a scaled up  Burnellil derived design described as flyign wing (Airlft in 1945 acquired the prototype of a Burnelli aircraft plus plans plus rights on them); Boeing submitted one design (we know it); Lockeed two (completely ignored in the official rendition of the early C-130 history by Lockeed sources).
Gross weight at TO run from 100.000 lbs of the smallest of the Chase designs to 140.000 lbs of the larger Lockeed, not chosen, design.
Lockeed win was a very close affair with a Douglas four-engine design  (the other Douglas two was the piston one a and a two-turboprop powered by T-40).
Porbaaly the heavier Lockeed proposal was a two turboprop T-40 powered one too.
That's it. Pretty muffling, in my opinion.  ??? Could AW be so wrong on Fairchild and nueber of competitors writing just a couple of days (offical Lockeed win was announche July 2 1951), since AV cites USAF spokesman. And how everyone repeats the same old version when a very different (and intriguig, think abouth the numerous fan of Burnelli)  one is available in a multi-thousand copies a week magazine preserved in hundreds of libraries? A good subject for a FOIA, that's it... ;)
« Last Edit: October 08, 2006, 09:49:57 am by overscan »

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2006, 03:21:17 am »
Sigh, I hoped to stir a debate... :'( cargo aircraft aain't such a popular subject, it seems  :(

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3325
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #7 on: October 06, 2006, 08:17:12 am »
I'd like to post my contributions but this topic, I have found it very interesting but it's totally unknown to me, I'm sorry :-[

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2094
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2006, 08:26:35 am »
same think... what can I add ? That the C-130 was launched when the turboprops were on the verge to replace the piston engines ? Interesting thought... a C-130 with four R-3350...
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully

Political correctness: just bury your head in the sand for the sake of appeasement and "peace for our time"
- https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Dassault#Affaires_

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2006, 08:32:38 am »
 ;D Hoped someone had info on the Burnelli-like proposal, for instance..
Anyway, thanks friends!  :D
And, BTW, it remains a mistery to me why the wrong data on the competion circulated for so long. I suspect because the problem with aviation history (all history, I fear) is that people tend to copy from previous sources without ever confronting with the primary ones. To correct things, for a start, I modified the Wikipedia entry on the Hercules development. Now let's see the propagation time on the web  8)
« Last Edit: October 06, 2006, 08:48:37 am by Skybolt »

Offline lark

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2006, 09:50:58 am »
I'm on the search , but I can't say much yet.
(have to dig deep in my files)

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2006, 02:38:05 pm »
Meanwhile, I tracked down explanations of the Chase's "writing off" from the accepted wisdom on the C-130 competition, and of refusal to compete by Fairchild, too.
As an heritage of the WW2, during the Korea War the US activated a multiple source system to produce aircrafts. The Kaiser-Frazer Company (Michigan), don't know if it's the same Kaiser of the Liberty ships and the Spruce Goose (ooops, the First Hercules), in December 1950 received by the USAF an order to second source Fairchild 119Fs. Later, between 1951 and 1952, Chase offered a version of its XG-20 assault glider powered by two R-2800s. USAF liked it and called it the C-123 Avitruck, ordering five pre-production planes. In late 1952 USAF decided that they wanted full scale production of the C-123, but Chase lacked the plants to pursue it. So USAF turned to Kaiser-Frazer, that simply bought ouit the Chase Company and started to produce the C-123 in the same plant of the second-source C-119. But the USAF wasn't happy of the way K-F worked (high costs, low quality), so in June 1953 cancelled the C-119 contract, and with it went also the C-123 one. Subsequently, the Air Force invited a score of companies to submit bids to produce C-123s. Fairchild  wasn't in the invited list, but at the very last moment they obtained the permission to bid and won (their bid was the lowest price one). So the sole product of Chase  went to Fairchild and after some other circonvolutions it became the Provider. Technically, Fairchild didn't buy Chase, practically yes. This is the reason why, I think, Chase's name dropped out of the accepted wisdom.
As for the Fairchild's itself refusal to bid on the C-130, simply they thought they already had won, or, better, that an aircraft they did and was already flying would rrlegate the new comer to oblivion. The aircraft was the XC-119H, Model 160, with a longer wing and Wright R-3550-30W Turbo Compound engines.

Offline dan_inbox

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 473
  • Profanity: weaker mind trying to speak forcefully
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2006, 01:33:35 am »
Quote from: Skybolt
Hoped someone had info on the Burnelli-like proposal, for instance..
OK, I'll jump: my first post here. Hope I'll get it right. Hello, everyone!

I only have a photo of a 1952 Burnelli concept. I have no idea how close it is to the 1951 entry into that YC-130 competition, but that is the closest I have.

This 1952 design was promoted as a flying car-ferry concept. A Carvair of sorts.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2006, 08:55:20 am »
Thanks dan_inbox! Actually yhe design wsn't Burnell's strictly speaking. Airlifts Inc. in lat '40s acquired the CBY-3 Loadmaster (built by Canadian Car and Foudry in 1945) with design rights. The AW articke says that Airlifts proposed a scaled-ud design, I assume a scaled-up CBY-3. In the end, could be it was similar to the 1953 Burnelli original design. I think something can be found in patents.

Offline Antonio

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 3325
Re: The "real" YC-130 competiton ?
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2006, 08:55:36 am »
Welcome onboard Dan :)

Nice drawing. Burnelli designs are fantastic. It looks very competent as an assault transport because it has two cargo ramps. A first sight it seems better than the classical single ramp designs we are habituated since the end of WWII. Why this concept never succeded?

Dan, do you know which was the intended powerplant?. It seems a turboprop powered design.

Cheers

Antonio