Competition of Ryan FR-1 Fireball

N

nugo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
2 February 2006
Messages
356
Reaction score
81
Hi All!

forgotten competition of FR-1 Fireball

9 firms participated:
1) Ryan Model 28-------XFR-1
2) Grumman Design 57(G-57)
3) ? ?
4) ? ?
5) ? ?
6) ? ?
7) ? ?
8) ? ?
9) ? ?

That you can add ?
 
Hi my friends!

ei, my friend hesham, Douglas Model 558--proposal of 1945 year and Model 592--proposal of 1943 ???
D-592 proposal since WWII.
Douglas could be respond competition of XFR-1---Douglas Model 4??

ei, my friend Apophenia Curtiss his Model 99 (later XF15C-1) not respond competition of XFR-1.
 
Hi Nugo,

in the book of American fighters since 1917,they spoke about the
Curtiss XF15C-1 as intended to compete the Ryan XFR-1.
 

Attachments

  • bell proposal.JPG
    bell proposal.JPG
    36.3 KB · Views: 1,291
Hi,


and may be the Goodyear GA-5 was submitted to this competition,which
was discovered by my dear Tailspin.
 
hesham said:
Hi, and may be the Goodyear GA-5 was submitted to this competition,which
was discovered by my dear Tailspin.
Click to expand...

The Ryan XFR-1 had already flown by the time the Goodyear submitted a proposal to BuAer in December 1944. I suspect that it was an unsolicited proposal, which was not uncommon.
 
Thank you my dear Tailspin,


and for the Douglas D-592,it was not submitted to this tender.
 
hesham said:
Thank you my dear Tailspin, and for the Douglas D-592, it was not submitted to this tender.
Click to expand...

? The Douglas 592 was submitted against the 1948 VF interceptor requirement that was won by the McDonnell proposal of its Model 58 that became the F3H.
 
Thank you my dear Tailspin,


but do you know the other contenders in This Ryan FR-1 competition ?.
 
hesham said:
Thank you my dear Tailspin, but do you know the other contenders in This Ryan FR-1 competition ?.
Click to expand...

I don't have anything with me that addresses the initiation of the Ryan FR-1 program and I didn't trip over any documents that described a competition in my my most recent visit to Archives II. I'll keep my eye out for it.
 
Thank you my dear Tailspin,


and I suggest that,McDonnell Model-18J and Bell D-22 may be submitted to
this competition.
 
My dear Tophe discovered this patent,

for Goodyear,and I suspect if it was GA-5,but we can't confirm it was submitted to this contest.

Espacenet - Original document

worldwide.espacenet.com worldwide.espacenet.com
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    55 KB · Views: 521
Last edited:
Hi Folks

In Fighters Over the Fleet: Naval Air Defence from Biplanes to the Cold War (Friedman), there is mention of the Grumman G-67, an F7F-2 with an I-20 jet engine in each nacelle behind the radials. It was a proposal submitted to BuAir in August 1943, so the timing seems right.

Also appears here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3149.msg25421.html#msg25421

Harry
 
snark said:
In Fighters Over the Fleet: Naval Air Defence from Biplanes to the Cold War (Friedman), there is mention of the Grumman G-67, an F7F-2 with an I-20 jet engine in each nacelle behind the radials. It was a proposal submitted to BuAir in August 1943, so the timing seems right.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And it was also described in the exact same manner in the old Docavia book "Les Avions Grumman". Surely a likely contender.
 
Hi,

I saw on Net,a patent for mixed powered fighter,with inverted gull-wing shape,and it was never mentioned in this thread,unfortunately I was searched in anther subject,so I didn't care,can anyone help or remember me,what was it ?,and it was from early 1940s !.
 
Last edited:
Of course the Douglas D-592 was wrong,but I think it was many patent
to a mixed powered aircraft during this period.
 
Hi,

I think the Curtiss XF15C-1 was not involved in this competition,because it was appeared after chosen Ryan,but may or I suggest that,the Curtiss submitted a design in "P" series,then the company made a private venture and developed it into this ?.
 
Last edited:
We can say about the contenders,

1- Ryan Model 28 or XFR-1
2- Grumman Design 57(G-57)
3- Goodyear GA-5
4- McDonnell Model-18H ?
5- Bell D-22 ?
6- Douglas D-?
7- Curtiss P-?
8- ------?
9- ------?
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • McDonnell Aircraft Model 18H-2.jpg
    McDonnell Aircraft Model 18H-2.jpg
    891.4 KB · Views: 201
  • McDonnell Aircraft Model 18H.jpg
    McDonnell Aircraft Model 18H.jpg
    665.5 KB · Views: 199
hesham said:
We can say about the contenders,

1- Ryan Model 28 or XFR-1
2- Grumman Design 57(G-57)
3- Goodyear GA-5
4- McDonnell Model-18H ?
5- Bell D-22 ?
6- Douglas D-?
7- Curtiss P-?
8- ------?
9- ------?
Click to expand...

As I suggested before,the eighth may Fleetwings,and the ninth could
be Lockheed as I think ?.
 
hesham said:
We can say about the contenders,

1- Ryan Model 28 or XFR-1
2- Grumman Design 57(G-57)
3- Goodyear GA-5
4- McDonnell Model-18H ?
5- Bell D-22 ?
6- Douglas D-?
7- Curtiss P-?
8- ------?
9- ------?
Click to expand...

I was wrong, for McDonnell,it could be Model-18J and not 18H.
 
hesham said:
I was wrong, for McDonnell,it could be Model-18J and not 18H.
Click to expand...

The XFR-1 had already flown (25 June 1944) by the time that drawings appeared for the McDonnell Models 17 and 18 (2 Sept 1944 and 9 Sept 1944, respectively).

Can anyone illuminate the differences between these McDonnell Aircraft designs?

The McDonnell Model 17A is describe as a turboprop - its GE TG-100 producing both tailpipe thrust and driving a propeller (eg: in Friedman's Fighters Over the Fleet). So it had a single powerplant? Not a mix of TG-100A turboprop and I-16 turbojet (as in the Consolidated-Vultee XP-81)?

The Model 18s were definitely mixed-power designs with a larger I-40 turbojet (derived from the TG-100) and a Pratt Whitney R-2800 radial. But how else did these three McDonnell designs differ from one another? Eg: was the Model 17A airframe closely related to that of the mixed-power Model 18s?
 
hesham said:
The link is died,how to get it again ?.
Click to expand...

There is no easy way to get back there. For some reason, Google Patents changed all of its urls since you posted that image (reinforcing the need to provide patent numbers and application titles - not just ever-changable urls).

So, go to Google Patents and search: bell+aircraft+corporation+aircraft "1943".

Around the date of your image, a slew of Design Patent applications were submitted on behalf of the Bell Aircraft Corporation. Reading the description sections of such Design Patent applications, you will see phrases such an "ornamental design for an airplane". In other words, the external appearance or layout is being claimed to be original ... so not a 'design' in the way we used that word.

To know precisely what you're looking at, you must read the summary information for details. But, even then, Google Patents can present plenty of false leads. One pitfall is the use of the word "attorney".

For example, US Design Patent 136,580 (USD 136580S) was submitted for the Model 32 (later XP-77) with Robert J. Woods listed as "inventor". In the description, Woods refers specifically to "my new design". And, of course, we know Bob Woods to have been Bell Aircraft's chief engineer. But the descriptions are rarely that categorical.

Google Patents cannot seem to distinguish between "attorney" and "inventor". For example, Google Patents lists "Inventor Herbert L. Bowers" for Des.146,072 (titled the "Bowers airplane") which covers the Design Patent for Bell's D-16/Model 40 (later XP-83). Herbert L. Bowers is given as another "attorney". But, actually, Herbert Bowers was an aeronautical engineer and had been Bob Woods' assistant. Alas, Woods is not usually the engineer attributed with the design of the D-16/Model 40.

Closer in time to your image was Des. 143,758 (USD143758S) listing a "RHODES AIRPLANE" - which looks like a very early stab at a jet-powered Kingcobra. The "inventor" section is garbled. In the text, this is given as "attorney" E.P. Rhodes (who, in reality, would later become project engineer on the Model 40). BTW, to further confuse matters, many sources list 'Charles' Rhodes as the designer of the XP-83. In its summary, Google Patents lists "Inventor Greiner Road". This bit of Google AI-generated nonsense comes from the garbling of Edgar Rhodes' Clarence, NY, home address at the time.

The take-home here is read Google Patents descriptions very carefully and approach any Google summaries with scepticism.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom