Douglas O-46B Observation Plane / CP 39-785 (1939)

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,244
Reaction score
8
Very interesting find! It seems to be the Douglas proposal for the same Specification that produced the Curtiss Owl (the O-52 was C-416-1, so perhaps this may have been C-416-2 — JUST a hypothesis here).
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
8
Skyblazer said:
Very interesting find! It seems to be the Douglas proposal for the same Specification that produced the Curtiss Owl (the O-52 was C-416-1, so perhaps this may have been C-416-2 — JUST a hypothesis here).
Good educated guess – I hope some evidence will eventually confirm that. It was not customary for Douglas to omit an ID nameplate of some sort on their models. They were clearly not thinking of the problems this would cause me, 80 years later ... :)
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
511
Reaction score
9
Could this model has been (intentionally) lacks the wing struts?

Similarity to Curtiss O-52 is striking - and wing's planform "asks" for struts.

There were some Douglas high wing observation's types - but none of them have been as clean and elegant :cool:
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
680
Reaction score
0
From above or three quarters view, very similar to the Westland Lysander, minus the strutts. I know it is not but the similarity is there.
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
511
Reaction score
9
Foo Fighter said:
From above or three quarters view, very similar to the Westland Lysander, minus the strutts. I know it is not but the similarity is there.
And minus the fixed undercarriage of Lysander. ;)

We could think about this Westland aircraft, as about obsolete - and as about mass-produced and widely-used at the same time. No Douglas or Curtiss "observation" aircraft could rich similar "popularity".
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
8
Silencer1 said:
Could this model has been (intentionally) lacks the wing struts?

Similarity to Curtiss O-52 is striking - and wing's planform "asks" for struts.

There were some Douglas high wing observation's types - but none of them have been as clean and elegant :cool:
The model is generally well preserved (for its age) and shows no evidence there ever were any struts – this was a fully cantilevered wing design. I imagine the wing support structure was intrusive inside the cockpit, but the absence of struts gave the crew an unimpeded view of the ground below.
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
511
Reaction score
9
circle-5 said:
Silencer1 said:
The model is generally well preserved (for its age) and shows no evidence there ever were any struts – this was a fully cantilevered wing design. I imagine the wing support structure was intrusive inside the cockpit, but the absence of struts gave the crew an unimpeded view of the ground below.
I think, that wing planform could be a clue - with widest airfoile in the middle of the wing (where struts could be attached), and narrower - near fuselage. Please, compare it with Westland Lysander.

The size of model could be a reason, why struts have been omitted - either they too thin for being produced in appopriate scale or too weak to be touched by viewers.

In my humble opinion, struts itself wouldn't be so bigproblem for observation.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,955
Reaction score
14
Silencer1 said:
In my humble opinion, struts itself wouldn't be so bigproblem for observation.
Certainly not, but they weren't necessary, see the Cessna Model A (1927), Lockheed Vega (1927), or Renard R.17 (1931).
The wing planform may be no indicator for the need of struts here, it's the leading edge, that's drawn in and just as in
the Lysander the reason probably just was the pilot's view.
And looking at that prop on the model, I really don't think, that the struts were just omitted, because of sorrows, that
they could be damaged. A simple piece of steel wire would have been much stronger, than those prop blades.
I have full confidence in the preciseness of that, certainly long gone modeller here !
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
8
I agree with Jemiba. It would not have been a problem to include struts (the model is quite large) since much smaller details are shown. See attached photo – note metal prop detail, side window angle, etc. These models were made to generate sales and several manufacturers were competing for just one customer. Everything had to be accurate. If Douglas factory drawings are ever found (there is likely a copy at the National Archives), the absence of struts will be confirmed.

As for struts impeding the view, successive short flights in a Cessna 172 and 177 will reveal how much of a difference it makes not to have these things in the way. And neither the 172 or the 177 are observation planes!
 

Attachments

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
511
Reaction score
9
Dear circle-5!

Do you have estimation of scale for this model? Perhaps, the propeller diameter could be a key to this subject?
And could you be so kind to tell it's overall size?

Thanks in advance!

I wonder, what's the origins of such display models in USA, when their initially became common as presentation of company poropsals to the armed services?
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
8
Silencer1 said:
Dear circle-5!

Do you have estimation of scale for this model? Perhaps, the propeller diameter could be a key to this subject?
And could you be so kind to tell it's overall size?

Thanks in advance!

I wonder, what's the origins of such display models in USA, when their initially became common as presentation of company poropsals to the armed services?
This late-1930s Douglas Observation Plane concept model measures 27-1/2 inches wingspan x 20 inches length (698,5mm W x 508mm L). Without knowing the dimensions of the original, I don't want to speculate on the scale – could be around 1/18 or 1/20. Yes, this was likely a presentation model for the Army Air Corps, as part of a proposal package from Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica. Now we use 3D renderings, but models were the only way to show a 3D representation of the airplane back then, until (approx.) the 1980s and even later.
 

ACResearcher

Author/researcher/illustrator.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Most interesting photos of that model!

Once I saw it I had to go back into my records and seek out information on the competition, which was CP 39-785, Type Spec C-416, analysis date of 8-14-1939. This CP eventually resulted in the building of the O-52 - another fine target for Air Corps planners still fighting WWI.

There were a substantial number of entries for the competition, with Douglas itself entering at least eleven different possibilities, apparently labeled D-1 (for the O-46A seemingly as a comparison for the other designs), up to at least the D-11. Of these entries, the Air Corps only analyzed three - the D-2 (O-46B), the D-11 (O-46C) and the D-5 (also labeled the O-46B for reasons I will hopefully logic through here).

The D-11 is immediately written off our list as it was a 3-place, tricycle landing gear entry. However, the D-2 and the D-5 appear to be basically the same except for the D-2 having an R-1690 engine and the D-5 having an R-1830. On that basis the weights, speeds, ranges, etc. all differ. The wingspan and area are the same. Both had retractable "conventional" landing gear and a fixed tail wheel and were fitted with a 3-blade constant speed propeller. The D-2 had a propeller diameter of 11' and the D-5's was to be 11.5'. Due to the larger engine and propeller - and perhaps other items - the D-2 had a wing loading of 22.7 and D-5 one of 26.5.

The Air Corp's analysis stated that spin recovery was questionable on ALL the analyzed Douglas aircraft, including the existing O-46A (labeled D-1). The Air Corps gave the D-2 a score of one (1) for its possibility of meeting the required guarantees, but the D-5 received a six (6). Lateral control for the D-2, D-11 and D-5 was deemed to be marginal at low speeds, although maneuverability was determined to be satisfactory.

Engineering analysis deemed that the D-2 (and thus the D-5) had good vision and was a simple design. But the stress analysis was not acceptable as shear stresses from direct shear and torsion had not been considered. The tail wheel was overloaded and the main struts were non-standard with no provisions for skis. There was insufficient data for determining the potential for field maintenance to the cowl. Once again, the Safety Characteristics for the D-2 were determined to be the same with regard to questionable spin recovery as for the D-1 (O-46A), but worse by an Order of 3.

Regarding the fuselage structure, it was a semi-monocoque with formed bulkheads, flange section stringers, Alclad cover flush joints and flush rivets.

Endurance for the D-2 and D-5 at Operating Speed was calculated to be 2.25 hours and a ferrying range of 700 miles. Service ceiling for the D-2 was 26,100', and that for the D-5 was estimated to be 27,800'.

High speed for the D-2 at 4,000' was guaranteed to 227mph, with 258mph for the D-5. Operating Speed for the D-2 was guaranteed to be 199mph. For the D-5 it was 225mph.

Length and span were exactly the same for both entries - 33' 11" and 45' 8" respectively. Numbers for both the airfoil shape and chord are the same and reflect the trapezoidal shape of the wing.

Empty/gross weights for the D-2 were 5221lbs/6988lbs respectively, and for the D-5 they were 6020lbs/7557lbs.

Based on all the analyses performed by the AAC, the time period, etc., I'm going to declare that the pictured model represents the D-5 simply because of the potential of the larger engine - but it could be the D-2. Length and Span are identical for both entries.

Below are drawings from the AAC analysis clearly showing the wing shape plan view and the fuselage front view, both of which fit the model exactly - including no strut. And there is no mention of a wing strut in any of the analyses for these aircraft. Finally, I've included two photos from my collection of a model of the aircraft that were identified as the Douglas entry for CP 39-785.

Respectfully submitted,

Alan Griffith
 

Attachments

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
8
ACResearcher said:
Most interesting photos of that model!

Once I saw it I had to go back into my records and seek out information on the competition, which was CP 39-785, Type Spec C-416, analysis date of 8-14-1939. This CP eventually resulted in the building of the O-52 - another fine target for Air Corps planners still fighting WWI.
Oh well ... I was really hoping for more details <sigh>.

Just kidding – this is awesome – everything I ever wanted to know and more! All speculation is now confirmed, from its connection to the O-52 to the absence of wing struts. The photos you posted show the same blemishes on the model. As I suspected, it's likely to be unique. Thank you very much Alan, I never expected that anybody would have such a wealth of data about this airplane.

Would a moderator kindly change the title of this thread to: Douglas O-46B Observation Plane / CP 39-785 (1939) or something equivalent ... Thank you!


DONE !
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,244
Reaction score
8
WOW. Sure wish we had more of that kind of research on this forum!
Thanks a bunch, ACRsearcher for this most enlightening description.

I have a slight problem with the "O-46B" designation being used in the topic's title without quotes, as I gather this (as well as the "O-46C") were never seriously considered for order, nor were they actual derivatives of the O-46A (and if ordered instead of the Curtiss proposal, would likely have been O-52 themselves). These were just working designations, just as it would be wrong to say that "D-2", "D-5" and "D-11" were actual Douglas designations for the proposals (this particular reflection somehow also sheds some light over my earlier interrogation about duplicate H- designations by Hughes, which were probably also just working designations for a particular program and not proper model designations).
 

ACResearcher

Author/researcher/illustrator.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Circle and Sky, thank you both for your kind words. I take my research VERY seriously and this just happened to be something I've spent quite a bit of time on.

Sky, as for the O-46 designations, as far as "working titles" go they make as much sense as anything else at the time. At the point of these analyses, they were ALL being taken seriously, with the original submissions already having been worked through and reduced to a still-gigantic number of entries. For instance, the Curtis proposal that resulted in the O-52 had three different prospective entries - two that looked very much like the ultimate O-52 but with differing dimensions, and one two-engined entry! I haven't even bothered yet to count all the North American entries.

And talking about entries, off the top of my head the following companies had at least one submission: Consolidated, Curtis, Douglas, Vought, North American and possibly even a Vought-Sikorsky entry. I'm a bit unclear on this last as there were both VS and VU entries analyzed.

I'm glad I could help clarify the mystery about this aircraft and look forward to the next time someone asks a question I can actually answer!

Alan Griffith
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
511
Reaction score
9
Dear circle-5!

circle-5 said:
This late-1930s Douglas Observation Plane concept model measures 27-1/2 inches wingspan x 20 inches length (698,5mm W x 508mm L). Without knowing the dimensions of the original, I don't want to speculate on the scale – could be around 1/18 or 1/20. Yes, this was likely a presentation model for the Army Air Corps, as part of a proposal package from Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica. Now we use 3D renderings, but models were the only way to show a 3D representation of the airplane back then, until (approx.) the 1980s and even later.
Thank you for detailed description!
The model appears to be larger, then I previously imagine. I wonder, what's the approximate weight of it?

There have been a lot of information added to this thread just for few days - and my erroneous suggestions about struts have been disproved ;)

Curiously, yesterday I remembered at least three aircraft, that could prove my idea of using struts...
Don't want to clutter this thread with images of them, so just the names and countries of origin:
USA - Curtiss XF13C in monoplane configuration
Bulgaria - Kaproni Bulgarski KB-11 Fazan
Poland - LWS-3 Mewa
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
511
Reaction score
9
Dear ACResearcher!

Thank you for sharing the comprehensive history of Douglas O-46B, it's versions and competitors!
Particularly, I like to study, how USAAC competitions' have been funcitoning.
Fact, that companies offers not only one ("the best") proposal, but a large set of differently equipped versions has been new to me.
Clearly resembles, how many projects became a prototypes in France, in end of 1930, and how hard Armee l'Air officials to choose between them.
So, USAAC' officials have been "lucky" - to only should choose the single proposal to be awarded for prototype' construction :cool:
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
279
Reaction score
0
A structures engineer would want to add wing struts to reduce loads on that tiny wing-root. Most other reverse-tapered wings added struts. Westland Lysander used struts to reduce bending moments and follow traditional stick and fabric construction methods. Later stressed-skin construction methods had less need for external bracing struts.
Visually, wing struts impede vision very little since eyes are already focussed on a target far away.
Even Cessnas’ O-1/L-19 Bird Dog and O-2 Push Me Pull You have wing struts to reduce weight.
The primary reason Cessna 177 and later 210s lack wing struts is reducing drag and reducing airframe icing. Eliminating external struts only becomes important when cruise speeds exceed 200 knots (see Vans RV-series of kitplanes).
 

cluttonfred

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
1
Website
cluttonfred.info
Does anyone have a drawing of the propsed D-11 (O-46C)? I am very curious about that tricycle-geared proposal.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,244
Reaction score
8
riggerrob said:
A structures engineer would want to add wing struts to reduce loads on that tiny wing-root. Most other reverse-tapered wings added struts. Westland Lysander used struts to reduce bending moments and follow traditional stick and fabric construction methods. Later stressed-skin construction methods had less need for external bracing struts.
Visually, wing struts impede vision very little since eyes are already focussed on a target far away.
Even Cessnas’ O-1/L-19 Bird Dog and O-2 Push Me Pull You have wing struts to reduce weight.
The primary reason Cessna 177 and later 210s lack wing struts is reducing drag and reducing airframe icing. Eliminating external struts only becomes important when cruise speeds exceed 200 knots (see Vans RV-series of kitplanes).
Very interesting, thanks riggerrob for taking the time to explain and keeping it simple!
 
Top