Douglas XB-31

[Arjen]

@ACResearcher I bow to your judgement. Just pointing to where the mis-identification might have come from.
Image from U.S Bombers. Similar drawings to Jones' original 3-view appear in other, slightly later books, sometimes including attribution.

 

[Stargazer]

Considering how old the mistake was and how much it has spread since all over the books and the webs, it's going to be very difficult to rectify. In people's minds, the Model 423 "is" the XB-31, no matter what...
My two cents about the three distinct Douglas designs shown in this thread:

1. The "DB-4" bomber was too late for the XBLR competition. It corresponds to Douglas specification DS-224 dated March 1938. However, the specification that produced the XB-15 and XB-19 began in mid-1933 as "Project A", while the Douglas specification for the XB-19 was DS-167C of 1935. Boeing flew their prototype in 1937, but Douglas took so much time to complete their "Hemisphere Bomber" that it was already obsolete before completion, and they wanted to cancel the program. Eventually, the aircraft flew two months after the competition for the XB-35 and XB-36 was issued!
2. The "DB-4" bomber was too early for XB-31. We know that General Arnold requested authorization to contract with major aircraft companies for "Very Long Range Bomber studies" on November 10, 1939, much later therefore than the "DB-4" project, which could not have been designed for that purpose.
3. The Model 332F was most likely the real XB-31 contender. Indeed, the 332F is a 1939 design. The formal requirements for "Very Long Range (VLR) Bomber" were issued in January 1940, and on January 29, Request for Proposals R-40B was sent. Draft Specification XC-218-A was released soon after.
4. The Model 423 could not have been an XB-31 contender. The XB-31 contract was assigned on June 27, 1940, following examination and approval of the Douglas proposal, but the Model 423 design is dated Oct. 31, 1941, which makes it impossible to have been an XB-31 proposal.
5. The Model 423 was a contender for the XB-36 competition. The USAAC issued the initial request for what would become the XB-36 on April 11, 1941, leading to Draft Specification XC-224, and proposals from the industry made in May. Consolidated-Vultee received a contract for their Model 35 on November 15. Being an Oct. 31 design, the Model 423 was therefore probably not Douglas's original proposal, but possibly a last minute one before the competition was lost to Consolidated-Vultee. I'm attaching an image (of unknown source, unfortunately) which totally confirms the Model 423 as an XB-36 contender.

 

[Arjen]

Last year I picked up a copy of U.S. Bombers in an antiquarian bookshop. Today I saw archipeppe's 3-view, recognised shape, painted fin, '1004' fin number, remembered book.
Steve Pace's 2003 Crowood book B-29 Superfortress shows Lloyd Jones' 3-view, presents the exact same 3-view as XB-31, but gives 332F as Douglas Model #. My confusion increased.
@ACResearcher : I just read your October 2014 reply with Model 332 presented above Model 423.
A belated thank you from me.

Repeated mistakes are still - mistakes.

 

[aim9xray]

Image from U.S Bombers. Similar drawings to Jones' original 3-view appear in other, slightly later books, sometimes including attribution.

Of course the model looks like Lloyd's drawings. He built the models to illustrate the book. In the early part of his career, he was a researcher, designer and model maker for Revell. IIRC, the original "Bombers..." book dates back to 1962 or 63.

 

[Arjen]

The earliest edition I've found is from 1962. I bought my 1980 copy because it covers aircraft from the 20s and 30s.
I am, yet again, reminded of the risks of relying on old, non-primary sources.

 

[Antonio]

I'm attaching an image (of unknown source, unfortunately) which totally confirms the Model 423 as an XB-36 contender.

I think it's from: "B-36 Peacemaker. Detail&Scale Series"

Please keep in mind that R40C (B29) was a longer range, more capable B17 replacement while the intercontinental (B36) was to be able to reach European territory from CONUS bases in case of the fall of Great Britain. So there are two different competitions and intercontinental designs being heavier than those to R40C.

 

[lark]

Correct !

Besides, I think it should be better to split the Douglas XB-19/100ton bomber info
from the Douglas XB-31 ,into two separate threads if possible...

 

[ACResearcher]

The Boeing bomber shown above by Stargazer was the Model 363, submitted 41-10-24, long after the B-36 competition.

The date on the Douglas Model 423 3-view appears to be 41-08-15.

AlanG

 

[archipeppe]

Of course, I'm willing to update my artwork as soon as someone will provide me correct and referenced design.

Ciao
Giuseppe

 

[Tonton-42]

Fist edition in 1962 ...

 

[ACResearcher]

When Lloyd wrote his book it was ground-breaking for the times.

However, when he wrote it the amount of original source data was severely limited in comparison to today. I'm not sure that NARA II even existed at this point, much less giving access to all the original documents and drawings.

Lloyd and I used to talk quite a bit on the phone, plus getting together at IPMS/Nationals. I was pleased to be able to send him drawings and documents on items he had drawn as well as items he'd never seen. Unfortunately, he started to be affected by Alzheimer's and, while enjoying the conversations and materials, was unable to do anything with them. Towards the end I was talking with his wife first who would see if he could chat.

Lloyd was one of "the good guys", more than willing to share and to provide feedback on what and how he had written and drawn.

One must not rely on this book as the be-all and end-all on this topic. Too much new information has become available even since the 1980 version.

People wanting to display the facts need to get in the trenches and dig out the now-available materials. R40B XC-218 and XC-218A complete documentation are available at NARA II. I copied it all and it is on that basis plus original factory drawings that I base my assertions.

AlanG

 

[Arjen]

My job and where I live do not offer me much opportunity to 'get in the trenches', so it is good to find out others are doing just that, and willing to share what they find.
Old as U.S. Bombers is, I'm still happy with my copy. Aircraft of the 1920s and 1930s don't get as much coverage as those from other years, so, even with all the books around that benefited from later research, I find the book a joy to read. I wasn't looking for it, I stumbled on it.

 

[Stargazer]

My job and where I live do not offer me much opportunity to 'get in the trenches', so it is good to find out others are doing just that, and willing to share what they find.
Old as U.S. Bombers is, I'm still happy with my copy. Aircraft of the 1920s and 1930s don't get as much coverage as those from other years, so, even with all the books around that benefited from later research, I find the book a joy to read. I wasn't looking for it, I stumbled on it.

Fantastic book for its time, but not without faults, though, notably regarding the would-be "XB-68" (and the "XB-31" of course).

 

[Antonio]

Alan,

I live the same situation of Arjen thus I enjoy your posts so much, not to mention I'm an avid reader of your publications on books, magazines. Thanks a lot.

Based on my books and files I'll try to write and share a short and humble guide on the different US heavy bombers projects from that time. Hope that could help ending that confusion that already exists.

I'm sad to know about Lloyd Jones Alzheimer. That's life I know, but...

 

[ACResearcher]

Since there seems to be some question in some people's minds regarding my assertion that the Douglas entry for the XC-218A resubmission was the Model DS-332F, I've gone back into my files to provide some addition original-source materials that will hopefully put an end to it.

I have included two items here: One is a page from the R40B XC-218A Resubmittal section on Weight Analysis. This is the first page in the section on the AAF's weight analysis on the 332F. I have drawn arrows to specific areas to show this.

The second item is my redraw of the the DS-332F in flight, banking slightly to the left. This is a line-for-line reproduction of an original Douglas drawing found at NARA II, as was the document (and LOTS of others) referenced above and shown below.

I hope this will satisfy those who have continued to insist that the Model 423 was the XC-218A resubmission. My friend Lloyd Jones got that wrong, but given what he had to work with so many years ago we can appreciate his error and be glad he helped encourage serious, ORIGINAL SOURCE research.

AlanG