• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

OS-111 & XVA(H1) Navy Heavy Bomber projects (alternatives to Skywarrior)

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
874
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Jemiba said:
No specifications, no data, sorry !
I've just used Tophes method for extracting 3-views from perspective pictures
Well done. Now, estimate dimensions based on comparison with the Vought Cutlass's shown on the aircraft carrier model, and you'll be done!
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
63
Excellent! More than a few people will be happy to see this...
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,183
Reaction score
808
"..on comparison with the Vought Cutlass's shown .."

Aaah ! Am I'm getting old ? Am I getting blind ??
Nevertheless, thanks for the clue !
A very inaccurate estimation : length about 24m ( 80ft),
span about 25 m (82ft).
one pixel more or less means at least 2 meters more or less ...
 

Attachments

Artie Bob

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
165
Reaction score
16
Possibly two reference dimensions could be the diameter of the rear radome and the length of the engines.

Best regards,

Artie Bob
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
874
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Here's what I came up with:
Step 1: resize image by a factor of three
Step 2: draw wingtip to wingtip lines from one bomber to the next, carrying lines forward (see Note 1)
Step 3: Draw tip-to-tip line across span of Cutlass, and carried it across
Step 4: count pixel width: Cutlas = 73, Curtis = 166
Step 5: Pixel ratio = 2.274
Step 6: http://aerofiles.com/_vot.html => XF7U-1 wingspan = 38'8"
Step 7: Curtis span = 38'8" X 2.274 = 87.9 feet / 26.8 meters (see note 2)

Note 1: Carrying lines forward to parallel with the Cutlas helps to correct for perspective
Note 2: A3D Skywarrior span = 76'4". Given the heavier weight of the Curtis, this difference in scale makes sense.

Feel free to correct where appropriate.
 

Attachments

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
58
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Good teamwork! I had not made the connection between the Forrestal picture and the Curtiss proposal. Note that the computation and the picture supports an outrigger tread of 40 feet, which is a known...

Here is the Martin Model 245, which may have been one of the non-compliant proposals - two-man crew and no folding, among other

Picture courtesy of Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
 

Attachments

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
58
Website
www.tommythomason.com
The Navy's summary of the OS-111 competition briefly mentions the Lockheed proposal. It was powered by four J40s and at a gross weight of 100,000 pounds, had only 1/2 the mission radius desired. Lockheed also didn't bother submitting a cost quotation.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,122
Reaction score
2,640
Consolidating the many topics we've had on this over the years.

From Tony Buttler, the Republic OS-111 contender was NP-50, but he hadn't found any drawings of it as of last year.

Definitely nice teamwork. Jens, the drawing looks very nice indeed.
 

nugo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
337
Reaction score
9
Hi Tailspin Turtl!

Martin Aircraft Model Designations, Built and unbuilt

M-245----Two place long range special attack monoplace
M-245-1--Basic airplane component with droppable hull
M-245-2--Basic airplane component with droppable launch gear
M-245-3--Basic airplane component with retractable gear
M-245A---Alternate carrier-based plane
M-246----Carrier-based attack bomber

I think, that the competitor was M-246
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
58
Website
www.tommythomason.com
All I know is from a 21 February 1949 BuAer memorandum: "The Martin design was the carrier landing version of their Model 245, submitted in the 'Special Attack' design competition. No attempt was made to meet the specification requirements in regard to number of men in a crew, access to bomb bay, protected fuel tankage, folding wings, or provision of a turret. Incorporation of these items would increase the gross weight well beyond the specified 100,00 lb maximum." This, combined with the very limited attempt to meet the requirements, suggests that the Navy memo is describing the 245A. A 246 is listed in Martin records but I haven't seen anything that describes it, the time period it was created, or the requirement that it was created for.
 

jackehammond

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
Folks,

I read an article on the Arvo Valient and it mention that General LeMay was considering it for launching from US carriers. I would have loved to have seen the look on the air bosses face if a Vailent was operating from his carrier deck!

Jack E. Hammond

.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,183
Reaction score
808
A provisional drawing of the Martin M-245, maybe grade 2, based on the two artist impressions
posted by overscan and Tailspin Turtle. I would assume, that the version with the droppable hull
would have been brought to its launching point by a submarine (or what are those structures on
the shown sub) and landed back on a land base ?
I couldn't find any clue of the position and size of the weapons bay and, of course, length and
span data would be great ... ;)
 

Attachments

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
58
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Sorry about that. Hope you didn't spend too much time on your drawing.
The submarine was used only for refueling enroute...
SAC Drawing from Glenn L Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
 

Attachments

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,183
Reaction score
808
The 245-1 really is a surprise, the hull is much bigger, than I had thought, I'm really wondering,
how it could have get to the altitude shown in the artist's impression. Is there mentioned, if
the 245-1 had a conventional undercarriage ?
And the 245A is a good test for my method, with reagrds to the basic matrial, I'm quite content
with the result. ;)
 

Attachments

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
58
Website
www.tommythomason.com
This is less complicated than I thought. The 245 was the basic airplane with no landing gear. The -1 had a droppable hull. The -2 had a droppable landing gear and was for one-time usage. The -3 had retractable landing gear and was only for test and training. The 245-A had a retractable landing gear and tail hook for return to a carrier. The 245-1A was the carrier-compatible airplane with a droppable hull. After the -1 dropped the hull or the -2 the landing gear, it became a 245 and was committed to ditching. There were various mission scenarios incorporating refueling in-flight, from a submarine, and/or on-board an aircraft carrier.
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
45
Jemiba said:
And the 245A is a good test for my method, with reagrds to the basic matrial, I'm quite content
with the result. ;)
Indeed, your drawing looks better than the original from Martin.
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,769
Reaction score
874
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Jemiba said:
And the 245A is a good test for my method, with reagrds to the basic matrial, I'm quite content
with the result. ;)
As well you should be. To get that close based on nothing but paintings is really quite remarkable.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
mm, I think Stan has ended the job of photographing the big "project books"....
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,183
Reaction score
808
"As well you should be. To get that close based on nothing but paintings is really quite remarkable."

It shows, that the artist, hired by Martin, had done its job very well, without too much "art".
Unfortunately, nothing, you can be sure about .. ;)
 

mattrix

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
Jemiba said:
No specifications, no data, sorry !
Good work Jemiba! I have just been browsing through excellent "Secret Aerospace Projects of the US Navy, Volume 1: The Incredible Attack Aircraft of the USS United States, 1948-1948" by Jared Zichek and it seems, that the Curtiss-Wright machine in question was Curtiss-Wright P-558 (see pp. 35 through 49). You can find there also exhaustive information on this machine and lots of factory BPs.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Hi,

for the Vought,I think its proposal was V.364.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,241
Reaction score
398
Using the Spangenberg Index, and what has already been exposed in this thread, it seems that the list of contenders for OS-111 (dated November 1948) was as follows:

  • Consolidated Vultee (designation unknown)
  • Curtiss-Wright P-558
  • Douglas 1181
  • Douglas DS-593, 593-1, 593-2
  • Fairchild M-130
  • Lockheed L-187-2/-3?/-7
  • Martin 245
  • Northrop N-59
  • Republic NP-50
  • Vought V-364

There is also a Douglas 594 (and 594-1, 594-2, 594A) which could have been from the same competition.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,122
Reaction score
2,640
Using Jared's book (based on National Archive materials)

OS 111

Convair Carrier Based Landplane Class VA - Long Range
Curtiss-Wright P-558
Douglas (El Segundo) Model 593
Douglas (Santa Monica) Model 1181
Fairchild M-121/M-128
Lockheed L-187
North American RD-4554
Republic NP-50

OS 115

Convair Class VA Long Range Special Attack Airplane
Douglas (El Segundo) Model 594
Douglas (Santa Monica) Model 1186
Fairchild M-130
Martin Model 245

These (afaik) are the submitted bids. This doesn't rule out other designs being drawn up to one or other of these specs, for example Northrop did a series of preliminary designs, but they weren't submitted.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Great find my dear Tailspin.
 

RAP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
674
Reaction score
350
Very nice. Beautiful aircraft.
 

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
229
Here is a general arrangement of a swept wing bomber with the V-364 designation.
Not much detail, no alighting gear or arresting gear shown. VAHF archives.
I am not sure this ever became a developed proposal to the Navy.


I hope this adds something to the discussion.


bill
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Great find Bill,thank you for sharing.
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
58
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Bill S said:
Here is a general arrangement of a swept wing bomber with the V-364 designation.
Not much detail, no alighting gear or arresting gear shown. VAHF archives.
I am not sure this ever became a developed proposal to the Navy.

I hope this adds something to the discussion.

bill
Bill - great find. High aspect-ratio wing for range like the Curtiss. Two J40 engines (bifurcated inlet). Big bomb bay for the weapon (rectangle at mid fuselage). Hard to figure out where the landing gear stowed given what appears to be the location of the fuel tanks fore and aft of bomb bay. There is what looks like a partial arc under the rear fuselage that would correspond with the tailhook travel.

Can you read the dimensions on the original?

Vought didn't propose in the end. (Maybe they couldn't figure out where to put the landing gear.)
 

Attachments

Bill S

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
551
Reaction score
229
Tommy,


Not all the measurements are listed.
Length is 87' (1044")
Height from static ground line 14' 10" (178")
Wingtip width 70"
Verticals span is 23' (276") at the tips
Span is not listed
The distance engine centerline to centerline is also not given.
Two Improved J-40's @9300lbs static thrust


bill
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
58
Website
www.tommythomason.com
Bill - Thanks very much for that. A fairly rigorous evaluation of the V-364 drawing you posted (I had to stretch it in height based on the front view and the ground line to tail tip measurement) gives a wing span of about 93 feet, give or take a few inches. Based on the other proposals, there doesn't seem to be restriction on span like there was on gross weight.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
382
Great stuff Tommy and Bill - thanks for sharing it.

Tommy, what's your take on the tandem gear arrangement for carrier landings? B-47s and B-52 had some rather limited parameters to meet for the landing attitude and I see such requirements tough to meet when it comes to carrier landings.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
694
Reaction score
58
Website
www.tommythomason.com
The Navy evaluation stated that the bicycle gear was "probably satisfactory for field landings but is an unknown quantity for carrier work". My impression is that there was no particular difficulty landing either the B-47 or the B-52. The U-2, of course, is notoriously difficult to land (there are You Tube videos of excursions off the runway) but that is in large part because it has a very low wing loading: if you touch down on the forward wheel first with any sink rate, you'll almost certainly get a bounce with ugliness to follow; touching down on the aft wheel first is no bargain either. The first attempt at landing a U-2 on an aircraft carrier without the benefit of a tailhook (the thought was that with the customary wind-over-deck the tailhook wasn't necessary) almost ended in disaster. With a tailhook, the U-2 was probably easier to land on the carrier than ashore.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Hi,


is that a real drawing to NAA OS-111 ?.


http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?style=4&f=9&t=145479&start=100
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Thank you my dear Tailspin.
 
Top