USAAC Type Specification C-212 for heavy bombers issued Feb 1, 1939 copy needed

ACResearcher

Author/researcher/illustrator.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Copy needed

I seem to have every document about CP39-645, but not the original Type Specifications. Can anyone help?

AlanG
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,065
Reaction score
3
My dear Alan,

the main tenders in this Specification were; Boeing Model 322,333 & 333A and
Consolidated B-24.
 

nugo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
336
Reaction score
0
Hi All!

Maybe, one of main tenders in this Specification were Boeing Model 299J, redesigned B-17 as a high-wing bomber with tricycle landing gear.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,065
Reaction score
3
nugo said:
Hi All!

Maybe, one of main tenders in this Specification were Boeing Model 299J, redesigned B-17 as a high-wing bomber with tricycle landing gear.
Thank you my dear Nugo,new Info for me.
 

ACResearcher

Author/researcher/illustrator.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
No, Hesham, the Boeing 322, 333 and 333A had nothing to do with CP39-645.

Nugo, I have a 3-view and some documents on the 299J, but don't recall if it was in response to a CP or not.

The entries for C-212 and CP39-645 were: Two variations on the Douglas Model 300 (DC-4E); two variations on the Boeing Model 299, the 299H and 299M (the 299H would be accepted and become the B-17C); and at least two versions of the Consolidated Model 32, which would be accepted as the B-24.

I am, as I said, looking for the original Type Specification C-212 which, as the title suggests, the specifications for an aircraft -- range, top speed, etc. - desired by the Air Corps, in this case a four-engine bomber. Although sent to 86 different manufacturers, it was basically a formality in the Emergency Expansion program. The AAC was already committed to the B-17 and Consolidated, when approached to build the B-17, had told the AAC they could do better. Subsequently, Consolidated built a mockup in a month that would eventually become the B-24.

I hope this clarifies things.

AlanG
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,065
Reaction score
3
No my dear Alan,

the Boeing 322,333 & 333A were involved in it too.
 

Sherman Tank

I don't want to change my personal text
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
1
ACResearcher said:
No, Hesham, the Boeing 322, 333 and 333A had nothing to do with CP39-645.

Nugo, I have a 3-view and some documents on the 299J, but don't recall if it was in response to a CP or not.

The entries for C-212 and CP39-645 were: Two variations on the Douglas Model 300 (DC-4E); two variations on the Boeing Model 299, the 299H and 299M (the 299H would be accepted and become the B-17C); and at least two versions of the Consolidated Model 32, which would be accepted as the B-24.

I am, as I said, looking for the original Type Specification C-212 which, as the title suggests, the specifications for an aircraft -- range, top speed, etc. - desired by the Air Corps, in this case a four-engine bomber. Although sent to 86 different manufacturers, it was basically a formality in the Emergency Expansion program. The AAC was already committed to the B-17 and Consolidated, when approached to build the B-17, had told the AAC they could do better. Subsequently, Consolidated built a mockup in a month that would eventually become the B-24.

I hope this clarifies things.

AlanG
I don't have the original specification, but apparently the requirements were: 3000 mile range, 35,000' ceiling, 300 mph maximum speed, 8000 lbs bombload.

I don't know if that's helpful.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,037
Reaction score
8
hesham said:
No my dear Alan,

the Boeing 322,333 & 333A were involved in it too.
Source? Or worthless.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,065
Reaction score
3
OK my dear Paul;

http://hud607.fire.prohosting.com/uncommon/reference/usa/army.html
 

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
520
Reaction score
0
hesham said:
OK my dear Paul;

http://hud607.fire.prohosting.com/uncommon/reference/usa/army.html
CP39-645 and C-212 are nowhere on that site.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,065
Reaction score
3
sienar said:
hesham said:
OK my dear Paul;

http://hud607.fire.prohosting.com/uncommon/reference/usa/army.html
CP39-645 and C-212 are nowhere on that site.
What ?
 

Attachments

ACResearcher

Author/researcher/illustrator.
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Hesham, I have the original documents in my collection, including the analysis of ALL entries. Not only are the aircraft you highlight above not on the list, but it skips at least three at are.

From my analysis of the the documents, Douglas submitted two different versions of their Model 300 DC-4E, Boeing submitted two versions of the Model 299 (H and M, one of which would be chosen as the B-17C) and Consolidated submitted a number of Model 32 entries, of which only two were looked at seriously. It must be remembered that this was an Emergency CP in order to start building bombers for the war the military knew was coming. There is obviously more to this story, but I'm not going to go into now as it takes away a bit from putting a stake through the heart of what I consider incorrect information stated here.

It is my opinion that Type Specification C-212 and the following CP39-645 were a formality to allow the AAC to choose the Boeing and Consolidated entries (which it ALREADY chosen). The Air Corps had long since decided what they were going to chose but had to follow procedure in order to make it "official".

Until the author of that website posts specific references to the original documents including those Boeing models, and tells why he ignored the known entries, it remains just another website fantasy trip.

Sherman, I have all those specifications EXCEPT bomb load based on the category analysis done on the submissions. Until I can get an actual copy of C-212 I'm going to go on a clearly expressed opinion that perhaps they left it out, given that the standard bomb load on all bomber projects was a minimum of 2000lbs at longest range. I realize this is dangerous ground for a researcher, but up until now I've found nothing specific on bomb load. If you have anything that might clarify this conundrum I would welcome it with pleasure.

Alan Griffith
 

Sherman Tank

I don't want to change my personal text
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
1
ACResearcher said:
Sherman, I have all those specifications EXCEPT bomb load based on the category analysis done on the submissions. Until I can get an actual copy of C-212 I'm going to go on a clearly expressed opinion that perhaps they left it out, given that the standard bomb load on all bomber projects was a minimum of 2000lbs at longest range. I realize this is dangerous ground for a researcher, but up until now I've found nothing specific on bomb load. If you have anything that might clarify this conundrum I would welcome it with pleasure.

Alan Griffith
I live in San Diego, so I can get access to the Reuben Fleet papers at the San Diego Air & Space Museum. I'll see if there's a copy of C-212 in the collection when I get the chance, probably in the next couple of weeks.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,065
Reaction score
3
Sherman Tank said:
I live in San Diego, so I can get access to the Reuben Fleet papers at the San Diego Air & Space Museum. I'll see if there's a copy of C-212 in the collection when I get the chance, probably in the next couple of weeks.
OK Sherman,that will be nice.
 
Top