Vultee Aircraft Projects

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
26 May 2006
Messages
32,609
Reaction score
11,758
My dears,

there was a lot of this company projects not discovered,such as
V-42,V-44,V-45 and V-46 were single seat fighters,V-55 was bomber,
V-56 was single seat fighter and V-62 was two seat basic trainer project
developed from BC-3 but not built.
 
Hi,

V-69 was a single engined dive bomber project,and XTBV was
single engined torpedo bomber project,it was not even mentioned
in USA serials and designations book.
 
Hi,

V-70 was pusher single seat fighter powered by one Allison
engine,but I don't know it was twin boom or not,V-83 was
a single seat fighter developed from V-48 Vanguard,project
only.
 
I'm currently recompiling all my notes and reorganizing my list of Vultee designations 1-90.

Most Vultee designs are accounted for, but I'm still at a loss for the model number of the XP-68 Tornado (a development of the XP-54... Tophe could help, maybe?), the XA-31C, and the Vidal XBT-16 with a duramold fuselage (IF it carried a separate Vultee number, which I really do not know).

I'm especially faced with a mystery over the Model 74 designation: many sources claim that the V-74 was a prototype of the L-1 VIGILANT family with full-span automatic slots and slotted flaps for Army evaluation as liaison.

Many other sources claim that the Model 74 was BT-13A/SNV-1 (with the BT-15 as Model 74A)...

As the latter option seems better documented I tend to rely on it more... but I also bear in mind that the other two Stinson design taken over by Vultee carried the following V-75 (first prototype of L-5) and V-76 (modified Stinson 105) designations... Could it be that the same designator was reused, considering the two aircraft were contemporary?? This seems highly unlikely. Thanks for any help on this subject!
 
hesham said:
V-70 was pusher single seat fighter powered by one Allison
engine,but I don't know it was twin boom or not
It was, see my site with a drawing and source mentionned:
http://cmeunier.chez-alice.fr/update_FG.htm
 
From an old issue of Airpower/Wings: Vultee's XP-46-2 (inside designation for eXperimental pursuit - Vultee Model 46 - second variant), a competitor of the Lockheed P-38 (let the mods move it to the X-608 thread if they see it fit).
 

Attachments

  • Vultee XP-46-2.jpg
    Vultee XP-46-2.jpg
    288.6 KB · Views: 422
Can we get an update on this, plus a preliminary list in the OP?
 
OP - Original Post
I believe blockhaj would like a list of as many Vultee project designations as have been found until now.

Vultee P series - nothing I am familiar with.
 
OP - Original Post
I believe blockhaj would like a list of as many Vultee project designations as have been found until now.

Vultee P series - nothing I am familiar with.

My dear Arjen,

the P series was really existed,but nothing about it in Vultee book,but we know
only VP-43-3,a strato lightweight fighter project,obviously the "43" indicated to
the year and not a particular sequence ?.
 

Attachments

  • 0.jpg
    0.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 55
Thanks. The VP 43-3 proposal was submitted shortly after Vultee merged with Consolidated in 1943, it can be found in Convair Advanced Designs II by Robert Bradley, Crécy 2013. Chapter 6, pages 41-43.
 
Last edited:
Can we get an update on this, plus a preliminary list in the OP?

My dear Blockhaj,what is this ?,I can't open it,and what OP ?.
That is my broken signature i assume?

OP = original post
Can you add a project list to the original post so we can keep track of projects and their numbers, etc: V-1, V-2, V-3, etc
 
OP - Original Post
I believe blockhaj would like a list of as many Vultee project designations as have been found until now.

Vultee P series - nothing I am familiar with.

My dear Arjen,

the P series was really existed,but nothing about it in Vultee book,but we know
only VP-43-3,a strato lightweight fighter project,obviously the "43" indicated to
the year and not a particular sequence ?.
VP-43 sounds like a counter design to the P-43 Lancer (known initially as YP-43, Y for Republic)
 
OP - Original Post
I believe blockhaj would like a list of as many Vultee project designations as have been found until now.

Vultee P series - nothing I am familiar with.

My dear Arjen,

the P series was really existed,but nothing about it in Vultee book,but we know
only VP-43-3,a strato lightweight fighter project,obviously the "43" indicated to
the year and not a particular sequence ?.
VP-43 sounds like a counter design to the P-43 Lancer (known initially as YP-43, Y for Republic)

My dear Blockhaj,

for Vultee V series,please see it here;

- For VP-43,it was a series belonged to Vultee after merged with Consolidated to form Convair,and nothing to do with Republic P-43 Lancer at all.
 
The Republic P-43 first flew in 1940, Bradley wrote the VP-43 was proposed to a 1943 Design Directive - probably from the USAAF - in the same period the Douglas XP-48 and Tucker XP-47 were proposed. An unnamed North American design was produced to an earlier requirement, meanwhile Bell developed the XP-77. Of all these small interceptor designs, only the XP-77 was built - initiated in 1941, first flown in 1944.
 
Last edited:
The Republic P-43 first flew in 1940, Bradley wrote the VP-43 was proposed to a Design Directive - probably from the USAAF -

I will explain from where this number came,as I suggest,we know Vultee XP-1015
and XC-1031,called "1000" series for projects and experimental aircraft,and in 1942 the combination had been done,as I guess the same sequence was continued but
the number thousand was deleted to be only '"43",I hope you get my point.
 
From Aero Digest 1942,

may this patent was Vultee V-80 Cargo Transport aircraft project ?.
 

Attachments

  • 80.png
    80.png
    252.9 KB · Views: 34
From Aero Digest 1942,
may this patent was Vultee V-80 Cargo Transport aircraft project ?.
I've already covered that patent design in a separate topic:

As for the V-80, given the date, I 'm tempted to consider it was the following design instead. Besides, the V-80 is described as a "cargo/transport", while the Palmer patent design was likely a photo-observation type.
 

Attachments

  • likely V-80.jpg
    likely V-80.jpg
    79.6 KB · Views: 35
Sorry for that,and from where you got this ?.
I simply read the material I reference, that's all... U.S. Patent #2,314,949 clearly defines the purpose of the Palmer airplane:
The present invention relates generally to airplanes. More particularly the invention relates to that type of airplane which is primarily designed for use in observation or photographic work and comprises a fuselage together with wings, empennage, propelling mechanism and landing gear.
One object of the invention is to provide an airplane of this type which is generally an improvement upon and has certain inherent advantages over previously designed observation airplanes and is characterized by the fact that the fuselage is so designed and constructed that the
pilot and observer have unobstructed vision through substantially all parts or portions of it.

Another object of the invention is to provide an observation airplane of the type under consideration in which the fuselage comprises the usual longerons, cross members and internal reinforcing members and embodies as a shell a framework of geodetic or latticed design together with flexible transparent plates across the spaces between the diagonally extending members of the framework.
A further object of the invention is to provide an observation airplane of the aforementioned type in which the fuselage is substantially ellipsoidal in contour or shape and embodies at the rear end thereof a narrow tailboom for supporting the empennage.
A still further object of the invention is to provide an airplane of the last mentioned character or type in which the fuselage is substantially elliptical in cross section and is of greatest thickness from top to bottom, and the empennage supporting tailboom is fixed to the rear end of the fuselage at a point above the longitudinal center line of the fuselage with the result that the observer in the rear of the fuselage is able to see clearly under the empennage and may look rearwards, as well as rearwards and downwards without any appreciable obstruction.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom