A SENTRY MAGAZINE Alrnower ys > Fa ae a A NOSTALGIC LOOK AT CLASSIC Haas aula = FIGHTERS THE YF-22 Seba SIU FIGHTERSPECIAL BACK ISSUES Devoted To A Single Aircraft With More Photos & More Information Than Many Books At Up To Five Times The Price! Available To You At Only $5.00 Each, Postpaid. 4 ee Oreo Crs Cremer Orecete lnc Cee Onaterty eee ooo Ceara! Ona Cie Commer spam Cisre eer ae (asses (Tape Janene, Caner Ones Onis = Osea “AURPOWER iS. ome [lee [pe (ose $5.00 fo The information they sup, her graphic phos ard artwork aro ‘Send all orders to moles apd, ovr the yeas wl form fre basi ofa compreheneive | Sentry Books, 10718 White Oak Ave, Box 3324, Granada Hits, CA 91944, aaten ibrary. Thor 's sil a lited soecton of back issues Callers 28d 8% sas ‘a. avaiable, but one thay are gen, thay are gone forever. Fin bck alae a8 pr maa. A WINGS tough 1975 ae sold out except Ap 72. Dec. 74 and Dec Cec out cr vb St at wo atponertne ot 7. Al sues for 1975 through 1899 are avaabe except Api, Jane & (780s 8 Oe. 77, Fb. 78, Cc 7, pt 8D 79, Ap. Oc. 2, Mt | amg 81, Dec, 3, ure 85, Fob & Ota: 86, Feb 9, Ag. 2, ne & Oct $8. [Al AIRPOWER tr019h 1976 are soldout Al AIRPOWER thyough 1999 are avalzole except Jen., May. July & Nov. 76, Jan. & Mar, 77, Marc, Sep. & Now. 78, Jan. 78, May 79, Jy 60, Sept 81, Ma. 82 sly 62, July 85, NOW BB, Nov 92. on. deermeJ Cte ace aie tates C1 = © Cesar ker Clinger be Coe ra ges oe mes., Oseeesse Enger Einieeeedl epee Ee “a ew Phan ere nameless Osan Bgrsss Oner™ Ositae Wines |[2 ma Tg ae OS. Detewor Dees ‘a7 potas ioe eer satree" aloo a] Orem ase Cee Oe "Lice sox Caine, Cesee arce Came: Creer Elzamem Cmcgee™ Clason Coasries [Jarenere [ion m C] 2 Cee Clerme ston noo Bac tae ieee icant kehaiee = ioeAirnower November, 1999 Volume 29 No. 6 Airmail 6 Big Iron... (Westell) 8 aaa Panning Building The Giant power Strategic Bombers Of The Thirties! Millennium Fighter (ean) 24 ce Unlike The Numerous Century Series re The Fighter Of Our Next Century ne May Be One Of A Kin Lo4 a Wayward Wings (Bowers) 34 po ‘An Unconventional Galaxy Of World War | Flying Machines nae Art Directory: F100 & F-102 (Tooney) 25 Convair F-1025 & F-106s, Republic F-105. (USAF) 26-27 North American F-100 Thunderbirds... (Tooney) 28-29 | cover: Her) Anetican F101 Convair F-106 Delta Darts .....0nn srenee(ToONey) 30-32 ‘Thunderbirds Gove Toney) Convair XC-99 ono. ---(B0yne) 53 Boeing X8-15 & Dougias XB-19.. ..Smithsonian) 55 eae ing Editors pee 5987-18 Nevnig 129 Whine 29 elem y Sey tol 3718 we Ca (818) 368-2012 ‘Sosorpson rate pers ioe $25.0 Al rigtsesenad on entie conan No be reprinted, whale orn part Peter toa, Wh Byes, Nike Mecha sek poage pa "the USA Al thanges of aden asd for 3579, ee st page “ ° Seesae For Detail? fographs? In-bopth Interviews With The Designers & Airmen Who Made Aviation History? Of Course You Are! That's Why You Should Read Wings & Alrpower,The Aviation Magazines For People Who Take The Airplane Seriously. n Wings & Airpower You Wor't Find 500 Words On Flying Against The Luftwatfe, Accompanied By A Handful Of Tited, Generic Photos. Instead Youll Be Presented With A Solid 30 Or 40 Page Article With Up To 100 Rare Photos Or More! And You Won't Get 20 Pages OF Editorial And 50 Pages Of Promotional Material, With Features That Appear To Be Fashioned From Advertisers’ Press Releases. In Wings & Airpower You Get The Real Sut, The Kind Of Graptic, Well Researched Material You Won't Find Anywhere Eise. Mary Book Publishers Purperting To Tell The Detiniive Story Of A Particular Airerah Would Be Happy If They Delivered Hall The Photos And Information We Ofer Regularly On Our Pages. So If Youre Looking For Historical Aviation information, Intoligerdy Presented ‘And Wiorthy O' Your Time, Take Advantage Of Our Subscription Cte Wings & Airpower Ace Not Only Witten For You, But Have Been For Nearly Three Decades! Please send me one yoar of Wings & Airpower at $44,001 Please send me two years of Wings & Alrpower at $80.00) C7 Please send me three years of Wings & Airpower at $104.00! At this spacial rate, only combined subscriptions to both magazines will be accepted. Those readors who already subscribe may extend therr subscriptions at this epecial rat. AVIATION HISTORY It’s Still Exciting ee eee ee ee ee ORDER BLANK 0 ce oe ee oe ee Yes, | want to take advantage of your special subscription rate for Wings & Airpower. ‘Check out our new Web Site at wor airpomerenline com For years we have been telling you what a bargain subscriptions to Wings & Airpower are. By having them delivered to your home or office, you've been able to save up to 1/8 off the regular newsstand price. NOW, for a limited time only, we are going to make you an offer you simply cannot refuse, Not it you take your aviation history seriously. Wings & Airpower are available for $3.00 per copy - early 35 percent off newsstand price - delivered fo your door in a protective wrap, but only if you take advantage of our Three Year combined subscription offer. Substantal savings are also available on com- bined two year subscriptions. Order and save now and begin your collector's library of aeronauti history. Newsstand price for each issue is $4.50. (On our one year combined subscription (12 issues - six of Wings & six ol Alrpower) your price per copy is $3.75. On a two year combined subscristion (24 issues - twelve of Wings & twelve of Airpower) your price par copy is $3.35. But even moro substantial savings are yours when you subscribe for three years (eighioen issues each of Wings & Airpower, 6 in all at just $2.90 per copy. This offer is limited. Foreign subscribers add twelve dollars per each one year combined ‘subscription for postage. Enclosed plaase find §. ‘money order, check. cash, ‘Seity Books, 10716 White Ook Ave, Box 392, Granaca Hill, CA 91348 (Sony ne ere corde} NAME ,O0RESS. or.FINAL | Sethe swe = Sees usu TROT SRS zt een zi co os ese ows! OoJoNC rc EXTEWOERAERORAC oe tae (eemion a a tow Gerwer eoxt maces se Sm Sesnoscset awe orecTon Sass Ker vocoue pwurmraecue Suse te Ucreouaressumnons am Som Causes rd Sas mine eorcioen Same ir Base eo oe toa New AVIATION BOOKS, VIDEOS & POSTERS Warbirds * Commercial + Civil ‘Send For Catalogue AD-1 ENTERPRISES P.O. Box s018s Midland, (815) 694-4512 SU nna Sesion acres te seinen enter epiaeeee, oe RI w fexas 79710, From Soviel/Ruscian Ai Forces Doek Top Display Mocels, Pins, Insignia, ‘Wings, Patshes, Meds, Literature, osters.. More! ‘ode! Catalogue $3 00 - refundable to Alex Panchenko PO. Box 5068 Wes! Hs. CA 91308 (818) 999-1194 7 Bese Cr q140 scALE PLANES 1 bought your Sept. Airpower and Jooked through it until got to page 47, showing 55996, an old iriend. I flew on 395 in the late 1900s, while I was at Westover AFB, Mass. I was a scanner at the time, The iuterlor was changed to 40 seats and 10 overhead pullman type beds, with a galley in the back end a staircase to the lower aft lounge. [ have boon told that 596 was modified to fly. “President Dewey, if he was elected.” It was the only ono of three G:97s we had that still had overwing servic: ing, Thad it at Wright/Pattorson AFB, Ohio with a brokon engine for a wook, then flew it up to Minot AFB, ND. We had to putmore fuel on. The temp. was sither 20 below with at least 10 mph wind, or 10 below with a 30 mph wind All I know is [did not get | thawed out until T'was over Buffalo, N.Y, two hours later. The data plate in the cockpit was originial showing | Raas0s not R4360s. Charles Johnson Jacksonville, FL. Aviation Collectibles | | ps | On-Li | rrsts bein Lin youreatiodah | On-Line Auction | All types of aviation collectibles | Books, models, slides, posteards, pins, stickers, wings, photos, silverware, advertising www.aviation-show.com “RED TAILS” UME EDITOR OF 130 This best lttogans of Tae Fe BSc on By 8 Srey Gem. Bejomi©- Davin ol chares ce, Ssh’ Shan, alee Paar dedtbe se Ter South rt eames 1 Rae 8 pete Ge hon ph bre se | | sera nce ee Bah Very ied snp S55 to Fry sour 965 intite aed Oxon nos oat eisaasrer 3 58 | | eri renames ptAVIATION SSnce 1872, some 160 natons have i ‘eed, moe, has “tod cheer somtace Iisartng AMBLANES ot ype. suners ‘BALLOONS, DIRIGIBLES, parschutes, knoe ce shai. Inventory ears aia: ‘ate Abst O06 tse ose seo han "O00 teen wentabe types o ascret Fer tose who ove avalon ndeipares, these mages ae sunny boa ard so Sitter an meesing a8 er C58 Iempng hobby Lee protssovel pata th ‘ve 30 years sxperenen heb you Send'$t fete against our rst oa fe my pce (Sl ciera aoc an hy AIRCRAFT ON STAMPS anc the AVATION {ope mipmiiey. Come pie Nat J. MILLARD WILLIAMS P.0. Box 852. Columbia, MO. 21044 Sigetying etarace” oe oe $17.89 513.98 AIRCONNECTION Web site: www airconnection.on.ca $14.99 314.98 $14.99 Phone: 905 826-7460 Fax: 905 826-6764 E-mail: airconnection@sprint.ca 75080 COLOR SLIDES . US AND FOREIGN sinuines GounfuieR ALNES MODERN, AND. WWW {ALTARY AIRCRAFT DANS SHIPS SSeS ETC PO. Box 1914 Souths Now Vork 11974 ‘Send $300 lor sample Out-of-Print BOOKS ‘AVIATION FREECATALOG. MILITARY _VISITMY STORE DAN F WEB BOOKS. 18 Grand Ave. Oakland, CA 94512 (G10) 444-4572 (Downtown). ‘SR-71-From SAC fo NASA-Secrets Revealed Sensational details of op secret spy ges Plane ya mission over hosile tentoy, and now a NASA research aiterat, 6) minutee-$20.95 (alo avail ie PAL) lying Wing an¢ History of Fgh atts AB, acing ston of Northrop’ fying wing anc exper- mental aircraft that lew award’ AFB, 60 minutes-$20.95 Heavy Metal, reveling and fso- nating review o Ameria’ comtat bomber atc ofthe 215% century, 8.82, 8-18 and 8-2 Sta bomber 50 minutes $20.05 Sa $8 SAN USA, #7 All Ovomone Clog of 63 avon vider salable on uc Wab- ‘ste or $2 by mal, funded wth your fist re Vist, MastrCard, pessral checks accpted CAV Video Productions PD. Box 47, Burlagame, CA 1010 (650/043-4944 Fax 850/342-1202 Website: wo auiationideo om For Ordering Only: TOLL FREE 877-149-4244] “Dicke | Autos!" Gruppenkommindeur Anton Hackl of LAG 11 banks his Meserchnitt Bf109G ‘ver a formation of B-17s from the 38Ist Bomb Grovp. Major Hick! was credited with ttl of 192 confirmed vitories, 34 of which were Gengite tomer, Gall or write for our FREE information package on ther iid edion rin and ‘nina pein bare Try White, ahoping’ SOUSA "A Resiionts ph 2 Canada, $18 overseas 0 aid Sesion ta Alimitedecition print by Troy White. ‘ection: 450 signed & rurberod - $95 40 Artist Proofs - $125 overall size: 22" x28" ful color print Stardust Studios 612. Salisbury Ave. DeLand, FL. 32720 phone & FAX: 904-738-3142 ‘mail: Mojomin@aol.com ll 9am 9 pede, Mors -Sen | MaserCark, VISA Check or Maney OrterBuilding The First Experimental Strategic Bombers! By Freeman Westell Photos courtesy USAF, Bosing, Douglas NASM, Peter It Bower, Wt BoyneEditors Note: Large, heavyweight airplanes have always ‘captured the Imagination of the aviation public. Thirty years ago, with the debut of Boeing's 747 airliner this reac- tion was reinforced yet again, During World War |, pictures of and reports on heavy bombing aircraft such as the British Handley Page V/'500 and the giant German Stakken R. VI ‘were eagerly sought after. During the postwar years the Dornier Do X twelve-engined flying boat and airships like ‘the Hindenberg were celebrated, not because of exception- al performance, but because of their outsized dimensions. Nevertheless, it was during this inter-war period that utility began to catch up with sheer size and, beginning in 1933, US. Army Air Corps planners seriously addressed the ques- tion of producing 2 long-range strategic bomber capable of, spanning the oceans with @ one or two ton bomb load. Strangely enough, of all the countries in the world, the United States had, at the time, the fewest resources to meet this daunting challenge. The ration vias stil in the tip of the Great Depression, which had struck America harder than any other democracy. Research budgets were almost nonexistent, and while potential allies and enemies concentrated on tactical requirements, U.S. Air Corps tead~ ‘ers, who continued to push the need for heavy bombers, were looked upon as spendthrift, woolgathering dreamers. If shoestring operations were not bad enough, in order to make their case for heavy bomber development even more difficult, the Air Corps remained a very junior portner of the Army. In the mid-Thirties that service was locked in its ‘perpetual struggle with powerful naval interests for what little funding there was from a limited treasury and an i iso~ Jationist Congress. in that cost-conscious environment, S where primary expenses to keep the‘year, construct ‘company’s 247 light ven a minimal subsistence level could hardly be met. any money for research inevitably took a backseat. Had it not ‘been for the emergence of one of the most innovative peri- ds in aeronautical science and application ever to manifest itself in one country, the U.S. may not have had a strategic bombing potential on its entry into World War I. As the following article clearly demonstrates, due to politics, favoritism, jealous interservice rivalry, congressional short- sightedness and a steadfast, near fatal isolationism, the great, long-range strategic bomber force of World War Il ‘may very well have remained on the drawing boards, if not for the devotion of a small band of true believers and the inherent excellence of an aviation industry about to hit its stride, in spite of a vast economic slump, 10 ‘Above: Running up for is maiden fight in August 1997, largest irra fis day. First proposed lates 1839, meting underway in 1833, Nuch af layout was borewed from he ran alse flew the minute maiden fi he Boeing XB-15 was, by far, the was not funded until the following liner, particularly the wings and tail, which also appeared in altered form on the 8-17 bomber. Of interest here is the dual-wheeled main gear layout, an advancement over the XB-10'ssigle wheel main gear, eventhough the Douglas prototype came along four years laer and is louded wel Dalles and tracks ssen below the aircraft's wing, at far righ, were fr rolling the big plane sideways out the hangar door Li Cigar-chemping Air Corps test plot, Major Stanley Umstead, exits XB-15 after test trademark stogie clamped tightly between his teeth, A service legend, the crusty vet- ‘of 190,000 Ibs. was twice the XB-15', ‘YB-17 prior to Army Air Corps acceptance, and the XB-19 on is $5, Chief of the Amy Air Corps' General Headquarters, told an assembly of tho National Avroneutical Association in St. Louis, that, “the United States was a sixth rate world air power!” He was right, but why should it have come as a surprise Even two years Inter, it was gencrally acknowledged. that America’s Army was rated 19th or 20th, behind either Portugal or Romania depending on whose figures wore used to calculate the embarrassing assossmont. The power of the American military had indeed fallon in the twanty years since two million doughboys had crossed the soa to fight in Franco daring World War | Disappointed at the lack of peace in Europe, suspicious of fereign entanglements, and still prececupied by economic I: the summer of 1938, General Frank M. Andrews, then1. Despite its bulk and its 2.780 sq, f. wing area, XB-15, which received its designation shorily before its first fight, ater three years of secret construction, was actually a nicely proportioned package. Is biggest draw- back was lack of suficient power irom four PAW K-1630-11 ‘Twin Wasp radial engines generating 850 hp. each. As was the case with the B-19, the XB-15 was also programmed for tests with Allison V-1710_ liquid-cooled engines, but they were never installed. 2, XB-15 in July, 1937, prior to first fligh. Integration of defensive armament represented one of XB-15's many features. The movable nose fined, but enclosed, waist blisters were trans- ferred intact tothe B-17, while improvements to the big dorsal turret, shown here, later appeared on the B-17E, when its guns were paired up and moved forward, immediately behind roof of ight deck. 3. Mechanics check oversized dorsal turret XB-15 was equipped with three .30 caliber ‘machine guns and thre 50 caliber weapons, ‘heavy armament for the ime, Ony the dorsal turret rotated 360 degrees. Two ventral blis- ters, one seen facing forward beneath cockpit, ‘one facing rearward below rear fuselage, aft ofthe wast blisters, completed the arma ment. Thee was no tal ture. 4, Engineeridesigners Clair Estvedt, Edward ‘Hubbard and Wellwood Beall are among those gathered around the XB-15 prior te maiden fightin August 1957, twenty six months after that of the B-17, which was patterned on ‘much of the engineering work done for the 0-15. Of test arth shape and postions ofthe ventral turets, fore and aft The second emplacement also appeared on the B-17 through its D model depression at home, a conservative Congress was doing its best to keop America from taking part in interaa- tional affairs. The scandalous condition of tho armed services was just one of many symptoms that revealed a great ower consciously removing itself from the everyday business of world politics. During the mid-Thities this aloof stance resched its pinnacle when all military planning was concentrated in a pro-naval strategy intended to keep any tential aggressor far from aur sho The Navy was namod the number one line of defense, complete with all thert ith AF in the Pana1. With the slvering wol's head insignia of te 48th Bomb Sqn on its forward fuselage, XB-19 was added tothe twelve plane contingent of Yi-17 service text aircrat operating withthe 2m Bomb Gp. al Langley Field, Virginia, Photo was taken is 1390, when just ten production B-17bs lad been ordeced, Eventually, 29 moze were built, but because oftight budgets and continuing animosity between Air Corps and Nevy, the B-17C was nt ordered until August, 1919, and only aypcoved, the fist one net coming of the assombly line until mer of 1940 2. Closeup ofthe XB-15 showing detail of forward ventral turret and original nose turret, which also appeared on the Model 299 8-17 prto- type. 5, Another view of the XB-15% enormous wing, Letter B - second in aiphabet- stands fr second Bomb Gp. 4. Aflerits days a fying test Ia were over, XB-15 served on mumer- ‘os mercy missions carrying rele supplies to couniries ravaged by nat tral disasters. Its shown here, afer returning from Chile, where it lew inmedicalequipaent for vctins of 1989 earthquake. Of interests size ofinboard flap beneath starboard wing interception, was well aware of the consequences, but really had no choice. Ever since the Congress had drastically cut funding for production 8-17s, he and his chief B~17 subordi nate, Colonel Robert Olds, commander of the small 2nd Bomb Gp., headquartered at Langley Field, Virginia, to which the 'YB-17s were assignod, had tried every possible means to gar ner publicity for the thirteen YE~17s that had been allowed to roll off Boeing’s production line, flying them all over the Country, usually in formation, on record-breaking and good: will trips that quickly caught the Imagination of the public ‘and continued to ink the Navy. Interospling the Rex had apparently beckfired, With the full cooperation of Harry Woodring, then Secretary of War, the so-called Flying Fortrosses were removed from the Navy's and the country’s national defense strategy. From now on, no ‘Army Air Corps planes were to fly 100 miles beyond the U.S. shoreline, and to emphasize his extreme displeasure, Woodring decreed that no production B-17s ware to be pro: cured in Fiscal Year 1940. Tf this, then, was the prevailing climate for aviation research and development into heavy bombardment two years before Amorica’s ontry into World War I, how did the concept ‘of a long-range strategic bomber ever get off the ground? The fanswor is vary slowly, carefully, and almost unobtrusive When the first exporimental contract for such a plane proposed in 1933, its future did not look promising. Dimwould bo understating the situation. In addition to lack of meney to seriously explore th possibilities, two factors Vitiated against a successful dosign. Whatever was chosen could not be too technically advanced not be supported - and any selection would be saddled with a serious defi ciency in engine power. The first caveat killed any chance of the Martin Company's XB-16 proposal or its revised, much larger successor, to ger ner a contrac That first attempt was a twin-tailed. extremely clean design with « large 2,600 sq.ft. wing. It was to be powered, by four Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled ‘engines buried in the wing and driving 12 f. 3 in, propellers via jong extension shafts, Unfortunately, in 1934, the Allison V-1710 engine, originally a the costs could 8. Survival for Roving was the number one pricrty ia the late Thirties. Here, the XB-15 appears to be overseeing limited B-17B pro- suction. Ordered in driblets, the B-17 did not become a moneymaker for Boring until the advent of the revised B-17E of 104%, when the first of 512 was flown that September. Fight months later, in May of 1942, all had heen delivered, Boeing having gone from producing thisty to forty aircraft per year during the period 1988-1940 to 2,200 B-17Fs in 1943, aloe, not counting 1,100 built by Douglas and Lockheed. 5. The XB-15 is shown on its inital take off from Bocing Field, Seattle, August 15,1937. Ualike the Y1B-174, the first turbosupercharged bomber, the XB-15 was no fited with that equipment. 8.47, The XB-15 has a partly aspect when viewed {rom certain quarters, but dhe clean oval lines ofits cylindrical fuselage were the most streamlined ofthe day, The long engine nacelles belied its heavyweight appearance and the dual-whoeled main trucks of its landing gear folded back neatly into the rear of the inboard nacelles, all in all a compact package for mid-Thitties tech nology, as seen in top photo taken in late September, 1838, In sie view, shot one year before, the aircraft's fuselage appears to be smoother and longer than in mest photos. Again, note ventral blisters fore and aft,Above: In an effort to promote the worth ofthe B-17, men of the 2nd Bomb Gp. took part in a number of Goodwill Mission fighs inthe late Thirties. Among the personnel involved in one six- plane operation to Buenos Aires was 1st Lt Curtis LeMay who, although a qualified fighter pilot, ‘was not yet multi-engine rated. On the 2689 mile Buenos Aires fight he acted as a navigator, and is shown athe extreme right inthis photo Below: LeMay was adept at finding his way th months later, he led athree-plane element of YB-17s to intercept the lalian luxury liner Fe, 700 miles out at sea. The spectacular feat made headlines when this photo was printed in the New York Tines. The Navy, which had the monopoly of protecting American shores, was incensed at being upstaged by the Army's junior partner. Asa consequence, Air Comps planes were forbidden to ly more than 100 miles from the American coast and funding fr B-17s was refused in Fiscal ‘Year 1939. In the original defensive scheme as proposed by the War Dept, and approved by an isolationist Congress, the Air Corps’ heavy bombers were only to augment the power ofthe bat Ueship feet in confronting a possible invasion. Unlike Hap Amol, Topey Spaatz and Frank Andrews, who foresaw the long-range bomber asa true strategic weapos, the Navy and even mast Senior Army ground commanders viewed the bomber asa tactical implement. Jas prior to Peart Harbor, General Douglas MacArthur toasted that the Japanese would not dare to attack the Philippines, “because their ships would be atthe mercy of our Flying Fortreses." Since his force was wiped out on the grou in the fst day, he was not able to put his erroneous beliefs {nwo practice, but six moaths late, at Midway, high-yi dropping scores of bombs on the Japanese eet. It remained fo Naxys Douglas SBD dive bombers and, later, Air Force B af like the i a a epee ese a ae ae ee confines of a harbor, successfully attacking them was difficult forthe big planes. inresion Beets at ven wes never thls frte, but Curing the poriod 10371042 tk bla persisted thatthe four-engined bomber was particularly suited tothe defensive stategy promulgated in the 16 1, With a new tiple tal replacing the original single fin and rudder inberited from the XB-15, Boeing lew its second Model 314 Clipper in mid-1938 with what was essential ly the XB-18'S wing. But that structure now Carried the forerunner engine for planes as diverse ¢s the Grumman TBE Avenger, North ‘American 8-25 Mitchell and Douglas A-20 Havoc, Wrights K-2600 Cyclone, the compa ays first successful two-row radial Introduced in 1957 and rated at 1300 hp, the -z600 used by Boeing in their prewar Clippers was wel proven by the start of World War I. Navy projact for airships, was still four years from initial production and the riginal XB-16 was abandoned {n1935 Martin offered an upgraded and considerably more ambitious pro joct, a revised XB—16 with six V-1710s, four of thom driving tractor propellers. with the outboard tractors also linked to ‘pair of pushers at the opposite ends of Tong nacelles which were faired into the 173 f. long wing. The bomber’s pod: like fuselage was to be suspended beneath the wing, much like that of Fairchild’s C119 cargoplane of 1945, while « pair of long booms supported the twin tails, Programmed for a top speed of 256 mph, with range of 3,300 iniles on nearly 7,300 gallons of fuel While carrying @ 2,500 bomb load, the enormous XB-10 revision - it was to have grossed. 105,000 Ibs. - again was judged tov complex and too ambitious for the Air Corps" meager resources. It was not pursued, but it showed what Auetica’s aviation industry was capa ble of hs Mast ture, the 's XB-16 out of the pic allowed its Air Corps to with an eailier, less over: 1g design, Booing’s XB-15, Engineering work on this more orth dox proposal had gotten underway in January, 1934, aftr proliminary studios id been tentatively approved the pre- vious fall. Though much larger in every way, the XB-15's wing was a scaled-up version of that first seen on the compa y's B-9 bomber of 1931, and the pro- 1 was further buttressed by experi- tence gained in building the 247 trans ort, the first all-metal monoplane air- finer, which, in 1932, had lost out to the Douglas DC-2 for commercial domi. Frankly, at the time Boeing began building the super heavy XB-15, its prospects were not good. It was coming to the end of production on a long line of biplane fighters for both the Army and the Navy, the P=12 and the F&B, respectively, which were based on the same design, Although it had orders for its P-26 all-metal monoplane pursuit ship, most would be delivered by the2. Had the XB-15, shown here with PAW R-18306, boon equipped with Wright R.2600, if would have enjoyed a mach longer life wit far more impressive performance. The only feture the two powerplants had in ‘common, ather than being radials, was the fact tha! hoth could be ser- vieed in fight. Aecess was through a companionway inthe thick wing, with egress on ground via a nacelle door, at of the cowl flaps. 3.84. Flight deck of XB-15 (Photo 3) was transferred virtually intact to 314 Clipper (Photo 4). Large interior volume of bombers flight deck pro vided more than encugh room for 314's chart tables, radio and naviga al equipment, as well as light enginoors station, all of which were genorally located as they had been inthe bomber. 5. XB-15$ final legacy was the unbuilt Model 320 patrol plane giant for the Navy. I, to, would have been powered by tie R-2600, six of them mounted on a much expanded XB-15-like wing, with a central fuselage pod and twin hulls supporting the 200. span, 7be 1. Rising out of the organized chaos of Douglas Santa Monica's shop floor, the XB-19 super bomber, already six years in development, i pre: ‘pared for rollout, sometime in May, 1941 2. The outline of the XB-10's enormous 4,285 sq wing is shown jx: taposed over catwalks in is muli-storied ji, the largest built to that time. 8 ‘summer of 1934, pany’s monoplane successor to the F4B. While there were planis underway to develop a smaller fourengined bomber from XB-15 engineering (Model 299, which became the B-17), there were. no guarantees it would be successful, or that the Air Corps would purchase tt. Much smaller than the rejected Martin XB-16 proposal the XB-15, which would be the largest plane in the world when it made its maiden flight in August, 1937, was never concelved as a possible production venture. Rather, it was a flying test bed, and it fully lived up to that challenge, ts smaller progeny, the B~17, would fly tweaty five months ear lier, in July of 1935, and many of the XB-15's systems would be incorporated into its smallor sister One major shortcoming inherited by the XB-15, a problem that was to plaguo all super bomber proposals of the time, was lack of sufficiont powez. In tho rovised XB-16, six Allison V.1710s of 1000 hp. each would have allowed it to fly 3,200 miles with 2,500 Ibs. of bombs, rather medicere for an aircraft of that size, another reason why it was not pursued. In the XB-15, which grossed 65 percent of the XB-16's maximum weight and was powered by only four Pratt & Whitney R-1430-11 radial engines generating 850 hp. each, Boeing's 3, Sometimes a litle knowledge is 2 dangerous thing. When the Germans leamed Douglas was building a supersized bomber, they ‘assumed, incorrectly, tha it was hased on the company’s DC-4E airlin- er, shown below in Photo 4, Since they were in the process of turning their own four-engined Focke Wulf Condor airliner into patrol bomber ‘and had inspected the DC-AE at first hand, after it was old to Japan late {n 1939, it was net difficult to approximate what a tomber derived from that airplane might look like, This drawing, taken from a German mag- azine, depicts such an aircraft, a DC-AE offshoot, but nothing like the slant XB-19, 4. The triple-ailed Douglas DC-4E airliner, which was sold to Japan, In building it and the XB-19, Douglas gained a great deal of experience, bout lost even more money. nearly one and one half million on the lone DC-4E, and some four million on the XB-19.test bed, which actually flew for nearly ‘eight years, carried the same bomb load for 3,500 miles. Furthermore, it was defended by three .30 caliber gun 80, caliber machine d in six turrets or blisters, ‘was operated by & crew of ten, with a reserve crow of five also carried aboard so designated in June, had better range on roughly two thirds the fuel, 4.200 gal- Iona v8. 7400 gallons for the XB-16, it proved extromely dependable, and although it could not excoed 200 mph., ithad a decent cruise spoed of 170 mph, and landed rather docilely at 70 mph. Is handling was excellent for s among these was a 110 voit electrical system, tho generators of which were powered by two indapndent auxiliary motors. Crew comfort was enhanced by extremely spacious living accommoda- tions, with ample room for a relief crew. A flight engineer, the first ever, was ‘added to the plane’s fight deck and, for maintenance purposes, the wing's (exe continued on page 22) ‘6, When the XB-19 made its maiden fight on June 27,1941, the entire Douglas plant turned ‘ut. Debut had been delayed for over « month ‘due to brake problems and engine backfiring. 7. At March Field, Riverside, California, the ‘XB-19 underwent 30 hours of intensive fight test before being accepted by the Air Corps in October, 1941. 5, XB-19 with Stanley Umstead at the controls, along with six other crewmen, cruises over the Southern California coastine south of Los Angeles. Ate fy five minutes, be turned back to a landing at March Field, Riverside. Although no armament was carried on first fight, note enor- ‘mous sizeof front dorsal tarret, which was (o have housed one 37mm cannon and one 30 caliber ‘machine gun, armament duplicated in the nose turret. Single .0 caliber weapons would be installed in rear dorsal turret, tai, ventral and two waist positions. These were augmented by a pair of 0 caliber weapors fring from each side of the bombardier’s station, forward, and two ‘additional 303 positioned oa either side of the rear ventral fuselage, just aft of the national »1. XB-19 on the ground at March Field, afer its first flight. Although Douglas had. lost interest in the aircraft by the end of 1938, Air Corps offical, whe also realized it was obsolete, even before i lew, insisted on competition. the XB-19 was big. Vertical tail stood ne Tail turret, with its Plexiglas clear area, was representative of ll nology. Small se windows have been maskeil aver for painting 3, Fifly caliber rear dorsl turret was bulk, oversized and ful of bracing. Here, it carried « dummy weapon during traversing tests 4. Raised clear of is jig the enormous mass of the wing, nacelle and central body is connected by cables to electric winches, which will turn and lowe it for joining mating with nose and tail ly 49. inthe Thirties tech. 20 3. Rewhing nose turret of XB-19, modeled on that of the auch smaller production D-16 medium bomber, has gun positon above with bombardier’s station below. In revised 5-10, the positions were reversed, withthe weapoa below and the bombardier above. Mass of greenhouse enclosed by ‘etal ceinfercements typical of the period Note outlet for Single 20 eslibor gun, accompaniod by additional windows hove it to right of main concave bombardiers postion, a layout that was repeated at ight side 6. With Douglas DB-7 lish bomiver tall bracketing XB-19's main gear tre, and the fuselage of a DC-3 immediately behind the 1840 Pontiac coupe, the Douglas publicity department bent every efort 10 showcase ter gant ire ral. 7. Another reason the fist fight ofthe XB-19 was delayed vias due toils great weight. On rollout, the main wheels Denetrated deeply Into the thin asphal of Douglas Santa Monica's Clover Field, and kad to be pulled out by man- power in what appears asa tug of war Cones. Note engine Airintake, lower cow aps, tal bimper and three bladed, 17 A. diameter, constant speed propellers tll in their poe tetive jackets, 4 Like the XB-15, the interior ofthe XB-19 featured size and more sie. This isthe engine monitoring area and radio room, located behind the cockpit, loking at. Crew consis. al of 16, but for long missions a pair of additional fight mechanics and a reli crew of sx aso could be accommo- dated. They would rie behind the compartment shown in 4 secondary section equipped with eight seats and six funk.ring masterpiece of the bedrwor-sized sy from his lofty perch, Without an 5,350 gallons of fuel inthe internal big bomber could haul up to 00 tile mission, including those4. Upon completing the XB-19 was givea a coat of olive drab - war had broken out after the Pearl Harbor attack ‘and on January 23, 1012, was flown to Wright Field, Ohie, for farther tests. In this photo the um moss turrot gun and is sighting 30 cal iher weapon have been installed. 2.& 3, Close-up views ofthe nese gun installa- tion at March Field, With the exception of ngine cooling difficalties which mandated that the covl flaps be partially deployed dur- ng long flights, thus reducing top speed from 224 mph, to 204 mph, was relatively trouble fre, However, its rate of climb was a slacial 650 R. per minute engines were accessible In Might by means of a companionaway. This fealuse, together With the san wing, was later transferred intact to the Company's Model 314. flying boat, which made its first Might in the summer of 1938. Much of the impetus for deriving the flying boat from tho XB-15, a9 well as’solling tho idoa to Pan American, came from Wellwood Boall, who had workod on the prolimi. nary dosign of the XB-15, had thon gone into sales, and retumed to. pro mote the idea of a flying bost based on XB-15 research. Just as the XB-15 had spawned what would become a successful fleet of civilian Clippers, as well as a number of systems which were incorporated intothe B-17 bomber, Boeing had also toyed with the idea of developing an even larger flying boat for the Navy besed on XB-15 tochnology; Known as the Model 320, it was proposed in 1930 and sched. uled for six Wright GR-2600 Double Cyclone engines developing 1650 hp. each. It was to have balanced on a pair of thin twin hulls with a contral f lage nacelle partially buried in the thick section of tho loading edge of a scaled- up wing very much like that of the XB-15, although its span was 51 ft freater, with an area of 4.415 sq. ft compared to the XB-15's 2,780 sq. ft The Model 320, which never proceeded bevond the design stage, was to have had a 7,000 mile range while carrying two dozen 1,000 1b. bombs, plus six 3,300 Ib, torpedoes. If nothing else, on paper, at least, America's aviation industry had solved the airframe por- tion of long-range heavy bombardment. ack of suitable power kept the XB-15 a test ship, but it proved capable of fulfilling all criteria demanded by an. Air Corps which, in 1935, could not pay for more than one; and with engine development at Wright and Pratt & Whitney showing signs of progression, ambitious new airframe and powerplant requirements were soon to meet in yet ‘nother giant, the Douglas XB-19, Douglas XB-19 If Boeing went into the designs of its XB+15 and, later, B-17 with some tr 4. Its nosewhee! canted tothe right, XB-19 is shown just prior to its light to Wright Field By this time, Douglas had pretty wel st interest in the aircraft and was just going through the motions, was swamped with orders fora numberof is aircraft and had already recalled mst of the engi- neers loaned to the XB-18 project. Of interest here isthe sizeof the forward dorsal turret and, if you look closely, you can see the 30 caliber gun barrel protruding from the rear ventral blister, just below fuselage’ national star insignia 5. With liquid-cooled Allison V.3420 engines of 2,000 hp. each, the XB-19 became the XB-19A. The V.3420 used many ofthe components found inthe V-1710, and was essentially a pair of 17108 ‘mounted on a common crankcase Had the V-1710's problems been solved earlier, the mammoth ‘aluminum cast V4420 might have seen 2 great deal of service. I was sturdy and much more relic able than its German Daimler-Benz coupled counterpart that went into the disappointing Heinkel He 177 beavy bomber. Because the Air Force had invested much time and money in the V-1420, it'was installed in a number of experimental that never got beyond the prototype stage, includ ing the Lockheed XP-58 and the Fisher XP-75, With the 24 cylinder ¥-8420, the XB-19A reached | top speed of 209 mph, at 20,000, but normal range was cut from 3,200 miles to 4,200 miles. 5. B-19's successor and the Douglas rival to Boeing’ XB-20 was the company's XB-81. Begun as ‘ bomber development of the DC™4- not the DC-4E - in 1941, i was to have been powered by Pratt Whitney's 4360 Wasp Majors, which eventually went into the Goodyear F2G Corsair. Is wing spanned 207 f. and it featured the vertical fin and rudder shape of the A-26 attack bomber, Although it never progressed beyond the model stage, many of is features, including separate bubbte canopies for pilot and copilot, appeared on the Douglas C-74 military transport, shown, which gave rise to the C123A Far Gry From The Mass-Produced Century Series, Ahead Of Its Time Or Not, ‘ ie paraphrase an old adage for aerospace companies thet build fighter planes: Many are nominated, but few are called, or funded. Fifly years ago, the first of aight USAF jetfighters to com~ prise the famed Century Series, North American's F100, fogan taking shape in the sheet metal shop at Inglewood, California, It would be followed by the McDonnell F-101, the Convair F102 and F-106, the Lockheed F-10, the Republic F108, the North American F-107 and, finally, the F108, which never flew. In general terms, a single Century Series F-106, fully equipped, cast approximately one million dol lars, Today, the USAF's latest air superiority fighter, the Lockheed F-22 Raptor, presently undergoing testing, will cost approximately 130 times as much, not counting the 23 billion in research to bring it to flying stats. in the course of the intervening years between the F-5 long awaited and protracted debut and that of the F100 ‘Super Sabre of 1950, there have been « number of well-known Ait Force fighter types which have not boon part of the Century Series, among them the F-4 Phantom - initially a Navy program - the McDonnell Douglas {now Boeing) P15, and Ue General Dynamics (now Lockheed) F-16. The F4. ‘with a price tag of three million, has been retired. The F-15 is going out of production in favor of the less expensive F-16. 4 The Latest Technological Triumph May Not Be ‘Affordable, And Congress Now Thinks So, Too! By Jack Dean Photos courtey Lockheed, Boeing, USAE Ale Fush, Seve Toorey, Dassault, Ae Complicated and costly, the designated Crown Prince of US. fighters, Tockheet's YF-22 Raptor is flanked by its two immediate predeces- sors, the McDonnell Douglas Boeing) F-15 Eagle (let) and the General Dynamics (Lockheed) F-16 Falcon. After nearly three decades, pr duction ofthe Air Superiority Eagle may be coming to an end, while the less costly, smaller F-16 will continue to stock both U.S, and for- feign air arms duo to enhanced multirole utility and continaows ‘upgrading which makes ita world class competitor in terms of mie ‘lon and price. tn the do everything category the heir apparent F-22 ‘now ant Advanced Tactical Fighter, but i 1 affordable at $200 mil- lion per plane? ‘Smaller, simpler and less expensive at least now, before any produc tion contracts have been signed, the Joint Svike Fighter (JSF) pro- posed by Boeing, represents a concerted effort to supply both the Air Force andthe Navy, as well as export cusiomers, with 2 future all in ‘one fighter. Lockheed is also vying for this contrac with a similar design, both of which feature STOL characteristics. The rend solidation and uniformity, due to huge development costs andi production runs has decimated old line airframe suppliers, leavin Tockheed and Boeing with a virtual monopoly in the U.S, with roc for perhaps one European competitor inthe great ‘ng place in the world's aviation industry ‘The Northrop F-20 was stillborn, and the future for a new Millennium replacomont appears ‘Once hailed ag tho multispurpose air superiority fighter of the futuro, tho milestone records currently being broken by Lockhood's F-22 Raptor as it undergoes development, als include those of upwardly accelerating costs. As of the end of aly, Congress balked at appropriating production funding which would raisa the price to 200 million per plane. Yes, much is oxpected of the F-22. and much will be delivered, but a growing list of unhappy critics are carping about ‘escalating price. (For full story of the YF-22's development fand that of its rival, see Airpower March 1991 and_Airpower November 1990, respectively, both available in back issue.) "The end of the Cold War and the egregious balance sheat revelations conceming the B-2 bomber, totalling well over a Fillion dollars each, again not counting development, have made the Congress, the public, and even the Air Force leery of such expensive hardware, Several years ago the Navy spent ten billion dollars developing an ill-advised carrier attack plane, the A-12, which never passed the mockup stage, and Wwatchdog Congressional budget committees, having been bit- ten, are Hot eagor to make a similar mistake with the F~: which has already cost upwards of 40 billion for resear prototypes and service test machines. Costs have gotten 90 far {Text continued from page 0)1 Dagger. The first supersonic all-weather aircraft it was the owed it, and it suf ‘Club was the Convair F102 Del Pe aie saan iat flown in October, 1953, proved a disappointment, could not reach Mach 1, It alon rea ruling, which smoothed and thinned out the overall contours ofthe plane’ fase mations, proved successful. In December, 1954, the revamped Yt—102 easly broke Mach 4 following june Here, F-102s from the Idaho Air Guard. (Steve Tooney) ling from the start and installing an engine with 50 peroent rt was almost twice as fasta its forerunner, er ofthe Century Series Fig Above: A key m ‘mest advanced fig fered from severe buffeting, The application ofa tion from nose to tal, eliminating major bulges ats maiden ight, and with revisions to its vertical fin, it entered sevice the di Below: After delivering 873 F-102s, Convair again revamped the design, utilizing area tare power (2,500 Ibs of thrust wih flerburning). Originally designated F-1028, th F-106 Dea saat Prapapeed of 1329 mph. 40,400 f. The backbone of Ai Defense Command, it would remain in front ine eric for mare han 6 Yor pre intercepior, its con Seen ancd targeting avionics and weaponry not only located an intruder, but automatically sighted and fired its Pe ee on the fra Higher that could We flown by computer from tak oft landing approach, Cost in 1960 dollars including nacear SS as of radar, three and one half million dollar. Shawn here, a Montana Air Guard single-stater ¥-106A, one of 277, They Were followed by 63 two-seat F-106Bs, (Alec Fushi) Be EESCoe re a nc ec eee ee ee {oan Air Superiority Fighter or fighter bomber, such as the McDonnell ¥-4 Phantom or the Repiilic P-105 ‘Thunderchic, the P=I06 concentrated om defense and did its job so well that the larger MeDonnell 101 Voodoo, originally bail a a long-ranging interceptor, was given & Coen en ieee Lene ne ee er Which wvas kept Below for milion dollars because of joint use by the Air Force a eS eo Ae ia es ec tat Cee ee Oe a ee airtoair combat, with a secondary attack role, The ote, the larger E13, was bred as a Tonge reer eae es me ee role, the less expensive F-16 was nearly as good and, because js was more affordable, could be crete Neen eee Maen Meee meecout of hand that it has become virtually impossible to prodict the course of a funded fighter program, or the numbers to be acquired, oven whon it has generally acknowledged support he reasons for this dilemma are manifold, but the prima- ry problem is this: Take an industry than can virtually build fanything - for a price. Pair it with « customor that insists on having every cutting edge system on its aircraft, and square that with the public's willingness to incur the resulting Fify years ago, when o was relatively cheap and suppliers many. this wasn ding concen. Staying ahead of the Soviet Union and other potential enemies was. So the military and the Congress, despite their difierences cooperated with the manufacturers. All that has changed. Fiven allowing for inflation, today’s military airplanes are enormously expensive. The Soviets are no longer a conven- tional threat. No other bogeyman has taken their place. The list of one-time prime airframe contractors has dwindled from more then a dozen to only two, reducing competition; and in rolotive terms, at least, the defense budget is half of what it used to be, compared to the gross national product. Given the lack of an'immodiata threat and an impending crisis, devel oping still another advanced fighter is not the top priarty it The fighters we presently have on inventory seem more than capable of defeating any possible enemy, leaving the A pair of F-100Cs from the Air Force’ Thunderbirds serebatic demon Station team break ground oa take ofboth main and nose gear coming up immediately. Firs of Century Series fighters was phased out of front line Air Force serice beginning in the early Seventies, Many of ts planes were assigned to Tactical Air Command and equipped bomber, father than fighter squadrons. Ninetoen Air Guard squadrons wed the ¥-100 up through 1900. (Steve Tooney) American public, which must foot the bill for any new equip: ment, Jess willing to do so, In place of fighter contracts which were once let every year, then every three to seven years, we how have a situation where a reluctant go-ahead will be given nce in a decade or, perhaps, in a generation. In addition, instead of a variety of purchases for different categories of hters, we have come to the point where one fighter will nave to do it all: air defenss, ground attack, air superiority Enter the Joint Strike Fighter of the future, scheduled to be employed by both the Air Force end the Navy Boeing and Lockheed are vying for this pivotal and tucra tive contract, which may very well be the last issued before the middle of the 21st century. Some sources quote a total of 3,000 planes, but 1,000 is a more likely number. Whichever Company wins, at least forty percent of the work will goto the other, a teward-sharing partnership already sven in the F-22 Raptor program. The reason: Fighter builders, no matter how large, Have nelther the resources, nor the exclusivity they tance possessed. They can no longer wait until next year to bid fon 2 contract, biding their time for the next request for pro posal. In an industry where many once greet names - Convair Douglas, Gruminan, Republic, North American - have either been absorbed, gone on life support, or expired, it is in the best interest of the military to keep es many as possible up and functioning. In two recent transactions for export versions of the F=15 and F-16 to be sold to Greoce and Israel, indicative of just how perilous survival has become, th more capable and for- rmidable F_15 lost out to the smaller F-16. The decisive factor twas cost. Despite its much wider capabilities, the F-15 was just too expensive, and while the USAF may purchase a few oro to string out the implementation and deployment of the F-22 Raptor replacement, it seoms likely that the F-15's St. Louis production line will. soon be forced to shut dowa, Ironically, both Booing and Lockheed offered large discounts* tothe Greeks and Israelis in order to sell their respective fight- ers, both of which have exhibited a sharp rise in price since their introduction in the early Seventies, ‘When first made available the F-16 cost just under fifteen million dollars, the F-15 just over twenty five. Today, despite Jong production runs which have amortized costs, particular ly in the case of the smaller F-16, a new F—16 Falcon sells for more than 35 million, while an F-15 Eagle fetches approxi: mately 60 million per plane. Sure, a number of significant improvements have been made to the airframes, engines and systems on both planes, but in the past prices came down after lengthy production or appreciated only marginally; they did not double = Another factor in choosing a fighter aircraft in addition to performance and need, particularly in the export market, is the availability of service, parts and upgrades, Will the maiu- facturer you buy from today be in business tomorrow? This is, a sticking point for those who might choose to purchase their wares from tho now defunct Soviet Union. In general, ex- Soviet manufactured aircraft aro excellent performers, but their parts supply and technical aid situation is not the best ‘They may be cheaper to acquire initially, but they aro suspect. and what happens five yoars down the road? In Furope, where the French Rafale and the Gormon Italian, Spanish, British consortium Eurofighter are boing built and marketed, national treasuries subsidize all develop: ment and buys, domestic and foreign, and this trend to equip with one’s own product insures that no US. fighter manufoc- turer is going to break into this fiercely guarded, nationalistic monopoly. I's enough they buy our airliners, and that situa tion is also changing, witness the emergence of Airbus, In terms of overall performance and capability, both the Hafale and the Eurofighter, now called the Typhoon, have the full capabilities of the latest upgraded F16, except for target acquisition; and if the Europeans merge with a Northrop or a Raytheon, they will get the weapons guidance they need to fully match that of U.S. products. The newest Soviet or Russian-built MiGs and Sukhoi fighters are in the same gen: eral class as the F-15, but are not as reliable and don't have the F-15's overall broad mission capacity. Their stayin power in terms of longevity is also lacking saves America’s aviation industry as the only viable, em producer of advanced fighter types, and both th 2 and the JSF will be far ahead of whatever is available But is an F-22 worth 200 million per plane, plus i? And that in buys of 350, which will surely never ialize. And how much will the smaller JSF cost, even in lange buys? Remember, over the past twenty years new pro- grams have been kicked off with announced and intended purchases of many more numbers than have actually left sembly Lines. In 1990, the B~2 Stealth bomber was project for 300 examples. Only 21 were completed. The F Raptor was initially programmed for first 500, then 350 and, as we go to press, the number under discussion is now in the 200 clas, Those who remember the birth of the Century Series have undoubtedly taken note that the production of new fighter air- ft has not kept pace with the volume that was once taken for granted. Meanwhile, the building of manned bomber air raft has been virtually eclipsed, with no new proposals on tho drawing boards. All in one fightor/bombers are the only combat survivors and, if their prices keop escalating, they soon follow their bigger brothers. Drones, missiles, heli copters and, perhaps, tilt-rotor craft seem to bo the favoritas of the future. Combined with cargo. tankers and electronic war fare planes, thay will make up the bulk of the world’s air forces. True, there will always be the need for fighters, but the gaining and maintaining of air superiority may not depend on them as much as was once posited. Such is the challenge for the Millennium Fighterisles end blinding speed mado the Convair Above. Advanced radar, computerized navigational and target acquisition equipment, powerful F106 the ultimate interceptor, but once the threat from Soviet et Bombers had lessened, there was really no longer a mission for it During the fords, its many capabilities were transferred to the F-13 and, les so, to the F-10, The nearest modern fighter equivalent to it was the Navy's eenitn F-14 Toca, a plane which s also scheduled for phaseout as pare inlerception noods give way to an all-purpose fighter such as that envisaged inthe F-22 Raptor Below: Last of the pure Air Force interceptors, and the final Century Series Deyelnment began n 153 bu te get advances achieved by Conai's 102 16 bine n tail shape ofthe F-100 survived on the F-107, with the intake for its 24,300 Ub, thrust afterburning the cockpit, Three were built andthe F-107 easily exceeded Mach 2 in tests, but the Air Force decided to stay with Republic's F108. The F107 ae ee North American's lst lying fighter prototype. Cising the chapter on the Century Series the delts-wingnd F108 Rapier was ordered as Peston gtr forthe firm's X87 Valkyrie strategic bomber, but never lew thus ending the fighter building carer of ane of America’s proud aa eacara tate that would befall several other equally renowned manafacturersovor the ensuing twenty years. Fo fll story ofthe F-107 and F108 see Airpower November, 1986, available in back issue to take wing, was North American's F-107 Cavalier. it superfluous. Only the general wing and 175 engine uniquely placed above and behind 2tiling, a European Germany, Italy & Spain} have offered the Eurfightr, cr ‘Typhoon, to their respective air arms, with plans fr export (Pheto 1), while the same with its Rafal (Photo 2). Both are relatively short ing all in one Bighterbomber improve- iments on the F-16, but with two engines and small canard wings, and neither isin tho clas of the F-22 Raptor. During the ‘osovo, European members Of NATO, not eq iaad bow Jaguar and ing eqaipmer will remedy tis, but at 65 to 70 milion dollars per copy, will they be able to com- pte fer export customers with the F-16 ‘nce their own air arms have purchased ‘he initial rans? 3 4 4: It's ironic how the serwspace busi ness works these days. Northrop's origi sal YF-17 (Photo 3) lst oat to General Dynamic’ 18 in 1973 for the Air Forea's lightweight fighter contract. The 5, Doubt and misgivings sil prevail inthe e-Soviet aviation industry The designs are excllent, the prices affordable, but who can bank on aftorsle support, particulsrly with a government that hawever was partial tothe YP ters on the brink of bankrupicy? Here is Sukho': new 8-26 Forward Swept Wi ‘engined layout andl chose the ds that new? Basing their concept on late World War I German designs, Rockwell Internationa, the ‘own carrierhorne atack fighter with the eit to North American, Gremmian and General Dynamics all looked into the FSW inthe late 0s Doulas Aircraft be the prime By the end of 1984, Grumman had acually built and flown its X-294. equipped with asingle engine ‘contractor ofa scaled-up yersion which and fn, instead ofthe Sukho's twin fin. twin-engined layout, Tess continued with a par of proto- ecame the F-18 Homel With Douglas types; results were promising. but the proect never reached the production stage. For a detailed sow absorbed hy Boring, a new and larger account ofthe X-29 see Aire" May, 1980, available in back iste Super Hornet i under test (Photo 4} with plans o purchase some 500, While Korthrop sill provides assemblies for the Super Hornet, the company, now merged with Grummar,is being shopped around after the US. government tumed down a bid for it tobe acquired by Lackheed, As we fur toward the Millennium, General Dynamics, which gave us today’s most siccessful, mass-produced fighter, the 16, no longer makes airframes, having sold the patent to Lockheed, while ‘Northrop, which eriginated the concept that became the Hornet and, now, the Super Hornet, may bo eds target acquis delivery know-how, Meanwhile, the long established builder of Navy fighters, Grumman, is lost in the corporate shufle, yet another proud name that will soon pass into history Is this « tough business, or what?Above: Advanced radar, computerized navigational and target acquisition equipmen’, powerful misiles and blinding speed made the Convair -106 the ultimate interceptor, but once the threat from Soviet jet bombers had lessened, there was realy no longer mission frit. During the 1970s, its many capabilities were transferred to the F-15 and, less so, to the F-16. The nearest mdern fighter equivalent to it was the Nays Grumman F-14 Tomcat, a plane which is also scheduled for phaseout. es pure interception needs give way to an all-purpose fighter such as that ‘envisaged inthe F-22 Raplor Below: Last of the pure Air Force interceptors, and the final Century Series fighler to take wing, was North Amorican's F-107 Cavalier Development bogan in 1053, but the great advances achieved by Convair F-102%-106 combine made it superfuous. Only the general wing and tail shape ofthe F-100 survived on the F-107, with the intake for its 24.500 Ib thrust afterburning 75 ongine uniquely placed above and behind the cockpit, Three were built andthe F-107 easily exceeded Mach 2 in ests, but the Air Force decided to stay with Republic's F-108, The F-107 would be North American's last lying fighter prototype. Closing the chapter on the Century Series, the dalta-ringed F-108 Rapier was ordered as an escort fighter for the firm's XB70 Valkyrie strategic bomber, ut never fe, thus ending the ightr-building carver of one of America's proud! fst names, a fate that would befall several other equally renowned manufacturers over the ensuing twenty years. For full story of the F107 and ¥-108 see Airpower November, 1986, available in back issue. ee |Spain) have offered the Eurofighter, or ‘Typhoon, to their respective air arms, with plans for export (Photo 1), while France is doing the same with its ofa (Photo 2). Both are relatively short-rat ing, all in one fighter rents on the F-16, but and small canard wings, and neither isin the claes of the F-22 Raptor. During the air war over Kosovo, European members ‘of NATO, not Jaguar and Tornado were ia their ta ing equipment. The Typhoon sind Ref will remedy ths, but at 65 to 70 milli dollars per copy, will they be abe te com: pete for export customers with the F-16, ‘once their own air arms have purchased the initial runs? nal YF-17 (Photo 3) lost Dynamics’ F-16 in 1973 lightweight fighter contract however, was partial to the YF-=17's twine engined layout and chose the design for its fown carvier-horae attack fighter, with the proviso that Douglas Aircraft be the prime contractor ofa scaled-up version which became the F-18 Hornet. With Douglas now absorbed by Boeing, a new and larger Saper Hornet is under test (Photo 4) with plans to purchase some 500, While Narthrop sill provides assemblies for the Super Hornet, the company. now merged with Grumman, is being shopped around after the US. government turned down a bid frit to be acquired by Lockheed. As we turn toward the Millennium, General Dynamics, which gave us today's most ‘successful, mass produced fighter, the F-16,no longer makes airframes, having sold the patent to Lockheed, while Northrop, which originated the concept that became the Hornet and, now, the Super Hornet, may be acquired by a European entity that needs target tiom and weapons delivery know-how. Meanwhile, the long established builder of Navy fighters, Grurnman, is lost a the corporate shuffle, yet ancther proud name that will soon pess into history. Is this a tough business, or what? isk 5. Doubt and misgivings still prevail in the ex Soviet aviation industry. The designs are excellent the prices affordable, but whe can bank on aftercale support, particularly with a government that ‘weters.on the brink of hankruptey? Here is Sukhoi's ew S-26 Forward Swept Wing Fightor, ori it that new? Basing their concept an late World War Il German designs. Rockwoll International, the heir to North American, Grumman and General Dynamics, all looked into the FSW in the lato 70s. By the end of 1984, Grumman had actually built and flown its X-20., equipped with a single engine and fin, instead of the Sukhoi’ twin fin, twin-engined layout. Tests continued with a pair of proto- types; results were promising, but the project never reached the production stage. For a detailed account ofthe X-29 see Aipcwver May, 1986, available in back isbe.| i i Wayward Wings": In The Air Age's Infancy Imagination Ruled And The Art Of Standardization Appeared Furthest From The Designer's Fanciful Eye! By Peter M. BowersEditor's Note: Some were innovative, some utilitarian, some were outright non- sense, some were unlovely, and some were just plain grotesque. But many of the designs laid down during the period 1910 through 1918, beginning less than a decade since the Wright brothers proved that poviered flight was a reality, would represent a solid foundation upon which our present aviation industry is built. Much of this progress was spurred by the conflict known as First World War, when field ‘armies slowly began to appreciate the pos sibilities in this new weapon with wings How far this thinking advanced could easily be measured at war's end, when the major powers, France, England, Germany and Great Britain, possessed more than 30,000 combat aircraft between them. Yet ‘on the eve of that war, advertisements in French magazines extolling the military possibilities of the airplane announced that with a fleet of 500 planes France was already assured superiority since her main ally, Great Britain, owned only 150 aircraft, while her potential enemies, Germany and Austria-Hungary combined, operated just 80 machines. In his album of unusual off. shoots, strange contraptions, one of a kind experimentals, little known subsidiary types and their minimally produced vari ants, author Pete Bowers reveals how far the builders of combat aircraft came in just a few years, and how much farther they still had to go. No, this is not scaffolding for a large high rise, but perhaps the “Most Muli” ofthe World War One ‘multiplanes, the seven-wing count em’), three- ‘engine American project built hy Herbert F, Johns in 1918, That's what it was oficaly called - Johns ‘Multiplane. 1 made short test hops ater the war ‘but was scrapped in 1920, Wonder why?1, Obsolescent prewar models like this French, Farman MS-7, captured from the British by the Germans, were used well into 1918. The MS-7 with forward elevator was nicknamed. Longhorn” by the British: the later $-11 model without front elevator wasrnicknamed, logically enous 2, The German Oertz W.6 of bly one of the mest unconventional airplanes, othe war. Its boat-like fuselage was powered. by two 260 hp. Maybach airship engines in the hull driving pusher propellers through sh i gears. Only the forward biplane wing was ‘quipped with engines, the rear assembly was Med onto the fasclage and held there, recily infront ofthe twin tail by means of res and struts Just one was completed. 3, Imitation is the most sincere form of fat- tery. The German Euler firm made copies of the French Nieuport 11, and then tried many variations, including’ triplanes and this {quadruplane, Note the absence of eilerons; the Upper wing pivoted on its tubular main spar to perform that function, 4. Lif and more lift appears tobe the answer, The front wings of the Fokker V.8 of late 1917 were from the standard Dr triplane fighter, The streiched fuselage used the rear end and tail surfaces ofthe Dr, but this one-only tan: ddem was scrapped after only two fights Wayward Wings here was no such thing as standard: ized airplane. configuration before the First World War. Flying machine inventors were busy trying all sorts of aerial combinations, and a few were still advocating canards, with the eleva- tors out in front, a la the Wright Brothers, 1902-1909. By mid-1914, hawever, most of what could be called “production” models had shaken down to two basic types tractors, with the engine in the nose of a box-like fuselage, and pushers, with the ‘engine at the rear of a short pod con- taining the crew, the tail surfaces of the pushers being supported by four booms. Actually, the pushers were already giv- ing way to the better streamlined and aerodynamically more efficient tractor models by the time the war began in August, 1914, but they got a new lease on life because their cloar view f soon expanded to include a wider f Of fire for automatic weapons, gi them certain military advantages. As late as 1916, when the Allies had not da synchronizer gear to allow ¢ machine gun to fire through the propeller arc of tractor types, the British3. The object of four wings for the British Armstong-Whitworth Fk-10 was to have nar- rower wings of the required area to improve the observer's eld of visio, OF a planned 90 production models, ony eight were built by three Brisk frm 6, OF all the German WW I triplane fighters, the Fokker V4 was one of the few designed from scratch a8 a triplane. The protaype, shown, had fll canilever wings tat needed 0 conventional interplane struts. The 390, improved Vs, built as Drts, included the struts, more for psychological reasons than structral neces. classify I the single Russian Bess tripletandem monoplane or @ t plane with extreme wing stagger? Or maybe tsa rocket launcher 4. The Gotha Gl, designed by German maga zine eitor Oskar Ursinas, went to extremes to locate its engines close to the fuselage. Note the notched and undercut nase for propeller earance, and the opposite rotation of the propellers to minimize directional control problems resulting from las of power on one engine, Forward fuselage where crewmen are seen looks si it were inspired by the vera a school of design were still building single-seat pushor fighters. There were several useful and logi- ‘all variations to the two basic types such as pontoons that could be substi- tuted for wheels for water operations, and dedicated flying boats where the fuselage was built aS a boat-like hull that housed the crew. As the war progressed, variations of the two basic models begin to increase in number, the changes intended to give the particular designs actual, but more often imagined, advantages over their contemporaries. Some pretty far-out configurations made their debut, usual- ly as one-shot experimental that were quickly dropped, and some designers even revived pioncor configurations that had long beon abandoned, such os the ill-fated tandem-wing Langley Aorodrome of 19 A fow of tho dosigns that wore more ly innovations - read freaks -at tho timo of their introduction went into produc: tion, prov worth, and became accepted standards, with some still in use today. Others were advanced to have practical appli atthe time, but became accepted in later years. Some of the configurations that were introduced during the war, or at least improved upon, are discussed in the following paragraphs and in the illus- trations throughout this article. Multiplanes Most of the prewar airplanes were iplanes, mainly because monoplanes ad earned a reputation for structural (Text continved on page 42) 37aie Gala GVIt through GX modes did th Gone beter in geting the engines clove gether. They ended atthe fuselage nse short a he ont cin se nse gun sation. Ths sa Gath GX wth 25 hp, Maybach ngs Srving oppo Bromebo relies, liminatng aera previows pags has been incorporate nto the fiselae the wing ha Deen redesigned. as has the landing sar and the result isa valy improved and cleaned up bomber a sour engines wern handled rot efectvely by the tandem instalation used by th production Zappsli-Slaaken RVI This on, #5108 2 Four engin: wor apich propellers an had 120 Bp. Nercedes engine inthe fuselage to drive supercharprs forthe foe 285 bP ase terre coun oral naclies with radars hanging above them, 5 wel as min Landing et with igh is por sie are rramdh Wenione Ad of 816 nv the engines eve ther nlnard by tring them sideways and puting them ight up agit he cg aang ecingerendaar ot Th 120 fp. Gaome roar engines drove ppasiteroating propels trough shat sn gars coming ayo asesdecondominian! The Geman Frindihshafen FES of 108 concentrated the weight and thr! four engine wr Oe OF 4 Cuming py tahing ten ssw, Te etc pecing cased pier problems at ierng power stings making iat one othe dentine Bish Taran Tabor” combined the anden-rgine arrangement afte Stakens and th tacked arrangement of the FED. et 5, The sienin Bis Tr Napier Lin engines Were opened Sig he ft akon, tha farward throating again! he dag ofthe wheel thethrotles ofthe We hat noel the giant plane over with fal reas. Dl the fuselage was nicly stream. Span of he mice wing was 1313 in,= — aig ae _ om_———— ‘The siant Zeppelin Staaken R.IV had the same airframe as the K-VI bat used six engines, Two 190 hp. Mercedes were side-by-side inthe nose driving one propeller, and two 220 hp. yes (Mercedes and Ml ‘single pusher propeller. Né each nacelle and, again ‘upper wing for cooling, almost as an aferthought toches Flugaeug Weeke - German Aiplane Works) R.ll had four 260 hp. Mercedes engines inthe fuselage @ 1 shafs. The poorly thought out propeller positions should have been reversed; the rear props fad gravel kicked up by the wheels from hiting them. ould have ‘Of interest i fur position landing gear, two main, one front,roved greatly en the DEW, Rul! by linking its four internal 260 kp, Mercedes engines toa single propeller ick giant, which was much bigger then it looks, wes 138 ft. 4 in, and its top speed was 81.25 mph, Gross Below: The Linke Hoffmann 8.1L in the nose. The wingspan of thi ‘weight, 26,460 is.(text continued trom page 37) ‘weakness and were generally in disfavor. inthe search for lit biplanes got a further boost when their allegedly superior strength and maneuverability gave them certain combat advantages, and while the biplane was dominant, multiplanes with three or even four wings were not uncommon, Production triplanes ranged from single-seat fighters to heavy multi-engine bombers, and one quacruplane out of several that appeared actually went into production. For the most part, the triplanes were developed from exist- ing biplane designs simply by adding another wing; very few Above: The German Ago Cl of 1915 ws a great improvement over con temporary pashers by replacing the four tail booms with two substant oom structures that Id to the development of true twin-fuselage designs. Except for rather boxy foreshortened fuselage pod, this is rather appeal- ing layout, with extremely clean twin ta structure Below: The lalian Caproni Ca,30series had an engine atthe front of each of its tin foselages, anda third engin inthe central nacelle. This is an ‘American-built version, with three 400 hp. Liberty engines. The Caproni (Ca40 series used the same format but with triplane wings. were designed from scratch with throo wings. The idea behind triplane fighters wos incroasod maneuverability through shorter wings of the samo area, while on bombers it meant more lifiing area without having to go to longer-span ‘wings. Most triplane wings were simply stacked vertically One above the other, but there were a few experimentals with, very odd fore and aft arrangements. Multi-Engine Arrangements There had been two-engine airplanes before the war, andeven a few with three or more, but they were rarities, It took the war and the quest for more power and range to establish multi-engine airplanes as stan- dard types. The majority were two-engine designs, with one tractor or pusher ongine on each side of a conventional fuselage. With the high drag and mini- ‘mal control effectiveness of the time, control of the plane with one engine dead, or even putting out less power than the others, brought on serious con- trol problems. Even the combined P-fac: tor (then called torque) of two pro- pellers turing in the same direct exacerbated trim problen cS engine designs readopted the old Wright Brothers’ technique of heving the two propellers rotate in opposite directions to neutralize each other. This, called for specially-built engines, but the effort was considered worthwhile and some designers went to extremos to got tho enginos as closo to the fuselage 8s possible, even cutting into or short sning the nose. When the designers fret tried really big four-engine models, the enginoe were all in a single line at the front of the wings. This arrangement amplified the one-engine-out problem, especially if the dead engine was an end one. Moving the engines inboard and stack- ing them helped the directional. trim problem, but introduced pitch-trim problems, Four shortcomings were solved by mounting four engines in tandem pairs ‘on nacelles close to the fuselage, with fone engine in each a tractor and one a pusher. This eliminated the P-factor problem and greatly reduced the engine-out problem. It also improved the maneuverability of the airplane by concentrating the engine weight closer to the airplane's centerline and elimi- nated pitch-trim problems by having all thrust lines at the same level Tandem-engine nacelles soon became standard for four-engine bombers during the war, and were seen ‘on many postwar transports and bombers. Some early 1990's bombers using the arrangement even served ia World War Two. Other methods of concentrating cengine mass close to the centerline were to couple two engines side-by-side in the nose to drive a single propeller, or in tandom, in sido nacelles, again driving a single propoller. ‘The most extreme offort et installing ‘engines close to the centerline was to place four or even six engines inside the fuselage: these drove the outboard pro- pollers through a complicated series of shafts and gears, but it took the jet age to make mid-fusolage buried powerplants practical (oct continued on page 46) K/] etti Above: No, this is not «bridge oF railroad trestle. The upper, cigar-shaped structure ofthis 1916, French Volsin£.28 qualifies as a fuselage because there was a gunners cockpit atthe font, The four 220 lp Hispano-Suiza engines were in two tandem nacelles tounted under the ceater wing, lank ing the larger cigar-shape crew nacelles. Mid: The twin fuselage concept was even used by seaplanes. This i the French La Boardett- Habbron 7. of 1918, wit two 200 hp. Hispano-Suiza engines mounted high above the hulls. The ‘ew rode ina raised pod between the twin hulls and torpedoes were carried below Bottom: The purpose ofthis unique fuselage arrangement on the German Simene-Schuckert RIT of 1916 was to give gunners al the wine-fuselage juncture a clear fed of iret the rear. One could also fie straight down through the slot visible in the bottom fuselage. Although unsuccessful, the RIT was a pioner in the ase of servo tabs to boos aileron mavement.4, The British de Haviland 2 pasber fighter was not designed to moet the Fokker menace, It existed atthe time the Fokhers appeared, and twas then put into production to fight them, the gunner siting upfront witha lear field of fire, 2, However, as early as July, 1914, France had experimented with for- ‘ward firing armament capable of operating without interference fram the propeller. In this case, the weapoary was heavy, a 37mm aero can non installed on this Voisin 6 4. Another French method of getting forward firepower for fast tracor types was to alfach a gunne’s cockpit in a fuselage gap ahead of the prepeller, as on the Spad A. of late 1915. The A.2 actually went into production. 42 for France and 57 for Russia, This one of 11 improved As was for Russia. 4. A mised opportunity? In 1914, the French had two Deperdussin I scnoplanes ited with a frntcockit machine gun in which he gun, ter stood up te fire over the whirling blades ofthe propeller, but di not dlvolop it farther or use it in combat. There were no ailerons; the oer Set of wires warped the wings for lateral contro 5, A 1915 variation ofthe Doperdussin was the French Nieuport 10, in Which the leant cockpit dserver-gunner stood up through a hele in the Upper wing Other photos too poor to reproduce shove him with erie fl a machine gun, and no fixed mount for it5.87. Pushers were very vulnerable to attack from the rea. This Briish Royal Airerat Factory FEB, inservice ia 1910, gave the nose gunner a second Lewis machine gun that had a very limited fald of fire to the rea. I is shown with aluminum (infantry sive) wcket on “The Scotch Express” (Photo 7) ater it was captured by Germans. 8. Standard position for German gunners, who often wore cori-lined hard leather helmets, was a leather lined cockpit forthe 7.92 Parabellum machine gun, its oar decking quipped with hand grenades, signal fares and rockets 4 This Austro-Hungarian Brandenburg C: tried to give the rear-ockpit ebserverguaner «wider fel offre by raising him to the level of the "apper wing. This fairing dd not become a production tem,1, An RNAS 2F1 Camel used by the Royal Navy, with the feature of being abe to unhinge the fuselage aft ofthe pilot's seat for deck storage at sea. Notice single Vickers on right side of fuselage, and Lewis ‘machine gun moaned on top of wing contr section; also the external levator bell crank mounting and control wires. These Camels were towed on lighter behind destroyers at sea and used as convoy fighter ‘escorts. Once launched, they ditched inthe ocean to recover pilots and Posy salvage the irra, w precursor ofthe Wort War I! Sea 2. Among the standardized Camels, this “I” structure used a set of tapered wings. 1 was ono of a kind and did not see service with the REEC-Ttwas an altemp! tosimplify production and improve the Camel's flight pecformance, but was not developed further, as the three to four mph, airspeed improvement with minimized drag from struts and fly- ing wires did not warrant interruption of Camel production. “I” stutter tured out to be less maneuverable and more stable than standard Camel, negating its key virtue of instant response tothe controls. More than #,000 Camels were completed during WW and, in Oct. 1918, they equipped 32 front line squadrons. 3. This isan experimental single bay Sopwith Snipe, a larger, more powerful version of the Camel. Notice experimental ptotstatic tube Installation on the wing strut for light test dats. Design was soon a doublebay configuration for added strctural strength and 3 performance 4, The German Hanoveraner Ci.Il (shown) and C1.II widened the field of fire for the observer gunner by reducing the span of the horizontal {ail and transforming it into a twostered structure, but what did that do for the gunner whos firing straight to the rear? 3. When placing the gunner ahead fe engne, the French designers of this Spal SA CZ simplied access by tallng his pullelown forward Seclen. Fou of these went to the Pont i February, 1006 jst a he Bate of Verdun wes geting underway. 6 4 7 How tne change inthe half decade between the outbreak of World War Ivand i end. In Photo 6, Bleek XI parasols, nt Iuchdiferent from the desiga Louis Bleot ew across the English Channel in Jay, 1909 with 2 hp. Ancaniengioe, line up ft Vilacoubay in 181%. In Povo 7, alte auch experimen nd esearch and experience gained fom WW 1 combat models, the Sleek LVF Lowe War, Fowler) trimeloed Onl bomber rolls out in Sepa 1822, Originally designed ax « maiplene, 1 frat few tn May, 1920, clinbing to 00 fn nly nine nuts neal four mes tet as wartine heavyweight auch es the Ditch Handley-Page (i4oe, eventhough it had pom weight often tons, three tna more than the 0/400. It was alo ton percent fner st 312 mph Fighter nn blind Owi's10¢ span wing Sypeast be on experimental built iy the Army/s Engineering Divison st MeCook Fel. Twin Fuseloges “Twin fuselage airplanes (and flying bosts) evolved from the old tail-boom pusher configuration by replacing the four iwire-braced booms with a pair of slim fuselage-like structures Tosupport the tail suriaces. From there, it was a logical step to increase the cross section of these booms to install engines. and even Gew members, inside them. The Italian Capron firm put this arrangement into (relatively) mass production during the war, and even capitalized on the additional power offered by retaining the pusher engine of the central nacelle Inherited from the old tall-boom pusher Twin fusola peared occasionally after the ig World Wat Two. With the pod, but with engine, the most famous example Is the Lockheed fighter Most twln-fuselage designs of World War Ono, with or without canter pod, had their fuselages side-by-side. A few, however, had one above the other. PA. Ilof this story will conclude in December Wings.Above: The ultimate longrange strategic bomber of World War Il wes, undoubtedly, Boeing’s B29. I featured a long-range, Davis type, lami tarflow wing, with large Fowler flaps, pressurized crew. compart- speed of 338 mph, a combat radius of 2,000 miles with tdght tons of bombs, and heary defensive armament. Shown here is the third prototype. Much has bem written about the B-29, but a new monograph inthe Specialty Press Warbird Tech series is the best recent Publication we have seen, Researched and written by our own Pete Howes, it covers the development, career and systens of the Superforiess ike no other volume, Graphics are outstanding and with over 150 excellent lusrations i is easily the clas of this well-written Series, Available at $16.5, plus $3.90 postage and handling, from Specialty Press, 11481/A Kost Dam Ki, Ncth Branch, Ma 35030, BIG IRON BIG ENGINES & BIGGER HEADACHES (text continued trom page 2) idation and less than optimal resources, Douglas of Monica, California, was in # totally different position. In February, 1985, when it first began talks with the Air Corps for a second Extra Long Range Experimental Bomber, under the code name Project D, it was already accepting mess orders for the first of the new DC~8 commorcial airliners, which had bogun construction two months before. Its military business would soon pick up with substantial orders for its B-18 bomber derivative of the DC-2 and, over the next threo years ongoing contracts for its SBD Navy dive bomber and the ne DB-7 twin-engined attack plane would keep the company socurvly in the black Unfortunately for long-range strat ‘Air Corps had little money for a new flying test bed. one that ‘was much more formidable than the X8=15 - which had not yet flown - and between 1945 and 1937, the Air Corps and Douglas languished in a go slow limbo with the XBLR-2. It ‘was not officially given its name, B-19, until March of 1938. and, in the three years since its proposal. much had changed. not only in technology and general layout, but also in the ic bombardment, the Left: ‘The engine that made the B-29 possible, Wright’ R-3250 Duplex, an early version of which ako powered the XB-19. One of the bigest problems Boeing nd Wright faced in perfecting the bomber/engine com- bination that became the B-29, was both were undergoing development simultaneously.‘Right: Complexity combined with innovation characterized the B-28, Everything about it was new and its powerful defensive arma- ‘ment system was nothing if not elaborae. Devised by General Motors, fie-control was based on computing gun sights and remotely controlled weapons. One of these 50 caliber batteries is shown in top photo, depicting the ‘dorsal turet just bebind the unstepped for- ward fuselage. While the nose, rear top and ‘wo side blisters held two guns each, the for- want dorsal turret was armed with four, in ‘some models a 20mm cannoa, later deleted, was added to the tail turret. In this photo the perforated tubular heeting and defrosting ‘ducts can be seen inside the nose greeshouse, along the side support panels world situation, the status of the slowly reviving industry as a whole, and the part Douglas was to play in it, in partic. ular War clouds were gathering in Europe. France, Britain, Holland and others were beginning to place large orders with American manufacturers ‘The state of the art was also changing repidly, particularly in available engines’ of sufficient horsepower, and with these changes expectations rose appreciably The XB-19 of the mid-Thirties was not the same aircraft finally agreed to the summer of 1998, and Douglas was not the same company, Too much had transpired curing the intervening three years, Douglas believed the original ‘esign and specifications obsolete, and the revised criteria obsolescent, recom- mending cancellation of the contract it hed won over rival Sikorsky. The Air Corps concurred, but still insisted on an updated test bed and refused to consid: er abandonment, and since the Air Corps would continue to be a prime customer for Douglas products, prosent and future, company head, Donald Douglas, acquiesced. ‘During tho noar throo year hiatus between the first propos- al for what becamo the B-19 and the start of construction, Douglas had gained a great doal of experience with large fou engined aircraft. Prossed by airlino owners who saw a neod for a passongor plane twice the sizo of the DC-2 and capable of 2,200 miles of nonstop flying, early in 1996 Douglas offered @ proposal that convinced five major sirlinos, United, American, Kasiem, Pan American and TWA to cach commit $100,000 to the development of what became the Douglas DCE. Capable of carrying 42 daylight passengers in luxury, and powered by a quariet of PRW R-2180 engines genorating a total of 5,800 hp.. the new airliner had a wing fitted with slot- ted flaps, a nose gear, the first ever installed on an aircraft of Right: The rear, remotely controlled dorsal turret of a B-20 oloyatos its ‘win .50 caliber guns, while gunner sts hohind mechanism in his sight ing blister. Weapons moved up and down on inner panel, while entire structure rotated, and allthis just three years after the XB19's mi flight with bulky turrets and hand-held weaponry. story ofthe B-29 was the ability of Boeing and its subcontractors to turn ‘out nearly 4,000 of them in less than three years, while a the same! ‘completing more than the 9,000 B-17Fs and Gs contracted for beginning in 1982, 49