              
|
Excerpts from
AAHS Journal, Vol. 56, No. 2 - Summer 2011
Table of Contents
|
|
|
Aerial Refueling and the
Douglas C-132
Aerial
Refueling Comes of Age
By 1951, when the Air Force asked Douglas Aircraft Co. to design what
eventually became the C-132, aerial refueling was already a standard part
of the Air Force’s operational repertoire. The Strategic Air Command
(SAC) had been using B-29 tankers and receivers since 1948 and activated
its first two aerial refueling squadrons on June 30, 1948. The cumbersome
"looped hose" refueling system was proven, though with serious
limitations, and enabled the B-50 "Lucky Lady II" to fly around
the world in 94 hours and one minute. The new jet-powered Boeing B-47
bomber posed greater challenges to aerial refueling technology. The probe
and drogue system, first tested in 1949, enabled a Gloster Meteor jet
fighter to remain airborne for 12 hours and three minutes. Subsequently,
large formations of fighters made transoceanic deployments using the
system. In Korea, on July 6, 1951, aerial refueling was first used in
combat, allowing fighters greater time in the combat area. Consequently,
tanker aircraft that could operate at jet speeds, altitudes and off-load
requirements were clearly needed. The tanker version of the Douglas C-132
was one possible answer to this requirement. A brief history of aerial
refueling into the 1950s is useful to place the C-132 in context.
Why Aerial Refueling?
Aerial refueling has two primary functions. The first is to increase
endurance. Second is to extend an airplane’s operational range. The main
distinction between the two is that an endurance flight requires only a
few, perhaps one or two, tanker aircraft to keep another airplane airborne
in a relatively limited geographical area. Range extension, on the other
hand, calls for a much larger fleet of tankers located in several
locations to support the receivers. A third variation is aimed at
increased load-carrying capacity. In this application, an airplane takes
off with a maximal load but insufficient fuel to reach a destination.
Enroute, after more fuel has been burned off, an aerial refueling enables
mission completion. In its historical development, aerial refueling worked
first for endurance; range extension followed, as technical advances
permitted.
In
the early days of aviation, airplanes were limited simply by their
primitive technology. Engines were unreliable, airframes not always robust
and fuel was of variable quality. The earliest reasons for some sort of
aerial refueling were simply to prove . . .
|

Artist concept of Douglas C-132
|
The Short but Spectacular
Life of the Gee Bee Model Z "City of Springfield" Air
Racer
The Gee Bee story began in Madison, N.H., where Wilfred and Belle
Granville raised seven children, five boys and two girls. The brothers,
Zantford (Granny), Robert, Tom, Edward, Mark and sisters Pearl and Gladys
made up the family.
The oldest child, Granny, was a self-taught
automobile mechanic with an eighth-grade education and an affinity for
anything mechanical. Granny moved to Boston at age 17 where he took a job
selling cars. A year later he established an auto repair business in
Arlington, Mass., where he sold Chevrolets and did service work. When
Granny was 20 he exchanged his services as a mechanic for flight
instruction at East Boston Airport.
In 1922, Granny went to
work as a mechanic for the Boston Airport Corporation. His brother Tom
took over the auto repair business in Arlington. With the experience
Granny gained working on aircraft at the Boston Airport Corp., plus his
own mechanical ability, he decided to start his own aircraft company. He
established the Granville Brothers Aircraft Co. and his three remaining
brothers soon joined him in this new enterprise.
Granny and his brothers
designed and built a small, single cockpit, side-by-side seat biplane they
called the Model A. Their Model A made its first flight on May 3, 1929.
Searching for adequate
facilities to manufacture their Model A biplane, the Granvilles contacted
the Chamber of Commerce of Springfield, Mass., on May 17, 1929, and on
July 6 finalized plans to locate at the airport there. The brothers
attempted to raise money to build their Gee Bees by entering their first
air meet at Springfield on July 10.
Here they met the four
Tait brothers, James, Harry, Frank and George, owners of Springfield’s
biggest ice cream and dairy business as well as developers of the
Springfield airport. A few weeks later the Granville Brothers were
incorporated, building planes in an abandoned dance pavilion formerly
named the Venetian Gardens at the Springfield Airport.
Granny hired three college
trained engineers, Bob Hall, Bob Ayre and Bob Dexter, all of whom went on
to successful careers in aviation. Using Kinner K-5 engines, nine of the
Model As were built and sold before the full weight of the Great
Depression dried up their business. The new company was on the verge of
collapse when the All American Flying Derby was organized and sponsored by
American Cirrus Engines Inc.
This was to be the longest
air race held in the world at the time – a 5,541 mile course that took
the contestants from Detroit, Mich., to Texas, west to California, and
back to Detroit. All the aircraft in the race were powered by one of the
engines . . .
|

Gee Bee Model Z "City of Springfield"
|
Great Expectations: North
American Aviation’s Exotic
Advanced X-15 Concepts, Part II
North American engineers comprising the Weapon System Advanced Design
Department attempted to improve upon the basic intra-atmospheric X-15
layout, hoping to quickly provide the USAF with a vehicle capable of
operating in low-earth orbit, even offering a stretched airframe to accept
a military reconnaissance suite. Updating and improving the airframes with
high-heat sustaining metals would hopefully transform a generic X-15 into
the Orbital X-15A and B variants able to sustain the high thermal
temperatures of reentry.
A refrigeration system was proposed to cool the
cockpit and equipment bay although, it goes without saying, that the
astronaut-pilot wore a full-pressure suit. The B model would operate with
updated electronics and oxygen equipment for extended flight durations.
Since Murphy’s Laws operate in the vacuum of space and within the earth’s
atmosphere, not one, but two auxiliary power units would provide
independent electrical and hydraulic power. The alternating current system
would generate 4 kva/115-200 volt, 400 cps, three-phase power, while the
direct current voltage would be generated by 100-ampere silicon diode
rectifiers. Hydraulic power would be provided by 3,000 psi
variable-displacement hydraulic pumps operating irreversible flight
control features.
Further
design changes in the X-15B were a five percent-thick wing with a 2.5
aspect ratio, flaps, but no ailerons and all-moving horizontal
stabilizers. The lower vertical surface could be jettisoned by the pilot
immediately prior to landing.1 Internal structures modified
with still unproven ceramic materials were designed to withstand short
duration temperatures peaking at 3,500 degrees F in stagnation areas.
Rene-41 would replace aluminum and titanium applied throughout the generic
X-15’s primary internal structure, yet retain its high-strength
high-temperature steel alloys already installed; the airframe would endure
1,600 degree F temperatures, if the whole vehicle was externally coated
with a special black finish.
NAA
engineers also considered the application of the advanced metals Haines-Stellite
or Hastealloy R235 and the heat-sink materials Beryllium Oxide, Zirconium
Silicate, Titanium Carbide and Zirconium Boride.2 Advanced
X-15, X-15A and X-15B would be equipped with generic X-15’ssidestick
controller system and retained Bell Aircraft’s miniature reaction
control motors generating 43 and 113 pounds of thrust; Bell Aircraft could
have provided updated variants giving the pilot control of the aircraft’s
pitch, roll and yaw attitudes during an orbit. The vehicles would carry
300 channel sensing and recording systems, cartographic equipment or
intelligence and motion picture reconnaissance packages. A suggested
reconnaissance suite consisted of high-resolution . . .
|

North American X-15A HTV artist concept
|
The Day Japan Bombed
Oregon
September 9,
1942: The I-25 Japanese submarine was cruising in an easterly direction
raising its periscope occasionally as it neared the United States
coastline. Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor less than a year ago and the
captain of the attack submarine knew that Americans were watching their
coast line for ships and aircraft that might attack our country. Dawn was
approaching; the first rays of the sun were flickering off the periscope’s
lens. Their mission; attack the west coast with incendiary bombs in hopes
of starting a devastating forest fire. If this test run was successful,
Japan had hopes of using their huge submarine fleet to attack the eastern
end of the Panama Canal to slow down shipping from the Atlantic to the
Pacific. The Japanese Navy had a large number of I-400 submarines under
construction, each capable of carrying three aircraft. Pilot Chief Warrant
Officer Nobuo Fujita and his crewman, Petty Officer Shoji Okuda, were
making last minute checks of their charts making sure they matched those
of the submarine’s navigator.
At the same time, Nebraska forestry student Keith V. Johnson was on duty
atop a forest fire lookout tower between Gold’s Beach and Brookings,
Oregon. Keith had memorized the silhouettes of Japanese long distance
bombers and those of our own aircraft. He felt confident that he could
spot and identify, friend or foe, almost immediately. It was cold on the
coast this September morning, and quiet. The residents of the area were
still in bed or preparing to head for work. Lumber was a large part of the
industry in Brookings, just a few miles north of the California-Oregon
state lines.
Aboard the submarine the captain’s voice boomed over the public address
system, "Prepare to surface, aircrew report to your stations, wait
for the open hatch signal." During training runs several subs were
lost when hangar door were opened too soon and sea water rushed into the
hangars and sank the boat with all hands lost. You could hear the change
of sound as the bow of the I-25 broke from the depths, nosed over for its
run on the surface. A loud bell signaled the "All Clear." The
crew assigned to the single-engine Yokosuka E14Y float equipped,
observation and light attack aircraft sprang into action. They rolled the
plane out its hangar built next to the conning tower. The wings and tail
were unfolded, and 176 pound incendiary bombs were attached to the hard
points under the wings. This was a small float plane was crewed by two and
powered by a nine-cylinder 340-hp radial engine. It was full daylight when
the captain ordered the aircraft to be placed on the catapult. Warrant
Officer Fujita started the engine, let it warm up, checked the magnetos
and oil pressure. There was a slight
. . .
|

Yokosuka E14Y
|
Visitors to Parks Air College, Part III
When "Visitors to Parks Air College, Part I" (AAHS Journal,
Vol. 55, No. 2, Summer 2010) was published, the author received some great
feedback on the photographs. One of the feedback commentators was Ed
Powers. He attended Parks Air College in 1943 and 1944. He took some
photographs while he was at Parks. Part III is composed of some of the
photographs Ed Powers took during his stay at Parks. All photographs are
courtesy of Ed Powers and none have ever been previously published.
|

Fairchild PT-19
|
First In - Last Out, Story
of the F-4 Phantom II Wild
Weasel, Part II
[Editor‘s
Note: Part 1 of the Wild Weasel story, covering the early development of
surface-to-air missile suppression appeared in AAHS Journal Vol. 55, No.
3, Fall 2010. Part I covered early trials and tactical deployment of
F-100s and F-105Gs line aircraft converted to support the Wild Weasel
roll. This Part II takes up the story with the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II
development as a SAM suppression system.]
Wild
Weasel IV
Work commenced on the
WWIV EF-4C Phantom II program in January 1966 with the Class 5
Modification Program (No. 1778). This program included the removal of the
AIM-7 Sparrow III AAMs from the forward missile wells and replacement with
an ECM pod (typically the AN/ALQ-119 Noise and Deception ECM pod); and the
installation of the ER-142 ECM receiver. (Anthony Thornborough cites the
initial WWIV-A included the special, long-range IR-133.) This rewiring
modification limited the EF-4C’s ability to carry all available
ordnance. There were four 33 TFW Block 23 F-4Cs assigned to the program:
64-0781, 64-0787, 64-0790, and 64-0815. The WWIV program included a
planned mid-1966 deployment of four aircraft to the combat theater.
However, technical problems (namely the inability to link all of the
antennas together) forestalled this deployment until September 1972.
WWIV was formalized on June 29, 1966. The Operational Test &
Evaluation (OT&E) work was conducted at Nellis AFB where the EF-4Cs
were assigned to the 4538 FWS/4525 FWW. At some point in time this
training unit was dubbed the "Willie Weasel" college. The 4538
FWS/4525 FWW was replaced in place on October 15, 1969, by the 414 FWS/57
FWW. On October 15, 1971, the 414 FWS passed their inventory of six to 10
F-4C/EF-4Cs to the 66 FWS/57 FWW. One of the limitations discovered during
testing was heavy vibration of the panoramic receiver pod mounted in the
right rear Sparrow III missile well.
The following is a brief
service history for these four aircraft between the years 1966 and 1968:
F-4C 64-0781
-
33 TFW, - ?? (June)
1966. McAir St. Louis plant for modification, ?? through August 1,
1966. Undated Mod.
-
1778F involved
internal avionics installation in place of the EW pod in the missile
wells. 33 TFW, August 1 through September 2.
- 4525 FWW, Nellis AFB, September 2,
1966, through . . .
|

McDonnell Douglas F-4G Phantom II
|
Alexander Kartveli: The
Aircraft Designer
Who "Suffered" Greatness
"It’s a very nervous type of work: you
get stomach ulcers, you don’t sleep nights, you don’t eat and you don’t
drink. But the final satisfaction that you get out of seeing your thing
fly is a tremendous reward, which makes up for all the suffering which you
are undergoing because of your work."1
These words were spoken by Alexander Kartveli at the very
end of an extended interview held in New York City in April 1960. Kenneth
Leish of the Oral History Research Office conducted the session on behalf
of Columbia University and the New York Times Oral History Program.
Kartveli’s comments contributed to a much larger body of work on the
history of aviation published by American Heritage.2
And, frankly, any
such survey must include a reference to Kartveli. He served as Vice
President and Chief of Engineering for Seversky Aircraft and its
successor, Republic Aviation. In this position, he played a key role in
producing America’s first modern fighter aircraft, the P-35. Moreover,
he was ultimately responsible for the development of the P-47 Thunderbolt,
F-84 Thunderjet, and F-105 Thunderchief.3
Considering the fact
the latter three military airplanes played standout roles respectively in
the WWII, Korean War and Vietnam War, Kartveli must be counted among
individuals in the upper tier of aircraft designers. While he may not have
equaled the reputation of the "Blackbird’s" Clarence
"Kelly" Johnson, he certainly matched DC-3’s Arthur Raymond.4
Naturally, when Kartveli was born in 1896,
powered, heavier-than-air craft represented but a faint glimmer in the
human experience. His nativity occurred almost exactly three months after
Samuel Pierpont Langley and his friend Alexander Graham Bell launched
Aerodrome No. 5 on May 6. A powered model, the tandem-winged monoplane
flew slightly more than . . .
|

Republic XR-12
|
The Bendix Aircraft Story,
Addendum
This is a follow-up to the article on Bendix Aircraft that
appeared in the AAHS Journal, Vol. 56, No. 1, Spring 2011. In 1942
Charles and Anne Lindbergh had moved to the Detroit area after Lindbergh
had accepted a position as engineering consultant on the Ford B-24 bomber
program at Willow Run. At a business meeting in mid-1945, Bendix president
Ernie Breech invited Lindbergh to visit the Bendix shop in Detroit to view
the Bendix airplanes then under construction. That visit took place in the
fall of 1945. Lindbergh closely inspected the partially completed
two-place Model 52 and was favorably impressed with what he saw. He gave a
brief pep-talk to the assembled employees and predicted that the Bendix
family of private airplanes should sell well in the expected postwar sales
boom. Lindbergh, like many aviation executives of that time, anticipated a
tremendous period of expansion in the postwar years, especially in the
light plane field. His predictions reinforced the Bendix employees’
conviction that they were working on a winning product.
In the original Bendix article there was a photo
of the Model 51A amphibian but it showed a partially completed airplane
minus the wing tip floats. A new photo now available shows Model 51A in
its final configuration with tip floats attached as it was being prepared
for its maiden flight. Test pilot Casimir Szamagaj, an ex-Navy PBY pilot,
was scheduled to start test flying the airplane in early August. He had
been assigned to do all of the flight testing on the Model 51A but when
Bendix closed down all work came to a halt and the airplane was never
flown. Artist Ted Williams has created an excellent three-view drawing of
the Model 51A and it is included with this up-date.
Also mentioned in the
original article was the fact that Bendix had made a serious effort to
sell the design rights, the tooling and all of the existing airplanes to a
potential buyer. At the time it was not known who those potential buyers
were but closer examination of some cryptic notes in test pilot Al Schramm’s
log book has revealed their identity. On September 27, 1946, Schramm gave
a 45-minute demonstration ride to a representative from McDonnell
Aircraft. The next day he made four demo flights with representatives from
Convair. Then on October 2 Schramm gave a 30-minute ride to a rep from
Lockheed Aircraft and seven days later, on October 9, a rep from North
American Aviation visited Willow Run for a 45-minute flight. And finally,
on October 18, 1946, Schramm gave a 30-minute demo flight to a rep from
Hughes Aircraft. As mentioned in the article none of those manufacturers
expressed . . .
|

Bendix Model 51A
|
U.S. Navy Boeing NKC-135As
Between 1977 and 1996 the U.S. Navy operated two former USAF NKC-135As.
These rather elusive aircraft were used as electronics training aircraft,
initially augmenting the other dedicated aircraft that were in use with
VAQ-33, who used the EC-121K and EA-3B. Following a short operational
career as tanker aircraft, both NKC-135As enjoyed a long and eventful
career as dedicated test aircraft with the USAF, and both received a
number of unique modifications over the years. Both aircraft were, at
times, operated from Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. In 1975 the Fleet
Electronic Warfare Support Group (FEWSG) was activated at NAS Norfolk,
Va., with the intention to operate a number of Boeing 707-type aircraft in
the electronic "aggressor’ role.
The
two aircraft in question, 55-3134 and 56-3596, were officially transferred
to the U.S. Navy on December 16 and 17, 1975, respectively, and were
modified for U.S. Navy needs over the next two years. The aircraft finally
entered Navy service in 1977 and 1978. FEWSG’s previous aircraft, two
B-47Es, were retired to MASDC at Davis-Monthan AFB in October 1977. The
NKC-135As received the code name "˜Navy King Crow’ (NKC-135). While in
service, they simulated electronic threats and provided jamming practice
for their customer, who needed a means to train and evaluate fleet units
(most of these were ships) to identify, defend and intercept simulated
hostile electronic threats in a controlled environment. The aircraft were
capable of providing realistic training by simulating a variety of hostile
and friendly electronic signatures. To accomplish this, they carried a
large variety of underwing electronic countermeasure (ECM) pods on pylons
and were equipped with chaff dispensers as well. The results of the
mission were recorded and available for subsequent analysis. According to
one of the trainees, these exercises were "maddeningly
realistic!" Apart from this ECM and ECCM training, the aircraft were
involved in some general electronic warfare research as well.
Both
aircraft had been extensively modified to be able to carry out their
missions. Previous USAF test work had brought about numerous changes in
configuration. Both aircraft had long since lost their refuelling booms,
and both aircraft were incapable of being refuelled in flight. A number of
fuselage fuel . . .
|

USN NKC-135A, 55-3134
|
United Airline’s Queen of the Fleet,
the Boeing Stratocruiser, 1949 to 1954
The Stratocruisers, Boeing model 377, was a
commercial development of the military C-97 Stratofreighter, which was the
Boeing model 367. The Stratocruiser aircraft was certified September 3,
1948, under Approved Type Certificate (ATC) 812 by the Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA). The aircraft was powered by four Pratt & Whitney
R-4360 Wasp Majors. Each 28 cylinder "Corn-Cob" engine produced
3,500 hp on takeoff, for a total of 14,000 hp. Four-blade Curtiss Electric
propellers were used.
An unusual feature of the
B-377 was that of the folding vertical tail, which allowed the aircraft to
be placed in hangars of the day. The vertical stabilizer was 10 feet
taller than the DC-6’s. The fin was 38 feet 3 inches tall and when
folded it was 26 feet 7 inches above the ground.
A total of 56
Stratocruisers were built in Boeing’s Seattle, Wash., Plant 2. Many
reports say that only 55 were built, but the prototype N90700 was
delivered to Pan American Airways after being converted to an airline
configuration. This low total production figure was due to the high cost
in comparison to the many C-54s available after WWII.
The UAL aircraft were
delivered from February 1949 to March 1950 at an average cost of $1.5
million per copy (some sources list $1.75 million). United Airlines’
seven B-377-10-34s and Northwest Airlines 10 B-377-10-30s had rectangular
cabin windows instead of the standard Stratocruisers circular windows.
Airlines that bought new B-377s from Boeing included Pan American World
Airways with 21, British Overseas Airways (BOAC) (now British Airways)
with 10, Northwest Airlines with 10, American Overseas Airlines with eight
and United Air Lines (name changed to United Airlines after 1950) with
seven for a total of 56. TWA ordered 10 but the aircraft order was
canceled and the aircraft were not built. The Boeing manufactures serial
numbers for TWA’s orders were 15984 to 15993.
On July 2, 1946, the Civil
Aeronautics Board (CAB) granted United Airlines (UAL) authority to operate
the San Francisco-Honolulu route. On August 1, 1946, UAL purchased seven
B-377s, at a total cost of 11 million dollars, for service on their new
California to Honolulu, Hawaii, service. Pan America Airways introduced
Stratocruisers on its Hawaiian service in April 1949. United started DC-6
service from San Francisco to Hawaii on May 1, 1947, and upgraded the
flights to Stratocruisers on January 15, 1950. The CAB, on August 4, 1950,
awarded UAL the route between Los Angeles and Honolulu. The new service
started on October 9, 1950, with Stratocruisers from Los Angeles to
Honolulu.
The
United aircraft had 55 first class seats and a lower deck lounge that
could seat 14 comfortably. The lounge seats were not sold, but were used
by the 55 upper deck passengers. Access to the lower deck lounge was via a
circular stairwell . . .
|

Boeing B-377 of United Airlines
|
Way Back When - Howard Aircraft Co.
This series focuses on sales literature that prompted light aircraft during the Golden Age of American aviation. It will illustrate sales and marketing messages for popular, and not so well known, aircraft from the 1920s and 1930s, illuminating insight into the perspectives associated with the aviation industry of that era.
|

Howard Aircraft Co. Brochure
|
Forum of Flight
The FORUM is presented as an opportunity for each member to participate in
the Journal by submitting interesting or unusual photographs. Negatives,
black-and-white or color photos with good contrast may be used if they
have smooth surfaces. Send submissions to the Editorial Committee marked
"Forum of Flight," P.O. Box 3023, Huntington Beach, CA
92605-3023. Mark any material to be returned: "Return to (your
name and complete address)."
Please include as much information as possible about the photo such as:
date, place, names, etc., plus proper credit (it may be part of your
collection but taken by another photographer).
|

Douglas DC-7C Seven Seas, F-BIAP
|
In the News | Book Reviews | Links | Store
| Members Only | Membership | About AAHS | Contact Us | Site Map
Copyright © 2002-2020 American Aviation Historical Society
|