47 - SO3C.pdf - Naval Fighters(1) - marko1964

NJl\TJlt I(I•• Ilrrl~llS NIJ)IIII~ll 1(.)lrrY-SI~\TI~N

"rl'III~ 111~1 .. (J (~rlllNrl' I) Illl (;() N"

S I~l' f; IJI.1JS l~l')II~"T

THE RELUCTANT DRAGQW

;OVER: Colorized photo of

~uNo 4236 on a factory test

::urtiss via Hal Andrews)

ion by Hollywood Effects

-~t'rI'Pl!P'I~nk Savino.

The Cu~s employees nick

named the S03C the "1ll~ILlctar_""",,

Dragon" (reluct.., 'to take ruf and

always dragging). It $m.~ up its

dismal operational 11!'e. It was under-

powered, overweight and suffered

from being rushed into service with-

out adequate testing and re-engineer-

ing.

BACK COVER: Twilight over the

Pacific. Created by Hollywood Effects

Artist Frank Savino.

Below, ugly, ungainly, and ineffective

was the business end of the S03C.

Box-like affair in the lower portion of

the engine air inlet was the carburetor

intake. The large round intake port is

the oil cooler intake. The small square

port above the oil cooler intake was the

.30 cal gun port. This S03C-1 was seen

on the Curtiss ramp on 3 December

1941. (Curtiss via Hal Andrews)

It is incredible that over 700 of

these aircraft could have been pro-

duced. But it was an old story, a good

premise gone bad all for the want of

an engine that couldn't live up to it's

promises. The scenario was com-

pounded by a lend-lease quantity

contract. Then, once the war started

for America, much of the re-engineer-

ing needed to make the S03C viable

could not be done. Tooling was too

valuable and the S03C was not a pri-

ority, hence the upturned wing-tips

instead of a re-tooled wing. For water

takeoffs, more power or a re-engi-

neered float step were needed, but

neither happened.

Above, Curtiss test pilot Red Hulse

with General Manager AI Williams in

March 1942. (Curtiss via Hal Andrews)

All this aside, this dog of an air-

plane was a very interesting by-prod-

uct of the war years. I have always

been intrigued by its unique modern

style wing with upturned tips and its

graceful vertical fin and horizontal

tailplane. One thing is certain, Naval

Air is never boring!

ISBN 0-942612-47-7

Steve Ginter, 1754 Warfield Cir., Simi

Valley, California, 93063

publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or trans-

mitted in any form by any means elec-

tronic, mechanical or otherwise with-

out the written permission of the pub-

lisher.

CONTRIBUTORS: Hal Andrews,

Warren Bodie, B. J. Long, Wayne

Morris, National Archives, Lee

Reinitz, Frank Savino (Wave Form

Effects, (323) 664-2571, savino@lin-

kline.com), William Swisher, Norm

Taylor, Eric Thompson, and Nick

Williams.

CURTISS'S "RELUCTANT DRAGON", THE S03C SEAGULLISEAMEW I~

INTRODUCTION:

problems proved to be the demise of

the aircraft.

ween Curtiss and Vought were con-

ducted throughout the early part of

1940. Vought's entry weighed slightly

over 300 pounds more than the

Curtiss entry and was 3 mph faster at

201 mph. Upon conclusion of the

competitive tests, Curtiss was award-

ed the contract.

In early 1937, Curtiss and

Vought, the Navy's two pre-war sup-

pliers of fleet catapult scout float-

planes, were asked to submit bids for

a high-speed replacement of the very

successful SOC Seagull series.

DEVELOPMENT:

In August 1937, under the guid-

ance of Bruce Eaton, Curtiss submit-

ted its bid to the Navy. In May 1938,

Curtiss was awarded a contract for

the XS03C-1 and Vought for its

XS02U-1. The two mock-ups and the

finished prototypes were very similar

in appearance due to the stringent

specifications. The Curtiss mock-up

was approved by the Navy in June,

and the first flight occurred on 6

October 1939. The Vought airplane

flew first in July as a landplane, and

started floatplane testing in

December. Competitive tests bet-

Navy design number 403 called

for a mid-wing monoplane with a crew

of two seated in tandem. The remov-

able centerline float and outer-wing

floats could be replaced with optional

fuselage-mounted landing gear.

Because of cruiser and battleship

deck and hangar space limitations,

the specification called for folding

wings and wing floats all within a

weight limitation of 6,350 pounds.

However, the most critical design

stipulation was that of the engine. The

unproven experimental engine speci-

fied was to be a military first for the

United States. It was an in-line, 12-

cylinder, inverted vee, air-cooled

engine being developed by Ranger.

Designated XV-770-4, the engine had

great promise because of its low fuel

consumption expectation of .65

Ibs./b.h.p./hr. This feature would

allow the new scout to extend its mis-

sion times extensively. Unfortunately,

the engine's cooling and performance

In January 1940, landplane

demonstrations were conducted in

Below, float installation on the XS03C-

1 on 9-22-39. The stubs sticking out the

bottom of the fuselage are the Ranger

engine's exhaust stacks. Compare the

original vertical fin to the larger pro-

duction model with dorsal extension,

as seen on the front cover. (USN)

XS03C-1 FIRST FLIGHT CONFIGURATION

)

130 5

lS03C·\

The XS03C-1 on the day of its first flight, 6 October 1939. The aircraft was silver overall with yellow upper wings. Note the thin

black wing walk limit line towards the wing's leading edge and the dark grey wing walk area on either side of the fuselage. All

of the Seagulls/Seamews were completed as landplanes with a separate contract let to the EDO company for the floats.

(National Archives)

...... ::>.._-----------------------~~---

;;

Above and below, the prototype on 29 December 1939. The yellbw of the upper wing wraps around the wing's leading edge.

The propeller tips are red-yellow-blue and extended steps have been added to either side of the fuselage. The shape of the

original chin intake was much more pleasant than the enlarged squared off chin on the production aircraft. (National Archives)

47 - SO3C.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: