THE AIRFRAME EVALUATION

The airframe evaluation process lasted from mid May until late July, with the Air Force, NACA, and Navy conducting independent evaluations based on a number of preestablished criteria. The preliminary NACA evaluation of the proposals consumed the better part of three weeks before each of the laboratories forwarded preliminary results to Hartley Soule. On 3 June 1955, Ames tentatively ranked the submissions as 1) Douglas, 2) North American, 3) Bell, and 4) Republic. The Douglas ranking resulted from "the completeness and soundness of design study, awareness of factors in speed and altitude regime, and relative simplicity of approach." Ames, however, expressed skepticism over the Douglas magnesium hot-structure wing because it would preclude the study of problems associated with insulated-type structures that would potentially be used in future aircraft intended for greater flight duration. This seemed to be a major disconnect between Ames and Langley. It appears that Ames wanted to test a structure that would be representative of some future production aircraft; Langley just wanted to test a structure that would survive.

Another problem that worried the Ames evaluators was the flammability of magnesium. It seemed that "only a small area raised to the ignition temperature would be sufficient to destroy the aircraft." The researchers at Ames held that if Douglas should win the competition, the company should build two aircraft with the proposed HK31 structure, but a third aircraft "should have a wing based upon the alternative higher temperature insulated type of design approach." The Ames report continued to stress the need for a wing of greater leading-edge sweep angle (at least 53 degrees) "for the purpose of minimizing the rate of heat transfer to the leading edge."145

At Langley, on 6 June, researchers rated the North American proposal number one, followed by Douglas, Bell, and Republic. According to the Langley assessment, led by John Becker, the research utility of the North American hot-structure approach outweighed the advantages of the simplicity of the magnesium structure proposed by Douglas. Slightly rebuffing Ames, Langley noted that the 21% reduction in heat transfer gained by increasing the leading-edge sweep from the proposed 40 degrees to 53 degrees did not seem to justify the alteration of the planform. This was particularly true because the structure appeared capable of handling the heat load.-1146!

In a reminder to the evaluation teams, also on 6 June, Arthur Vogeley and Captain McCollough reiterated that the purpose of the evaluation was "to select a contractor rather than a particular design." Although certain features of the winning design could be unsatisfactory, it was the basic design approach as described in the proposal that might best be relied upon to produce an acceptable research airplane.147-

On 10 June 1955, the HSFS sent its airframe results to Soule, detailing the design approach and research utility aspects of the airframe, flight control system, propulsion unit, crew provisions, handling and launching, and miscellaneous systems. Researchers at the HSFS ranked the proposals as 1) Douglas, 2) North American, 3) Bell, and 4) Republic, although the proposals from Douglas and North American were essentially equal.148

The final evaluation by Ames, on 10 June, ranked the proposals as 1) North American, 2) Douglas, 3) Bell, and 4) Republic. This represented a change from the earlier Ames evaluation, based largely on researchers considering the North American structure superior in terms of research utility—an opinion voiced earlier by Langley. The Ames evaluators had apparently changed their minds about wanting to test a production-representative structure. The laboratory had also finally given up on advocating an insulated structure since no serious support for their earlier recommendation of equipping the third aircraft with a different wing structure had materialized (sufficient funds to construct an alternate wing were simply not available).-1149-

The final evaluation from Langley on 14 June ranked the proposals as 1) North American, 2) Douglas, 3) Republic, and 4) Bell. Although researchers at Langley thought the magnesium wing structure of Douglas was feasible, they feared that local hot spots caused by irregular aerodynamic heating could weaken or destroy the structure. The use of Inconel X by North American presented an advantage with regard to thermal limits—not only from the standpoint of margins for maneuverability within the design temperatures, but also from a safety viewpoint if the airplane ever exceeded its design temperature.

A few days after receiving all of the final evaluations, Soule sent copies of each to the WADC Project Office, along with a consolidated result. The final NACA ranking was (points based on a scale of 100) as follows:150-

	Design Approach	Research Utility
B	D	N	R	B	D	N	R
Airframe	70	80	85	75	70	80	90	80
Flight controls	70	80	75	70	70	75	75	75
Propulsion	80	80	90	30	75	40	40	75
Crew provisions	55	85	80	40	55	85	80	35

Handling/launching	95	65	75	65	90	70	70	70
Miscellaneous	70	85	70	70	70	85	70	70
Average	73	79	79	58	72	73	71	68

Oddly, the final order representing the overall NACA evaluation was 1) North American, 2)

Douglas, 3) Bell, and 4) Republic, despite the fact that Douglas scored slightly more points in the evaluation (152 versus 150 for North American). Soule pointed out that although Ames, Langley, and the HSFS did not rank the four proposals in the same order, the final ranking did represent an overall NACA consensus. All of the laboratories involved in this portion of the evaluation considered both the Douglas and North American proposals to be much superior to those submitted by Bell and Republic. While researchers preferred the Inconel X structure of the North American proposal, the design was not without fault. For instance, the NACA thought that the landing-gear arrangement was undesirable, the differentially-operated horizontal stabilator design in lieu of ailerons was an overly complicated arrangement, and (at least at Langley) the replaceable fiberglass leading edges were unacceptable.

John Becker wrote to Hartley Soule on 16 June attempting to clarify why the North American design was superior to that of Douglas. The letter listed the thermal limits expected for the new aircraft, and showed that the Inconel X structure on the North American design was "impressively superior" to the magnesium alloy used by Douglas. The data were shown for three categories: 1) performance within the design temperature limits in terms of allowable velocity, altitude, and dependence on speed brakes; 2) reserve heat capacity (in case the design temperatures were exceeded by a moderate margin) such that the structure would still have a fair possibility of remaining intact; and 3) the possibility of melting or burning in case the design temperatures were greatly exceeded in local hot spots. There appears to be no further correspondence on this subject, so Becker’s explanation seems to have answered whatever unasked questions existed.-1151-

During the first two weeks in July, the WADC evaluation teams sent their final reports to the WADC Project Office. As with the NACA evaluations, the Air Force found little difference between the Douglas and North American designs, point-wise, with both proposals considered significantly superior to those of Bell and Republic.

George Spangenberg was in charge of the Navy evaluations, which got off to a late start and ended up being cursory. In the end, the Navy found much the same thing as the NACA and ranked the airframe proposals as 1) Douglas, 2) North American, 3) Republic, and 4) Bell. Given the Navy’s long—and successful-association with Douglas airplanes, the order was not surprising. Most Navy concerns centered on the selection of an engine. As Clotaire Wood explained, "the airframe-engine combination was to be evaluated and not the engine alone, since it had been agreed that the engine of the winning design would be the engine supported by the special development program." This was not how the Power Plant Laboratory saw the process, but it seemed to put the Navy at ease. In addition, Wood indicated that "it would be of real value to have the Bureau’s [BuAer] recommendations regarding an engine development program once the winner of the competition is determined."-152

In early July the Navy began to raise questions about the various airframe proposals. For instance, the BuAer electronics group did not believe the Bell design had a satisfactory electrical power system, and Navy researchers rated the North American design last from an equipment (e. g., life support) perspective. The Douglas and Republic designs had the best potential flying qualities, and BuAer researchers felt that North American had incorrectly assumed laminar flow over much of their design, and had therefore underestimated the heating values. It was a bit late to be raising concerns, but most of the issues were minor and did not materially affect the outcome of the competition. After conferring with his Air Force and NACA counterparts, on 15 July George Spangenberg finalized the Navy’s position as Douglas, North American, Republic, and Bell.-1153!

On 26-28 July, the Air Force, NACA, and Navy evaluation teams met at Wright Field to select an airframe contractor. George Spangenberg stated that it was unfortunate that the point system used in the evaluation "appeared to give no conclusive winner," since a contractor could score highly in one area and low in another yet still have a winning score, while another that was satisfactory in all areas would be rated lower. He also indicated that the goals of the project seem to have shifted somewhat, resulting in a "firm requirement" for 1,200°F skin temperature research instead of the previous "desire" for high temperatures.-1154!

Presaging events to come, discussions ensued concerning the amount of work recently awarded to North American and Republic, and whether additional awards would spread their engineering groups too thin. Other discussions included the possibility of selecting Douglas but directing it to redesign its aircraft using an Inconel hot structure instead of magnesium. In the end, the Air Force and the NACA concluded that the North American proposal best accommodated their requirements. The Navy did not want to cast the only dissenting vote and, after short deliberation, agreed to go along with the decision.-11551

During the week of 1-5 August 1955, the WADC Project Office prepared the final evaluation summary and oral presentation: "the evaluation of the proposals submitted in competition was made in five areas: performance, technical design, research suitability, development capability, and cost." It is interesting to note that this competition was not about the "lowest bidder," and none of the proposals were anywhere near the original $12.2 million estimate. The results of these evaluations were as follows:!156!

Performance: The performance evaluation consisted of a check of the probability of the different designs, considering present uncertainties, of meeting the specified speed and altitude requirements. The probabilities were calculated to be best for the North American proposal, equal for the Bell and Douglas proposals, and least for the Republic proposal; but because of the assumptions of the analysis, all designs were judged able to meet the requirements.

Technical Design: This factor was judged on the awareness shown by the contractor of the problems of high-speed, high-altitude flight and of the means, as indicated by the airplane designs, the contractor proposed for exploring and studying these problems. The general design competency of the contractor also was judged from the designs submitted: North American 81.5 points; Douglas 80.1 points; Bell 75.5 points; and Republic 72.2 points. No design, as submitted, was considered safe for the use intended. The Douglas design was considered best in this regard, but did not include adequate margins for ignorance factors and operational errors.

Research Suitability: In this area, the fundamental differences in the proposed structures were examined and rated because of their decisive importance in the research uses of this aircraft. North American was rated acceptable because of the Inconel X "hot-structure" heat­sink, which was most suitable for research and which was potentially the simplest to make safe for the mission. Republic and Bell were considered unsatisfactory because of the hazardous aspects associated with the insulated structures used, and Douglas was considered unsatisfactory because of the low safety margins available and because of the limited future usefulness of the "cool" magnesium heat-sink principle.

Development Capability: Ratings were based on the physical equipment and manpower the contractor had available for pursuing the project, and the resulting time proposed for development. Evaluation of this factor resulted in the following ratings: (1) Douglas was acceptable; (2) North American was acceptable; (3) Bell was less acceptable; (4) Republic was less acceptable. North American, Republic, and Douglas estimated that the first flight date would be within 30 months, but the Republic estimate was not believed to be credible, hence their lower score. Bell promised a first flight date within 40 months.

Costs: Costs for three aircraft plus static test article, engines, and spares as adjusted by AMC to a comparable basis are: Bell, $36.3 million; Douglas, $36.4 million; Republic, $47.0 million; and North American, $56.1 million.

On 9 August, Captain McCollough presented the results of the evaluation to Brigadier General Howell M. Estes, then chief of the Weapons Systems Division, under whose jurisdiction the WADC Project Office fell, and a select group of senior Air Force officers. McCollough made a second presentation in Baltimore on 11 August for Generals John W. Sessums and Marvin C. Demler, who were the commanders of the WADC and ARDC, respectively, and Hartley Soule from the NACA.-157

The final briefing to a combined meeting of Air Force, NACA, and Navy personnel was at NACA Headquarters on 12 August. The attendees included Hugh Dryden, Gus Crowley, Ira Abbott,

Richard Rhode, and Hartley Soule from the NACA; Brigadier General Kelsey, Colonel Donald H. Heaton, Lieutenant Colonels Gablecki and Maiersperger, and Major Heniesse from the Air Force; and Captain R. E. Dixon, Abraham Hyatt, and George Spangenberg from BuAer. Following this, the Research Airplane Committee met, accepted the findings of the evaluation groups, and agreed to present the recommendation to the Department of Defense.-1158!

Because the estimated costs submitted by North American were far above the amount tentatively allocated for the project, the Research Airplane Committee included a recommendation for a funding increase before signing the final contract. A further recommendation-one that would later take on greater importance-called for relaxing the proposed schedule by up to 18 months. The committee approved both recommendations and forwarded them to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Development.