Thanks folks!
Interesting what-if with your usual gorgeous art. I do believe, though, that it was the Boeing 247 not 249, that obsoleted the Condor II.
Fixed. Thank you Evan for your embarassingly necessary proof-reading
P.S. FYI the Transports GB has been extended two weeks until July 14th if memory serves.
Dang ... I missed Jon's extension post! Oh well, snooze ya lose
Curtiss Scooter.
Nailed it
_____________________________
Curtiss-Wright CW-36 Condor III Wrap-UpEven before the pre-production Curtiss AT-36
Condor III' had flown, it was apparent that the obsolete fabric-covered AT-32D fuselage would need replacing. For the AT-36C
Condor III, a new, stressed-skin metal passenger compartment was devised. [1] However, the
Condor III retained its predecessors' fabric-covered wings and steel-tube rear fuselage. The most apparent change was an entirely new twin fin and rudder arrangement replacing the single-finned empennage inherited from the AT-32 biplane.
With all of its changes, the production model AT-36C
Condor III was more stylish but such attempts at updates seemed only to draw attention to its less advanced features. By the time of the AT-36C's appearance, the Boeing 247D had been joined the even more advanced Douglas DC-2. Suddenly, the 'new' airliner from Curtiss-Wright appeared undeniably dated. The Curtiss-Wright board grew bored with the entire '
Condor Monoplane' programme and voted to cancel it. Resources would, instead, be directed towards a much more advanced replacement type ... which would later emerge as the CW-20
Commando.
With no firm orders for the AT-36C coming in from airlines, Curtiss-Wright offered the first five aircraft to the US Army Air Corps. The four production airframes were finished as CT-36Cs and delivered to the USAAC as YC-31A cargo transports. [2] The Curtiss demonstrator (AT-36C-1)
Condor III airliner was rebuilt to VIP AT-36C-1AC standards to become the Air Corps' sole YC-31B. In the end, no airline orders were ever received and the fifth production
Condor III would be the last of its kind.
Prior to the programme being cancelled, one further attempt was made to attract the USAAC's attention. This result in the Curtiss-Wright CW-36D
Condor IIIB medium bomber prototype. [3] With superior, all-metal Martin B-10 and B-12 bombers already in service, the compromise CW-36D failed to impress the Air Corps. Attempts were made to market the CW-36D to former BT-32 customers - Argentina, China, and Colombia. No orders resulted but, eventually, Colombia decided to buy the prototype '
Condor III Bomber' to fly alongside their in-service BT-32s. With that, Curtiss-Wright turned its attention away from bombers and focused on the design of modern trainers and combat aircraft instead.
_______________________________________
[1] In the retroactively-applied Curtiss-Wright designation system, the Curtiss AT-36C became the Curtiss-Wright CW-36C. Properly, only the prototype and Curtiss demonstrator (NX9078) was an AT-36C model. The four production airframes were all finished as CT-36C cargo-carriers.
[2] These C-31 designations were odd one. The original XC-31 had been a single-engined Kreider-Reisner which the USAAC had quickly passed on to NACA's Langley Research Center. Thus, there was no relationship at all between the sole XC-31 and the later Curtiss YC-31A transport.
[3] Although always a St. Louis product, like the AT-36C, the CW-36D bomber was originally designated as the Curtiss BE-36D (though generally referred to as the '
Condor IIID').