Boeing Model 40 Maildelivery Airplane

The History of the Boeing Model 40
A Contribution to Corporate and Air Line Growth
Boeing Historical Archives

45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit
January 7-10, 2008

Grand Serra Resort Hotel
Reno, Nevada
Mike Lavelle,
Associate Fellow AIAA
Fellow, Royal Aeronautical Society
Museum of Flight
Seattle, Washington
Dedication
This paper is dedicated to Mr. William E. Boeing Jr. for his stewardship and
continuous support of aviation/aerospace education.
Author and Mr. William E. Boeing Jr. Boeing Model 40B Roll Out
Wenatchee, WA. October 6, 2007
This paper is copy write by author and The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2008
Acknowledgements
This paper has been supported in one way or another by many people with
whom I work. I like to thank them all for their time, assistance and feedback they
provided while the paper was in the process of being researched and written.
The Museum of Flight Staff
Alison Bailey - Associate Director of Development Museum of Flight
Andrew Boike - Annual Fund Coordinator Museum of Flight
Meredith Downs Photo Archivist Museum of Flight
John Little Exhibits Technician and Aviation Historian
Ernst Marris Security Officer Museum of Flight
Dennis Parks Director of Collections Museum of Flight
Katherine Williams Archivist Dahlberg Center for Military Aviation
History, Museum of Flight
The Boeing Company Archives Staff

Mike Lombardi - The Boeing Company Corporate Historian
Tom Lubbesmeyer Boeing Historian \Archivist
Museum of Flight Trustee
Brien S. Wygle Retired Boeing Vice President and Company Test Pilot
I would especially like to thank Andrew Boike and Brien Wygle who spent their
own time helping with the papers editing and format.
Outline
A Contribution to Corporate and Air Line Growth
Introduction and Background

o Overview Post Office Operations until 1923
o Early Aircraft used
o Need for Updated equipment
The Contenders for the de Havilland DH-4 Replacement

o The industry response
o Boeing Model 40 Overall Performance
o Boeings Design approach
Establishing the Industry

o Events leading to Model 40 redesign
o The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company
Bringing the Boeing Model 40A into Production

o Key events and Activities
o The Boeing Model 40 Line Operations
o United Aircraft and Transportation Corporation
o How many were built and What Model 40 is it
Where are they now The Boeing Model 40 survivors and

replicas.
Pictures of the constructions of The Museum of Flight Model

40 replica under construction.
Summary and conclusion.
References
About the Author

Introduction and Background
Overview of Post Office Operations until 1923
Aviation historian called 1919 the First Year of Air Transportation. That year
marked the advent of the postwar passenger-carrying airplane; it was born
amidst the glut of surplus wartime airplanes from all the combatants air arms.
Within two months of the armistice, on January 8, 1919, Germany authorized
airline development. The first German airline was the Deutsche Luft Reederei
(D.L.R.), which opened passenger service between Berlin and Weimar, via
Leipzig with war-surplus A.E.G. and D.F.W. biplanes. While in France, the
Farman Brothers, well known aircraft designers before and during World War I
opened scheduled service between Paris and Brussels using the Farman F.60
Goliath (figure 1a) in March of 1919. The British soon followed in August of 1919
when Aircraft Transport and Travel Ltd flew a modified D.H. 4A,(figure 1b) from
London to Paris carrying cargo and one passenger initiating the first scheduled
international air service. (Hallion 1977 p8) As we shall see the DH-4 also played
a major role in the U.S. air transportation system with the U.S Postal Air Service.
Kenneth Munson Illustration
Farman F.60 Goliath (1a)
de Havilland D.H. 4A (1b)

Figure 1
In the United States the development of schedule commercial aviation did not
start with passenger service as in Europe but was tied closely with the efforts of
the United States Post Office. When the US Army began flying the mail from New
York to Washington D.C with Philadelphia as an intermediate stop in May of

1918, few realized that within less than two and half years this nascent 215-mile
route would grow into a 3000 mile transcontinental air mail line. The initial force
and credit behind this growth was Assistant Postmaster General Otto Praeger
who by August of 1918 transitioned Army mail flights to civilian Post Office
operations. Praeger, a self-taught former Washington D.C. correspondent from
Texas was a demanding chief. During the summer of 1918, he appointed
personnel to key management positions. One such person was Captain
Benjamin Lipsner who resigned from the Army to become the first
Superintendent of the Air Mail. Lipsner in turn hired qualified pilots, selected
aircraft, and established logistical support along the Post Offices route structure.
Post Office Air Mail Routes 1918-1921

From R.E.G. Davies Airlines of the United States Since 1914
Figure 2
During the first year of operations, the Post Office realized an operational profit of
$19,000. Postal revenues for the year totaled $162,000, while the cost to fly the
mail was $143,000. The initial year of operations would be the only time that the
airmail service generated a profit.
Early Aircraft Used
However, this is understandable given the swift route expansions illustrated by

Figure 2. During this growth period, the Post Office was trying to find the
optimum aircraft for the route as the line expanded west. The Post Office utilized
mostly World War I surplus aircraft that included the Curtiss JN-4H and, Army
surplus de Havilland DH-4s. There was also a mix of new post war aircraft. Such
as the seven Standard Aircraft Companys JR-1Bs (figure 3a) and a new post
World War I design, the all-metal German Junkers JL-6. (figure 3b).
www.postalmuseum.si.edu
Standard Aircraft Company JR-1B (3a)
www.postalmuseum.si.edu
All-Metal Junker JL-6 (3b)
Figure 3
As a point of interest the Standards were the first non-military aircraft the U.S.
Government purchased for $3500 each. They had 150 H.P. Hispanso-Suiza
engines and could climb to 6000 feet faster than the Curtiss Jenny JN-4Hs. This
would be an important performance consideration along the mountainous
sections of the route.
Early in fiscal year 1921 the Post Office paid aircraft manufactures $476,000 for
new and modified aircraft. However, when they could not find the ideal aircraft for
their operational needs they selected what was considered to be best of what
they had and began a program of standardization.
The specific reasons for retiring these aircraft varied but generally included one
or more of the following reasons, high cost of maintenance, safety, efficiency
and/or overall aircraft performance. Figure 4 lists the aircraft types phased out.
Aircraft Phased out
7 Curtiss JN-4Hs
7 Standard JR-1Bs
17 Curtiss R-4ls
20 Twin DHs
3 Glenn Martin Mailplanes

4 Junker JL 6s (F-13)
1 L,W.F. Type V
2 Curtiss H-as
Figure 4
de Havilland DH-4
Figure 5
Although a World War I British design the de Havilland DH-4 (figure 5) emerged
from this pack of mixed aircraft a reliable work horse along the transcontinental
route until the Post Office would turn their routes over to industry contractors at
the beginning in 1926.
During World War I the DH-4 was built for the Army Air Service by the DaytonWright Aircraft Company under license agreement from the Airco consortium of
Great Britain. The American version of the aircraft was powered by a 12 cylinder
400 HP Liberty Engine. After World War I the Army Air Service had several
aircraft manufactures modernize the DH-4 airframe. For example, Boeing

modernized one hundred airframes between March 6 and July 1, 1920 by
repositioning the fuel tanks and pilots cockpit. This improved the safety of flight
in the event of an engine fire. Additionally, the landing gear was also moved
forward slightly to improve ground handling. In 1923 Boeing further improved DH4s by converting several airframes from wood to steel. Intended primarily for the
Army, many of the modernized (DH-4Ms) were transferred to the Post Office,
remaining in service until it ceased flying the mail in 1927.
By mid-1924, using primarily the DH-4, regularly scheduled transcontinental mail
service became a reality. In addition, to day flights, the Post Office pilots began
regular night flights. They were guided by a lighted airway system with rotating
beacons and brightly lit emergency landing fields, timing their night flying to reach
the end of the lighted airway by daybreak. The Post Office resumed using special
airmail postage, which it had discontinued in 1919. By 1924 Airmail now cost
eight cents to travel in any of the three zones comprising the transcontinental
route and could travel across the country for 24 cents. By the end of 1924,
airmail planes were routinely completing the New York to San Francisco route
within 34 hours.
Need for Updated Equipment
On April 7, 1924 realizing the need to replace the aging DH-4 fleet, the Post
Office requested proposals from interested companies for an aircraft based on
the following specifications:
Liberty Motor
Cruising Speed at least 95 M.P.H.
Landing Speed 50 M.P.H. or less
Service Ceiling 15,000ft.
Pay load (mail) not less than 1000 pounds
Cargo space not less than 50 cubic feet
Fuel - cruising range 450 miles
Other requirements included: crash-proof gasoline tanks conforming to Army

specifications, seat type to accommodate a parachute worn by the pilot, and a
statement of materials and unit stresses to be used in the construction of primary
structural parts. Other provisions specified that the design had to be easy to
produce, allow rapid replacement of engine or other components while being
mechanically simple to maintain. (Boeing Historical Archives)
At the time, the major Post Office requirement specified the aircraft needed to
use the well-proven and somewhat reliable Liberty 400 HP engine. This
requirement had at the time sound rational behind it.
The Liberty 12-cylinder water-cooled engine was America's greatest

technological contribution to aircraft design and development during WWI (figure
6). Rated between 400-450 hp, it weighed only two pounds per horsepower, far
surpassing similar types of engines mass-produced by England, France, Italy,
and Germany at that time. During the war, Packard, Lincoln, Ford, General
Motors, Nordyke, and Marmon produced 20,478 Liberty 12s. They were used
primarily in U.S.-built D.H.4s. With the Post Office, operating DH-4s along their
routes the pilots and maintenance personnel had extensive operational
experience with their performance, maintenance and idiosyncrasies.
Additionally, the Post Office Department had over two hundred Liberty 12
engines with associated spare parts in their inventory.
Liberty 12 In For Maintenance

Figure 6
Since the new air-cooled radial engines in design with The Wright Company and
Pratt & Whitney were not yet fully developed, the Liberty was the logical engine
of choice for the Post Offices objective of developing a reliable airmail plane
(Smith 1981 p111-112). The goal at this point was not to advance new aircraft
development as much as improve bottom-line cost and low risk investment.
While at the same time they would be expanding the mail service routes with
reliability and consistent operations. Consequently, the Liberty engine
requirement produced from the aircraft manufactures who offered aircraft for Post
Office evaluation similar performance numbers as indicate for three aircraft
companies listed in figure 8.
During the same time frame, there was pressure from Congress to reduce the
cost of flying the mail by turning the routes over to private contactors. The
passage of the 1925 Air Mail Act (Kelly Act) brought that concept into reality.
However before the 1925 Air Mail Act came into effect several manufactures
submitted designs to the Post Office for evaluation.
10
The Contenders for the de Havilland DH-4 Replacement

The Industry Response
Bids were submitted to the Post Office purchasing Agent in Washington, D.C. on
July 15, 1925. Eleven aircraft manufactures (figure 7) tendered design proposals
with cost breakdowns for aircraft produced in lots of three to fifty. (Boeing
Historical Archives). The aircraft companies submitting proposals are listed in
figure 7.
The Douglas Co.
Santa Monica, Calif.
The Boeing Airplane Co.
Seattle Washington
The Kurz-Kacch Co.
Dayton Ohio.
Aerial Service Corp.
Hammondsport, N.Y.
Lawson Aircraft Co. Inc.
New York City
Huff Daland & Co.
Ogdensburg, N.Y,
Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor Co.
Garden City N.Y.
Cox-Klemin Aircraft Corp.
Baldwin, Long Island
Consolidated Aircraft Corp.
Buffalo, N.Y.
G.Elias & Bro., Inc
Buffalo, N.Y.
Sikorsky Aero Engineering Corp
New York City
Post Office - De Havilland DH-4 Aircraft Replacement Bidders
Figure 7
.
The Boeing Airplane Company entered the Model 40 Mailplane prototype in the
competition. Other manufactures in the competition that provided aircraft for
evaluation included Douglas Aircraft, of Santa Monica, California with their M-1
Mailplane and Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company of Garden City, New York
with their first commercial aircraft since 1919 called the Carrier Pigeon. (Bower,
1979). Of course no one knew it at the time but this would be the first of many
competitive commercial aircraft product battles between Boeing and Douglas
they would have against each other over the next 72 years until they merged in
1997.
Boeing Model 40 Overall Performance
Figure 8 shows the three main aircraft three contenders the Post Office
evaluated along the air mail route structure to replace the DH-4. The winning
design had the potential for a production order of 50 aircraft or more. The
Douglas proposal for a production lot of three aircraft was $16,500 per aircraft
decreasing to $12,500 per aircraft for a lot order of 50. The Boeing Airplane
Company was $23,000 per example for three aircraft and $11,000 per aircraft for
50. The highest bidder was Sikorsky Engineering Corporation coming in at
$27,000 per aircraft for a lot of three. The low bidder was the Kurz-Kacch Co.
with $8,000 for a lot of three aircraft. (Boeing Historical Archives) It is interesting
to note when reviewing figure 7 above that of the eleven companies submitting
11
bids eight were from New York State, mostly from the New York City area.
Clearly, one could conclude the geographic center of aircraft engineering and
manufacturing during the 1920s in the United States was on the east coast.
Eventually, with Douglas and Boeing established on the west coast they would
with the help others, such as, North American and Consolidated Aircraft shift
aircraft engineering and manufacturing to west coast of the Untied States by
1945.
Boeing Model 40
Aircraft
First Flight
# Produced
Pilot & Pax
Powerplant
Wing Span
Length
Height
Empty Weight
Gross Weight
Speed
Range
ceiling
Boeing Model 40
7-Jul-25
Prototype
Pilot Only
Liberty 400 h.p.
44'2"
33'2"
12'3"
3,425 lbs
5,495 lbs
135 m.p.h
700 miles
15,800'
Douglas DAM-1
Douglas M-1
6-Jul-25
Prototype
Pilot / 2 Optional Pax
Liberty 400 h.p.
39'8"
28'11"
10'1"
2,885lbs
4,775"
145 m.p.h.
600 miles
17,000'
Curtiss Carrier Pigeon

Curtiss
Pigeon
Carrier
Pilot
Liberty 400 h.p.
41"11"
28" 9.5"
12"1"
3603 lbs
5620 lbs
125 m.p.h.
525 miles
12,800'
Basic Specifications of aircraft evaluated by the Post Office 1925

Figure 8
When one studies the overall dimensions and performance numbers of these
three aircraft evaluated by the Post Office, few apparent differences stands out
between them. Even when looking at the three basic performance numbers of he
speed, range and useful load, in figure 9, the numbers again are similar but two
of the categories favor the Boeing Model 40 by slight margins.
12
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Speed mph
Range
miles
Boeing Model 40
113
700
5495
3425
2070
Douglas M-1
118
600
4775
2885
1690
Curtiss Carrier Piegon
105
525
5620
3603
2017
Boeing Model 40
Gross
Empty
Weight lbs Weight lbs
Douglas M-1
Useful
Load lbs
Curtiss Carrier Piegon
Basic Performance Comparison 1925 Mailplanes

Figure 9
For a while, during the evaluation period the Curtiss Carrier Pigeon seemed to be
the front-runner of the three. (Leary, 1985) That changed when Post Office Pilot
Arthur R. Smith left Chicago for Bryan, Ohio on the night of February 12, 1926.
Shortly after 10 PM Smith crashed into the woods after hitting a tree near
Montpelier, Ohio just six miles from Bryan. The crash was fatal for Smith. The
cause of the accident was thought to be weather related even though there was
a 1000-foot ceiling. (Leary 1985-p232). Most-likely, it was another case of low
level flying in marginal weather condition at night. But as a result, Curtiss did not
receive any follow on orders from the Post Office. Nor was the Boeing Airplane
Company with their Model 40 prototype selected for additional orders.
The evaluative phase for the Post Office aircraft selection was largely informal
and based mostly on pilots comments, input and pilot reports of Post Office
pilots flying the prototypes on the mail routes.
Douglas Aircraft Company at the time had an excellent reputation in the aircraft
industry with their military aircraft observation planes. Many of the Post Office
pilots were Reserve Army Aviators and had flown the Douglas O-2B observation
aircraft on which Douglas based their M-1 mailplane design. (Francillion, 1979).
The Douglas M-1 mailplane also featured welcome innovations such as brakes
and a tail wheel instead of a tail skid as on the other two aircraft (Leary 1985 p232). The 1000lbs mail load could be carried at a cruise speed 118 mph while
landing at 52 mph. Additionally, two of the four Douglas World Cruisers (DWC)
had completed a around the World flight in 1924. The positive image of the
13
successful Around the World Flight reinforced the image of Douglas as an up and
coming firm that designed and built excellent aircraft.
Based upon the recommendations from the mail pilots, the Postmaster General
ordered 40 planes from Douglas Aircraft at $11,900 each. Later as the Air Mail
Service was transitioning their routes to private contractors under the 1925 Air
Mail Act (Kelly Act), it would order an additional 11 aircraft. (Leary 1985 - 233)
Boeings Design Approach

The Boeing Company of Seattle will have a hundred years of history in 2016.
However, when it established itself as Pacific Aero Products on July 15, 1916 it
was a small firm with only 21 employees. The named was changed on April 26,
1917 to Boeing Airplane Company and has been Boeing in one form or another
ever since. (Bowers 1966 p34) From the end of World War I, in November of
1918, to the time of the design of the Model 40, Boeing managed to survive on
aircraft modernization contracts for the government, that included the de
Havilland DH-4 as describe previously, and building new airplanes designed by
the Army Air Service Engineering Division based at McCook Field Dayton, Ohio.
An example of the survival activity that Boeing was involved with was the GA-1
project. Boeing was the successful bidder to build to 20 (later reduce to 10)
Ground Attack -1 (GA-1) that the Army had designed. This aircraft design was
based on the experience of World War I trench warfare. First flown in May of
1921 the GA-1 had many design issues that included being extremely
overweight, with poor aerodynamics and engine cooling. Nevertheless Boeing
delivered all 10 aircraft to the Army. The experience did provide Boeing the
opportunity to learn production methods for aircraft assembly, engineering design
processes for aircraft performance improvement methods which would pay
dividend in the later 1920s.
The first non-military airplane designed and built by Boeing since 1920 was the
Model 40 prototype in response to the Post Offices request for bids to replace the
DH-4 .On April 7, 1924 E.N. Gott President of the Boeing Airplane Company
authorized the Chief Engineer Claire L. Egtvedt and his team to proceed with the
planning to respond to the Post Office request along the lines discussed in a
meeting the pervious day with Mr. William E. Boeing. (Boeing Historical Achieves
170-2)
14
Model 40 Profile and Frontal View

Figure 10
The aircraft that was designed had conventional wooden spars and rib
construction with fabric covering. The overall length of the wing span, for both the
upper and lower wings, was 44 2.25 inches. The wing span dimensions would
remain unchanged with all subsequent Model 40s. The Fuselage length as seen
in the profile drawing (figure 10) was 332.25. The fuselage used laminated
veneer wood over wood formers when at the time aircraft designers including
Boeing were converting to steel tubing for the fuselage structures. Why Boeing
selected this method of construction over steel can only be speculated since no
document has surfaced at this time. I would assume it was a matter of the time
and cost to build welding jigs when they had skilled resources to design and build
the wooden structure prototype to meet the Post Office deadline. Later in 1932 a
Boeing production manager remarked it cost three times as much to build a
metal aircraft as a wooden one.
15
The wood veneer covering the fuselage had the grain running at a 45 degree
angle to the axis of the fuselage as seen in figure 11a and 11b below.
Model 40 Wood Veneer Covered Fuselage (11a)
Veneer Fuselage of Model 40 with Liberty Engine (11b)

Figure 11
There was also an unusual feature with the upper wing configuration. The right
wing fastened to the cabane struts above the fuselage, but projected slightly to
the left of centerline to the point where the left wing joined the right. (Bower 1989
p125) This offset can be clearly seen in the drawing of the Model 40B.
(Figure 19).
There were four ailerons, all without balance in each wing. With the upper and
lower ailerons connected by a pair or wires. The Model 40 made its first flight on
16
July 7, 1925. Flight test determined that the fuselage was a little short for
directional stability. A modification was engineered to lengthen the fuselage to
correct the problem by adding a steel frame extension at the tail. In figure 12 a, b
and c below one can readily see the effects of this modification on the Model 40
prototype appearance.
Profile Model 40 prior to Fuselage Extension (12a)
Model 40 Fuselage extension

Model 40 Fuselage extension modification (12b)
17
Profile Model 40 with Rear Fuselage extension Covered (12c)

Figure 12
Post Office records show the Boeing Model 40 (Boeing C/n: 775) was purchased
and put into service February 10, 1926 on the ClevelandChicago route. (Boeing
Historical Archives - file 604) The flight performance seemed to be satisfactory
and was reported as such by a Post Office Pilot flight report filed by C. Eugene
Johnson to F. E. Caldwell Acting Superintend of the Western Division route on
February 26, 1926. (Boeing Historical Archives Post Office Letter Dated February
26, 1926)
Johnson documented his impressions on a flight from Concord California to
Maywood Illinois prior to putting the Model 40 into service on the Cleveland
Chicago route. He reported on the taxing, take-off, landing, stability,
maneuverability and visibility charteristics of the Model 40. Johnson reported
mostly positive comments with the exception being the visibility. He said, This
could be improved and most of the fault lies in arrangement of the windshield,
size and shape of pit opening (cockpit). At present, it takes considerable straining
and stretching for hedge-hopping work, of which was done through Illinois.
(Boeing Historical Archives Post Office Letter Dated February 26, 1926)
What is telling about the comment Johnson made is the type of flying that was
being done along the mail routes especially with poor visibility due to adverse
weather. That in itself was a major factor contributing to the death of 32 of the
original 40 Post Office pilot having fatal accident while flying the mail. Obviously,
visibility was a major safety concern but flying low was not the solution.
However, the mechanical performance of the Model 40 did not receive favorable
reports either. Apparently the cooling radiator for the Liberty 12 engine had
several leaks. In over 187 hours of operation between February 26 and June 20,
1926 the Model 40 had to be taken off the line 10 times for repairs. Additionally,
several large cracks and splits in the veneer fuselage were found during
inspections. They revealed that the cracks, splits and tears were mainly localized
18
about the two front upper fittings which, with corresponding lower fittings
supported the engine nacelle where they received loads due the reaction of the
propeller torque, (twisting force) the thrust of propeller and the weight of the
engine. The impacts from landing also contributed to the; cracks by the forces
gear being transmitted through the gear, fuselage and engine mounts.(Figure 13)
The result of this inspection determined the Model 40 had to be withdrawn from
service on June 22, 1926 until modification and repairs were made. (Boeing
Historical Archives Post Office Letter Dated July 20, 1926) This added to the
factors why the Model 40 was not considered for a follow on orders from the Post
Office at the conclusion of their evaluation period, when orders were placed for
the Douglas Mailplane.
Area which fuselage cracks appeared on Model 40

Figure 13
Although, the Boeing Airplane Company did not win the initial competition for the
D.H. 4 it was not the end of the Boeing Model 40. The following will describe the
Model 40 rebirth and engineering along with the contribution it made towards
facilitating corporate aviation growth in the turbulent years ahead.
Establishing the Industry

Events leading to Boeing Model 40 redesign
With the announcement that the Douglas M-1 mailplane was the winner of the
Post Office contract to replace the Departments aircraft and Douglas Aircraft
would receive follow-on orders for additional planes. Boeing filed away all of their
design drawings, not realizing they would be pulled from the file within 18 months
to re-engineer the Model 40 mailplane. The Boeing Airplane Company would
19
redesign the aircraft in order to submit a bid for the Chicago to San Francisco
portion of the transcontinental air mail line.
Since the Wright Brothers developed and publicly demonstrated the first
practical aircraft to the U.S Army at Fort Myers Virgin (Orville) and Le Mans
France (Wilbur) in 1908 it is strange the United States should lag so far behind
other countries aviation industries prior to and after World War I. After the Great
War three main elements in the United States kept the aircraft industry alive and
in front of the public. The three were the Military, with demonstration flights, such
as, the Navys 1919 NC flights across the Atlantic and the Armys 1924 around
the World Flight with two of the four Douglas World Cruisers completing the
attempt. The second were the Barnstormers who with surplus aircraft from the
war gave thousands of Americans their introduction to going aloft. And finally the
Post Office with the successful effort of establishing the transcontinental air mail
line.
However, none of these had any established infrastructure, regulations or
standard operating procedures guiding them prior to the United States entering
World War I. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was
established on March 3, 1915. Although the NACA rapidly became an
independent agency little was accomplished due to public and government
apathy toward the aviation industry. Shortly after the World War I President
Wilson submitted a Bill to Congress drafted by the NACA that would authorize
the Department of Commerce to license pilot, Inspect aircraft and operate
aerodromes (airports) but the apathy continued and no legislation was passed. In
the interim 26 States passed what was to be called the Uniform Aeronautics Act
which was regulatory in nature but hardly uniform and rarely enforced. (Hallion,
1977)
Ironically it would be the railroad industry that would be the catalyst that
accelerated the legislation and infrastructure so badly needed in aviation to move
beyond the level of a hand to mouth aircraft industry. As airmail began crossing
the country successfully in the mid-1920s, railroad owners started complaining
that the government-sponsored enterprise was cutting into their business. They
found a friendly ear in Congressman Clyde Kelly of Pennsylvania, chairman of
the House Post Office Committee, who largely represented railroad interests. On
February 2, 1925, he sponsored H.R. 7064: the Contract Air Mail Bill, which,
when enacted, became the Air Mail Act of 1925 or the Kelly Act as it became
known. The act authorized the postmaster general to contract for domestic
airmail service with commercial air carriers. It also set airmail rates and the level
of cash subsidies to be paid to companies that carried the mail. As Kelly
explained: The act permits the expansion of the air mail service without burden
upon the taxpayers. By transferring airmail operations to private companies,
the government would help create the commercial aviation industry.
20
Eighty percent of the stamp money received by the Post Office was to be paid to
the civilian airmail carriers. The quantity of stamps needed depended on the
weight of the mail and also on how many of the three zones the mail had to
cross. (The country had been divided into three air zones on July 1, 1924.)
Companies saw that they would make more money if they carried smaller but
heavier pieces of mail. This led to some unethical practices, like the shipment of
phone books by friends of the contractors. Also, since they would receive the
same amount of money no matter how many miles they flew within a zone, they
preferred to fly shorter distances within a single zone and save some operating
costs. (Davies 1998)
Harry S. New, postmaster general under President Calvin Coolidge wanted the
new contract airmail carriers to expand their routes and to buy larger airplanes to
carry passengers. He awarded contracts only to the larger companies that
bought the largest aircraft, which could accommodate passengers as well as the
mail. New realized that if the airlines sold more passenger tickets, which then
numbered only a few hundred each year, they could carry less mail and still
make a profit. The companies would receive their income from paying
passengers rather than from the Post Office payment for carrying the mail. Post
Master New started by awarding eight airmail routes to seven airmail carriers,
beginning in October 1925. One carrier, Ford Air Transport, won two of the
routes and was the first to fly airmail carrier under contract, starting on February
15, 1926 (figure 14) (www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Government_Role/192529_airmail/POL5.htm)
First Contract Mail Routes Awarded to Civilian Contract 1926

Figure 14
With the passing of the 1925 Air Mail Act Congress moved rapidly with the
passing of the Air Commerce Act in May of 1926. For the first time this gave the
U.S. Government responsibility for fostering air commerce, establishing airways
and aids to air navigation, making and enforcing safety rules. Under this act, the
government supplied money for air navigation facilities so that the routes would
become safer to fly, day and night. Management of the route system moved to
the new Aeronautics Branch of the Department of Commerce, which was
established in August of 1926. This act also set the standards for levels and
types of pilot license, mechanics certification to maintain aircraft, airmens
medicals and the government certification of U.S. Civil aircraft.
21
Both these pieces of government legislation would have far reaching impacts not
only to the aviation industry but also the Boeing Company and the redesigned
Boeing Model 40.
The Post Office began the transition of its routes to private contractor in April of
1926 and was completed in August of 1927. They started with the routes that
feed into the main transcontinental line but in late 1926 the Post Office asked for
bids for two main portions of the transcontinental line. The two bids would be
submitted for either the San FranciscoChicago route or the ChicagoNew York
route which would be transferred to the bid winners on July 1 1927. The Post
Office wanted to guard against the possibility of one operator going out of
business after contract award and shutting the air mail system down for an
extended period of time. The Post Office felt no one operator had the planning
and logistical experience to operate the entire transcontinental air line starting out
of the gate as a new operator.
Apparently William E. Boeing Chairman of the Boeing Company whose post war
employment was at an all time high of 602 employee in 1926 gave little if any
initial thought to submitting a bid to the Post Office for either one of the longer
transcontinental air mail route segments. However, as in all key moments in
history fate was to intervene.
Eddie Hubbard, a well known local Northwest Pilot who had worked for Boeing in
the past completed along with William Boeing the worlds first international
airmail flight into the United States from Vancouver B.C. to Seattle Washington
on March 3 1919. (Brown 1996). Hubbard would leave Boeings employment and
go on to fly the mail and charters for fishermen going to remote lakes throughout
the Northwest. Hubbard used the first Boeing commercially design and built
aircraft as seen in figure 15. This was the Boeing B-1 (model 6) (Bowers 1989
p49). Hubbard also worked for short period of time in California to take
advantage of expanding flying opportunities. However, he remained friends with
William E. Boeing and Boeings then President Philip Johnson and Chief
Engineer Claire Egtvedt.
22
Boeings First Civilian Aircraft Model B-1

Figure 15
In November of 1926 when the Post Office had announced plans to put its
ChicagoSan Francisco airmail route up for bids Hubbard returned from
California to meet with Boeings Johnson and Egtvedt. Hubbard had a concept in
mind based on his experience flying mail and passengers between Seattle and
Vancouver B.C. Since Johnson was away from the office he met with Claire
Egtvedt. In the parlance of todays vernacular Hubbard presented a business
case to Egtvedt for the successful operations on the San Francisco - Chicago
airmail route. Hubbard had estimated his return on investment (ROI) on day/night
operations, miles flown and pounds of mail carried. During the meeting it was
suggested by Egtvedt that Boeing re-engineer the Boeing Model 40 Mailplane
using the newly design Pratt & Whitney Wasp 420 H.P. air-cooled engine. With
the air cooled engine it would be feasible to be successful especially with an
aircraft on a long route. After further refining their estimates they met with William
E. Boeing for his thoughts and input. Boeing by nature was a conservative
person who based his success in his many business endeavors on thoroughly
analyzing the risk involved with the opportunities presented. He did not say no to
Hubbard and Egtvedt when they first met but thought about the possibility over
night. The next day he came to the plant to go over the figures once again. The
Post Office would allow the winner of the bid up to $3.00 per pound for the first
1,000 miles and fifteen cent for each additional 100 miles (Bauer 2006 - p37).
Based on the expected performance of the re-engineered Model 40 with the Pratt
& Whitney Wasp engine William Boeing felt the numbers the team put together
were realistic and then had his team prepare a bid proposal of $2.88 for a pound
of mail carried between San Francisco and Chicago. This bid proposal was
submitted to the Post Office by the due date of January 15, 1927.
The reason Eddie Hubbard, William Boeing and the Boeing engineering staff felt
confident they could be successful with the bid proposal submitted was their
familiarity with the relatively new power plant designed and developed by the
23
recently formed company called Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company of East
Hartford, Connecticut.
The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company
Frederick Rentschler had resigned as president of the Wright Aeronautical
Corporation on September 21, 1924. When the Wright Company was looking into
the possibility of the radial engine they examined a possible merger with the
Lawrance Engine Company who had been one of the pioneers working on the air
cooled engine concept since 1921. Rentschler after studying the Lawrance
Company operations and engine designs advised his board against such an
acquisition. In his own words a completely confused manufacturing operation.
(Pratt & Whitney 1950 p28). From that point on Rentschler had difficulty with the
Wright Aeronautical Board, made up mostly of bankers owning little stock in the
Wright Company who only wanted immediate return on investment (ROI) rather
than longer research and development efforts for the possibility of greater ROI.
When he departed Wright Aeronautical, Rentschler sought the advice of another
industry icon, Chance Vought, Rentschler told Vought of his plan to create an
organization where management and engineering drove the organization.
Rentschler laid out a plan of what such an organization would look like in order to
design and develop an air-cooled radial engine capable of 400 plus horse power
with as many modern features as possible. (Pratt & Whitney 1950 p32). After
listening to Rentschlers proposal Vought urged him on to look for backers for his
concept and plan. So six month after resigning from Wright Aeronautical
Rentschler went to see the Pratt & Whitney division of the Niles-Bement-Pond a
machine tool company of Hartford Connecticut. He asked them for $425,000 to
build a prototype engine. With his past experience and reputation in the aircraft
industry, especially with engines Bement-Pond accepted the proposition.
On July 23, 1925 Pratt & Whitney Aircraft was incorporated with Rentschler
president, George Mead vice president and Andy Willgoos chief engineer. Mead
and Willgoos had both left Wright Aeronautical to joined Rentshler at Pratt &
Whitney. They and those they hired worked around the clock on the new design
and manufacturing processes of their prototype air cooled radial engine. Their
only numerical goals was to develop 400 H.P. within a weight of 650lbs.
December 29, 1925 they started the engine for the fist time and within in a few
days it was delivering 425 H.P. within the 650lbs limit. The Pratt & Whitney Wasp
engine was born. (figure16)
24
Pratt & Whitney 1926 Wasp

Figure 16
The first engine was a test stand engine that never flew but the second engine
became airborne powering a Wright FeW-1 Apache flown on May 5, 1926 by
Navy Lieutenant C.C. Champion Jr.
The flight test results were dramatic in terms of performance and reliability. Pratt
& Whitney Wasp engines were installed in short order into Curtiss, Vought and
Boeing Aircraft. And that is why Claire E Egtvedt thought the Pratt & Whitney
engine would be the right selection for the re-engineered Boeing Model 40 when
he initially talked with Eddie Hubbard in November of 1926. The Boeing
Company had been working with the Navy testing the new Pratt & Whitney Wasp
Engine on the Boeing Model 69 (XF2B-1) (figure 17). This aircraft would go into
production as the Navy F2B-1. However, at the time the Boeing Company
submitted their bid proposal to the Post Office for the re-engineered Model 40 no
production Navy F2B-1 had been constructed yet.
Boeing Model 69 (F2B-1) with New Pratt & Whitney Wasp

Figure 17
25
But Boeing would have a supply of Wasp engines on hand for the 32 F2B they
were going to build as soon as funding was approved. (Bower PNAHF Journal
Vol. 8).
The other main bidders for the Chicago San Francisco route were Western Air
Express and National Air Transport. Both were experienced well financed airline
operators already flying shorter contract mail routes. Western Air Express had
an excellent reputation of flying the Liberty powered Douglas M-2 (figure 8)
mailplanes across the mountainous country between Los Angels and Salt Lake
City while National Air Transport had six Curtiss Carrier Pigeon, (figure 7) also
Liberty powered built specially for the use on Chicago New York portion of the
route. When the bids were open and evaluated by the Post Office in the latter
half of January 1927 the Boeing bid was the lowest coming in at $2.88 per pound
of mail for the whole journey. This beat by a substantial margin the next closest
bidder, Western Air Express, that was $4.25 (Davies 1972 p59). The advantage
of using the relatively new technology Pratt & Whitney air-cooled engine allowed
Boeing to bid at the unprecedented low bid. The engine weighing 200 pounds
less than the older Liberty translated into passenger capability as well as more
mail that could be carried. As William E. Boeing told anyone who would listen. I
would rather fly 200 more pounds mail than water. (Pratt & Whitney 1950) After
winning the contract on January 29, 1927 the Post Office required an insurance
performance bond. The Post Master was reacting to other competitor companies
telling him the mail could not be carried for such a low cost as Boeing submitted.
William Boeing personally wrote a $500,000 bond so the Boeing Organization
could continue with its plan to operate an airline. (AAHS Journal Vol. 49 - P114)
On February 17, 1927 Boeing Air Transportation was incorporated.
Bringing the Boeing Model 40A to Production
Key Events and Activities
Now the Boeing team had five main challenges; (1) to complete the redesign of
original Model 40 prototype, (2) acquire enough Pratt & Whitney Wasp engine to
produce 25 Model 40As with spares, (3) hire the personnel to fly and maintain
the new aircraft along the route (4) be ready to begin operations along the entire
route in six-months starting July 1, 1927. (5) comply with the new airworthy
standard set forth in the recently passed legislation called the Air Commerce Act
of 1926. This legislation was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on
May 26, 1926. (van der Linden 2002) This act effectively established the first
regulations in the United States for the certification of airmen, airways and
aircraft. The Air Commerce Act created an Aeronautics Branch charged with the
promotion and regulations marking the beginning of civil aviation oversight in the
United States. (Emme, Hallion, Two Hundred Years of Flight in America, 1976
p158) This would also be a learning curve since no manufacture had gone
through the Aircraft Type Certification (A.T.C.) process which now had to be
26
followed and complied with under the Act. The Boeing Model 40A would only be
the second aircraft to do so when it received A.T.C. #2 in July 1927.
Eddie Hubbard went off to Salt Lake City, the city where three of the five exiting
air mail routes came together. It was an excellent location to hire personnel for
the new Boeing airline operation. The first 21 pilots came from the Post Office Air
Mail Service. All of them had many hours of experience flying the mail for the
Post Office. (AAHS Journal Vol. 49 - P114) This would be a real plus for many
reasons especially when it came to attracting passengers by highlighting the
experience of the lines pilots.
In the mean time William Boeing himself was instrumental in securing the needed
and critical Pratt & Whitney Wasp engines for the Model 40As. Fred Rentschler
and William Boeing had become friends (Figure 18) when the Wasp engine was
mated to the Navy F2B-1 Fighter. The Boeing Company was contracted to build
32 for the Navy. Unfortunately, all the Wasp engines had been committed to the
F2B contract therefore making it impossible to obtain the new engine
commercially for at least a year. However, William Boeing through his friendship
with Rentschler was able to arrange with the Navy to release Wasp engines to
the Boeing Model 40A project with an assurance from Rentschler that
replacements Wasp would be available when needed for the Navy F2B-1
contract. (Bower -1966 p116).
Through this collaboration with Pratt & Whitneys Rentschler, William Boeing, the
Boeing engineering staff and production personnel would have the needed
numbers of Wasp engines required for the Model 40A. (figure 18)
Boeing and Rentschler inspect Wasp

Figure 18
Here is an interesting speculation, What if Boeing and Rentschler hadnt had the
friendship they had, how would that have affected the course of Boeing History?
However, what did occur because of Rentschlers arranging an agreement with
27
the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics was that the Boeing Airplane Company would
begin receiving 5 Wasp engines per month beginning in February 1927. In
addition, they would receive 3 extras spare engines for a total of 28 when flight
operations began on July 1, 1927.
The Boeing engineering team under Egtvedt had been working on the redesign
of the Model 40A with the possibility of the Pratt & Whitney Wasp engine even
before initial discussion with Eddie Hubbard in November of 1926.
At first glance when one compares the specification and performance numbers
between the original Model 40 and the new Model 40A using the Pratt & Whitney
Wasp there appears to be little apparent difference (Figure 19 a & b).
Model 40 Redesign with P&W Engine

Figure 19
28
Aircraft
First Flight
# Produced
Boeing Model 40
7-July 1925
Prototype
Pilot & Pax

Powerplant
Wing Span
Length
Height
Empty Weight
Gross Weight
Speed
Range
ceiling
Pilot Only
Liberty 400 h.p.
44'2"
33'2"
12'3"
3,425 lbs
5,495 lbs
135 m.p.h
700 miles
15,800'
Boeing Model 40A

6-June-1927
25
Pilot / 2 Optional
Pax
P&W 420 h.p.
44'2"
33'2"
12'3"
3,531 lbs
6,000 lbs.
128 m.p.h.
650 miles
14,500'
Boeing Model 40 and 40A Comparison

Figure 19a
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Speed
mph
Range
miles
Gross
Weight
lbs
Empty
Weight
lbs
Useful
Load lbs
Engine
HP
Boeing Model 40
113
700
5495
3425
2070
400
Boeing Model 40A
105
650
6000
3531
2469
420
Boeing Model 40B-2
105
650
6000
3531
2469
525
Boeing Model 40B-4
125
535
6075
3722
2353
525
Boeing Model
40 Boeing
Model 40A Boeing
Model 40B-2
Model
40s Summary
Performance
Boeing Model 40B-4

Chart
Figure 19b
However, due to the 200 lbs. reduced weight of the Pratt & Whitney air-cooled
engine verses the older Liberty 12 engine which translated into increased
payload not only in mail but allowed for two passenger to fly the route to generate
additional income above the mail contract compensation. This plus the added
benefit of the Wasp engines increase in reliability allowed Boeing to submit their
relatively low bid when compared to the others in the competition.
From a dimension point of view the two Model 40s were identical. The wing
construction on both used spruce and ribs with fabric covering a six foot seven
inch Clark Y airfoil (figure 20). This airfoil would suit the operational
29
requirements for the high altitude because of with its good high lift flight
chacteristics. The inter-plane struts on the Model 40A eliminated the wooden
diagonal braces between the main forward and aft members that were on the
Model 40. They were replaced with heavy flying wire bracing on the 40A.
Boeing Model 40 Clark Y Airfoil 6 7
Figure 20
The Model 40A fuselage structure was also completely different than the Model
40. As seen in figure 21 the fuselage structure was welded tubular steel rather
than the wood veneer fuselage of the prototype Model 40.
Boeing Model 40A Steel Truss Fuselage

Figure 21
The steel truss airframe was built up with non-load bearing wood stringers that
provided the rounded and streamline shape to the fuselage before being covered
with cotton fabric and sections of dural aluminum sheet metal.
30
420 hp Wasp Engine

Front baggage bin 25 cu.ft.
Passenger compartment
Aft mail bin 37 cu.ft.
Pilot Cockpit
Boeing
BoeingHistorical
HistoricalArchives
Archives
Boeing Historical
Archives
Boeing Model 40A Fuselage Configuration

Figure 22
Figure 22 shows the airframe configuration for the pilot, two passengers, mail
and baggage bins. This arrangement provided the aircraft a great deal of
flexibility for load and management of the center of gravity for weight and balance
purposes. On the Model 40A there is a passenger door on each side of the
fuselage. The passenger cabin area was metal lined throughout with the seat
covered in leather. (figure 23) An airspeed indicator along with an altimeter was
also located in the cabin. The non-shattering glass window could be open in flight
and was large enough to provide excellent view of the scenery. A dome light
could provide limited light at night. A 100 gallon fuel tank was provided just
behind the aft mail bin. This configuration would change in subsequent Model
40s to using three different fuel tanks. The Model 40B would have one forty
gallon tank located in the upper right center section with other two located on the
right and left side lower wing root area.
Model 40A Two Passenger Compartment

Figure 23
31
Historical
The Model 40B-4 andBoeing
Model
40CArchives
would have the same configuration. However,
the upper wing tank had a capacity of 60 gallons. Figure 24 shows schematically
arrangement which was basically the same on all Model 40 versions after the
Model 40A.
New Model 40 Fuel System - After the Model 40A

Figure 24
32
Mounted Night
Lights
Rudder Bar
Mixture &
Throttle
Fuel Tank
Selector
Model 40A Pilots Cockpit

Figure 25
The cockpit was fairly typical for its day. The mixture and throttle controls were
on the left side with the standard flight instrument that included altimeter and turn
and bank. Cockpit lights were also standard to illuminate the instruments during
night operations. (figure 25). The landing gear used the new air-oleo strut of
Boeing design.
The overall redesign of the Model 40A was strong, functional and producible. All
these attributes would be important for the operational success of the aircraft
while flying the Contract Air Mail (CAM) Route #18 from San Francisco to
Chicago.
The Boeing Seattle factory had to build and certify twenty-five planes and then
test fly them in less than five months. To add to this challenge when the aircraft
were completed (figure 26) they had to be trucked 15 miles away from the
Boeing factory to Sand Point located north and east of factory on Lake
Washington because Boeing did not have a long enough runway near the
factory. At Sand Point a pasture was cleared among the pines to serve as the
needed runway. This location also served as, King County Airport until 1928
when Boeing Field formally opened. (figure 27)
33
Completed Boeing Model 40A

Figure 26
Sand Point Testing Location

Figure 27
From contract award in February 1927 to being operationally ready on July 1,

1927 it was an all out effort for the Boeing team. When Pratt & Whitney sent
Wilbur Thomas one of its early service representatives to support Boeing he was
shocked and concerned how much there was left to do. Arriving on June 1st 1927
Thomas found only one aircraft completed. (Pratt & Whitney 1950) From that
point on one plane per day seemed to be completed. Then immediately after a
short test flight the aircraft was flown off points along the route. By midnight June
30th all 25 Model 40As were in place along CAM #18 to begin operations the next
day as per the contract. Ever 24 hours the new model 40As with their Wasp
engines would cover 4000 miles on the round trips between San Francisco and
Chicago.
34
The Boeing Model 40 - Transcontinental Line Operations

Boeing Air Transport began air mail service as scheduled on July 1, 1927 from
San Franciscos Crissy Field. The day before Mrs. Bertha Boeing, William
Boeings wife, sitting on the right side of the platform (figure 28) between two
gentlemen christened the inaugural Model 40A aircraft City of San Francisco.
Inauguration Day Boeing Air Transport - Crissy Field

Figure 28
The next day at the other end of the line in Chicago Boeing Air Transport (BAT)
boarded their first passenger on a Model 40A. A reporter from the Chicago
Herald Examiner Jane Eads took off at 9:30 PM with former Post Office Pilot Ira
Biffle now working for BAT and they headed west bound. As the trip progressed
west Eads gave positive reports and statements to the media, such as, I could
fly forever. (Bauer 2006 p 39) Eads completed her trip after 23 hours of flying
time and BAT was officially in the business of both flying the mail and
passengers.
Due to terrain, weather conditions and a lack of navigational land marks it would
have been hard to find a more challenging route to begin operations. As figure 29
illustrates the Midwestern section of the route between Iowa City and Omaha
looks like it could be flown with deceptive ease.
35
Figure 29
However, from North Platte a long steady climb to Cheyenne was begun flying
westbound as the route penetrated the Rockies Mountains to Rock Springs. After
topping the saw-toothed Wasatch Mountain Range at 7000 feet it was a descent
to the hot salt flats of Salt Lake City. From Salt Lake to San Francisco there was
more mountain high country between Elko and Reno before another major
ascent over the Sierra Nevadas finally descending down into the Sacramento
Valley and landing at the Oakland Municipal Airport. The eastbound was just as
rigorous with a maximum climb to Reno and not descending until after
Cheyenne.
The schedule route time from Chicago was approximately 20 flying hours plus.
Passengers who would follow Jane Eads would pay $200 one way to ride in
rather confined by enclosed passenger compartment in front of the pilot (figure
24). Choosing this method of transportation BAT passengers found they had
taken 43 hours off the enroute time compared to taking the train between the two
cities of Chicago and San Francisco. (Davis 1982).
With mail and passenger operations now becoming a daily event the Pratt and
Whitney Wasps engines were proving themselves in the field. After some minor
overheating problem during the first two weeks of operations they became
incredibly reliable passing the then standard 200 hours of operation before
overhaul. The reliability of the engine and the paying passenger carried in the
36
Model 40A allowed Boeing Air Transport to astound its critics and make a profit
during the first year of operations. (Davis 1982, p60).
The inaugural year saw BAT fly a million and half miles over the route. At the end
of two years they had flown 5,500,000 miles while delivering 1300 tons of mail
and 6000 passengers. The 24 months of initial flight operations was also
accomplished with a good safety record for the time. Only three fatalities were
recorded for an average of one for every 1,750,000 miles flown. These types of
metrics helped to sell the idea of air travel not just to the adventurer but to the
general public and business professionals as well. This positive response was
helped in no small measure by the effects of Charles A. Lindberghs successful
flight from New York to Paris on 27 May 1927. This not only sparked peoples
imagination to the possibility of air transportation but it facilitated financiers to the
investment potential of the aviation industry. It seemed like almost over night
everyone wanted to become involved with the aviation industry. Pilot starts
increased dramatically with more Research and Development (R&D) money
becoming available from government, foundations and industry for the
development of aircraft and aircraft support functions, including the development
of those items listed in figure 30. These examples of R&D projects had begun at
a slow pace in mid 1920s became a rapid evolution during the decade of the
1930s. (Whitford, 2007)
1924 -1929 AIRCRAFT TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS
RADIAL ENGINES
DRAG REDUCTION
AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS
WING FLAPS
RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
INSTRUMENTATION
AIRCRAFT SYSTEM
Figure 30
Aviation and technology historian John Anderson would identify this era in
chapter 6 of his book The Airplane, A History of the Its Technology as The Era
of the Mature Propeller-Driven Airplane. The Boeing Model 40A which from a
new aircraft technology point of view was at the back end of an old aircraft design
concepts was however, with the Pratt & Whitney Wasp radial air cooled engine,
at the front end of the rapidly developing industry change. The Model 40A made
it possible for the Boeing Company to be in the right place to participate in this
growth. Shortly after the Model 40A made its introduction with BAT another Pratt
& Whitney engine with more horsepower was being developed for the higher
37
altitude landing fields along the route, especially west of Cheyenne. This engine
was called the Hornet. The design began in January of 1926, making its first
flight in June of the same year. The new air cooled radial engine offered 525 hp,
an increase of 105 horse power over the Wasp engine of 420hp.
Although Boeing Air Transport had a separate identity from the parent Boeing
Airplane Company BAT was managed from Seattle. With the positive results they
were achieving on their section of the transcontinental line (CAM #18) Boeing
management made two major decisions in 1928. One they would convert most of
their Model 40 As to the new Pratt & Whitney 525 hp Hornet engine. With this
change to the Model 40A they would become Model 40Bs. On a rotational
schedule they were flown back to the factory in Seattle for the engine change
then back to flying the line. However, since this engine change altered the Model
40As gross weight to 6075lbs along with other flight performance numbers it had
to be re-certified; on February 1928 ACT #27 was awarded making those Model
40As Model 40Bs. The other major decision was made on January 1, 1928 when
Boeing Air Transport acquired control of Pacific Air Transport (PAT). PAT was a
contract air mail carrier on CAM #8 which paralleled the west coast form Seattle
to San Francisco. The acquisition provided a direct link from the Boeing Seattle
factory to the western end of the transcontinental route in San Francisco, as well
as, a market for additional Boeing transports. In May of 1928 Pacific Air transport
began operating six Boeing 40Bs. (Davies 1982 p70). This merger also
necessitated a name change to The Boeing System for the combined lines.
Logo Change for combined Boeing System Line

Figure 31
38
Figure 31 shows the revision made to the logo to accommodate the

merger of the two lines. On the former PAT route the words AIR
TRANSPORT, INC were removed from the circle and replaced by the
single SYSTEM, while the words PACIFIC AIR TRANSPORT were
painted on a straight line flanking the logo. The original logo was retained
for the Boeing Air Transportation routes. (Bower 1966 P117) Boeing
management in Seattle continued to oversee and provide strategic
decision making for both lines in the SYSTEM. As reported in United
Aircraft & Transport Corporations first annual report to stockholders in
1929 the two transport companies completed flying 8 million miles in
December of that year and at the time were considered to be the most
efficiently operated mail-passenger lines in the United States. (1929
UATC Annual report p 41)
The re-engineered Boeing Model 40 was making it possible for the Boeing
Company to fulfill its original charter to "To engage in the business of
aerial navigation by any means whatsoever, heretofore or hereafter
invented or developed, including also to act as a common carrier of
passengers and freight by aerial navigation..." (Boeing Historical ArchivesArticles of incorporation Pacific Aero Products 1916) From this point on
expansion and opportunity would continue at a rapid pace for the Boeing
Airplane Company.
United Aircraft and Transportation Corporation
Some air mail contract operators didnt believe the passenger business
would ever be profitable. They felt the money spent for marketing to a
potential passenger was money thrown away. When passenger did show
up for a flight the mail bags were often treated better. What the operators
wanted was a faster aircraft that could carry heavier payloads than the
existing aircraft on flying the line.
William E. Boeing and Fred Rentschler had another concept in mind. Why
not increase passenger revenues on top of the air mail contract revenues.
Bigger and faster aircraft were needed but carrying more passengers in
better comfort seemed to have a greater potential. Rentschler who like
working with Boeing on the Model 40s production and the results they
were achieved suggested that they form a partnership between their two
organizations which could capitalize on their mutual strengths in the
commercial aviation market. From these initial discussions several
mergers were consummated in late 1928 into 1929 between The Boeing
Company, Pratt & Whitney and other aviation companies. These merger
agreements lead to the formation of United Aircraft and Transportation
Corporation on February 1, 1929. It was a holding Company whose
original members included Pratt & Whitney Engines; Boeing Airplane
Company; Chance Vought; and Hamilton Aircraft Propeller. A short time
39
later Standard Propeller, and the Stearman Aircraft Corporation were

added to the engineering and manufacturing companies. On the air
transport side of the organization, National Air Transport which now flew
routes from Dallas Texas to New York via Chicago along with Varney Air
Lines whose route ran from Reno, Nevada to Pasco Washington via Boise
Idaho were added to Boeing Air Transport and Pacific Air Transport Line.
As a result of the increase in air transportation routes and activity a new
management company was formed to handle the growth and the Boeing
System became United Air Lines. (Pratt & Whitney p73) The United
Aircraft and Transport Corporation Model 40s were now flying the
transcontinental line. (Figure 32)
Boeing Model 40A Air Transport with after the fact Photo touch
up with United Airline Marking. No actual Model 40A had this logo
Figure 32
With $146,000,000 of total capital between the Equipment and Transport

Companies this formed a formable aviation conglomerate as can be seen
from the scope of the organization chart for UATC in figure 33 below.
By 1929 BAT was operating 46 aircraft on the line, many of which were
Model 40 B-2s and 40B-4s (four passengers Model 40bs).
40
Figure 33
The Organizations listed under United Aircraft & Transport Corporation in

their 1929 Annual Report to Stockholders were:
Equipment Companies
o The Boeing Airplane Company
o `Boeing Aircraft of Canada, Ltd.
o The Hamilton Standard Propeller Corporation
o Northrop Aircraft Corporation, Ltd.
o The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Company
o Canadian Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Co., Ltd.
o Sikorsky Aviation Corporation
o The Stearman Aircraft Company
o Chance Vought Corporation
Transport Companies
o Boeing Air Transport, Inc.- Pacific Air Transport
o Stout Air Lines
Other Operations
o Boeing School of Aeronautics
o United Aircraft Exports, Inc.
o United Airport Company of California, Ltd.
o United Airports of Connecticut, Incorporated
41
The headquarters for UATC organization was located in East Hartford

Connecticut with Fred Rentschler as President and William Boeing as
Chairman of the Board. The timing for the formation of UATC could not
have had happened at better time because by the late 1920s other
groups were forming large aviation corporations as well North American
Aviation, which acquired the Curtiss-Wright Corporation. The auto
manufacture, General Motors, got into the mix as well by acquiring
Western Air Express. Aviation was now big business and the financiers
wanted to get into the act by bringing competition into the industry with
additional mergers.
The UATC companies were now in a position to deal with the increased
competition growing in the commercial aircraft market place from these
other mergers. Additionally, many companies that were part of UATC were
able to survive the trouble ahead when the stock market and world
economy suffered a depression starting in November 1929. However,
before the reality of that became evident the Boeing Model 40 which
initially brought Boeing and Pratt & Whitney together was constantly being
modified and improved during the merger and acquisition process that
formed UATC.
The strength of UATC was the rich talent of the combined companies
engineering and production staffs. They formed a technical advisory
committee for the purpose of interchanging of ideas, unity of efforts and
making available the benefits of research to all.
This would improve and accelerate aircraft design while enhancing safety
improvements for flight operations.
One example of this type collaborative effort in R&D was led by Boeings
Thorp Hiscock. (figure 34) He suggested that radioing updated weather
information to pilots en route could eliminate some of the uncertainty, and
then offered to solve the problem. With approval from the Boeing Airplane
Company, he began experimenting with low-frequency radio transmitters
and receivers. Hiscock had radio receivers and transmitters installed in
some Model 40s. He soon achieved what others before him had not:
ground-to-air radio communication. This major break through step would
help to tremendously improve flight safety by having pilots while in the air
receive the most current weather and flight information
42
Boeings Thorp Hiscock

Figure 34
How many were Built and What Model 40 is it

The following is a summary of the variations of the Model 40 built. As seen
below in figure 35 the total number of Model 40s built was 82.
Model
Year Built
ATC Number
Number Built
40
1925
Not Required
40A
1927
25
40B-4
1929-1931
183
39
40C
1928-1929
54
10
40X
1928
54
40Y
1928
183
Total
U.S. Boeing Built
Non
U.S.
Canada
40H-4
77
Boeing
1929-1931
Non - U.S.
Total Boeing U.S. & Canada Model 40s
82
* Last Canadian Aircraft Msn CB-9 not Completed
Model 40 Production Numbers

Figure 35
43
There has seems to be a bit of confusion over the total number of Model
40s built, with both 81 and 82 being documented.
Boeing has Manufacture Serial Number (Msn) Data Cards for each aircraft
constructed going back to the original 1916 Boeing & Westervelt B&W biplane. Reviewing these Msn data cards show the total number of U.S.
Boeing Model 40s built to be 77. However there were 5 Canadian built
Model 40s built by Boeing Aircraft of Canada Ltd. In Vancouver, B.C.
Boeing also issues a Model Specification and History data sheet for each
Boeing Commercial Aircraft. These sheets provide basic specifications
and performance numbers for the aircraft model, as well as, numbers of
that model built. In many cases the Boeing Model Specification and
History data sheets list the Msn(s) for the Model as part of the references
with in the context of Model Specification and History sheet information.
The Model 40B-4 Specification and History sheet has recorded 38 built
with the Msn listed on page 3 of the sheet. However, Boeing Manufactures
Serial Numbers issued for the Model 40B-4 (Msn) as recorded in their Msn
Data Cards show 39 aircraft. The additional 40B-4 is Msn 1164 which
Boeing identifies as a 40B-4A sold to Pratt & Whitney with a Pratt &
Whitney 650 H.P. engine and a three bladed propeller.
Aviation Historian Walt Bohl in his excellent summary article on the Model
40s in the American Aviation Historical Society Journal (Summer 2004
volume 49 Number 2) list all the Model 40B-4 built by Msn.
Four Passenger Model 40B-4

Figure 36
44
Bohls lists MSN 1164 for the Model 40B-4 not found on the Boeing Model
Specification and History sheet. Bohls list also matches the Boeing MSN
data cards for the Model 40B-4 found on file in the Boeing Archives.
The Msn listed in Bohls article and the Boeing Msn Data cards came to
39 Model 40B-4 in both counts. However, Bohls summary of the number
of Model 40B-4 built at the end of his article shows 38 Model 40B-4s built
Apparently, Bohl didnt include MSN 1164 as a model 40B-4 in his final
count or it was a miscount being recorded as 38 instead of 39 found in his
article showing the list by Msn numbers.
This author has verified Bohls list of 39 with Msn Data Cards on file with
the Boeing Historical Archives. The Model 40B-4 Msn that was listed in
Bohls article and in the Boeing Msn Data Cards match including Msn
1164 delivered to Pratt & Whitney on October 10, 1929.
The Model designation for the Pratt & Whitney aircraft was Model 40B-4A.
The information seems to confirm that 39 Model 40B-4s were built not 38
as previously reported in a variety of sources. This would bring the
number of U.S. Boeing built Model 40s to 77 and shown in figure 36.
However, the confusion doesnt stop there. Another area of confusion was
the number of Canadian Build Model 40s. During the merger activity
between1928-1929, Boeing established a factory in Vancouver, B.C.
called Boeing Aircraft of Canada Ltd. They built 5 Model 40s confirmed by
their Msn system. Their version of the Model 40B-4 was called the Model
40H-4. This was an aircraft basically the same as the Model 40B-4. The
H in the Model designation was used to honor the Boeing Canadian
Company President Henry Hoffar. From late 1929 to early 1931 they
issued 5 Canadian Msns for their Model 40s. However, only four were
completed. Msn Canada-Boeing (CB-9) was not completed and put in
storage then sold in 1936 to United Air Transport Canada. After which it
was then given to Calgary Institute of Technology and Art. (AAHS Journal
Summer 2004 volume 49 Number 2). That is why some historical aviation
references refer to 81 Model 40 being built. The official recorded Msns
from Boeing U.S. and Canada-Boeing records show the numbers to be 82
airframes built with 81 Model 40s that actual flew.
Figure 35 also shows seven Model 40 variation designations with four

U.S. Aircraft Type Certifications assigned to six of the seven designations.
The last certification was issued by the Canadian Government for their 5
Model 40s built by the Boeing Factory in Vancouver, B.C. However, in the
literature covering the Model 40s reference is made to two other Model 40
variations.
45
The following will be an attempt to explain these designations and the

rational behind the designation.
The straight Model 40 built for the Post Office in 1925 did not receive an
ATC number due to the fact it was designed and built before the
regulations came into effect in 1926 under the Air Commerce Act.
The 25 Model 40As were built in 1927 for the Transcontinental Line and
equipped with the Pratt & Whitney Wasp engines. They were issued ATC
number 2 under the 1926 under the Air Commerce Act in July of 1927.
The Model 40Bs as mentioned earlier in the article were Model 40As
modified with the higher 525 horsepower Pratt & Whitney Hornet engine.
Due to their weight and performance numbers changes these aircraft had
to be re-certified and were issued ATC number 27. However, the Model
40B was never a production Model 40 for Boeing since they were modified
Model 40As.
The Boeing Model 40Cs were built after the Model 40As were converted
to 40Bs. The Model 40C of which ten were built were identical to the
Wasp-powered Model 40A except the rear mail bin compartment was
converted to carry two additional passengers. They had two doors on the
left hand side of the fuselage. The Model 40C received ATC number 54.
They were delivered to airline customer, Pacific Air Transport, in August of
1928. They cost at the time $23,500. (Bower PNAHF Journal Vol. #8).
One Model 40C went to National Park Airways. Later seven of the 10
Model 40Cs were converted to Model 40B-4s by the converting the Pratt &
Whitney Hornet engine installed on their airframe.
The Model 40B-4, which 39 were built between 1929 and 1931 under ATC
number 183 was a production 4 passenger aircraft with the Pratt &
Whitney Hornet engine factory installed at the time of construction. When
these aircraft became operational with Pacific Air Transport, Western Air
Express, Varney Airlines and others it caused a retroactive Model
designation change to the existing Model 40Bs flying with installed Hornet
engine certified by ATC number 27. They remained under that certification
ATC number but became Model 40B-2s to differentiate from the new four
passenger Model 40B-4s under ATC number 183.
As discussed above there were the 5 Boeing-Canadian Model 40H-4s
which were basically the same as the Model 40B-4s.
Additional there was also two one of a kind Model 40 variation with their
own designation. These were the Model 40X and Model 40Y.
46
The Model 40X was a 4 passenger aircraft sold to Associated Oil

Company in 1928 with Pratt & Whitney Wasp engine in 1928. It was built
under ATC Number 53 used for the Model 40Cs. The Model 40Y also sold
in 1928 was the Pratt & Whitney Hornet powered 4 passenger aircraft built
under ATC # 183 and sold to Standard Oil of California.
Where Are They Now
Currently there are there two original Boeing Model 40s in existence. One
is located in the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry where it hangs
on display
.
The Chicago Museum of Science and Industrys particular Model 40 is a
Model 40B-2 Msn 888 which was displayed at the Wings of a Century
pageant at the Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago in 1933. After
the world fair exposition this aircraft with 6000 plus hours on the airframe
was donated to the Rosenwald Museum (now called the Chicago Museum
of Science and Industry) in November of 1933. Following a period of time
in storage it was hung from the ceiling in 1939 where it remains and can
be seen today.
The other is located in the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn Michigan.
This is also a Model 40B-2 Msn 896 with over 6000 hours on the airframe.
The aircraft had an interesting history that included heavy repairs due to
landing accidents, installation of 100 lbs radio equipment with mast and
converted to an airline instrument trainer for National Air Transport. (AAHS
Journal Vol 49 Number 2 summer 2004 p117)
However, there are three other Model 40s, two replicas and one
reproduction. The two Model 40s replicas were by Century Aviation of
East Wenatchee, WA. One is a Model 40B fuselage sitting on its landing
gear in the Museum of Flight, Seattle Washington. This can be currently
seen on display in the Museums Boeing Red Barn exhibit area. (figure37)
47
Model 40B replica fuselage - The Museum of Flight

Figure 37
The other is an exact replica of a Model 40B-2 delivered in October 2007

also to the Museum of Flight. This Model 40B-2 is part of The Museum of
Flights Air Mail Exhibit in the Museums Great Gallery. The Model 40Bs
for the Museum of Flight have been supported and inspired by Mr. William
E Boeing Jr. son of The Boeing Company Founder William E. Boeing. The
aviation community is very fortunate to be able to see up close the size
and features of these historic aircraft from the ground level.
Historical aircraft on display in this manner help to educate and bring alive
the pioneering efforts of those who established the civil aircraft industry in
the United States.
Also, in Washington State Pemberton & Sons Aviation has another Model
40 in restoration that is nearing completion. This one will be a flying
reproduction of an original Model 40C. With the original data plate and 50
original components integrated into the reproduction this will be only flying
example of a Model 40 in the world. This aircraft is also scheduled to
make its debut within the next six-months. Pemberton & Sons intend to
have this aircraft on display at selected air shows. They also plan to fly the
CAM # 8 route between Seattle and Los Angles making stops along the
route at or near the original airfields. That truly would be a wonderful must
see event to witness this aircraft in the air once again.
48
Pemberton & Sons Photo
Pemberton & Sons Aviation Reproduction Model 40C

Figure 38
Summary and Conclusion

Boeing constructed various marks of the Model 40 between 1926 and
1931. From an aircraft engineering, design and production point of view it
was a basic aircraft even for its time. They receive little if any mention in
aviation history books on their contribution to the industry. According to
Heppenheimers authoritative history on the commercial aviation industry
he stated. In their technical design, airplanes in the 1920s were generally
failing to advance One could see this in the Boeing 40 of 1927, built a
decade after the war. It had an air cooled engine, but in other respects its
layout remained thoroughly conventional. It showed a fuselage framework
built of welded steel tubes, a construction technique that dated to 1916.
Other features included the usual: open cockpit, biplane wings with spruce
ribs fabric covering This stodginess in design contrasted sharply with
the great freedom available to designers. (Heppenheimer 1995, p.15).
Yet the Boeing Model 40 was a historically significant aircraft if not from an
engineering point of view but from the perspective they were the right
aircraft, at the right time and place to play a significant role in the overall
growth of aviation manufacturing and the airline industry. This point has
been repeatedly missed in aviation histories of this era. The Model 40s
were an excellent aircraft to introduce the concept of the air cooled radial
engine to the commercial aircraft market. Boeing Air Transport was able to
make a profit in the first year of operation flying the line with the Model
40A.
49
It is purely left to speculation as to what would have happen to the Boeing

Company if they had not produced the Model 40A and win the San
Francisco-Chicago portion of the Transcontinental Line. But without the
Model 40s the Boeing Airplane Company at the time would not have been
in a leadership role with Pratt & Whitney in forming the United Aircraft and
Transport Corporation. As Museum of Flight exhibit Technician, historian
and docent educator, John Little put it succinctly The Boeing Model 40s
were the most important aircraft Boeing ever designed or built, they
allowed Boeing to survive and put them in the drivers seat when it came to
the agreements of the mergers that formed UATC. As a telling tribute as
to what William E. Boeing thought of the Model 40 venture his son Mr.
William E. Boeing Jr. told the author, The Boeing Model 40 was the only
picture of a Boeing airplane we had hanging anywhere in our house.
Apparently even at the time Mr. William E. Boeing realized the historical
significant of the Model 40 to the Boeing Airplane Company. Perhaps to
him the Model 40 represented the reaching of the goal he had set to
achieve as stated in the articles of incorporation when he first set up the
company, "To engage in the business of aerial navigation by any means
whatsoever, heretofore or hereafter invented or developed, including also
to act as a common carrier of passengers and freight by aerial
navigation..." (Boeing Historical Archives- Articles of incorporation Pacific
Aero Products 1916)
Century Aviation Photo
Fig. 39
Century Aviation Built Boeing Model 40B for The Museum Of Flight
First Public Roll Out Wenatchee, WA. October 6, 2007
50
Pictures of the constructions of The Museum of Flight Model 40B replica

2005-2007
A collection of photographys of the Model 40B Construction

Figure 40
51
Bibliography and References

Conversations
William Boeing Jr., Museum of Flight Trustee
Addison Pemberton, Pemberton and
Reproduction - Will be only one left flying.
Sons
Aviation,
Model
40
Mark Smith,
East Wenatchee Century Aviation, Model 40 Replica
Museum of Flight Model 40B replica and fuselage
Selected Websites
Air Mail Pioneers: www.airmailpioneers.org/
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: http://www.aiaa.org/
National Postal Museum; www.postalmuseum.si.edu
Pratt & Whitney: www.pratt-whitney.com
Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum: http://www.nasm.si.edu/
The Boeing Company: www.boeing.com
Periodicals
American Aviation Historical Society Journal
Volume 49, number 2 summer 2004
Archives
The Boeing Company - Seattle, Washington
The Museum of Flight Seattle, Washington
52
Books
Authors Name
Title
Publisher
Year
Bowers, Peter
Boeing Aircraft since 1916
Naval Institute Press
1989
Bowers, Peter
Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947
Putnam
1979
Brown, Jim
Hubbard The Forgotten Boeing Aviator
Peanut Butter
Publishing
1996
Dvaies, R.E.G.
Airlines of The United States Since 1914
1982
Emme, Eugene M
Ed.
Two Hundred Years of Flight In America
Smithsonian Institution
Press
Revised Edition
American
Astronautically Society
Francillon, Rene' J.
McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920:

Volume I
Naval Institute Press
1979
Hallion, Richard P.
Legacy of Flight: The Guggenheim

Contributions to
American Aviation
University of
Washington Press
1977
Heppenheimer, T.A. Turbulent Skies - The history of

Commercial Aviation
Wiley
1995
Leary, William M.
Aerial Pioneers The U.S. Air Mail Service,

1918-1927
Smithsonian Institution
Press
1985
Pratt & Whitney,

Presented by
United Aircraft & Transport Corporation

First Annual Report to Stockholders
For the Year Ende3d December 31, 1929
Pratt & Whitney (reprint) 1995
Pratt & Whitney
The Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Story
Pratt & Whitney

Commemoration of the
25 year
1950
Smith, Herschel
A History of the Aircraft Piston Engine
Sunflower University
Press
1986
van der Linden,

Robert F.
Airlines & Air Mail: The Post Office and the

Birth of the
Commercial Aviation Industry
The University Press of

Kentucky
2002
Whitford, Ray
Evolution of the Airliner
The Crowood Press
2007
53
1977
MIKE LAVELLE
Museum of Flight
Seattle, Washington
Mike Lavelle has over 46 years of aviation industry experience in aircraft flight
and maintenance operations. Eleven of those years were with the Cessna
Aircraft Company of Wichita Kansas and 24 years with The Boeing Company.
He is now Director of Development with the Museum of Flight in Seattle
Washington.
Mike is a FAA flight and ground instructor, as well as a certified Airframe &
Powerplant Mechanic. His over 7000 hours flying time include several hundred
hours in vintage aircraft.
With a long time interest in aviation history, he has written papers and made
aviation history presentations to air museums, The Imperial War Museum at
Duxford, Branches of the Royal Aeronautical Society in the UK and United
States, as well as, sections of AIAA. He was also a guest on NPR where he
discussed early aviation history on the Science Friday Program.
Mike is a Fellow in the Royal Aeronautical Society and Associate Fellow of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Mike and his wife live in Issaquah, Washington, and have two sons, both former
US Army Rangers now working in industry.
54

Boeing Model 40 Maildelivery Airplane

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Boeing Model 40 Maildelivery Airplane

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The History of the Boeing Model 40

A Contribution to Corporate and Air Line Growth

Boeing Historical Archives

45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit

January 7-10, 2008

The Boeing Company Archives Staff

Introduction and Background

The Contenders for the de Havilland DH-4 Replacement

Establishing the Industry

Bringing the Boeing Model 40A into Production

Where are they now The Boeing Model 40 survivors and

Pictures of the constructions of The Museum of Flight Model

Summary and conclusion.

About the Author

The History of the Boeing Model 40

Kenneth Munson Illustration

Farman F.60 Goliath (1a)

de Havilland D.H. 4A (1b)

York to Washington D.C with Philadelphia as an intermediate stop in May of

Post Office Air Mail Routes 1918-1921

However, this is understandable given the swift route expansions illustrated by

Standard Aircraft Company JR-1B (3a)

All-Metal Junker JL-6 (3b)

3 Glenn Martin Mailplanes

Boeing Historical Archives

aircraft manufactures modernize the DH-4 airframe. For example, Boeing

Other requirements included: crash-proof gasoline tanks conforming to Army

The Liberty 12-cylinder water-cooled engine was America's greatest

Boeing Historical Archives

Liberty 12 In For Maintenance

The Contenders for the de Havilland DH-4 Replacement

Curtiss Carrier Pigeon

Basic Specifications of aircraft evaluated by the Post Office 1925

Curtiss Carrier Piegon

Curtiss Carrier Piegon

Basic Performance Comparison 1925 Mailplanes

Boeings Design Approach

Boeing Historical Archives

Model 40 Profile and Frontal View

Boeing Historical Archives

Model 40 Wood Veneer Covered Fuselage (11a)

Boeing Historical Archives

Veneer Fuselage of Model 40 with Liberty Engine (11b)

Boeing Historical Archives

Profile Model 40 prior to Fuselage Extension (12a)

Boeing Historical Archives

Boeing Historical Archives

Model 40 Fuselage extension

Boeing Historical Archives

Profile Model 40 with Rear Fuselage extension Covered (12c)

Boeing Historical Archives

Area which fuselage cracks appeared on Model 40

Establishing the Industry

First Contract Mail Routes Awarded to Civilian Contract 1926

Boeing Historical Archives

Boeings First Civilian Aircraft Model B-1

Pratt & Whitney 1926 Wasp

Boeing Model 69 (F2B-1) with New Pratt & Whitney Wasp

Boeing Historical Archives

Boeing and Rentschler inspect Wasp

Boeing Historical Archives

Model 40 Redesign with P&W Engine

Pilot & Pax

Boeing Model 40A