NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 (March 1992)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
__X__ New Submission ____ Amended Submission ======A. Name of Multiple Property Listing ======
Historic and Architectural Resources of Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
======B. Associated Historic Contexts ======
NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant: 1942-1989
======C. Form Prepared by ======name/title HHM Inc under contract with Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. David Moore / Project Director; Laurie Gotcher-Pospicil / Historian; Tom Eisenhour / Architect; Jennifer Ross / Architectural Historian street & number 611 South Congress Ave, Ste 300 telephone 512-478-8014 city or town Austin state Texas zip code 78704-1700 ======D. Certification ======As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. (___ See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
______Signature and title of certifying official Date
______State or Federal agency and bureau
I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
______Signature of the Keeper Date USDI/NPS NRHP Multiple Property Documentation Form Page 2 Historic and Architectural Resources of NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
======Table of Contents for Written Narrative ======Page Numbers
E. Statement of Historic Contexts 3 through 68
F. Associated Property Types 69 through 75
G. Geographical Data 76 through 76
H. Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods 77 through 79
I. Major Bibliographical References 80 through 89
======Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 120 hours per response including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.0. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Project (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503. NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 3 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945, 1949-1989
INTRODUCTION
NWIRP Dallas is an aerospace manufacturing complex constructed in 1941 as part of the U.S. World War II Industrial Mobilization Program. Known as Plancor #25, NWIRP Dallas initially consisted of 85 buildings and structures spread out over 153 acres in rural Dallas County, near the city limits of both Dallas and Grand Prairie, Texas. The original project owner, the DPC, was a governmental body assigned to fund and build a variety of industrial facilities across the United States that produced essential military goods for World War II. North American Aviation Inc. leased the government-owned plant from 1941 to August 1945, producing nearly 30,000 aircraft of three different types for the Army, Air Force, and Navy. Following the war, the Department of the Navy gained stewardship of the manufacturing complex and leased it to Chance Vought Aircraft, which manufactured some of the Cold War’s most prolific weapons. NWIRP Dallas has also been leased to other six different tenants over the past six decades, including: Ling TEMCO-Vought (LTV), Northrop Grumman, and Vought Aircraft Industries. Today, the complex consists of 343 resources on 314.66 acres. NWIRP Dallas has a complicated but important history that details the role it played during the Second World War and its significance throughout the Cold War. Its history is not only the story of an aircraft plant but also of the growth of Dallas County and the aircraft industry in North Texas communities.
WORLD WAR II
In the mid-1930s, there were definite signs that the peace established in Europe following World War I was tenuous. The first indication of trouble appeared in 1933 when Germany elected Adolf Hitler as its Chancellor and demanded equality with France and England, instead of disarmament. Germany withdrew from the League of Nations and secretly began to rebuild its military, a clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In an effort to renew its strength and demonstrate its power, Germany turned to every available technological advance in weaponry to ensure that it would never again be subjugated by Britain, France and the West. On 10 March 1935, Germany’s Defense Minister Herman Göring formally announced his country’s military rearmament program, which included all the latest technological developments in ships, tanks, guns, ammunition, and aircraft. Britain likewise began to rearm, and by the end of the year, all the major European powers and Japan had begun remilitarization programs.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 4 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
It was not only Germany’s aggressive acts and rearmament that threatened peace in Europe; it was also the emergence of dictatorships in Italy, Spain, and Japan. All four countries appeared to prefer force, propaganda, and fear to effect political change and gain power. Germany took full advantage of its early military preparedness by participating in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39 and annexing both Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938. The performance of the German military machine, especially the air force, or Luftwaffe, sent a clear message to Great Britain and France that they had underestimated Germany’s strength. The presence and large numbers of the German air force in Spain and Czechoslovakia gave Europeans the perception that the Luftwaffe was much larger than anticipated.
Following the events of 1936–38, Great Britain, France, and other European allies began to rearm at a frantic pace. In order for European nations to achieve military supremacy over Germany, they would need help. France and Great Britain turned to the United States and its mass-production capability as early as 1935 in hopes of achieving military preparedness, but quickly found out that what they needed most—aircraft—was difficult to procure. America had been the leader in aviation since the late 1910s, but its industry had never mass-produced aircraft. For decades, American aircraft companies fabricated each individual plane virtually by hand for a small and elite domestic and foreign market. The number of orders from European nations overwhelmed burgeoning aircraft and engine manufacturers. Fortunately for the aircraft industry and unfortunately for Europe, current American isolationist policy and neutrality laws required belligerent nations to pay cash for military goods. This left the industry a brief period of time to prepare for the production demands of a large-scale world war.
It was only in May 1939 when a loose, but public, diplomatic alliance developed between the dictatorships of Germany, Japan, and Italy that American leaders began to display and share France and England’s concerns for world peace and stability. The combined strength of the Axis coalition, the quick pace of overseas developments, and the defense needs of European allies provoked American leaders to develop a plan of action and turn away from its isolationist stance toward military preparedness. Any plan developed by the United States would have to balance and integrate foreign requirements and domestic needs without sacrificing or straining productive capabilities, resources, materials, facilities, and manpower.
In May 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the first steps toward mobilization when he ordered his Assistant Secretary of War and Assistant Secretary of the Navy to create a War Resources Board to manage the $11 billion defense budget and the newly formed Industrial Mobilization Program. Once planning had begun, the President declared a state of unlimited national emergency in an effort to prepare the American people for the demands of mobilization, which involved an unprecedented level of defense production. The Industrial Mobilization Program called for major changes within the country’s economic and governmental structure and altered the relationship between private enterprise and the government, forcing them to coordinate activities in order to meet common goals (Kane 1995: 29; Vatter 1985: 10; U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: xiii).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 5 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
The Industrial Mobilization Program’s main goals were the nation’s speedy transition from peace to war and back to peace. The program evolved through three major phases. The initial defense period, 1939–41, was characterized as the period when the United States was not actually at war but was compelled to rearm and help its allies, and itself, through weapons production and materials for defense. The second phase occurred from December 1941 until August 1945 and was characterized as the war period. During these years, the entire American economy was directed toward winning the war through the procurement and production of ships, submarines, guns, ammunition, tanks, and aircraft. Finally, the third phase, from August 1945 to December 1947, was characterized as the transition period from World War II to the Cold War (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: xiii, 3).
INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION: THE DEFENSE PERIOD, 1939–41
The President, along with a new managing agency, the Office of Production Management, began implementation of the Industrial Mobilization Program in the summer of 1939, prior to Germany’s invasion of Poland. The first step of the program was the formation of the National Defense Advisory Committee, or NDAC. Legislation allowing for the formation of NDAC can be traced to the Army Appropriation Act of 20 August 1916, in which NDAC assumed the responsibility of coordinating industries and resources for the country’s national security and welfare (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 22). President Roosevelt invoked the law on 29 May 1940 in response to conflicts in Europe and the Far East. The key players of NDAC included the Secretaries of War, Navy Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor, Office of Production Management, and seven at-large members. The President served as head and final arbitrator of NDAC, but he also relied closely on the advice of its permanent and at-large members. The Army Appropriation Act allowed the President to nominate seven civilian members with “special knowledge of some industry, public utility, or the development of some natural resource, or otherwise specially qualified” (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 23). Roosevelt’s selections included industry officials, international dignitaries, economists, and financial experts who managed the entire program.
The President decided that only three members of NDAC needed to serve the Commission on a full-time basis: Danish-born William S. Knudsen, former president of General Motors Corporation (GM), who advised on industrial production; Lithuanian-born Sidney Hillman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, advised on employment; and Edward R. Stettinus, who was associated with the United States Steel Corporation, advised on industrial materials and was former chairman of the War Resources Board. Stettinus also had family connections with two of the biggest and most influential businesses in America—E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc., and J.P. Morgan & Company (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 19, 20). The remaining members of NDAC—the commissioners on prices, farm products, transportation, and consumer interests—served only part-time positions.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 6 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Most of NDAC’s powers were de jure or de facto, and came either directly from the President or through the Office of Production Management. The most significant of NDAC’s powers was the ability of the group to approve or reject any defense-related contracts and procurement requests. On the subject of contract authorization, the President relied heavily on the advice of William S. Knudsen, who had been his ally, friend, and advisor throughout the Great Depression and had developed some of the most innovative and successful New Deal programs. Knudsen came to the President in the summer of 1940 and identified some of NDAC’s challenges. The Commission needed to procure supplies and materials on an enormous scale beyond the capacity of private industry; the rationing of essential goods was not enough to offset the productive deficiencies of American industry. Knudsen asserted that industrial expansion was the nation’s “Problem Number 1” and additional facilities were required in order for America to meet the manufacturing demands of war (White November 1949: 159).
The Creation of the Defense Plant Corporation The Industrial Mobilization Program’s budget was insufficient to cover the costs of building new factories and plants, so President Roosevelt turned to another trusted advisor, Jesse H. Jones, the head of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), for input on how the nation might meet its production needs in the event of war (White 1980: 16). The RFC had been responsible for the funding of much of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs during the Great Depression and was the governmental body that located adequate funding for the federal construction requirements.
Jesse H. Jones, along with Hans Klagsbrunn and Clifford Durr of the RFC’s legal staff, drafted legislation in May 1940 that amounted to an amendment of the existing Reconstruction Finance Act. The amendment asked Congress to grant the RFC the authority to make loans and purchase stock in corporations for the purpose of national defense; to purchase strategic and critical materials; and to authorize the construction, expansion, and equipment of industrial plants (White 1980: 16). Congress approved the legislation, and on 25 June 1940, the President signed Klagsbrunn and Durr’s amendment. This explicitly authorized the RFC to lend money and form new companies in order to finance a $9 billion facility expansion program (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 77, 78; White 1980: 18).
The RFC first established a Site Location Board to work with the Office of Production Management’s Plant Site Board in recommending general criteria for the location of defense plants. Factors to be considered were availability of raw materials: transportation, supply, and destination of the product; housing, power and utilities, abundance of labor, and sewage. The Board made a conscious effort to avoid highly congested, metropolitan areas with established industrial centers, and instead select rural, underdeveloped locations (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 162; Smith 1959: 450). Both boards agreed that the majority of all the sites selected should be located deep within the interior portions of the United States and away from either the east or west coasts, considering their already high concentration of industry and vulnerability to attack. NDAC’s
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 7 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
preferred zone was “between the Appalachians and the Rockies” (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 79). Dispersal of the new defense industries was a favored policy of the Industrial Mobilization Program, because the War Department genuinely feared that the Axis Powers might sabotage or attack American industrial facilities. The more scattered the defense plants, the less likely they were to be damaged or destroyed by such aggressive acts. By 30 June 1940, both the Site and Plant Location boards had acquired 2,116,862 acres of land on behalf of the War Department.
The second issue that the RFC dealt with during the summer of 1940 involved project financing. Klagsbrunn and Durr envisioned four potential sources of funding when they formulated the amendment to the Reconstruction Finance Act: 1) private financing with the aid of tax amortization; 2) government reimbursement of private capital outlays (EPF); 3) government ownership with the option of private purchasing; and 4) outright government ownership (Smith 1959: 440). The most attractive type of financing was the third type offered in Durr and Klagsbrunn’s legislation, in which the U.S. government would fund, construct, and then own a factory that would be leased and operated by a private contractor under a management-fee agreement (Jones & Angly 1951: 341). The RFC had independent borrowing authority and did not rely on Congress for its funds (White November 1949: 160). Private banking institutions preferred loaning the millions, and ultimately billions, of dollars to the federal government rather than to private enterprises. The RFC presented this third type of contract and financing to several well-established companies, including the Packard Motor Company, Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane & Motor Company, General Motors, and Ford in 1940. With only minimal modifications and negotiation, all parties agreed to RFC financing agreements and entered into contracts to build manufacturing plants.
Government financing ultimately proved the most successful method to execute the facilities construction program. Once a few initial deals were in place and ready for financing, the RFC and the President implemented Section 5d of the revised Reconstruction Finance Act and established the DPC to be responsible for brokering deals between the RFC, banks, and private enterprise in order to construct and operate new industrial facilities. On 22 August 1940, the RFC organized the DPC as the instrument by which the majority of World War II factories and plants would be financed, constructed, and operated, including NWIRP Dallas (White 1980: 18).
DPC Begins Operations The DPC was established purely as an interim program that derived all its authority, power, board, personnel, office spaces, supplies, and money from its parent organization, the RFC. Because the DPC was created to perform an emergency job, it was given great flexibility to fulfill the erratic construction and procurement demands of the Industrial Mobilization Program (White 1980: 50; White November 1949: 158).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 8 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
The DPC’s intent was to offer financing to promote each lessee’s maximum freedom during the construction, equipping and operation of its DPC-funded facility. So long as the lessee met its production requirements, the company paid only $1 a month in rent.
The actual selection and financing process was not rigid. The Office of Production Management, War Department, Navy, Maritime Commission, and other governmental agencies presented to the DPC with preferred location, type of facility needed, operator, and the type of product to be manufactured. The nominating agency provided the DPC with several types of qualifying documentation. The first was a certificate of necessity that declared the facilities of “emergency” status and necessary to the national defense. The second was a certificate of government protection, which guaranteed that the contractor would be reimbursed by the government for all or part of the cost; this protected the government from contractors seeking additional and unwarranted payments in addition to the decided-upon cost. The last requirement for DPC financing was a certificate of non-reimbursement, which required the lessee to pay the cost of supply in excess of the decided- upon expenditures (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 27).
By the end of 1940, DPC contracts totaled $250 million and were largely the result of word-of-mouth advertising within the business community. The types of industries selected for this program varied, from manufacturers of ammunition and weaponry to those of tanks, clothing, food, ships, and aircraft. Private industry was overwhelmingly pleased with the speed and terms of the DPC-style contract and enthusiastically promoted Industrial Mobilization Program activities. Companies did not approach the DPC or the RFC for expansion and supply contracts because it was the nominating federal agency, not the DPC/RFC that determined which companies received specific jobs. It was probably no coincidence that each of the companies selected for financing had representatives or contacts within NDAC, the Office of Production Management, or the RFC/DPC, and was generally considered by the nominating agencies as manufacturing the best possible products. The list of DPC-financed industries reads like a “Who’s-Who” of American business: Chrysler, GM, Ford Motor, Studebaker, Wright Aeronautical and Curtiss-Wright Aircraft, Dow, Packard Motor, DuPont, and North American Aviation. “Of the more than $11 billion in contracts awarded by the [Armed] Services during the months from June to December 1940, 60% went to 20 firms and 86.4% to only 100 companies” (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 63).
The single most heavily DPC-funded area was the aircraft industry, which included contracts for the construction of new facilities, equipment, and machinery for the manufacture and production of thousands of aircraft. The aeronautical-facilities program contained a higher percentage of DPC contracts than any other program because it was among the most critical elements to mobilization and subsequent war effort. Moreover, the aircraft industry was least capable of meeting production goals, especially considering its position in September 1939, just months after the Industrial Mobilization Program began. The U.S. Air Corps, the forerunner to the Air Force, had only 2,400 combat aircraft of all types available for service, and most were obsolete. as compared with the German Luftwaffe, which U.S. intelligence knew to be 8,000-planes strong
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 9 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
(Eltscher & Young 1998: 86). The successful Nazi drives across Europe stemmed, in large part, from Germany’s vastly superior aircraft. During this prewar period, the United States had only three manufacturers of high-powered aircraft and engines and only 13 significant plants, comprising 7,335,000 square feet of floor space and employing 45,000 workers (White 1980: 19; U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 80).
In May 1940, President Roosevelt gave his famous “50,000 Planes” speech, in which he announced $900 million in appropriations to transform the armed forces into a two-ocean Navy with 50,000 of the newest and most advanced aircraft. T. P. Wright, Vice President of the Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane & Motor Company and NDAC aircraft advisor, informed the commission that it would take nearly five years to reach the President’s goal and would require a 400% expansion of the existing aircraft industry (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 40). Compounding the pressure to produce 50,000 planes, the President modified the order only days later for the manufacture of an additional 12,896 ‘follow-on’ aircraft to cover the need for heavy bombers (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 126). As of December 1940, NDAC finalized plans on an 82,890-plane program to be completed by June 1943. To achieve President Roosevelt and NDAC’s goals, manufacturers would have to mass-produce planes at an unprecedented scale.
North American Aviation and its Expansion into Texas When industrial mobilization and the aircraft-manufacturing boom began in early 1940, North American Aviation was a relative newcomer to the industry, having actively produced aircraft for only six years. At the time, the company was inundated with more orders than its Inglewood, California factories could meet, and the company needed to expand its facilities. Fortunately, North American was in a good financial position and able to fund the construction of new factory spaces. North American President Dutch Kindelberger heard about a pending agreement between Consolidated Aircraft and the City of Dallas, Texas, for the construction of an aircraft manufacturing plant on land adjacent to the Hensley Army Reserve Airfield. In early 1940, a failed merger between Consolidated and Hall Aluminum caused the company to renege on its deal with the City of Dallas. Kindelberger consulted Consolidated and received permission to assume Consolidated’s contractual obligations and options to the City of Dallas for the land. North American promised to build a factory in the area if the War Department consented to the company’s use of Hensley Field for the qualification of its aircraft. North American also requested that the City of Dallas extend two runways as a condition of the sale (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94; Barksdale 1958: 3).
North American’s requests to both the City and the War Department were granted, and by August 1940, contracts were signed. On 23 August 1940 The Grand Prairie Texan, a local newspaper, announced North American’s intention to build an aircraft plant in Dallas County. The affordable land prices, moderate climate, diminutive tax burden, abundance of electric power, and availability of labor and transportation influenced the company’s decision to expand into Texas.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 10 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
In addition, the proposed plant site was accessible to two highways and the Texas and Pacific Railroad, a transcontinental system that extended to the company’s West Coast base of operations (Grand Prairie Texan 23 August 1940: 1).
On 28 August 1940, North American officially acquired the city-owned land, approximately 10 miles from downtown Dallas, two miles from Grand Prairie, east of Hensley Field, and north of Mountain Creek Lake. The small plot of land was insufficient for all of North American’s construction needs, so the company hired local realtor Paul Carrington to acquire additional lands (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 2). Carrington purchased 48 parcels of land in two different surveys, the J. W. Kirk and E. Crockett Survey that were adjacent to the Hensley Field site. From August to November 1940, North American finalized the deals aggregating 152.5 acres and purchased from landowners Donnie S. Higgins, A. B. Mason, J. B. Critz, Jon A. Worsham, Dallas Power & Light Company, and the estate of Mrs. Donna Roberts Fitzgerald Crane.
The company hired Allen & Kelley Architects of Indianapolis, Indiana, to design its factory spaces for the new Dallas plant. The January 1948 issue of Progressive Architecture profiled Allen & Kelley Architects’ plans on a General Motors factory in Grand Rapids, Michigan, because of its integration of design with equipment. Other than the Progressive Architecture feature article, little is known about Allen & Kelley Architects except that the firm designed for North American Aviation in Texas from 1940–42. Not much is known about this firm except that they apparently designed other aircraft and industrial plants following World War II.
Ernest R. Breech, the chairman of the board for North American Aviation Inc., turned the first shovel of earth at the groundbreaking ceremony on 28 September 1940. The dedicatory ceremony was held in a barren pasture northwest of Mountain Creek Lake, and many local leaders in politics, aviation, and business attended the event, including Dallas Mayor Woodall Rodgers, Dallas banker J. B. Adoue, Jr., and the President of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce (Barksdale 1958: 4). Breech announced to the crowd that North American intended to transfer only a few workers from its Inglewood, California, operations and hire the majority of its work force from the North Texas area (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94).
At the time of the groundbreaking ceremony, the manufacturing sector was a relatively small component of the local Dallas economy. Only 16,000 of Dallas County’s 398,564 residents made their living from manufacturing jobs, which earned them $15 million annually (The Handbook of Texas, Vol. I. 1952: 459). The majority of work available in Dallas County before World War II was in agriculture, livestock, textiles, women’s accoutrements, and oil and petroleum (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94). North American’s annual payroll of $10 million promised to almost double the number of manufacturing jobs in Dallas County and provide an alternative source of employment in an area that had little experience with the military aircraft industry. The new North American plant was expected to affect the small, rural town of Grand Prairie beyond merely increasing its employment base. The town anticipated its population of 2,000 to double and thereby strain available housing. Local real estate experts predicted a need for 1,000 additional homes. The City of Grand
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 11 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Prairie doubled its police, fire, schools, water, sewage and power capabilities even before construction officially began (Price 7 July 1940: np).
The DPC Expands into North Texas North American and Consolidated were not the only aircraft companies interested in Texas during this period; the DPC Site Location Board targeted Texas as one of the top states for industrial mobilization. Texas ultimately ranked fourth among DPC-financed states in the country. The U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) nominated North American and its products for DPC funding in early 1940. The Dallas County factory expansion appealed to the USAAF and the DPC for many reasons, the most important of which was the plant’s proximity to a proposed USAAF base east of Hensley Field.
Construction on the USAAF base in Dallas began in October 1940. It was soon placed under Navy stewardship and renamed NAS Dallas because the USAAF already had a base in Fort Worth—Carswell Army Air Force Base. NAS Dallas was one of 80 air stations constructed under the authority of the Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks during World War II. The Bureau’s assignment in this period was to build a system of interconnected air bases capable of supporting 27,500 airplanes and 200 seaplanes. The Navy assigned the new NAS base a variety of duties and responsibilities, but their primary mission was to keep aircraft operational and combat- ready. All maintenance, from major to minor work, was performed at these bases (Building the Navy’s Bases 1947: 227). Other missions included qualifying and training new recruits and testing aircraft manufactured for use in the war.
When NAS Dallas was commissioned, it had two primary missions: the first was the training of naval aviation cadets and enlisted personnel from the Marine Corps and Coast Guard on the newest and most up-to-date aircraft. This function supported NAS Corpus Christi, the second largest aviation-training base in the nation. NAS Dallas’s second principal mission was to provide mechanical support, repair, and maintenance of both new and used aircraft engines manufactured at plants around the nation. In support of this effort, enlisted personnel at NAS Dallas tested and qualified light aircraft manufactured by DPC Plancors in and around Texas (NAS Dallas Historical Record nd: 1).
The DPC found that aircraft manufacturing plants and military bases could work in cooperation with one another to make the Industrial Mobilization Program work more efficiently. As a result, the placement of Plancors close to military bases became a general trend within the program. Examples occurred in St. Louis, Missouri; San Diego, California; Columbus, Ohio; Seattle, Washington; Wichita, Kansas; Buffalo, New York; Memphis, Tennessee; Stratford, Connecticut; Fort Worth, Texas, and at many other locations.
Normally, the DPC did not contract with a company after construction and planning activities had begun, as it did with the North American plant in Dallas County. Standard operating procedures for financing called for a
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 12 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
sponsoring agency to nominate a prospective company and the DPC approached the company with a deal. The DPC agreement with Curtiss-Wright Aircraft Corporation for a plant in Hamilton County, Ohio, just outside of Columbus and Cincinnati, illustrates the program’s usual process. In June 1940, the DPC approached Curtiss- Wright officials with a $37 million construction deal for the company to manufacture aircraft motors on 200 acres in rural Ohio (White 1980: 20–22). The offer also included $20 million in additional funds for working capital, equipment, and machines. Initially, Curtiss-Wright did not agree to the terms, but after routine negotiations, the company consented and the plan was formalized on 7 August 1940 (White 1980: 20–22).
The Curtiss-Wright Ohio deal represented the majority of arrangements made by the DPC with industrial corporations; however, considering the need for rapid industrial mobilization, the DPC was willing to change its normal methods and processes for financing, planning, and construction to meet production and procurement goals. Factors that interested the DPC in the North American/Dallas County agreement centered on the plant’s proximity to NAS Dallas, NAS Corpus Christi, and the company’s sponsorship by the War Department.
The DPC suspended its normal procedures because the War Department wanted the Dallas County/NAA factory expansion included in the Plancor construction program and part of the Industrial Mobilization Program. The DPC sent Supervising Engineer Frank Shaw, to North American Aviation’s corporate headquarters in Inglewood to discuss the DPC’s taking over the construction, operation, and ownership of the factory space. On 4 November 1940, Shaw offered North American the basic DPC financing package in which the DPC would reimburse the company for its total investment, take over any outstanding loans, continue construction of the Dallas County plant as DPC-owned Plancor #25, and lease it to North American for $1 a month. North American and the DPC negotiated for two days and, on 6 November 1940, they signed a contract and lease for the construction of a plant, support structures, and the acquisition of equipment and machinery worth $7.9 million dollars (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94; Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 2, 3).
Even though North American signed away ownership of Plancor #25, the company retained considerable rights regarding the construction of the plant as lessee. First, the company worked with the DPC, the architects, and engineers on the design and plant layout. North American insisted that the floor plan be simple but innovative to maximize speed of production. Second, North American wanted the DPC to honor its existing contracts with Allen & Kelley Architects and James Stewart & Company to design, supervise construction, and provide engineering services. The DPC agreed to this request, with the stipulation that the architects and engineers comply with Industrial Mobilization rationing rules and War Department design criteria.
In 1940, the War Resources Board began a rationing program for items critical to the national defense and the Industrial Mobilization Program. War Resources Board restrictions on steel greatly affected the Industrial Mobilization Program’s national building program and required architects to use alternative materials, such as concrete and wood, in the construction of noncritical buildings (Kane 1995: 85–6).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 13 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Due to rationing, the DPC replaced the Mosher Steel Company of Dallas as the steel contractor for Plancor #25 in an effort to directly control the amount of steel used during the construction of the plant (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 3).
The DPC created a set of construction designations according to the War Resources Board restrictions that guided architects and engineers in the design and construction of DPC-financed factories. Assigned building designations indicated a facility’s overall level of importance within the operations of the complex and the Industrial Mobilization Program. Type “A” buildings were considered critical to the manufacture of war-related products and thus were fireproof and constructed with steel and concrete. Types “B,” “C,” and “D” buildings were made of concrete and wood, and Type “E” designations indicated construction materials of concrete and brick. Each major and minor building at Plancor #25 was assigned a DPC-construction designation (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 10).
On 16 September 1940, the Assistant Secretary of War, Robert P. Patterson, forwarded a naval operations memo to the executives at North American Aviation requesting that they comply with certain design criteria for aircraft manufacturing plants. Following the company’s contract with the DPC, the request turned into a requirement. Allen & Kelley Architects were forced to adhere to DPC specifications and design Plancor #25 as a “blackout” style plant. This type of design provided a measure of protection against enemy air attack or sabotage. The War Department developed a set of blackout criteria for architects and engineers. The first blackout standard addressed general plant location and the preference for inland rather than coastal states, and rural over urban areas. Second, the War Department favored dispersal of buildings instead of a closely packed factory space. They recommended a distance between buildings of 100 yards. The War Department justified this second criterion by postulating that if a bomb were dropped, the destruction of one or two facilities would not disrupt the production of the entire plant (R.E. Ingersoll to Chief of Naval Operations 16 September 1940: 1). The third blackout provision included installation of opaque shutters or mechanical curtains in all windows, skylights, doors, and other places where interior light might escape. Fluorescent, incandescent, and mercury vapor lights were installed and pointed downward in an effort to help reduce the amount of interior light emanating from the buildings. This provision also included completely sealing all entryways (R.E. Ingersoll to Chief of Naval Operations 16 September 1940: 1–2). As an additional measure against destruction under bomb attack, the War Department’s fourth blackout criterion included the design and installation of fire and bomb walls. The final provision of a blackout building incorporated camouflage techniques to prevent a possible bomber or saboteur from discovering the plant. Concealment included landscaping, painting the buildings to match the terrain, and disguising the roofs of factories by painting designs such as farms, golf courses, or residential neighborhoods (R. E. Ingersoll to Chief of Naval Operations 16 September 1940: 2, 4). At Plancor #25, the roofs were disguised as a golf course (Hanley 1986: 46).
Once Allen & Kelley Architects considered the requirements of both the owner and the lessee, they designed the first blackout-style, DPC-financed, windowless, fully air-conditioned, and artificially lighted factory space
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 14 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
in the United States (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 95; Barksdale 1958: 5). Known as Facility 1, the factory featured an open and simplistic arrangement that emphasized speed of production. Its spacious internal layout facilitated the quick movement of basic materials from storage to production to shipping and receiving departments (Barksdale 1958: 5). The main manufacturing area consisted of 900,000 square feet and was designed to accommodate the production of 325 AT-6 “Texan” trainers and 250 P-51 “Mustang” combat fighters per month (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 65).
Construction and Operations Begin at Plancor #25 The DPC and North American hired several prime contractors and subcontractors from different parts of the nation to provide a variety of services in the construction of Plancor #25. J. Gordon Turnball, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, was an important addition to this plant’s construction team as consulting engineer. At the time, the consulting company provided numerous architectural and engineering services to the DPC building program for Curtiss-Wright factories in St. Louis and Buffalo. In addition to these plants, J. Gordon Turnball designed and constructed facilities for General Motors and several other engine manufacturing facilities, including the Guiberson Diesel Engine Company of Texas and Continental Motors Corporation (Plancor #1504), both in nearby Garland, that supplied North American with aircraft engines during World War II (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 66). James Stewart & Company served as prime contractor to the plant’s construction and signed a contract for $1,705,000. They supervised the general construction of the entire plant, with J. Gordon Turnball working as a subcontractor (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 2).
Beginning 13 November 1940, James Stewart & Company stripped, graded, and cleared the former cotton and pasturelands into the site for Plancor #25. The Texas & Pacific Railroad began construction on a team track and spur along the south side wall of Facility 1 and placed an additional, but temporary, spur on the building’s east side (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 2). Only a few days later, rain began to fall intermittently, but they continued over a 100-day period, culminating in 14 inches of rainfall (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 3). The president of North American, Dutch Kindelberger, recalled the conditions: “On 2 December 1940, when the first steel was erected, it was a morass of black mud. It rained so frequently that the construction crews almost had to take soundings to see just where their trucks had disappeared” (Barksdale 1958: 6). Despite the rough weather, James Stewart & Company completed significant construction activities at the site. Plumbing, electrical lines, heating, ventilation, and fire protection systems were installed by a variety of subcontractors in November and December 1940. By 29 January 1941, James Stewart & Company had finished the steel framework and trusses for the Facility 1 manufacturing building and its seven ancillary Type “A” facilities (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 3).
In only three months, enough construction was completed at Plancor #25 that North American was able to unload and store machine tools and also install pieces of permanent equipment in Facility 1 and other production spaces, such as Facility 22, the Drop Hammer Building, and Facility 23, the Foundry. During the
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 15 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
period from January to March 1941, numerous contractors and subcontractors worked quickly to construct the Facility 1 manufacturing factory and its 12 support structures. On 8 March 1941, before James Stewart & Company completed construction, North American began manufacturing activities on the AT-6 Texan training aircraft in Facility 1. It was vital to the DPC that production operations at Plancor #25—especially on the Texan—begin as soon as possible so that aviators across the country, particularly at NAS Dallas and NAS Corpus Christi, could prepare and train on the type of aircraft most likely to be flown by the USAAF and the Navy. The first full-production Texan rolled off Facility 1’s manufacturing line on 29 March 1941. North American pronounced the Texan ready for flight testing and towed it to Facility 20, the Hangar. The following day, North American towed it to Hensley Field, where it took its maiden flight (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4).
James Stewart & Company completed construction on the Facility 1 manufacturing building in April 1941. Some of Facility 1’s ancillary buildings included an office building (Facility 2), a power generating plant (Facility 26), a million-gallon water reservoir (Facility 35), a sewage treatment plant (Facility 34), air- conditioning cooling towers, paint storage facilities (Facility 24), the Foundry (Facility 23), the Drop Hammer Building (Facility 22), and a hangar and aircraft storage (Facility 20) (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 95). North American and the DPC celebrated the beginning of production at Plancor #25 by hosting a dedicatory ceremony for 400 distinguished guests of North American, NAS Dallas, the DPC, Industrial Mobilization Program’s Advisory Committee, and local Dallas County leaders on 7 April 1941. Attendees included Assistant Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, William S. Knudsen, J. Buell Snyder, Colonel I. H. Edwards, Ernest R. Breech, and DPC Chief of Council Hans Klagsbrunn (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4). In a luncheon speech given on Facility 1’s assembly line, Robert P. Patterson reflected: “The super-human job you Texans have accomplished in erecting this great monument to defense is an example for the entire nation. There is new reason to believe that the American aircraft industry can do the unbelievable job expected of it” (Hanley 1986: 46).
The onset of production at Plancor #25 resulted in economic and industrial growth in Dallas County, as well as a population boom in nearby Grand Prairie. The DPC sought to ease housing shortages by providing lodging for the thousands of workers who poured into the area. The DPC and the Federal Works Administration funded the construction of a defense-housing colony known as “Avion Village,” located southwest (and within walking distance) of Plancor #25. Avion Village consisted of 300 hastily constructed prefabricated homes on concrete slab foundations. According to a contemporary source: “One crew completely erected and furnished a cottage on a waiting foundation in 58 minutes and 50 seconds–and defeated its competitor by only two minutes. More adequate than many defense housing projects, Avion Village included a community center, swimming pool, parks and playgrounds, and a public school” (Barksdale 1958: 5).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 16 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION: THE WAR PERIOD, DECEMBER 1941—AUGUST 1945
As officials celebrated the completion of Plancor #25 in Dallas, events in the Pacific heightened. When Japan overran French-controlled Indo-China in May 1941, the Industrial Mobilization’s aircraft procurement program increased and diversified into the development and production of the long-range, four-engine bomber, a weapon specifically designed to exert pressure in Asia. During this period, American aircraft industry developed three types of bombers: the heavy Consolidated B-24 Liberator, the medium Martin B-26 Marauder, and the heavy North American B-25 Mitchell (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 48).
American aircraft companies already had orders to sustain themselves through 1942, and this increased demand for bombers overwhelmed the industry’s capabilities and its newly constructed facilities. Knudsen urged automotive companies to undertake the challenge of the new bomber production program in government-owned plants and in collaboration with the company that designed the aircraft (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 49). Because North American was a subsidiary of the GM and the designer of the B-25 Mitchell, the DPC turned to GM to produce the bomber at a newly completed factory in Kansas City. The Ford Motor Company owned Consolidated Aircraft and agreed to undertake B-24 Liberator production in two DPC-owned Plancor facilities: Tulsa, Oklahoma and Fort Worth, Texas.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 forced the Industrial Mobilization Program to acknowledge that the production effort offered by the automotive industry was insufficient to meet the demand and urgency for bomber aircraft. The prospect of a full-scale, two-front war made existing procurement, production, and industrial facilities dangerously deficient, and goals were sharply increased. The War Department demanded that the aircraft industry undergo additional facilities expansion to accommodate heavy bomber production and sent nominations to the DPC for the original aircraft designers to expand their factories. Because Consolidated was engaged in B-24 Liberator production in Fort Worth, the DPC believed that North American in nearby Dallas could cooperate on the Liberator production program. North American and the DPC were willing to expand further into Dallas County “because the people of Dallas and Texas have shown a wonderful spirit of cooperation, a genuine desire to do everything necessary to win the war, and a great aptitude for aircraft manufacture” (Dallas Morning News 20 December 1942: np). The DPC assigned North American’s Plancor #25 an expanded production and facility order for 100 B-24 heavy bombers per month in a new manufacturing building called Facility 6 (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4, 65).
It was not uncommon for a DPC-sponsored Plancor to be built in two planned construction phases. Curtiss- Wright’s Plancor #17 in St. Louis was built from 1940–42 whereas its ancillary building, Plancor #17A, was constructed in 1943. However, it is not clear whether a two-phase construction plan was intended for Plancor #25 or whether the second phase was merely a response to wartime demands. It is unlikely that Plancor #25 was intended as a two-phase plant, for several reasons. First, the DPC accommodated North American’s previous
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 17 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
commitments when it assumed stewardship of the Dallas County plant deal, which included existing architectural designs for the planned buildings. Second, the need for bomber aircraft presented itself only when construction at Dallas was nearly complete. The President’s 50,000-plane goal primarily involved building trainer and fighter aircraft to combat Germany and Japan’s known capabilities, which did not include heavy bombers. Finally, Plancor #25 had excess land available for additional construction. It is possible that the War Department incorporated North American in its expanded bomber production program because Plancor #25 had room for additional facilities and was capable of accommodating the manufacturing demands. Nevertheless, it is impossible to confirm whether the 1943 expansion of Plancor #25 was planned prior to the emergency shortages of heavy bombers in 1941.
Expansion at Plancor #25 On 28 February 1943, North American and the DPC amended their lease to provide nearly $34 million in additional funds for the acquisition of surrounding land and the construction of a second, much larger manufacturing building, called Plant “B,” or Facility 6, along with its support structures. The funds also targeted the purchase and installation of machinery and equipment for production of the B-24 Liberator Bomber, as well as additions to existing Plancor #25 facilities, now called Plant “A” buildings (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4). The Plant “B” expansion contract between the DPC and North American was different from the first arrangement because the company had a limited say in the expansion. The DPC assumed complete control for the selection of the architect, engineer, contractor, and subcontractor.
Consistent in Plancor construction nationwide, the DPC preferred to engage architectural-engineering firms to design and supervise their plants, rather than hire separate architects and engineers. In the 1942–44 Plant “B” expansion, the DPC selected J. Gordon Turnball as the architectural engineer instead of Allen & Kelley Architects, who had designed Plant “A.” The architectural engineer’s contractual obligations included surveying the property, drawing the maps, making layouts, preparing estimates, adapting standard plans to the sites, designing unique structures, and supervising the overall construction of the Plancor (Fine & Remington 1972: 193).
The DPC again hired a variety of companies for construction services, some of who worked on Plant “A”. The DPC hired James Stewart & Company to construct and equip Facility 6 and its support buildings (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4–5). Interestingly, DPC hired the Mosher Steel Company of Dallas, which had been fired during the “Plant A” construction because of steel restrictions. The DPC no longer had to provide its own steel as it did in 1941, because the Office of Production Management and the Industrial Mobilization Program took control of steel rationing. Because steel was still in short supply in March 1942, the DPC required the crew for “Plant B” to adhere to its construction designations “A”–“F.”
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 18 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
The Industrial Mobilization Program, NDAC, Office of Production Management, and DPC worked diligently with private industry to establish compliance standards so that they could provide the supply work to construction programs (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 141).
While the DPC hired subcontractors, it also negotiated the purchase of additional lands to support the construction activities for the “Plant B” expansion. DPC purchased four large parcels of land in the P. Linney and R. Huitt surveys from the Estate of Mrs. Donna Roberts Fitzgerald on 25 March 1942, the Estate of Annie I. Stevens two days later, and from W. E. Smallwood et al. on 7 August 1942. As soon as the land was purchased, the DPC ordered construction to begin.
From 22 to 30 March, several significant construction activities took place at Plancor #25. First, the Wallace Plumbing Company laid temporary water lines. Second, the Grand Prairie Construction Company began excavation on a spur of the Texas and Pacific Railroad to provide lines to the “Plant B” Manufacturing Building (Facility 6), the Wood Shop and Garage (Facility 27), and the Warehouse (Facility 25). North American used the Texas and Pacific track to receive engines and parts from suppliers in North Texas, to ship and receive subassemblies from Consolidated in Fort Worth, and to ship assemblies to the company’s plants in Southern California. Finally, James Stewart & Company cleared and graded the land. They also supervised Mosher Steel while it erected “Plant B” and the structural steel columns and trusses for all Type “A” buildings (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 5).
From March 30 until the end of October 1942, the DPC had construction crews working around the clock on the “Plant B” expansion and, by December, North American began partial operation of its new bomber manufacturing plant. The first Dallas-produced B-24 Liberator rolled off the Plant “B” assembly line in March 1943 and was probably flown by North American test pilots from Hensley Field to Carswell Army Air Force Base in Fort Worth, where it was tested and qualified. The USAAF accepted the first B-24 on 16 March 1943 (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 5). Neighboring NAS Dallas did not test and qualify the bomber aircraft produced at Plancor #25, only the light AT-6 Texan trainers and P-51 Mustangs. Carswell was probably assigned the responsibility of testing heavier aircraft. Full-Scale Operational Activities Begin at Plancor #25 From 1942–45, North American’s employees at Plancor #25 worked three 8-hour shifts, 24 hours a day, six days a week. Plancor #25 reportedly became the only aircraft factory in the entire nation to produce all three types of military planes—trainers, fighters, and bombers (Dallas Times Herald 29 December 1942: np). In the first eight months that “Plants A and B” were in joint production, North American produced aircraft worth $473 million at a rate of 18 AT-6 Texans, 16 P-51 Mustangs, and 10 B-24 Bombers a week.
To meet its production demands, North American required a base work force of 17,000 employees, which at times ballooned to 38,000 (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5). The company quickly learned that it needed both new workers to accommodate B-24 production and replacement workers to alleviate
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 19 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
its average 30% turnover rate. Since operations began in 1941, North American officials calculated that they had hired a total of 84,476 men and women and saw their turnover rate fluctuate as high as 100% (Rae 1968: 151; Dallas Morning News 8 October 1944: np). To train all these employees, North American created a War School at 2222 Ross in downtown Dallas, where classes were held 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and accommodated up to 3,000 students at one time (Dallas Morning News 7 January 1943: np). By the time the War School closed in 1944, workers logged 6,703,897 hours of instruction in over 40 different subjects, equivalent to the amount of instruction and class size of Southern Methodist University (Dallas Morning News 8 October 1944: np).
Despite constant advertising in local newspapers, North American had difficulty recruiting men to work in its Plancor #25 factories. The company resorted to hiring handicapped and older men, 16 to 17-year-old boys, and professional men exempt from the draft. As early as November 1941, the shortage of available working men forced North American to recruit women into its work force. A year later, women constituted 30% of its total production force (Rae 1968: 151). Of the 6,300 employees of the “Plant A” manufacturing building in September 1943, 60% were Dallas-area women and new recruits to the industrial work force, 4,000 of whom were housewives prior to their employment at North American’s Plancor #25 (Dallas Morning News 11 September 1943). In general, women came to work in the aircraft industry “out of a patriotic desire to assist in the war effort and to augment the family income. They did not go to work with the idea of permanently displacing men in traditionally male-dominated jobs, nor did they regard their new positions as permanent feminist beachheads in the workplace” (Trimble 1990: 213).
In an effort to create loyalty among its employees, boost morale, and reduce the employee turnover and absentee rates, North American, like many other companies, sponsored recreational programs such as sports teams and tournaments, dances, beauty pageants, choirs, picnics, and local amusement parks outings for its workers. Sports teams were divided according to gender and production areas and included popular games such as basketball, fishing, soccer, softball, baseball, football, golf, tennis, and bowling. Results of tournaments and recreational events were reported in the company magazine, North American Skyline, and its corporate newspaper, the North American Skywriter. Like many other industrial WWII publications, North American’s magazine and newspaper were cheerful and well illustrated, and included features on major production programs at the Plancor, outstanding individuals, the history of the factory, gossip, and information on friends and former employees currently serving the military (Trimble 1990: 216).
North American’s steps to appease workers and overcome its labor problems appear to have greatly influenced its employees’ production efforts during the war. The company contributed to America’s “Arsenal of Democracy” by producing nearly 15,000 AT-6/SNJ Texans, 8,000 P-51 Mustang fighters, and more than 500 B-24 bomber aircraft. North American employees produced one of these three aircraft every 40 minutes (Dallas Morning News 4 June 1944: np). It has been reported that more planes were built at North American’s Dallas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 20 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
plant than anywhere else in the country—over 20,000 flyaway units and enough equipment and spare parts to total 25,000 additional aircraft (Barksdale 1958: 7).
Each of the three types of aircraft produced at Plancor #25 fulfilled different functions for the U.S. and its allies. The USAAF and Navy used the AT-6/SNJ Texan to train and prepare recruits for the newer, high-performance combat fighters and bombers. The Texan proved to be a universal trainer, capable of simulating the performance of both fighters and bombers (Yenne 1989: 24). This characteristic made the aircraft both cost effective and an excellent preparatory training device for the variety of planes that new recruits might fly in combat. North American produced nearly 17,000 Texans, with Plancor #25 contributing 15,000 of this total (Donald 1997: 705). North American engineers and employees at Plancor #25 constructed 2,970 Texans from plywood and balsa wood to conserve aluminum for its combat aircraft, the P-51 Mustang (Yenne 1989: 26). All North American Texans were qualified and tested to some degree by NAS Dallas pilots, whose procedures were probably abbreviated because of wartime constraints and the desperate need for the aircraft in training exercises. In all, NAS Dallas personnel directly flew and cleared 4,421 Texans at Hensley Field before they were shipped to the fleet (NAS Dallas Historical Record nd:1).
North American also enjoyed great success with its P-51 Mustang. In 1940, the British approached North American about producing the Curtiss-Wright-designed P-40, but Dallas executive Dutch Kindelberger felt that the P-40 was inadequate against the speed, capabilities, and range of Nazi interceptors. Kindelberger offered to design and build a superior combat fighter for the British instead of the P-40, even though the company had never designed or built a fighter in its history. Procurement officials from Great Britain liked Kindelberger’s idea and ordered the proposed P-51 Mustang sight unseen. North American engineers designed and manufactured the new fighter in an unprecedented 100 days at its Inglewood, California plant (Empires of Industry 29 June 1999). The P-51’s revolutionary innovations included thin, stream lined wings, a 2,000-pound bomb load, a jet-like radiator system, and a Rolls Royce engine that allowed the plane to regularly reach the top speed of 443 miles per hour. The P-51’s long-range capability, bomb load, and speed were its greatest assets. The Mustang’s reserve tanks allowed it to travel over 2,000 miles before refueling. The fighter’s speed and range are the key reasons the aircraft is regarded as one of the most important fighters of World War II (Empires of Industry 29 June 1999; Donald 1997: 702). The performance of the P-51 prototype caused its demand to skyrocket. North American’s expanded facilities in Inglewood, Kansas, and Dallas were assigned the challenge of mass-producing the fighter. Plancor #25 produced nearly 8,000 P-51 Mustangs at a rate of 16 per week during the war (Yenne 1989: 57).
The P-51 fought in both the European and Pacific theaters. Over German skies, long-range Mustang fighters escorted bombers in and out of Berlin and overwhelmed the Luftwaffe by destroying nearly half of the fleet and blasting its bases (Yenne 1989: 57). The P-51 had tremendous dive-bombing and escort capabilities; this enabled the USAAF and Navy to make daring daylight raids into the heart of Germany that slowly eroded Nazi resistance (Empires of Industry 29 June 1999). Chuck Yeager, one of America’s greatest pilots, flew a P-51
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 21 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
over the skies in Europe and described it as “the best American fighter in the war, equal to anything the Germans put up against her” (Yenne 1989: 54). Over the Pacific, the Mustang stormed into Iwo Jima and was vital to the capture of that base, which the Americans later used to launch an invasion into the Japanese homeland. At the conclusion of fighting in both theaters, more Mustangs survived than any other fighter, with 3,303 retained in service (Yenne 1989 48, 57).
Plancor #25 won the prestigious “E” Pennant by the Army Air Force Flying Training Command on 21 September 1942, for outstanding production efforts on its Texan trainer and Mustang fighter aircraft (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4). The plant’s employees received the award for the production of a record 728 aircraft in a single 30-day period (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 95; Barksdale 1958: 7). The “E” Pennant was the highest honor the United States bestowed on its “civilian production soldiers” and the first awarded in the state of Texas (Hanley 1986: 47). A second “E” Pennant flew at Plancor #25 in April 1943, when the Army–Navy presented the employees with the award for the company’s continued production excellence (Dallas Morning News 7 April 1943: np).
The B-24 Liberator bomber proved to be the United States’ most extensively produced aircraft during World War II, with 19,000 total aircraft built by Consolidated in Fort Worth, North American in Dallas, and Ford at Tulsa (Donald 1997: 266–67). Plancor #25 contributed only a small percentage of the overall figure for the B- 24, producing the Liberator bomber for only 19 months. Faster than the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, the Liberator’s speed, range (3,000 miles), and availability made it popular with the U.S. military and its allies. Like the Mustang, the Liberator was used in both Europe and Japan during World War II. Often escorted by the P-51, the B-24 flew deep into Germany to drop its bomb load across Nazi territories (Empires of Industry 29 June 1999). The B-24, like many other bomber aircraft, was capable of flying in high altitudes over the Himalayan Mountains after the Japanese closed the Burma Road in 1942. Later in the war, the B-24 was used exclusively to ferry aviation fuel over the Himalayans to support the operational activities of the Boeing B-29 Superfortresses in China.
Plancor #25 Operations Are Reduced By summer 1944, the Allied Forces had taken the upper hand in both Europe and the Pacific. The United States’ superior manufacturing ability, together with the quality and quantity of its military personnel, proved to be the deciding factors in victory over the Axis Powers. (Eltscher & Young 1998: 95, 123). From 1940–44, American factories clearly out-produced both its allies and the enemy with aircraft amounting to 27% of the total munitions output, peaking at $16 billion. DPC-owned plants in the Midwest, like Plancor #25 in Dallas, produced over 35% of all aircraft, airframes, and engines used in the war (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 49–50).
The American aircraft industry anticipated the war’s end with a combination of apprehension and optimism because the cessation of fighting meant significant cutbacks in military contracts. Dallas’s North American
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 22 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
plant was not immune to this dilemma. Production contracts at Plancor #25 were cut back on 10 August 1944, and 3,687 employees lost their jobs when the original B-24 Liberator contract was reduced (Dallas Morning News 17 August 1944: np). A supplemental order for production of the B-29 Superfortress and nose portion of the B-25 Mitchell Bomber saved many Plancor #25 employees from dismissal, but the reprieve was only temporary (Dallas Times Herald 28 September 1944: np). Full production on the Texan and Mustang continued through January 1945, when it was reduced to approximately 60% of the earlier wartime production rates (Dallas Morning News 17 August 1944: np).
During this reduction period, the Dallas and Grand Prairie Chambers of Commerce assessed the contributions of the DPC and North American in Dallas County. In just the first eight months of 1944, North American’s total military sales topped $235,939,610.00, compared with $155,945,064.00 for all other manufactured products in Dallas County during the entire year. Grand Prairie’s population was only 2,000 when the company first came to Dallas County, but it mushroomed to 16,339 persons, largely due to the construction of Plancor #25 and NAS Dallas (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 66). At its peak, North American paid a monthly payroll of $10,442,889.00, compared with $15,522,683.00 for other businesses and industries in Dallas County during the same year (Dallas Morning News 8 August 1944). From these figures, North American clearly stimulated significant growth within Dallas county from 1941–44. Any employment reductions at Plancor #25 would have greatly affected the county’s economic growth and stability.
On V-J Day, as the world celebrated the Allied victory, North American Aviation, like many employers nationwide, gave its 29,000 employees at Plancor #25 a holiday (Barksdale 1958: 7; Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 66). During the break, company officials decided to close their Dallas factory in order to remain in the aircraft manufacturing business. North American announced on Dallas radio stations and in local newspapers its decision to immediately shut down the Dallas factory on account of contract cancellations. Half of the employees were told not to return to Plancor #25 following the holiday, while the other half —approximately 17,000—were allowed to return for 15 days to prepare the plant for closure and return it to the U.S. government (Hanley 1986: 50; Bilstein & Miller 1985: 137).
INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION: THE TRANSITION PERIOD, AUGUST 1945–DECEMBER 1947
Defense Plant Corporation Closes Shop In the summer of 1945, it became apparent to the Industrial Mobilization Program that the war was coming to an end. America no longer needed to fund an expansion of its industrial facilities and the DPC was officially folded back into the RFC and renamed the Office of Defense Plants, on 30 June. This action signaled the end of the DPC’s wartime work and the creation of the Office of Defense Plants’ to administer the former industrial facilities (White 1980: 89). The Office of Defense Plants recommended to the War Department that the military
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 23 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
branches retain facilities considered critical to the manufacture of military supplies, with the remainder sold to private enterprise. On 28 July 1945 the Department of the Navy and War Department gave their consent to the disposal of excess DPC-sponsored property and, on 20 August 1945, the War Productions Board released 146 properties, including Plancor #25 (White 1980: 101).
The DPC had financed 2,098 plants in 46 different states totaling $7,939,465,000.00 during World War II. Of that number, the DPC owned 920 plants valued at $6,055,000,000.00, most of which were projects nominated by the armed forces (Jones & Angly 1951). The DPC, the Industrial Mobilization Program, the War Department, and Congress considered these properties valuable not only in war but also in peacetime, because the factories would help the nation retain its military superiority. As of July 1944, the Senate War Committee and the Truman Committee urged the DPC and War Department to retain ownership of the plants and place them on standby status in the event of a future conflict or emergency (White 1980: 111).
The DPC responded to Congress and the War Department’s requests by sending its best engineers to all of its wholly owned plants and conducted surveys to determine the best postwar uses for each factory and contractor. Guided by a set of 20 questions, the engineers recorded on each Plancor’s physical and economic characteristics, contractor’s intentions following the war, importance to the Industrial Mobilization Program, and, if it was a large plant, prospects for multiple tenancy. The engineer assessed 879 plants and plant sites that the DPC and the War Department considered critical to maintaining the country’s military prowess. The assessments were compiled in a bound report called the Briefalogue, which was first published in October 1944 (White 1980: 100).
Facility retention or disposal depended greatly on the updated Briefalogue report, ordered by the Office of Defense Plants and published in August 1945. The new volume reported that the government owned 96% of the nation’s synthetic rubber capacity, 90% of its magnesium metal, 58% of its aluminum, 50% of its aluminum fabrication facilities, 71% of its aircraft and aircraft engine industry, and the bulk of the nation’s machine tools (White 1980: 90; Jones & Angly 1951: 316). The 1945 Briefalogue also showed that the aircraft industry was the single most financed industry of World War II and represented half of all of all DPC investment— approximately $3.8 billion (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 50). DPC invested $2.6 billion directly in land, buildings, machines, and other equipment to build aircraft, airframes, and its parts (Jones & Angly 1951: 316). Of this number, the DPC disbursed $1.357 billion for airplane engine plants alone, yielding 14 of the 15 largest airplane plants in the nation (White 1980: 68). The DPC infused the remaining billion into aviation as capital.
The USAAF and the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics sponsored 82% of all aircraft facilities constructed for World War II, and in the waning days of the war, the aircraft manufacturing industry lost more than $21 billion in contracts, primarily from their sponsoring agencies (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 50; Eltscher & Young 1998: 127). As a result of the mass contract cancellation, the number of aircraft manufacturing companies was reduced from 66 to 16, as total sales, earning, and employment levels plummeted (Eltscher & Young 1998:
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 24 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
127). Consequently, the USAAF and Navy were left with many empty aircraft factories following the war, including Plancor #25 in Dallas County. Because it no longer actively produced aircraft for the USAAF, on 28 July 1945, Plancor #25 was added to the list of disposable properties presented to the Office of Defense Plants.
Like many other excess Plancors, the Office of Defense Plants listed the former North American Aviation Dallas County aircraft plant as surplus property and for sale in advertisements across the nation. The Office of Defense Plants advertised Plancor #25 as readily convertible for multiple manufacturing purposes such as commercial airplanes or parts, automobiles and trucks, refrigerators, unit heaters, or products consisting principally of sheet metal and small machined parts (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 65–66).
The two large components (Plant “A” and Plant “B”) were rated ideal for multiple tenancy and capable of operating independently of other suppliers or contractors. Its location, proximity to transportation, and abundant labor pool were also touted as advantages.
The sheer size of Plancor #25—85 buildings on a 272-acre site—worked against its outright sale to a private corporation. The plant’s nearly 3 million square feet of manufacturing space, including facilities, land, machinery, and equipment, was valued at approximately $35 million (Dallas Morning News 24 December 1945: np). In addition, the air-conditioning required to cool the factories’ high and wide bays added to operational costs (White 1980: 105). When no companies appeared to purchase Plancor #25 and many other government-owned aircraft plants, the Office of Defense Plants decided to retain ownership and seek potential tenants rather than buyers. The most important factors behind this decision to retain Plancor #25 were the plants proximity to NAS Dallas, its ability to be converted easily to wartime production, and its capability to produce three different types of aircraft (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 65–67).
Plancor #25 Changes Ownership As the Office of Defense Plants processed the official transfer of Plancor #25 to the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics, it also sought new tenants for the factory (Dallas Morning News 31 October 1945: np). Many potential tenants, such as the Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Company, placed bids with the Office of Defense Plants, but most wanted only partial occupancy or rental on a single building; these conditions did not appeal to either the Office of Defense Plants or the Navy (Notes on Telephone Conversation with Lt. Caufield 18 February 1946: np). While efforts to find a permanent tenant for Plancor #25 continued, the Office of Defense Plants and the Navy began considering an interim lease and deal proposed by former North American Aviation executives. The executives submitted a bid in November 1945 to lease “Plant A” and $800,000 worth of equipment for use in aircraft subcontracting work as well as other, more diversified, commercial products. Their offer provided jobs for a minimum of 3,000 displaced aircraft workers and included rent on at least one factory space until the Navy could locate a more permanent arrangement (Barksdale 1958: 13).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 25 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Executives Robert McCulloch, Dutch Kindelberger, Al Graf, and Bert Howard left North American following the closure of Plancor #25 in August 1945 and formed their own aircraft-subcontracting firm, TEMCO. The company was created with $250,000 in capital collected from local businessmen, primarily Colonel D. Harold Byrd, a Dallas oilman and TEMCO’s largest investor and stockholder (Brown 1972: 73; Barksdale 1958: 13). Through TEMCO’s local business support, the newly formed company acquired two different types of contracts prior to its bid on Plant “A” of Plancor #25. The first contract included an agreement with Fort Worth-based Fairchild Aircraft Corporation to assist with the production of the C-82 Packet cargo plane and F-24 cabin monoplane (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 137). TEMCO received a contract with local merchants to manufacture 14,000 popcorn vending machines (Barksdale 1958: 14). TEMCO’s commercial and production orders cemented the Office of Defense Plant’s decision to temporarily lease part of Plancor #25 to the Texas company.
In addition to the TEMCO/Plancor #25 lease, the Office of Defense Plants arranged other agreements for many other vacant aircraft plants across the nation. The Office of Defense Plant’s 1945–1947 efforts were stopgap measures that attempted to sustain the financial viability of the plants while the government and Congress established legislation to formalize ownership of the properties. In February 1946, the RFC, on behalf of the Office of Defense Plants, filed a letter of intent with the War Assets Administration stating that Plancor #25 would be permanently transferred to the Department of the Navy, which could then either sell the plant outright or lease it at its discretion (Dallas Morning News 2 October 1946: np). It was not until August 1947 that Congress introduced legislation that formalized this arrangement, an act that authorized military management of an industrial reserve comprising former DPC-financed plants and tools (White 1980: 112).
President Harry S. Truman signed the Industrial Reserve Act (Public Law 883, 80th Congress) on 1 December 1947, and it became law early in 1948. The plants listed in the Act formed the basis of the new GOCO facilities program. The legislation authorized three types of GOCOs—ammunition, missiles, and aircraft/aerospace manufacturers—that provided the government with many advantages beyond the ability to lease excess properties. The military retained ownership of the plants while shifting the day-to-day operational duties to a private contractor, who paid a nominal rental fee. In addition, the government possessed 145 emergency reserve plants that could quickly, and legally, be converted to wartime production in an emergency. The legislation assigned the Department of the Navy plants worth nearly $334,503,000 across the nation, including the Dallas County facilities (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 47–49; White 1980: 112).
THE COLD WAR PERIOD
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 26 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ASSUMES COMMAND AT DALLAS
Once it obtained stewardship of the former Plancor #25, the Department of the Navy renamed the factory NIRAP Dallas and began searching for a new, more permanent tenant to manufacture naval aircraft (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 48). The Navy also assigned its own representative (NAVPRO) Lt. Commander W. J. Moyer to NIRAP Dallas, who assessed the situation at the plant and found that TEMCO utilized its manufacturing floor space extremely efficiently and had gained a respectable reputation as an aircraft subassembly manufacturer (Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant nd: 1). The 1947 NAVPRO assessment recommended that the Navy keep TEMCO at NIRAP Dallas.
The Navy followed from the NAVPRO recommendation and agreed to continue leasing part of the plant to TEMCO. The Navy and TEMCO signed a five-year lease on “Plant A” and its ancillary buildings on 7 December 1947. The company also requested a month-to-month temporary lease on “Plant B” to expand its production on the Globe “Swift” aircraft. The Navy consented to TEMCO’s use of the neighboring plant as long as the company vacated when a permanent tenant was located (Dallas Morning News 12 December 1947: np; Bilstein & Miller 1985: 137). Thus, the Navy decided on multiple-tenancy for NIRAP Dallas, with TEMCO subleasing “Plant A” from an experienced aircraft manufacturer engaged in prime contracting work for the Navy. The Navy felt that established companies with previous defense and governmental contracts were ideal tenants for its 26 different GOCO plants, including NIRAP Dallas (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 50).
The Navy Locates a New Tenant for NIRAP Dallas Immediately following the war, the Pentagon became alarmed about communist aggression and the Soviet Union’s acquisition of the atomic bomb. It again recommended that coastal aircraft companies move to inland locations (Hanley 1986: 50; Brown 1972: 50). In one area of the Mid-Atlantic Coast, 10 major aircraft, airframe, and engine companies —Pratt & Whitney, Grumman, Republic, Glenn L. Martin, Fairchild, Chance Vought, Hamilton Standard Propellers, Sikorsky Helicopter & Aircraft, and United Aircraft Corporation—were located within a short distance of one another (Dallas Morning News 18 December 1947: np).
One of these companies, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, occupied a Navy-owned manufacturing plant in Stratford, Connecticut that was built as part of the World War II industrial facilities expansion. The 11-building plant provided only 400,000 square feet of space, which proved to be increasingly insufficient for the company’s burgeoning jet aircraft program (Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II 1947: 397). Since Vought first occupied the Stratford site in 1940, the company grew in a haphazard fashion, increasing fivefold. No surrounding or adjacent lands were available to build new facilities, due to the presence of 10 other major aircraft corporations conducting similar business in the vicinity (Barksdale 1958: 18; Wings for the Navy 1943: np). Vought concluded that continued operation at Stratford would not be cost effective if their products continued to shift to high-speed jet aircraft and missiles. These programs required more space, additional
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 27 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
facilities, and longer airport runways (Rae 1968: 188). However, the company had no space to build additional facilities or runway extensions because of area congestion and increased air traffic, which made the testing and qualifying of aircraft difficult (Hanley 1986: 50).
The Department of the Navy was aware of Vought’s problems at its Stratford facilities and in December 1947, invited the company to examine the NIRAP Dallas factory (Dallas Morning News 4 December 1947: np). Chance Vought had been producing quality naval and military aircraft for decades and had an excellent reputation for fulfilling contracts and maintaining its facilities. The company proved to be an excellent candidate for tenancy at Dallas. Jack Hospers, vice president of Vought’s sales and service, recalled the differing reactions in Stratford and Dallas to the Navy’s offer: “The mayor of Stratford did not seem to care whether Vought was there or not. Dallas sent a high-level delegation to discuss the possibility of a relocation” (Hanley 1986: 50).
After Vought’s meeting with the Dallas officials, the company sent a survey team to North Texas to assess the facility, conditions and climate (Dallas Times Herald 18 December 1947: np; Hanley 1986: 50). Vought’s survey team returned to Stratford with a positive report on NIRAP Dallas: It liked the low taxes, the 10–15% lower wage market, the weather conditions, and the highly efficient production rates achieved by employees under North American and TEMCO. Even though Connecticut-area residents had decades of experience in aircraft manufacturing, Vought’s survey team found Dallas County’s labor pool superior to Stratford’s, in more abundant supply, and vastly more patriotic than that on the Atlantic Coast (Hanley 1986: 50). The most important factors to Vought officials were NIRAP Dallas’s design: It was planned with care, purpose, and specifically for aircraft production, which promised to save the company time and money. Operations at Stratford were costly in proportion to earnings because the plant was not equipped or arranged for maximum efficiency (Barksdale 1958: 18).
The Vought survey report influenced the Board of Directors, for they voted to relocate the plant in May 1947. Once the move was approved and the Navy was notified, the cities of Dallas and Grand Prairie were informed that Chance Vought, a subsidiary of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, would be locating its $17 million annual payroll in Dallas County. The formal announcement came in April 1948 and caused a flood of applicants at the Texas Employment Commission office. Approximately 4,000–5,000 applicants requested job opportunities at Vought (Dallas Morning News 18 April 1948: np; Dallas Morning News 20 April 1948: np). Four months later, on 8 August 1948, the Navy and Vought signed a formal lease on NIRAP Dallas’ Plant “B” manufacturing building and its support structures, which amounted to the majority of all structures at the complex (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 138).
As a condition of its lease with the Navy, Vought also agreed to sublease the Plant “A,” Facility 1 manufacturing building and a few of its structures to TEMCO. This multiple tenancy agreement and the wholesale move of a manufacturer from one Navy-owned plant to another was a unique step in the brief history
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 28 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
of the GOCO program itself, but was consistent with Department of Defense (DOD) policies on aircraft industry dispersal (Rae 1968: 188). The Navy agreed to install a long, metal chain-link fence between the TEMCO and Vought sides of the plant as part of an overall improvement project at the NIRAP Dallas facility. The modification was made from September 1948 until early 1949, and coincided with Vought’s relocation from Stratford to Dallas.
Vought Moves to Dallas As part of its 1948 contract, the Navy agreed to help its new tenant move more than 27 million pounds of company-owned equipment from Stratford to Dallas. Early in negotiations, Vought expressed a desire to retain its own equipment rather than lease all of NIRAP’s equipment and machines. When North American left Dallas in 1945, employees took or destroyed nearly $200,000.00 worth of the NIRAP’s equipment, machines, and tools (Final Report on Accountability nd: np). Considering the facility’s incomplete stock, the Navy may have agreed that helping Vought move its equipment was more cost effective than replacing the missing pieces. Vought’s relocation to NIRAP Dallas included shipping more than 50,000 special tools, jigs, templates and presses 1,687 miles from Connecticut to Texas. The company used automobiles, trucks, trains and 1,006 freight cars to carry the 27,077,078 pounds of machinery in a two-year move touted as the largest relocation in American industrial history (Barksdale 1958: 18–19; Bilstein & Miller 1985: 138; Rae 1968: 188–89).
One reason Vought wanted to retain its equipment and machines was because the company felt its existing managers and trainers could teach their new employees faster on familiar systems. Vought planned to hire the vast majority of its employees from North Texas, except for 1,300 key Stratford personnel, including the company’s engineers, designers, managers, trainers, executives, and corporate officials. Vought funded the cost for moving its employees and agreed to help locate housing accommodations. The company had 16 full-time employees working under Vought’s housing supervisor Ted Mitchell, whose sole task was to locate housing for 1,200 to 1,400 families making the move to Dallas (Dallas Times Herald 30 November 1948: np; Dallas Morning News 12 September 1948: np).
The City of Grand Prairie did not have enough available housing for more than a thousand new families, and began work immediately to build homes and apartment communities for Vought’s transferred employees. In April 1948, Acadia Heights, a new housing subdivision near the plant, along with fifty 8-unit apartment homes funded through the Federal Housing Authority, was begun (Dallas Morning News 25 April 1948: np). In a single year, Grand Prairie furnished Vought with 193 new homes at a cost to the city of $752,450.00, but this tremendous effort still proved inadequate. In a joint venture between Vought and the cities of Grand Prairie and Dallas, construction commenced on an additional 100 homes in a neighborhood called the Little Payne Addition (Dallas Morning News 25 April 1948: np). It took the cities of Dallas and Grand Prairie over a year to build
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 29 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
enough housing to accommodate Vought employees who were transferring from Connecticut to Texas (Rae 1968: 188–89).
Vought carried out its move in incremental phases in order to keep up its production, staggering its production activities from late 1947 to 1 July 1949. In Connecticut, the company continued to manufacture its F4U Corsair piston-engine fighter, while it used its partially occupied Dallas facilities to produce Vought-designed support aircraft and the initial pre-production prototypes of the company’s newest products (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 138).
Expansion of NIRAP Dallas Vought’s main complaint about its Stratford facilities was the sparse and inadequate manufacturing space. In sharing space with TEMCO, Vought officials feared they would outgrow NIRAP Dallas as they had Stratford. To ease this concern and accommodate Vought’s expanding jet aircraft and missile production requirements, the Navy decided to construct additional facilities at NIRAP Dallas (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 138; Barksdale 1958: 18). The Navy contributed $12.4 million to a 1948–49 expansion at Dallas that included new facilities and production equipment for Vought, which provided the company enough space to meet productive commitments, reduce overall backlog, and increase research and development capabilities (Barksdale 1958: 19). Vought contributed $2,927,289.93 of its corporate funds to further expand its Plant “B” buildings at NIRAP Dallas (Analysis of Leasehold Improvements nd: 1).
Vought undertook research and development activities on several Navy-sponsored projects in the late 1940s that required modern and larger engineering and laboratory space. Facility 49, a 129,000-square-foot building adjacent to the Facility 7 office building, was the largest project undertaken during the post-World War II expansion. This building accommodated a new Engineering Department and Laboratory Building (Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4).
Facility 6, the Plant “B” manufacturing building, received four newly constructed internal processing areas that increased Vought’s productive capacity on its F4U Corsair, F6U Pirate, F7U Cutlass, and F8U Crusader jet aircraft programs. Some of these projects were already in production, while others were simply in the development and testing phases, prior to Vought’s relocation to NIRAP Dallas. Along the west end of Facility 6, the Navy built and installed equipment for a Metallite Processing Department. Vought created and patented Metallite during World War II, but used it only on the production of aircraft after 1945. Metallite was a light, malleable aluminum alloy bonded to both sides of a balsa wood sheet. The final product was only a quarter-inch thick and highly resistant to wrinkle or damage (Jones 1977: 229). The inherently stiff Metallite provided Vought with an alternative to both aluminum and steel because it was lightweight and improved aerodynamics and performance in jet aircraft. An added benefit of Metallite was its relatively low cost to Vought, since it was entirely manufactured at NIRAP Dallas. However, despite Metallite’s use in the production of some aircraft
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 30 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
skins, Vought still relied on aluminum, steel, and other lightweight alloys for most of its manufacturing activities. The three major processing areas added to Facility 6 in the expansion were devoted to heat treatment of both steel and aluminum and for the anodizing, dichromate, and other metal-working processes (Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4).
The final building constructed at NIRAP Dallas was Facility 76, a million dollar, 58,000-square-foot final production hangar located adjacent to Hensley Field. Vought needed Facility 76 for production activities related to the company’s first jet aircraft programs, the F6U Pirate and F7U Cutlass. The hangar was used for painting, Metallite testing, final inspection, engine run-up, and preflight preparations of high-performance jet aircraft (Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4; The Flying V News July 1949: 1, 3).
The Navy extended Hensley Field at NAS Dallas as its last project in the 1948–49 NIRAP expansion, which occurred from August 1949 to 1 March 1950. The Department of the Navy provided partial funding, and the City of Dallas appropriated $256,000 to extend the north–south runway at Hensley from 5,200 to 7,500 feet. The added length gave Chance Vought adequate runway distance to test the Pirate and Cutlass jet aircraft (Flying V News August 1949: 1).
The expansion at NIRAP Dallas benefited both Vought and the Navy. By increasing Vought’s manufacturing capacity, the company reduced its overall backlog and the Navy received its products faster. The expansion also gave the Navy an opportunity to upgrade and catalog its new and valuable industrial holding at Dallas. Between 1947 and 1966, the Department of the Navy controlled 11 GOCOs involved in the manufacture and testing of jet and rocket engines (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 50). The improvements to NIRAP Dallas represented the Navy’s goal to improve and modernize some of its GOCO facilities, which probably occurred at other sites nationwide. For example, Navy-owned NIRAP St. Louis, occupied by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, also underwent expansion during this period.
Vought Begins Production at NIRAP Dallas Much of the 1948–49 facilities expansion at NIRAP Dallas was related to the manufacture of Stratford-designed products: the F4U Corsair, F7U Cutlass, F6U Pirate, and the Regulus Missile. Designed in 1938 and in production since 30 June 1941, the Navy used the F4U Corsair extensively in both Europe and the Pacific during World War II. It was one of the few propeller-driven aircraft used in combat after 1945 (Jones 1977: 171, 173; Donald 1997: 256). The Corsair remained in production longer than any other American fighter; manufacturers supplied 12,571 aircraft to the Navy, Marines, and USAAF (Jones 1977: 174; Donald 1997: 256). Vought produced six versions of the Corsair in Stratford for almost 10 years and one version at NIRAP Dallas from 1947 to 1952 for service in the Korean War.
The Chance Vought F6U Pirate was also designed in Stratford (and produced in both Connecticut and at
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 31 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NIRAP Dallas), but in far less numbers than the Corsair. Responding to the Navy’s early 1944 request for a jet- propelled fighter, the Pirate was Vought’s first production jet aircraft and also the company’s first product made of its patented Metallite technology (Jones 1977: 229). On 2 October 1946, Vought entered the Pirate in a Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics competition at Muroc Dry Lake, California. As a result of the prototype’s performance, the Navy ordered 30 production Pirates. From the outset, Vought encountered problems in the design and testing of the production aircraft; most notably, the prototype flew at speeds of nearly 600 mph but the production Pirate reached only 478 mph (Jones 1977: 231). This problem did not discourage the Navy from ordering an additional 35 F6U Pirates. The first Vought-produced Pirate entered naval service in July 1949, but the Pirate’s poor performance prevented the aircraft’s operational use by the Navy and it was relegated to training units (Jones 1977: 231; Donald 1997: 231). Production on the Pirate began in Stratford, but ended at NIRAP Dallas, when the Navy cancelled its order for 35 new Pirates in mid-1950 (Donald 1997: 231). When Vought introduced the Pirate at the Muroc Dry Lake competition in 1946, it also showcased the F7U Cutlass, the company’s second jet aircraft. The Cutlass featured an unusual design, which Vought based on German aerodynamic research carried out during World War II. (The Navy provided American manufacturers with German research in late 1945.) Guided by the data, Vought engineers in Stratford prepared a prototype to compete in a Navy design competition at the Naval Air Test Center in 1946 (Donald 1997: 257; Jones 1977: 248, 251). The resulting design produced an unorthodox twin-jet, carrier-based fighter with sharply angled flying surfaces, afterburners, and no tail (Jones 1977: 248, 251).
Vought produced its first two F7U Cutlass prototypes in Stratford. The first flew on 29 September 1948 and the second crashed during testing on 14 March 1949. Despite the crash, the Navy ordered 14 additional Cutlass jets, which were manufactured entirely at NIRAP Dallas (Jones 1977: 251). The problems that caused the 1949 crash were corrected in these production models and the Cutlass proved to be the first U.S. naval jet to reach supersonic speeds (Donald 1997: 257). Vought produced over 300 F7U Cutlass jet aircraft at NIRAP Dallas from March 1950 through 1955. The vast majority of these production models were used by the Marines for high-speed mine-laying tests; a few served with the Navy’s Blue Angels as demonstration aircraft (Jones 1977: 252).
In 1947, while the company was negotiating its lease on NIRAP Dallas with the Navy, the Bureau of Aeronautics asked Chance Vought to begin initial development on a guided missile. The Navy introduced guided missiles to its arsenal immediately following World War II, when German scientists, who were researching rocket weapons for the Nazis, came to America to work for the U.S. military at the White Sands Proving Ground in New Mexico (Guided Missiles 1997: np). The DOD defined the missile as an “unmanned vehicle moving about the earth’s surface whose trajectory or flight path is capable of being altered by a mechanism within the vehicle” (Chance Vought News March 1953: 5). The broad and vague DOD definition mentions nothing about the missile’s size, speed, power plant, direction of travel, or deployment, most likely to prevent America’s communist enemies from assessing the United States’ increased defensive and striking
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 32 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
power with the addition of this weapon to its military arsenal (Chance Vought News March 1953: 5).
Chance Vought named its guided missile the Regulus. The simple, innovative, and versatile design of the Regulus made it affordable and desirable to the Navy, and an uncredited source described it as “a very ordinary, unsensational, inexpensive missile, but one of the most fiendish and destructive little devices ever conceived by the tortured mind of man” (Barksdale 1958: 19). Vought’s guided missile was the first designed specifically to carry an atomic warhead and could be launched from submarines, cruisers, guided missile ships, aircraft carriers, and land bases (Chance Vought News March 1953: 1, 5; Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: np). The Regulus was economical and easy to install, with little modification to the launching vehicle. Vought equipped each training and testing Regulus with tricycle landing gear so that it could be recovered and reused, enabling the Navy to use each production Regulus at least 10 times. Its inexpensive and quick installation, combined with its ability to be reused, cut the Regulus’s cost to one-tenth that of comparable programs carried out by other aerospace companies (Chance Vought News March 1953: 1). In 1949, when construction was completed on NIRAP Dallas’s new engineering building (Facility 49), the company moved its missile program from Connecticut to Texas, where all Regulus production models were manufactured.
THE KOREAN CONFLICT: 1950–1956
The proliferation of communism throughout the world and resulting Cold War (1946–89) fueled the aviation industry following World War II. The Korean War (1950–1953) was the first conflict of this period. Its origins resulted directly from the spread of communism into Asia following World War II and the threat it represented to the democratic nations of the world. Following Japan’s surrender to allied forces, the Soviet Union occupied North Korea and the United States controlled the south. When the United Nations (U.N.) called for free, unified elections throughout Korea in 1948, the Soviet Union refused to permit North Koreans from voting and instead proclaimed a communist dictatorship, renaming the country the People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Following this move, Russia withdrew its troops from Korea, leaving behind an entrenched communist regime and a well-trained, well-equipped North Korean Army (Korean War 1997: np).
South Korea’s smaller and ill-equipped army was incapable of defending itself when the North crossed the 38th parallel boundary line in a surprise invasion on 25 June 1950. Within hours of the invasion, the U.N. Security Council called for an immediate cease-fire. North Korea ignored the order and, two days later, the Security Council urged U.N. members to assist South Korea in expelling the communist invaders. President Harry S. Truman came to the defense of South Korea by providing weapons, and supplies and directing Army General Douglas MacArthur to assemble ground forces and inspect the battlefront. By July, the U.N. appointed General MacArthur as Supreme Commander of a 16-nation UN force, including 300,000 American Marines, Air Force, and Navy personnel (Korean War 1997: np).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 33 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Production for the Korean War Begins at NIRAP Dallas When the Korean conflict developed in June 1950, the American aerospace industry was asked to meet the supply needs of the U.N. force. MacArthur’s military strategy relied heavily on the use of airpower, bombs, and missiles. By the end of the conflict, Navy and Marine Air Corps flew 276,000 offensive sorties, pounded the enemy with 177,000 tons of bombs, and blasted them with over a quarter of a million rockets (Caras 1965: 195). Vought saw an immediate increase in its orders as a result of the Korean War and was the beneficiary of Navy and Marine contracts for both its aircraft and missiles. Of all its products manufactured for Korea, Vought received the most orders for its Regulus missile, 514 of which were used during the war. The company’s F7U Cutlass was its most popular jet aircraft manufactured at NIRAP Dallas during the conflict (Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: 7).
Chance Vought began work on the Cutlass following the company’s relocation to Dallas, flying the first prototype at Hensley Field on 29 September 1948. (Donald 1997: 257–58). Just months before communist North Korea invaded the South, the Navy placed one of several orders for the Cutlass, which remained in production through 1955 (Donald 1997: 258). However, the expense and the problems associated with maintaining Cutlass jets prevented the Navy, or any military branch, from using this jet in combat during Korea (Jones 1977: 252).
In fact, the F4U-5N Corsair was the only Vought-designed aircraft that saw combat action during the Korean War. Shortly before the North Korean invasion, the Marines ordered 110 Corsairs in a new combat attack version. The Marines used the Corsair to fly low-level reconnaissance and night operations, surprising North Korean forces. One squadron of F4U-5N Corsairs used its superior radar systems to locate and attack ground forces in total darkness and with great accuracy, while other Marine Corsairs squadrons wreaked havoc on communication centers (Jones 1977: 175). Even though the Corsair was considered obsolete by the time conflict erupted in Korea, one of its pilots gained fame as a night-fighting ace by downing five enemy aircraft in only 18 days and another destroyed a far superior Soviet MiG-15 fighter (Jones 1977: 175–76).
Vought and the Navy Expand Plant “B” Facilities The Vought aerospace products ordered by the armed forces from 1950–55 were already designed, tested, and in production by the time war erupted in Korea. With increased orders and demand for the company’s aircraft and missiles, Vought needed new workers and additional facilities to meet its contractual requirements for the F7U Cutlass, Corsair, and Regulus. At the outset of the war, Vought had only 8,200 employees at NIRAP Dallas. The company’s prewar payroll of $32 million jumped to nearly $100 million by war’s end. Vought employed 18,000 employees from 1950–53 (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5; Dallas Morning News 7 October 1951: 1).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 34 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Early in 1951, Vought publicly announced a 3,000-person hiring program at NIRAP Dallas in response to the company’s production schedule on the F7U Cutlass aircraft for the Navy. The new Cutlass personnel raised employment at NIRAP Dallas from 8,000 to 11,000 (Dallas Morning News 26 September 1951: np). Vought quickly found the increase was insufficient, and determined that the company needed to hire at a pace of 240 persons for more than a year to meet its production requirements on the Regulus, F4U Corsair, and its subcontracting commitments for components of the Boeing B-47 Stratojet Bomber and Lockheed’s P2V Neptune Patrol bomber (Chance Vought News October 1951: 1). In 1953, during the height of the Korean War, employment at NIRAP Dallas peaked at 18,000 persons, a number that remained constant to the end of the war (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5).
Vought looked for all levels of production workers–skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled categories–from the North Texas labor pool. The company advertised that jobs as “tool designers, tool planners, researchers, jig builders, time study men, sheet metal fabricators, machinists, assemblers, and bench hands” were available for men, but opportunities for women were limited at NIRAP Dallas (Dallas Morning News 26 September 1951: np). Most of the workers hired at NIRAP Dallas during the Korean War came from Dallas, Grand Prairie, Arlington, Ft. Worth, and Irving. The remaining labor pool came from all over rural North Texas. Overall, the Korean War hiring program at NIRAP Dallas had wide-ranging and positive affects on the economy in North Texas.
In addition to hiring new employees during the war, Vought needed additional manufacturing space at NIRAP Dallas for its Cutlass and Regulus programs. In late 1951, Vought announced a $4 million Spring Building Program that included construction of new facilities, upgrading existing NIRAP buildings, and adding new parking lots to accommodate the hiring program (Dallas Morning News 7 October 1951: np; Chance Vought News April 1952: 1). Vought, rather than the Navy, funded the majority of construction on the new buildings at NIRAP Dallas. The Navy provided the land for the Spring Building Program, while Vought supplied the funding, contractors, and architects. By law, the Navy retained ownership of the new facilities, but Vought recouped all its construction costs through government tax credits that were very similar to incentives offered during World War II. The House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations developed procedures for contractor-sponsored construction at Navy-owned GOCO sites as part of the 1947–48 National Industrial Reserve Act (White 1980: 112; Commander, Naval Air Systems Command 29 March 1981: 1). They consisted of the following:
• The contractor requested written permission to build on a site or modify a building from the GOCO NAVPRO on-site representative; • NAVPRO forwarded the request to the Department of the Navy Property Management and Disposal Services, which approved or denied the new facilities; • The Navy asked the GOCO contractor to provide an inventory and dollar value of
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 35 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
construction costs, machines, equipment, and tooling; and, • The Department then considered whether to amortize the yearly taxes on the building.
The criteria for approving tax deferments are unknown, but were probably linked to the amount of naval orders produced by the GOCO making the request. Since most of the products manufactured at NIRAP Dallas were used exclusively by the Navy, Vought did not pay taxes on any of its Korean War-period facility improvements until 1971, pursuant to Public Law 388 (D Whitney Thornton to James F. Taylor 15 November 1971: 1).
After examining Vought’s Spring Building Program plan, the Navy agreed to fund the construction of one building and to supervise the construction of the other new facilities on government-owned land. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks approved the contractor’s choices for architect, builder, and designs prior to construction. In some cases, the Bureau of Yards and Docks supplied the architectural drawings when they found the proposed design inadequate. Between 1952 and 1954, Vought spent more than $8.7 million for additional facilities and improvements as part of the Spring Building Program. The cost was more than double the initial $4 million estimate (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1).
Vought began its construction of a new parking lot, the installation of new air conditioning in all cafeteria buildings, and the construction of at least two new buildings, Facilities 93 and 94, in April 1952 (Chance Vought News April 1952: 1, 4). The Navy paid for three improvements to existing facilities, whereas Vought funded the new parking lot and air conditioning systems. The Farwell Company of Dallas replaced the air- conditioning units in Facilities 11, 12, and 31 at a cost of $47,000 between April and June 1952. Another facility improvement that benefited the employees of NIRAP was the construction of a 16,400-square-yard parking lot west of the Plant “B” high bay area. The addition of 400 parking spaces eased overcrowding at the plant and made it easier for Vought employees to exit the plant via Jefferson Boulevard and Southeast 14th Street. The Reinhart Company of Fort Worth built the parking lot at a cost of $70,000 (Chance Vought News April 1952: 1). The last improvement to existing NIRAP buildings included the replacement of the Plant “B” fire alarm system, the installation of new sprinklers in both Plants “A” and “B”, and the installation of oil bath filters in the air-conditioning systems of Plant “B” (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4).
Facility 93 was the first new building constructed as part of the Spring Building Program. The Bureau of Yards and Docks supplied Vought with the architectural drawings, and James Stewart & Company performed all the general construction, which began June 1, 1952 (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4). Vought spent more than $1.3 million on Facility 93, which met the company’s need for a large and conveniently located warehouse, manufacturing, and shipping building. The one-story, 78,000-plus-square-foot masonry structure (Facility 93) was built between the railroad sidings on the south side of Plant “B” (Facility 6) to provide Vought with railroad loading docks on the building’s north and south sides (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4). Vought
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 36 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
used Facility 93 to ship finished products, such as the Regulus, Cutlass, Pirate, and Corsair to the Navy and to receive and then ship subassembly work back to the prime contractor. James Stewart & Company constructed a loading dock and special features for shipping and receiving Lockheed and Boeing nose sections. Internally, the building was equipped with unique bridge cranes and a monorail system for moving materials from one end of the building to another (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4). James Stewart & Company completed construction on Facility 93 in 1953, at the height of Vought’s Korean War production.
When construction began on Facility 93 in June 1952, Vought was still planning Facility 94, a research, design, and structures test lab for the Regulus I Missile Program. Vought hired architects Corgan, Lane & Associates A/E of Dallas to design its 88,647-square-foot, hangar-type laboratory with steel columns, steel trussing, and “Robertson” metal siding; these features matched those of existing Plant “B” structures constructed during World War II (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4). In the summer of 1953, Carpenter Brothers Construction Company of Dallas began the general construction on Facility 94’s structural test lab located northwest of the Plant “B,” high bay area. It was completed on 1 January 1954 and the Navy paid the entire $1.7 million cost (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4; Chance Vought News June 1953: 1).
Along with Facility 94, Vought decided to fund and build five additional buildings: Facilities 95, 97, 102, 103, and 106. The first two supported its Regulus Missile program while the others served jet aircraft production. Construction on Facility 95 began sometime in 1953 and was completed in early 1954. The Bureau of Yards and Docks supplied the architectural drawings, and O’Rourke Construction Company of Dallas performed the general construction activities related to the 8,190-square-foot building. Facility 95 provided Vought with a test cell building for the Regulus Missile at a cost of $215,180.09. Test cells furnish both the power and control mechanism for guided missiles. They are either self-contained rocket motors or air-breathing jet engines, but may also be airfoils or outside booster charges from ramp or tube launchers (Guided Missiles 1997: np). Vought tested these power sources in Facility 95.
On 18 June 1953, Vought broke ground on Facility 97, a $1.7 million guided missile hangar whose purpose was to store and test the Regulus. Harwood K. Smith & Joseph M. Mills A/E of Dallas designed Facility 97 with almost 70,000 square feet of workspace that contained a high bay area, electronics test areas, storage, and office and workroom space for expanded production on the Regulus. O’Rourke Construction Company completed Facility 97 in January 1954 (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1). Vought used Facility 97 primarily to check and ground test the Regulus prior to its delivery to the West Coast for flight operations (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1–2). Regulus missiles leaving the Plant “B,” Facility 6 production lines were taken to Facility 97 for final installation of the missile’s internal components and the individual testing of all electronic systems. Following this process, Vought employees moved the missiles to flight testing, which included the simulation of engine start-up, take-off, climb, cruise, and let-down simulation (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1).
In 1954, Vought completed the last of its three buildings—Facilities 102, 103, and 106—as part of the
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 37 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
company’s Spring Building Program. All three buildings were related to Vought’s jet aircraft program in one way or another. The Bureau of Yards and Docks supplied architectural plans for the facilities and O’Rourke Construction Company provided the general construction services. Facility 102, a machine tool storage building, was the first constructed. The 27,649-square-foot building was used to store the specialized machine tools required to manufacture jet aircraft, and cost Vought $149,373.33. The second finished building, a jet- engine test cell building (Facility 103), provided the company with 5,253 square feet of laboratory space, and was used to test the F7U Cutlass and, later, Vought’s F8U Crusader. Facility 103 cost only $109,836.88. Facility 106 was the last of the buildings constructed as part of the Spring Building Program, and Vought used the 6,289-square-foot building to assemble jet engines for the Pirate, and Cutlass and, later, the Crusader and Corsair II manufacturing programs. The building, which initially cost Vought $63,874.41, underwent expansion during the Vietnam War period.
Expansion of TEMCO’s Plant “A” Facilities In 1952, the Navy awarded TEMCO its first contract to manufacture a complete aircraft—McDonnell Aircraft Corporation—the F3H Demon (Barksdale 1958: 15). The company also won contracts for major subassembly work on the Boeing B-47 Stratojet, Lockheed P2V Neptune, Martin P5M Marlin, and the Convair B-36 aircraft that were used on the war front. TEMCO also reconditioned Douglas C54 aircraft for use in Korea. The Navy needed the carrier-based Demon and other products delivered on a timely basis, but TEMCO suffered a rising backlog due to inadequate facilities, and an expansion of the Plant “A” side of NIRAP Dallas seemed the only expedient remedy. During the Korean War, TEMCO did not enjoy the same financial position as Vought and thus could not afford to fund the construction of new facilities. The Department of the Navy had contributed more than $1.7 million to Vought’s Spring Building Program and, in an effort to be fair, offered the same amount to TEMCO for a 1956 Naval Facilities Expansion Program. Under this program, the Navy funded construction of two new buildings for TEMCO, Facilities 104 and 105, and an addition to TEMCO’s Facility 2 office building, which ultimately cost $2.2 million (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1).
The Navy hired James Stewart & Company, the same firm that provided previous construction services during World War II and with both of Vought’s expansions at NIRAP Dallas, to construct a 58,000-square-foot addition to TEMCO’s Facility 2 office building. Ground was broken on the $800,000 addition on 31 March 1953 and completed on 1 December 1953 (TEMCO Tidings 17 April 1953: 1). TEMCO used the extra space to hire additional engineers and office staff to accommodate the company’s expanded workload.
Smith & Warder A/E and T. C. Bateson Construction Company, both of Dallas, provided the drawings and construction services for the TEMCO buildings in the 1956 Naval Facilities Expansion Program. Construction on Facility 105, a paint stripping structure northeast of Plant “A,” Facility 1 and adjacent to Jefferson Boulevard, began in June 1955 and was completed in 1956. It cost the Navy $105,600 (TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1). The building provided TEMCO with an 8,048-square-foot subassembly area for refurbishing
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 38 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
work on the Boeing B-47 Stratojet, Lockheed P2V Neptune, Martin P5M Marlin, and the Convair B-36 aircraft. TEMCO stripped the paint and cleaned aircraft in Facility 105 prior to painting in Facility 104, the largest and most expensive of the two buildings constructed in the naval expansion of TEMCO-leased property (TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1). In July 1953, construction began on Facility 104, a paint hangar, but it was not completed until early 1956. The nearly 46,000- square-foot building cost the Navy $1.3 million and enabled TEMCO to move all its final production processes and paint functions on the Demon from Plant “A” (Facility 1) into Facility 104 (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 2 July 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1).
Completion of Facility 104 also coincided with the company’s development of its first production jet aircraft at NIRAP Dallas. The TEMCO Model 51 originated in a 1947 design called the TE-1 Buckaroo, which failed to find buyers among the U.S. military or in the civilian market. TEMCO redesigned the Buckaroo as a lightweight primary jet trainer, called the Model 51, in the early 1950s. The company manufactured the prototype and later production models in Plant “A,” Facility 1 and used Facility 104 for all final production and painting related to the Model 51 (TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1). On 26 March 1956, the Model 51 prototype flew at nearby Hensley Field, NAS Dallas, in front of Navy officials, who ordered 14 production aircraft under the TT-1 designation. The Navy purchased the TT-1 to test the feasibility of using the jet aircraft for its primary training program (Donald 1997: 876). The company held a contest in which they allowed its employees to select the name of it first company-designed production jet. The winning name was the TT-1 Pinto and, on 15 July 1957, actress Jayne Mansfield and her daughter came to NIRAP Dallas to christen the first Pinto to roll off the TEMCO production line (TEMCO Tidings 19 July 1957: 1).
When the T. C. Bateson Construction Company completed Facilities 104 and 105 in 1956, TEMCO’s manufacturing and office space was nearly double its original productive capacity. This made the Plant “A” manufacturing facilities at NIRAP Dallas one of the best subcontracting production factories in the nation. The improved facilities enabled the company to win additional Demon contracts: one for the Pinto, and a multimillion dollar Republic F84F Thunderstreak jet fighter-bomber subassembly contract for the production of the airplane’s aft fuselage (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 16 July 1954: 1; TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1; Donald 1997: 876). The Thunderstreak project alone required 1,200 employees in addition to the company’s existing 6,500 employees. This project, coupled with existing contracts on the Demon, Pinto, and other subassemblies, required TEMCO to hire even more workers (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 16 July 1954: 1). TEMCO’s Korean War hiring program raised the company employment levels to 7,893 in January 1953. Employment peaked in 1957, when more than 11,000 workers collected a weekly payroll of $728,000, or $60 million annually (TEMCO Tidings 19 November 1954: 1; Barksdale 1958: 16). TEMCO’s employees came from cities throughout North Texas: Grand Prairie, Arlington, Ft. Worth, Irving, Dallas, Denton, McKinney, Waxahachie, Kaufmann, Gunter, Corsicana, Lewisville, Lake Dallas, Mesquite, Roanoke, Commerce, Venus, Midlothian, Scurry, Ennis, Lancaster, Argyle, and Seagoville. Some came from as far as Eustace, in Henderson County (78 miles); Hillsboro, in Hill County (70 miles); and,
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 39 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Blue Ridge, in Collin County (just under 70 miles) (TEMCO Tidings 18 April 1952: 1).
TEMCO’s production increase benefited the local economy as well as its employees. Earnings were spent largely in 181 North Texas cities and communities, with an estimated $11.7 million on food, beverages, and tobacco; $7.7 million on homes and household maintenance; $4.2 million on clothing and education; $3.4 million on automobiles; and $1.8 million on hobbies, movies, sports, and other forms of recreation (TEMCO Tidings 17 November 1955: 2). The company had 2,500 suppliers in over 40 states; nearly a third of this business came from 788 Texas-based companies earning $28.5 annually (Barksdale 1958: 16; TEMCO Tidings 1 April 1955: np; TEMCO Tidings 17 November 1955: 2). In addition to payroll and supplies, TEMCO spent nearly $340,000 on utilities, telephone service, telegrams, and postage stamps, and another $300,000 in freight expenses per year (TEMCO Tidings 17 November 1955: 2).
Post-Korean War Production Continues at NIRAP Dallas The end of the Korean War did not stop or slow defense spending and contracts for America’s aviation industries. Western democratic nations genuinely feared the spread of communism in Asia and its entrenchment in Eastern Europe, leading to increased production of nuclear weapons, vehicles to transport those weapons, and the creation of new and superior jet aircraft for Cold War combat and reconnaissance. The U.S. defense strategy focused on containing communism within the areas already affected—the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia.
The rise in Cold War defense spending and contracts also signified a change in America’s aviation industry to an aerospace industry; production shifted to the manufacture of jets, helicopters, guided and intercontinental supersonic missiles, aircraft for space travel, rockets, and satellites. The Department of the Navy recognized this transformation and responded by changing the name of its 26 aircraft-producing GOCO facilities from Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plants (NIRAP) to Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plants (NWIRP) in 1952 (D. Whitney Thornton to James F. Taylor 15 Nov 1971: 1). The new name accurately reflected the variety of products that the GOCOs manufactured during the Cold War period.
Vought began its transition from an aviation to an aerospace company in the late 1940s with the design of its Regulus missile and jets, but it was determined to keep up with the demand for new, more competitive and technologically superior products in the global fight against communism. The expanded facilities and personnel at NWIRP Dallas allowed Vought to begin research and development on a second generation of jet aircraft and missiles, products that moved the company to the forefront of the American aerospace industry. In the early 1950s, Vought began simultaneous development on the Regulus II guided missile and the F8U Crusader at NWIRP Dallas.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 40 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
In September 1952, the Department of the Navy selected a Vought proposal for a carrier-based, supersonic, air- superiority fighter over eight other competitors because of the company’s attention to the fighter’s low-speed characteristics. Vought spent nearly four years designing and developing the new all-weather F8U Crusader. The Navy ordered a prototype on 29 June 1953, and the sleek, arrow-like fighter made its maiden flight at Edwards Air Force Base in California on 25 March 1955. The Crusader cruised past Mach 1 with little difficulty (Jones 1977: 312). The 52-minute test flight at Edwards demonstrated to the Navy that the fighter had great potential, and they ordered 318 production models. By 30 September 1955, after the first production model flew at Hensley Field in Dallas and subsequent test flights proceeded with few problems, the Navy ordered an additional 473 units worth $100 million. In May 1956, Vought received additional orders for the F8U Crusader, which, when combined with earlier orders, totaled more than $275 million (Jones 1977: 312, 314; Chance Vought News December 1955: 1). Ultimately, Vought produced 1,261 Crusaders for the U.S. Navy and 42 for France at NWIRP Dallas (Donald 1997: 900; Wagner 1968: 423; Jones 1977: 314).
The Crusader appealed to the Navy in many ways. It had a high rate of climb due to its Pratt & Whitney J57-P- 4A engine, which offered 16,200 pounds of thrust. It carried four 20-mm cannons, two Sidewinders in its fuselage sides, and thirty-two 2.75-inch missiles. Furthermore, the Crusader had an exceptional combat ceiling, could penetrate the speed of sound in level flight, and refueled in midair. Vought designed the F8U for faster- than-sound operation from both land and aircraft carriers, further improving the Navy’s capability to control the air and seas (Jones 1977: 312; Wagner 1968: 423; Chance Vought News December 1955: 1). The Crusader joined U.S. Navy Squadron VF-32 in 1957 and remained in service until the late 1980s (Donald 1997: 900; Green & Swanborough 1981: 203; Wagner 1968: 423).
The Crusader won Vought a great deal of attention and praise in its first two years of production. An F8U-1 Crusader, flown by Commander R. W. Windsor, set a national speed record of 1,015 mph in August 1956, only months after production began (Wagner 1968: 423; Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: np). On the basis of this outstanding record, Vought won the prestigious Thompson Trophy for speed, and later that year, the company received the Collier Trophy for the Crusader’s design and development. The Bureau of Aeronautics awarded its first-ever Certificate of Merit to Vought for the Crusader in the same year (Jones 1977: 312). Finally, the Crusader set the transcontinental speed record for a single-engine aircraft, a record that still stands. Marine Major John H. Glenn accomplished this feat on 17 July 1957, when he flew an F8U-1P Crusader from Los Angles to New York at 725.55 mph and 35,000 feet, with three in-air refuelings (Wagner 1968: 423; Vought Vanguard 17 July 1957: 1, 3).
The Crusader’s success led Vought to further evolve the design to produce the F8U-3 Crusader III, a new aircraft that physically resembled its predecessor but performed differently. The Navy ordered three prototypes of the Crusader III to enter into competition against the McDonnell Phantom II in 1958. On 11 June, the Crusader III made its first supersonic run. In an August flight, the jet reached Mach 2, climbing 60,000 feet at a 300° angle. The plane peaked at nearly 76,000 feet before the engine stalled, and pilot John Konrad glided the
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 41 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Crusader III to a dead -stick landing at Edwards Air Force Base (Jones 1977: 314, 317). The Navy ordered 15 production F8U-3s after the August flight, but the engine stall problem persisted. Ultimately, the Phantom II outperformed and was more durable than the Crusader III, and Vought produced only 3 of the 15 models ordered. Those three were later relegated to NASA for high speed research (Jones 1977: 317).
At the height of the Crusader program in 1956, Vought began testing the Regulus II prototype at Hensley Field, even though the Navy had placed a $14 million order for continued production on the Regulus I missiles just months before (Chance Vought News February 1956: 1). Vought did not intend to wait until the Regulus I was obsolete before it offered the second version of the guided missile to the Navy. Confident of the product and its ability to sell, the company began immediate production on the Regulus II following the successful May flight tests. Production occurred in four buildings: Plant “B,” Facility 6; the Structures Lab, Facility 94; the Test Cell Laboratory, Facility 95; and the Final Production Missile Hangar, Facility 97.
Vought’s gamble paid off when the Navy placed a $12 million order for production of 59 of the Regulus II in July 1956 (Chance Vought News July 1956: 1; Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: np). The Regulus II was as versatile and affordable as its predecessor, but was capable of a much higher level of performance. Production Regulus II missiles came equipped with a J-79 jet engine that reached speeds of Mach 2 and a ceiling of 60,000 feet.
Similar to the original version, the Regulus II could be launched from submarines, ships, and land bases, and was also recoverable after flight because of its wheeled landing gear (Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: np). During the testing of the Regulus II, the Navy used each of their 59 production missiles 6 to 18 times before being retired. No other guided missile in the Navy’s history and arsenal had ever lived as long or performed as well in a testing environment as the Regulus II (Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: 6).
The Department of the Navy was so impressed with the performance of both the Regulus I and II that Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke referred to Vought’s guided missiles as the “harbingers of the Navy of the future” (Chance Vought News December 1956: 1). Following this proclamation, the Department of the Navy placed a $26 million production order for both the Regulus I and II guided missiles. With this order and contracts on the Crusader, Vought’s backlog soared to over $500 million (Chance Vought News December 1956: 1). In addition, the Navy ordered a nuclear submarine, the Halibut, designed and constructed specifically to launch the Regulus II Missile (Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: 6). The Regulus missiles proved to be a prolific and innovative missile and featured in a Smithsonian Institute exhibit of historic aerospace regalia that included the original Wright Brothers’ airplane and other pioneering rockets, missiles, and aircraft (LTV News 17 June 1966: np).
In May 1959, Vought continued its foray into the aerospace industry by winning a $1 million NASA contract for both the manufacture and assembly of the Scout research rocket. NASA developed and supplied the
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 42 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
instrument payload, engines, stage separation devices, jet vanes, and fin assemblies, while Vought developed the nose section and airframe and constructed a launching platform. NASA shipped the assemblies via road rail to Facility 6, Plant “B” from other manufacturers; Vought produced its pieces and assembled the complete 70- foot, 35,000-pound, four-stage solid rocket at NWIRP Dallas (Vought Vanguard 1 May 1959: 1). Vought built the three-piece Scout rocket launcher in jigs located in Facility 94’s structural test lab. The 109-foot steel tower was assembled, erected, and painted just west of the Facility 6, Plant “B” manufacturing building in August 1959. After Vought and NASA employees checked and qualified the launcher, it was taken down, loaded on railroad cars, and transported, along with the Scout rockets, to Wallops Island, Virginia, where the missile was fired (Vought Vanguard 21 August 1959: 1).
Conflict Develops at NWIRP Dallas as TEMCO Merges with Vought Between 1948 and 1959, Chance Vought leased three-fifths of NWIRP Dallas and used its Plant “B” facilities to develop and produce stages of the Regulus I and II guided missiles, Scout missile, Corsair, Pirate, Cutlass, Crusader, and Crusader III aircraft. During the same period, TEMCO used its Plant “A” facilities to produce airframe sections and engine assemblies for prime contractors such as Douglas, Lockheed, McDonnell, Boeing, and Pratt & Whitney, and worked as a prime contractor on the production of the TT-1 Pinto trainer aircraft and development of the Corvus missile (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 7; Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 nd: 1). Vought and TEMCO's peaceful coexistence became tenuous as both businesses grew. The Navy received complaints about the joint tenancy issue from both its NWIRP Dallas lessees as early as 1950. The fence installed between the Plant “A” and Plant “B” properties was not sufficient to prevent tension.
Vought and TEMCO's main problem at NWIRP Dallas stemmed from the fact that the lessees had inadvertently become competitors for naval contracts and within the aerospace industry as a whole. In addition, TEMCO's presence prevented Vought from expanding its own facilities in a national emergency (Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 nd: 1, 4). TEMCO's continual growth and request to further expand its facilities angered Vought management, and the situation was discussed extensively in NAVPRO reports to the Department of the Navy during this period (Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 1958: np; Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 nd: 1, 4).
Vought tolerated the situation and did not pressure the Navy to change the joint tenancy arrangement until 1960, when TEMCO merged with Ling-Altec Electronics to form Ling-TEMCO Electronics and Missile Company (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 137; Brown 1972: 75; Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 1958: np). Immediately following the merger, the Department of the Navy cancelled TEMCO's newly awarded $400 million Corvus Missile contract. The reasons for the Navy's decision are unclear, but following the cancellations, TEMCO's new president, James Ling, announced his plans
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 43 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
to expand TEMCO's position in the aerospace industry and take over Vought (Brown 1972: 80–81).
Early in 1960, Ling and his business associate, John Coughenour, began to buy up Chance Vought stock in an effort to legitimize their position within the aerospace industry and the Dallas business community. Chance Vought Aircraft enjoyed a stellar reputation in the aerospace industry and with the Navy. The combined company would assume Vought's established relationship with local banks and wield greater power as one of North Texas' largest employers (Brown 1972: 82). In October 1960, Ling called a meeting of the TEMCO board to obtain official approval for the acquisition of Vought stocks and a commitment of $10 million of the company's funds to purchase them (Brown 1972: 85).
In the short year that James Ling owned TEMCO, he managed to increase sales to $148.4 million, winning the company the #285 spot among the Fortune 500. In the same period, Ling acquired more than 10% of Vought stock, which legally required him to notify Vought management of his intentions to take over the company (Brown 1972: 85). In January 1961, Vought's board of directors refused to consider a merger with TEMCO and launched a publicity campaign that vilified Ling and his activities, calling him "an uncouth predator making raids on the innocent" (Brown 1972: 77, 87; Dallas Morning News 9 August 1962: np). As word of Ling's takeover plans spread throughout the Dallas financial community, ferocious local opposition began to form. "The Ling-TEMCO merger was friendly, and most Dallasites felt Ling had not overreached himself, but Chance Vought was another matter all together; therefore his battle to acquire Vought split the town and created acrimony that would not subside for years and earn Ling a reputation as dangerous and untrustworthy" (Brown 1972: 84).
Despite the personal attacks and bitter resentment among Vought employees and local business leaders, Ling was able to acquire 40% of Vought stock by March 1961, making him the majority shareholder and capable of calling a special vote on the proposed Ling-TEMCO Vought merger (Brown 1972: 87). Vought management, including President Frederick O. Deitweiler, responded to Ling's vote by resigning in protest and disgust. The remaining leadership worked hard to prevent a vote, even requesting help from its Washington, D.C. connections but ultimately, on 9 June 1961, the shareholders were issued proxy statements to vote on the Vought-TEMCO merger (Dallas Morning News 9 August 1962: np; Brown 1972: 87; Vought Vanguard 9 June 1961: 1). Stockholders issued the results of the proxy vote on 30 June 1961 and Ling-Temco Vought (LTV) was officially formed. The combined company now employed more than 20,000 people and had assets of $195 million, a backlog of $305 million in orders, and encompassed activities in the fields of aerospace, communications and test systems, commercial and industrial products, sound systems, aerosystems, and information handling systems (Vought Vanguard 9 June 1961: 1; Vought Vanguard 30 June 1961: 1–2).
LTV Tries to Purchase NWIRP Dallas Immediately following the merger, James Ling, the new president of LTV, met with NWIRP Dallas's NAVPRO representative to lay out the company's new business philosophy. Ling's long-term goals for LTV were
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 44 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
diversification from Navy projects into commercial ventures, or achieve some sort of balance between the two interests. Ling articulated his strategy to NAVPRO representatives, which was later recounted in NWIRP Dallas official reports:
The corporation's mission is to conceive, design, manufacture, assemble, and test products for agencies of the Department of Defense, other branches of the government and other aerospace contractors. These aerospace products primarily consist of complete aircraft and missile weapon systems, major subassemblies of commercial transports, space launch systems, airport transit systems and numerous research and development projects (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 2)
Ling also wanted to move the company away from manufacturing line and quantity production into limited and specialized manufacturing activities. The new philosophy also stressed increased research and design of new products for both the military and commercial sectors (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np).
NAVPRO notes from the meeting indicate that the Navy's representative communicated Ling's new goals to the Department of the Navy, who were displeased not only by the merger between Vought and TEMCO, but also by the change in the company's business philosophy. The Navy had considered both Vought and TEMCO highly qualified contractors, but after the merger, its opinion of LTV was uncertain (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np). Until this time, the Navy had chosen tenants for its GOCOs who were their prime contractors or who worked exclusively in military production. Despite the Navy's attitude toward LTV, it could not evict the company from NWIRP Dallas because of a preexisting lease with Vought (Lease No. N0w6137u), executed in 1958 and valid through 1971 (Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np). As Vought's new owner, LTV became the beneficiary of the lease that covered all the land and buildings at NWIRP Dallas, including approximately 309 acres of land and 3.1 million square feet of manufacturing space; therefore, the Navy was contractually obligated to retain LTV as tenant through 1971 (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np).
NAVPRO apparently informed LTV of the Navy's ambiguity toward the company's business philosophy; LTV responded by offering to purchase NWIRP Dallas. NAVPRO arranged a meeting between James Ling and representatives of the Navy's Utilization and Disposal Services in August 1961 (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np). At the meeting, Ling attempted to persuade the Navy that it should sell NWIRP Dallas at a "bargain price," or below fair market value, due to the number of contractor-funded leasehold improvements, which dated to the 1947–49 expansion and included all subsequent construction and maintenance. Records of the meeting clearly indicate that Ling's arguments were unpersuasive and in fact offended the representatives of the Utilization and Disposal Services, who informed LTV that even if the sale was authorized, it would be at fair market value and brokered by the General Service Administration
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 45 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
(GSA) under section 203(e) (3) (G) of the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949 (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np). The GSA served as the agency responsible for federally owned property sales and transfers.
On 11 September 1961, a month after the meeting, the Navy informed LTV management that the DOD would include a national security clause in any bill of sale. The clause required LTV to maintain the plant according to existing naval GOCO standards for a period of time stipulated by the Navy, rather than DOD. Other stipulations prohibited LTV from making any major alterations to NWIRP Dallas for 10 years, and included provisions for periodic and surprise inspections by NAVPRO representatives. In addition, LTV was required to give priority status to all DOD contracts (Environmental Statement for the Disposal of the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas 19 June 1971: 3; Restriction Covering Sale of NWIRP, Dallas nd: Attachment A; J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np). The DOD requirements reflected the Navy's assessment of NWIRP Dallas as the most complete manufacturing plant in its GOCO program and possibly the nation. NWIRP Dallas was different from most Navy-owned GOCO facilities because of the plant's capability to produce a variety of military-related products rather than a few specialized services (Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 1958: 2; Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np). The Navy was clearly cautious about selling such a valuable resource, and explained its concerns to LTV at its initial meeting and during subsequent communications (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np).
Another indication of the Navy's apprehension about selling NWIRP Dallas is revealed in the length of time that the Utilization and Disposal Services took in sending LTV's request to purchase the facility to GSA. It was not until 1970, close to a decade after the initial meetings, that GSA informed LTV of its appraisal; NWIRP Dallas was worth $68,748,321.00, but the government would sell the complex for $31,946,000.00 (General Services Administration 14 April 1972: 2; Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np; Curtis A. Roos to GSA 30 October 1970: np). The GSA based this figure on the sale of other GOCOs to contractors, specifically the sale of Air Force Plant #14 at Burbank, California, to the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, which bought the plant at 25%– 50% of its fair market price. The GSA's offer to LTV allowed the Department of the Navy a return of 68.4% on its investment since 1947 (General Services Administration 14 April 1972: 1; Paul T. Flynn to GSA 15 October 1971: 1–2).
The GSA's 1970 appraisal of NWIRP Dallas's land, facilities, equipment, machines, and tools was more than double LTV's assessment, which took into account depreciation costs, leasehold improvements, and other contractor investments (Paul T. Flynn to GSA 15 October 1971: 2). LTV was extremely agitated by the delay and the appraisal, and responded to GSA: “LTV has spent considerable effort and money obtaining independent outside appraisals on the subject facility. Age and obsolescence of buildings and equipment, need for modernization of water and waste disposal facilities, and the current depressed conditions of the aerospace industry are major factors influencing the Contractor's evaluation of the NWIRP” (C. J. Brenner to Commander,
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 46 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Naval Air Systems Command 8 March 1972: 1). In anger, LTV demanded that its purchase of NWIRP Dallas be contingent on the company's continued use of NAS Dallas's Hensley Field runways to test its products. The company also wanted the Navy to fund a water treatment facility and clean up a hazardous waste spill that had contaminated Mountain Creek Lake (General Services Administration 14 April 1972: 1–2). The Texas Water Quality Board, responding to complaints from Dallas County citizens, discovered the spill, informed the Navy, and required LTV to clean up the area to the State's satisfaction. LTV wanted to defer the $4.54 million treatment facility and $2.6 million cleanup costs to the Navy in an effort to offset the high GSA purchase price, but the Navy refused to pay for either (Robert P. Selm, P. E. to E. A. Tharpe II, ASA 22 August 1970: np; C. L. Turner to Commander, Naval Air Systems Command 3 August 1971: np; A. H. Clancy, Jr., to LTV Aerospace Corporation, Vought Aeronautics Division 23 April 1971: np).
The Navy also told LTV that it could not guarantee the use of Hensley Field, because the airfield was owned by the City of Dallas, not the federal government; LTV would have to negotiate with the City to resolve that issue (C. L. Turner to Commander, Naval Air Systems Command 3 August 1971: np; Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np).
On 11 February 1972, LTV informed the Navy and GSA that the company was no longer interested in purchasing NWIRP Dallas. LTV based its decision on the GSA $31 million purchase price, the Navy's refusal to pay for a treatment facility or to clean-up Mountain Creek Lake, money difficulties, and DOD restrictions on plant operations. Furthermore, the City of Dallas refused LTV's request for continued use of Hensley Field because the airfield was restricted to DOD use only (General Service Administration 14 April 1972: 2). In actuality, rising Cold War tensions and the conflict brewing in Vietnam over the spread of communism were the primary factors that complicated and delayed the plant's sale, rather than animosity between LTV, the Navy, GSA, and DOD.
THE VIETNAM PERIOD, 1965–1975
Conflict over control of Vietnam raged for almost two decades, beginning in 1954, when the country was split in half along political lines. Like Korea in 1945, Vietnam was divided at the 17th parallel into North Vietnam, a communist government supported by the Soviet Union, and South Vietnam, with a Republican government backed by the French and other democratic, Western nations. Not long after the partition, the U.S. military assumed the job of training the South Vietnamese army to defend itself against the North and its guerillas, known as the Viet Cong. The goal of the Viet Cong was to disrupt South Vietnam's social, political, and economic improvement programs through violence, including the assassination of political leaders and attacks on industrial facilities, farms, military bases, and small, rural villages. The Viet Cong's objective of spreading
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 47 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
communism through force was done covertly, sporadically, and gradually.
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy received a report on the Viet Cong from his military advisor, General Maxwell D. Taylor, which detailed the North's infiltration of South Vietnam. The President's advisors informed Kennedy that more equipment was needed for the South Vietnamese army to repel the Viet Cong. By 1963, the United States had spent $400 million on military aid and had sent more than 16,000 military advisors to Vietnam to assess the best strategy to combat the rebels. On 2 and 4 August 1964, Viet Cong patrol boats attacked the USS Maddox, a destroyer cruising in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Maddox returned fire after the second attack, sinking the North Vietnamese boats. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered air attacks in retaliation for the hostile actions, and the North Vietnamese responded with terrorist attacks on American installations in the South.
As a result of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the U.S. military devoted its full attention to South Vietnam and, by June 1965, American troops were engaged in combat with the Viet Cong. The initial U.S. presence numbered 50,000 troops and reached 500,000 by early 1968. Defense spending soared as America's military commitment in Vietnam increased. Aerospace companies, like LTV, became the beneficiaries of increased contracts. It was during these early stages of the Vietnam conflict that LTV attempted to purchase NWIRP Dallas. Despite its heated negotiations for the plant, LTV continued production on its jets, missiles, rockets, and on new products for the Army and NASA.
LTV Begins Production for Vietnam War From 1964 to 1974, when the United States was actively involved in the Vietnam conflict, the military ordered nearly 30,000 jet aircraft and helicopters from the nation's aerospace industries (The Aerospace Industry 1997: np). The Crusader was LTV's first jet aircraft to receive a production order for use in Vietnam. The Navy placed a $48 million order for the F8 Crusader in 1962 and an additional order worth $175 million for the remanufacture 446 of the fighters as photo planes in 1966 ("Manufacturing Technology Contracts" 3 October 1986: np; LTV News 7 September 1962: 1). The Crusader's combat effectiveness was tested and proved during the conflict in head-to-head battle against the Russian MiG-17 and MiG-21 jet aircraft. Its rugged construction made the Crusader a formidable weapon against the MiG, and it was responsible for downing 17 MiG-17s and 4 MiG-21s (Jones 1977: 314).
The A-7 Corsair II, a new jet created by company engineers during the Vietnam period, was the most heavily ordered LTV jet aircraft. The Corsair II was of similar configuration as the Crusader but incorporated different structural assemblies. The Navy ordered three A-7 prototypes on 19 March 1964, with the first flying at Hensley Field on 27 September 1965, almost four weeks ahead of schedule (Donald 1997: 899). Pleased with the Corsair II's performance, the Navy selected the jet to replace many of its outdated Douglas A-4 Skyhawks already in service. In November 1966, the Navy awarded LTV a $32 million contract for 16 of the light attack
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 48 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
bomber, each of which cost approximately $2 million. The Corsair II entered service with U.S. Navy Squadron VA-147 on 1 February 1967(Donald1997:899;http:// www.wpafb.af.mil/museum /modern_flight; Dallas Morning News 18 November 1966: np). Vice Admiral William F. Bringlt, Commander of the Seventh Fleet, declared the Corsair II the "workhorse" of the Navy's operations in North Vietnam because of the fighter’s all- weather capabilities (LTV News 5 January 1967: 1, 4). The Corsair II served in 27 different squadrons in Vietnam, flying more than 90,000 combat missions (Donald 1997: 899). During the war period, LTV produced 866 Corsair IIs for combat use (LTV Profile 22 July 1971: 3).
In addition to jet aircraft orders, LTV provided other services to the Navy. On 6 March 1965, LTV updated the electrical systems of two long-range instrumentation ships, the USS Huntsville and the USNS Watertown. The Navy's Bureau of Ships awarded LTV the $21,925,774.00 contract for the modification, renovation, and repair of the ships, which were originally slotted for communications use in Vietnam, but later reassigned to NASA for use in the Apollo Space Program.
NASA used the USS Huntsville and the USNS Watertown to monitor and track the Apollo spacecraft as they re-entered the Earth's atmosphere (Dallas Morning News 5 March 1965: np). NWIRP Dallas manufactured the electrical systems, but the installation occurred at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida (Dallas Morning News 30 March 1968: np).
Following the merger of TEMCO with Vought, LTV began producing for other military branches and for NASA. In 1962, just prior to the Vietnam buildup, LTV researched and developed a space pack called the SMU (self-maneuvering unit), which enabled astronauts to assemble vehicles and transfer goods from one ship to another in space (Dallas Times Herald 13 August 1962: np). The company's successful work on the SMU led to a contract for the design and manufacture of a manned space flight simulator at NWIRP Dallas. The simulator was "a maneuvering, ground-based device which can simulate numerous phases of space missions including launch, orbit, rendezvous, earth and lunar landings, and many others." Eight of NASA's astronauts for the Apollo Space Mission trained on the manned space flight simulator at NWIRP Dallas in May 1963 (LTV News 17 May 1963: 1).
Also in 1963, LTV received a $10,687,500.00 extension to the existing Scout missile production program for 23 additional launch vehicles, a program that Vought began with NASA in May 1959. NASA used Scout missiles to launch satellites into the Earth's orbit (LTV News 17 May 1963: 1). NASA again extended the Scout missile program and LTV's role in its production on 30 August 1965. The $9.2 million award required the company to manage the entire program on a trial basis that lasted 16 months, from 1 July to 31 October 1966. LTV's responsibilities included assembling the Scout, testing, and launching, as well as mission planning and evaluation of the field data (Dallas Times Herald 30 August 1965: np). LTV's performance as manager of the Scout program earned the company prime contractor status and two additional Scout missile contracts worth nearly $14 million, in June 1972. As prime contractor, LTV was responsible for both the Scout launch vehicles
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 49 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
and its motors. NASA's order called for the delivery of 15 units at the rate of 1 per month beginning in November 1973 and ending in February 1975 (LTV Profile June 1972: 1). Between 1962 and 1970, LTV's earnings of $44,445,000.00 on NASA contracts placed the company 12th among 100 contractors providing products or performing services for the space agency (LTV Profile February 1970: 2).
During the Vietnam period, LTV also performed work for the Army, which awarded it a $79.4 million contract for the Lance Missile, a weapon designed for use in a general or limited war and capable of combat operations in all types of weather and terrain. The Lance Missile System protected advancing ground forces in the field and also carried the Army's nuclear fire support (LTV News 7 June 1963: 1). LTV's second Army contract was for the XM561 one-quarter ton cargo truck worth $2.5 million. Both the Lance Missile System and XM561 were developed at NWIRP Dallas in LTV's engineering buildings, but neither was manufactured at Dallas owing to the lack of adequate facilities as well as final production commitments on jet aircraft and NASA products. LTV manufactured the Lance Missile System and XM561 at the Warren Ordnance Plant in Detroit, Michigan, an Army-owned GOCO facility (LTV News 21 December 1962: 1).
LTV Expands NWIRP Dallas to Meet its Production Demand From 1965–75, LTV sales to the Navy, Army, and NASA topped $3.75 billion, and the company's production efforts for the DOD, combined with an ambitious commercial program, strained NWIRP Dallas facilities (Brown 1972: 26). The overcrowding forced LTV to transfer manufacturing on its Army contracts to Detroit, so the company sought to expand of its existing facilities in order to accommodate its wartime and commercial production. In October 1966, LTV began a $21 million facility and equipment modernization program, $4 million of which the Navy contributed. The modernization program's goal was to keep LTV competitive, efficient, and able to meet the company's overwhelming military and commercial orders (LTV News 7 October 1966: 3).
Although no major construction occurred at Plant “B,” Facility 6 as part of the expansion, the factory's high bay area received the bulk of the funds for equipment modernization or replacement (LTV News 7 October 1966: 3). The company spent most of its expansion funds on the construction of 15 new buildings, additions to Facilities 76, 110, 128, and 197, and the installation of a new parking area that provided 1,000 additional parking spaces (LTV Profile February 1969: 1).
The Facility 76 addition included a 50,000-square-foot avionics lab, an acceptance test lab for government and contractor-furnished equipment, and a repair center for aircraft computers, radar, and gyros. An addition to Facility 197, an acoustics and fuel systems test lab, provided expanded space for testing of vibration problems in advanced, supersonic jet aircraft. LTV's improvement to the Fuel Calibration Lab, Facility 110, doubled the
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 50 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
company's capacity for testing aircraft fueling systems, a job generally performed by the Navy at other GOCOs (LTV Profile February 1969: 1).
Facility 194, an office and engineering building, was the first new building constructed as part of the Vietnam Expansion Program. The 100,000-square-foot facility supported the A-7 Corsair II production program. (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 1). Architect Dale Y. Foster and Leo L. Landauers & Associates supplied the architectural drawings, and an unknown firm built Facility 194 at a total cost of $1,320,480. In a 1974 NAVPRO report, Facility 194 is listed as one of the most significant construction projects undertaken by LTV at NWIRP Dallas (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 8).
LTV undertook construction of several different facilities and areas of NWIRP Dallas in 1967. Construction activities included the installation of a 250,000-square-foot concrete ramp area extending from the production lines at Facilities 1 and 6 to Hensley Field and storage facilities, or Line Shelters, scattered across the eastern portion of NWIRP Dallas. LTV requested this project on 9 January 1967, and received approval on 23 June 1967 (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 2). The new concrete ramp expanded airport operations and capabilities at NWIRP Dallas for LTV's commercial and military programs, specifically the A-7 Corsair II, Crusader, Boeing 747, and McDonnell-Douglas DC-10. The ramp's construction cost $940,977.00.
Part of the Vietnam Expansion included the installation of eight prefabricated metal Engine Run-Up Line Shelters—Facilities 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 211, 212, and 213—in the eastern portion of NWIRP Dallas. The Navy approved the shelters on 19 April 1967 (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 1). Engine Run-Up Line Shelters provided space to store, inspect, and test individual jet aircraft prior to flight-testing at Hensley Field. Once a jet was manufactured in Facilities 1 and 6, LTV employees moved the aircraft down the newly installed concrete ramp to a Line Shelter, where it was tested and then moved through Gate 48 or Gate 49 to Hensley Field at NAS Dallas. Each unit provided 3,300 square feet of space and at a combined cost of $94,357.00 (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 1).
The two remaining buildings constructed in 1967 were small support buildings. The first was Facility 219, a raw materials warehouse. It was used to store aluminum, steel, wood, and other production goods. The 60,594- square-foot warehouse cost LTV nearly $500,000.00. Located in the southwest portion of NWIRP Dallas and away from manufacturing centers, Facility 219 was accessible to Crusader Drive, which was used to transport the raw materials to the appropriate production facility. The second building, Facility 195, a cooling tower, cost $45,000.00 and supported expanded air-conditioning needs in the newly constructed buildings.
Three LTV-funded buildings were added at NWIRP Dallas in 1968, the largest of which was Facility 198, a machining center. LTV requested the new facility on 3 May 1967, which was approved later that month. The 205,658-square-foot building cost $3.6 million and provided LTV with a variety of manufacturing support functions, both commercial and military (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 1). With LTV's
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 51 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
expanded manufacturing program, the company needed a large and modern machining center to make, shape, and forge specific parts for jet aircraft, missiles, rockets, and commercial airliners. Both large and small parts, made of metals and alloys, were machined through heat, pressure, and chemical processes on large presses and dies in Facility 198.
The remaining two 1968 buildings, Facilities 222 and 223, were completed within two months of each other. Facility 222, a 9,311-square-foot paint preparation area, served as the company's commercial and military production programs, specifically the A-7 Corsair II, Boeing 747, and McDonnell-Douglas DC-10. LTV used Facility 223 to store ammunition magazines for installation on the Crusader, Crusader III, and Corsair II. Because of its strict military application, the Navy—rather than LTV—funded the 1,250-square-foot facility at a cost of $50,000.00 (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 2; LTV Profile February 1969: 1).
The last building constructed as part of the Vietnam Expansion was Facility 220, an office building located immediately south of Facility 194, in the westernmost portion of NWIRP Dallas. The three-story, 155,526- square-foot office building cost LTV over $3 million dollars and housed materials and computer systems related to the A-7 Corsair II program. The Navy approved construction of Facility 220 on 29 May 1968, and LTV hired Dale M. Mills, a Dallas architect-engineer, to supply the architectural drawings. Facility 220 was completed in 1969.
In March 1968, Texas Governor John Connally awarded LTV the Governor's Industrial Expansion Award on the basis of the company's Vietnam Expansion Program and its effects on the total economic growth of North Texas. The Dallas and Grand Prairie Chambers of Commerce nominated LTV for the prestigious award because the expansion afforded North Texas residents increased employment opportunities, which in turn heightened local expenditures and capital investments (LTV News 15 March 1968: 1). During the Vietnam period, employment at NWIRP Dallas soared to 25,000, a figure approaching World War II employment levels. Even so, the Navy estimated that LTV was understaffed by nearly 10,000 employees (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5).
The growth of NWIRP Dallas also coincided with the growth of the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex. By 1974, the overall population of the Metroplex reached 2.5 million, with the City of Dallas representing 894,000 and Grand Prairie 63,000 residents. This was a considerable jump from the nearly 400,000 Dallas County population figure in 1940, when NWIRP Dallas was built (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 9; Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94). Since the plant's initial opening, the Metroplex had grown into the transportation hub of the Southwest, serviced by the Dallas-Ft. Worth Regional Airport, major interstate highways, and numerous freight lines (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 11). Grand Prairie Chamber of Commerce officials credited NWIRP Dallas, the Navy, and the facility contractor with bolstering the suburb's economy, spurring development and growth, and providing North Texas residents with expanded employment opportunities. Randle Lee, vice-president of commercial development for the Chamber
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 52 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
of Commerce, compared the impact of the aircraft industry in North Texas to that of oil in West Texas (Dallas Morning News 9 August 1987).
LTV Operations in Post-Vietnam to 1992 Following the end of the Vietnam War in the mid-1970s and the reduction of military-related contracts, LTV was forced to lay off over half its work force. With the Cold War period coming to a close, the company relied more on commercial contracts and orders from foreign nations to keep its business afloat. Consequently, LTV had no funds to purchase NWIRP Dallas, and this factor, combined with restrictions placed on the sale, forced the company to abandon its plan to buy the complex. The Navy subsequently declared NWIRP Dallas a surplus property, but little buyer interest and the nation's depressed economic conditions forced it to reconsider divestiture. Furthermore, the Navy argued that as long as LTV devoted a substantial percentage of its production activities to DOD- or NASA-related contracts, the company could continue to lease NWIRP Dallas.
With few viable alternatives, the Navy renewed LTV's lease, No. N0w6137u, ensuring that NWIRP Dallas was preserved for future mobilization emergencies (Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np; Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 1).
Since the major Vietnam Expansion of 1966–69, LTV has made no major leasehold improvements at NWIRP Dallas except for routine maintenance and the cleanup of Mountain Creek Lake. As a condition of the lease renewal, LTV was required to install a new water treatment plant according to the specifications of the Texas Water Quality Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1974, LTV constructed an Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Collection System in the westernmost portion of the plant at a cost of $2,851,300.00. The company also connected the NWIRP Dallas water storage tanks to the City of Dallas water main, providing quality drinking water to employees for the first time in almost a decade. Finally, the last maintenance requirement at NWIRP Dallas was the replacement of the World War II-era cooling tower, Facility 129, at a cost of nearly $2.6 million (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 16).
The worldwide recession of the early 1980s and the expense of required facilities maintenance rendered LTV financially vulnerable. The company was able to keep its doors open through its subcontracting work and continued production of its famed Corsair II jet aircraft. The Corsair II sustained LTV throughout the late 1970s and 1980s. Both the Navy and Air Force placed orders with LTV for the jet, but the DOD purchased aircraft modification kits and other maintenance supplies rather than complete production models. The 42 new production Corsair II jets manufactured at NWIRP Dallas in this period were ordered by the French military, with additional units requisitioned by the Greek and Portuguese air forces in the late 1980s (Donald 1997: 899– 900). The Corsair II was a superiorly designed jet, and its performance and limited maintenance requirements allowed the aircraft to remain in active service throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. Navy deployed the Corsair II in combat during the Desert Storm conflict. In 1993, the last version of the Corsair II, in service with
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 53 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
the U.S. Air National Guard, was retired (Donald 1997: 899). NATO countries still fly models of the Corsair II today.
The Corsair II and subcontracting work fueled LTV's survival in the lean and often cyclical aerospace environment of the 1980s. In 1981, LTV won its largest contract ever; a $1.3 billion subcontract from Rockwell International Corporation, a California-based company, to build the aft fuselage of the B1B Stealth Bomber (Dallas Morning News 9 August 1987). The Stealth contract, a subcontracting job for the U.S. Air Force C-17 Cargo plane, and commercial work for Boeing sustained and allowed LTV to rehire many employees who had lost their jobs in the declining aircraft market following the Vietnam War. By the late 1980s, LTV employment rebounded to 15,800 persons, with an annual payroll of $211.3 million. From the late 1980s and to the present, no complete jet aircraft or commercial product has been manufactured at NWIRP Dallas (Dallas Morning News 9 August 1987).
Production at NWIRP Dallas from 1992 to the present In 1992, Northrop Grumman, a prestigious southern California-based company, purchased LTV and became the new tenant of NWIRP Dallas. A leader in Stealth technology, Northrop Grumman purchased LTV because of its decade-long experience manufacturing pieces of the Stealth Bomber. Northrop Grumman valued LTV's expertise and wanted NWIRP Dallas employees to work on the company's burgeoning Stealth Fighter program. Northrop Grumman also used NWIRP Dallas to refurbish its Gulf Stream aircraft, but has never manufactured a complete product at the complex. In the last few years, the company reduced employment levels at the facility in an effort to reorganize its corporate structure and determine the best way to utilize the factory.
In its tenure at NWIRP Dallas, Northrop Grumman has made no major leasehold improvements except for routine maintenance; however, in 1997–98, the company renovated its office space in Facilities 2 and 7, which required a massive 5,000-person layoff. Also during this time, the Navy decided to divest itself of NWIRP Dallas and other aircraft-related GOCO facilities. The Navy gave Northrop Grumman the first opportunity to purchase NWIRP Dallas, but the company declined, preferring to lease rather than own the property. The Navy offered to sell NWIRP Dallas to the City of Dallas, which currently owns both Hensley Field and the former NAS Dallas complex. The city accepted the proposal and on 24 March 1999, Congress took the first step in the transfer of NWIRP Dallas to the city with the passage of Senate Bill S-694.
Ownership of NWIRP Dallas Changes Throughout the transfer of the property to the City of Dallas, Northrop Grumman continued on as lessee of NWIRP Dallas, filling orders for the B-2 Stealth Bomber manufacturing program as well as the Joint STARS, E-2C, and Global Hawk programs. In the third quarter of 1999, Northrop Grumman experienced a backlog at most of its production facilities, but at NWIRP Dallas, the company experienced a significant slow- down.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 54 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Grumman attributed the decrease in work to the conclusion of the B-2 bomber program. The reduction in B-2 work reduced profits at NWIRP Dallas by half, from $104 million to $51 million. As a result of reduced sales and profits, the company decided to sell its Dallas division (PR Newswire 18 October 2000: np).
In July 2000, Northrop Grumman entered into talks with The Carlyle Group about purchasing the Dallas division and assuming the lease at NWIRP Dallas. The Carlyle Group, a Washington, D.C.-based private venture capital firm, developed a reputation for acquiring and successfully operating 11 defense-related companies, including Power Paragon and United Defense Industries, maker of the Bradley fighting vehicle. The Carlyle Group offered to purchase all of Northrop Grumman’s aerostructures divisions – not just the Dallas division. Northrop Grumman’s commercial aerostructures unit generated annual sales of $706 million and employed some 6,000 people at production facilities in Dallas, Texas; Hawthorne, California; Stuart, Florida; and Milledgeville and Perry, Georgia. Northrop Grumman agreed to the sale of its whole aerostructures sector, so long as The Carlyle Group agreed to assume more then $400 million in employment liabilities and taxes. The Carlyle Group agreed to Northrop Grumman’s terms. On 24 July 2000, The Carlyle Group officially purchased Northrop Grumman’s entire aerostructures sector for $1.2 billion dollars. When publicly announcing the deal, The Carlyle Group confirmed that there would be no significant changes in overall workforce levels and that it would keep aerostructures’ headquarters at NWIRP Dallas. In addition, it would operate under the historic name, Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:21; PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:05; hoovers.com; thecarlylegroup.com).
The new company formed by The Carlyle Group marked the return of a well-respected name in the aerospace industry and combined the design and manufacturing capabilities of the Vought Aircraft Company, Northrop Corporation, and Grumman Corporation. The new director of aerostructures operations, Gordon Williams, elaborated on the importance and combination of the three companies under the name Vought Aircraft Industries: “Our new company name carries with it a tradition of excellence. The Vought legacy of achievement in aerospace design, manufacture, and technology innovation has made us what we are today – the premier aerostructures supplier in the world.” Vought Aircraft Industries assumed all of the previous subcontract and prime contract work for the Boeing Company and Gulf Stream Aerospace at NWIRP Dallas, supplying the firms with fuselages, empennages, wing center sections, flight control surfaces, doors and nacelle components, as well as the entire integrated work for the Gulfstream V business jet (PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:21; PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:05).
Immediately following the July 2000 creation of Vought Aircraft Industries, NWIRP Dallas became the center of the company’s fabrication and major assembly operations. Vought Aircraft Industries continued production work for Boeing on both commercial and military projects at NWIRP Dallas. Current commercial products include various structures for the Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. Current military subcontract work for the Air Force and Navy include major structures on the C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft. NWIRP Dallas employees manufacture the nacelles, horizontal and vertical stabilizers, and universal aerial refueling panels for
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 55 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
the C-17. Other military-related products manufactured at Dallas under Vought Aircraft Industries include the E-2C Hawkeye outer wing panels, S-3A Viking wing folds, V-22 fuselage subassemblies, and the wings for the Global Hawk unmanned air vehicle (PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:21).
Northrop Grumman’s sale of its aerostructures sector to The Carlyle Group and the renaming of the division to Vought Aircraft Industries only minimally affected operations at NWIRP Dallas, but has delayed the sale of the federally owned property to the City of Dallas from 2002 until 2006. In the meantime, the Navy and the City of Dallas has agreed to keep Vought Aircraft Industries as the lessee of NWIRP Dallas throughout and following the transfer of the property from the military to the private sector. However, during the six-year transfer period, Vought Aircraft Industries is precluded from engaging in any leasehold improvements at NWIRP Dallas without the formal and written consent of the Navy, the City of Dallas, and the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).
REGULUS MISSILE HISTORIC CONTEXT ADDITION
INTRODUCTION
The earliest concept of “aerial torpedoes”, more commonly known as missiles, began during the First World War. German researchers explored the use of pilot-less aircraft to deliver ordnance to a particular target, but the project never resulted in a successful prototype. Adolf Hitler resumed research and development into missiles when he was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Hitler’s missile program was far more ambitious than the World War I efforts and can be linked to the Chancellor’s fascination for exotic weaponry, especially rockets and nuclear technology. Germany’s missile program during World War II resulted in two successful designs: the V-1 and V-2 rockets (www.vectorsite.tripod.com; www.mit.edu/people/zimerman).
EARLY HISTORY MISSILES, 1939-1945
The German V-1 rocket was the first practical cruise missile. It resembled an unmanned airplane rather than a modern-day missile. Powered by a device known as a pulse-jet engine, the V-1 used a cycling flutter valve to regulate the air and fuel mixture following launch into the air from a ground-based catapult system. Once launched, the German military had no control mechanism for the missile. Course control was achieved through combination of a magnetic compass and an air-driven gyroscope. The V-1 reached speeds of 200 and 400 miles per hour and often attained ranges of 150 miles. A highly simplified barometric altimeter located in the front portion of the missile body controlled its altitude. The rear of the missile contained a small propeller that activated the onboard warhead after a specified number of rotations. As the missile approached the target zone,
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 56 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
the control vanes were inactivated and a rear-mounted spoiler deployed, which sent the missile down towards its target. This downward action interrupted fuel supply to the flutter valve, causing the pulse-jet engine to fail and the weapon to detonate.
In combat situations, the V-1 was not an effective weapon because it often failed following launch. The V-1 required airflow for ignition. Consequently, it had to fly a minimum of 150 miles per hour to stay airborne. Directional errors inherent in the missile’s design forced the V-1 to fly in altitudes above 2,000 feet. Both of these requirements were difficult to achieve and resulted in a 25% failure rate. Despite these serious problems, the German military launched the V-1 missiles from sites in the western part of France and into the London area beginning in June 1944 and continuing on for several consecutive months. A British report released after the war indicated Germany launched 7,547 V-1 missiles at England, claiming 6,139 lives – three times the number killed by the German V-2 (Encyclopedia Britannica 1994-2001: 1; www.mit.edu/people/zimerman; www.spaceline.org/history).
German scientists also developed the V-2 unmanned aircraft simultaneous with the V-1 program. The V-2 is considered the direct ancestor of the modern intercontinental ballistic missile and “…is believed to one of the most significant scientific advances of World War II, second only to the development of the atomic bomb” (www.spaceline/ org/history). The V-2 was 46 feet long and weighed about 27,000 pounds at launch, of which 2,000 pounds was ordnance. Powered by liquid oxygen, the V-2 had a range of nearly 190 miles and achieved speeds of 6,000 feet-per-second. On 8 September 1944, Germany launched a series of V-2 attack on Cheswick, England from sites in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Germany launched approximately 3,300 V-2 missiles on England with only 1,340 impacting their intended targets. British records indicate that 2,800 people died and 6,500 injured as a result of V-2 missile attacks. Because the V-2 flew so high and so fast, the Allies had a difficult time defending against it (www.spaceline.org/history; (www.mit.edu/people/zimerman).
As Allied and Soviet forces advanced on Germany, scientists directing the V-1 and V-2 programs moved their research to Switzerland. In July 1945, the Soviets located the German V-2 factory, where they obtained production-quality missiles and detained workers for questioning. The Soviets strove to acquire as much of the German rocket technology as possible by first studying the missiles themselves and then extensively interviewing the assembly workers. Shortly after its discovery by the Soviet military, Allied forces unknowingly bombed and destroyed the German V-2 missile plant in Peenemunde before the records could be removed; however, the Soviets were able to salvage several of the missiles, which they shipped to Russia (www.spaceline.org/history; www.mit.edu/people/zimerman).
The Allies, and especially the United States, faired much better in its search for German missile technology. The U.S. military learned that German scientists were hidden in the Swiss Alps. Following their detainment and subsequent arrest, the scientists directed American forces to a second German missile factory that had not been destroyed during the fighting that claimed the V-2 manufacturing plant. The United States granted asylum to the
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 57 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
German scientists under the condition that they continued and expanded their missile research in the United States. The German scientists agreed and quickly recreated the V-1 and V-2 rockets at the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. These prototypes were later tested at the Army’s bombing range in White Sands, New Mexico (www.mit.edu/people/zimerman).
AMERICAN MISSILE DEVELOPMENT, 1945-1947
The early success of the V-1 and V-2 testing in New Mexico resulted in increased funding for research and development of an American-designed weapon system. The Department of the Navy was determined to be the first military branch to create a self-propelled, strategic bombardment weapon capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The Air Force was also engaged in missile development, which resulted in an unofficial, interdepartmental race with the Navy for missile supremacy.
The Navy and Air Force rivalry dated back to World War II and the introduction of nuclear power in conventional warfare. Prior to the war, the Navy projected the nations’ strategic power through its warships, submarines, and aircraft. During the war, the Air Force assumed this role because of its ability to deliver nuclear weapons to their intended target. The prime factor in determining which military branch facilitated nuclear bombardment was the weight of the warhead. Early atomic weapons were heavy – about 5 tons – and simply too bulky for almost all carrier-launched aircraft. The Air Forces’ heavy bombers – launched from land bases – were the only vehicle capable of nuclear weapon delivery. During and following the war, the Air Force maintained the bomber aircraft that served as the delivery system for the nation’s only nuclear weapon. If the Navy had a nuclear missile in its arsenal, it could regain its important position within the armed forces. In the postwar environment, the Navy felt it could develop and offer a nuclear delivery system as part of its arsenal due to the significant decline in the weight of warheads. Furthermore, the emergence of guided missiles provided the Navy its first real opportunity to regain significance within the armed forces.
The Department of the Navy began its study into missile technology with the Loon, which was based entirely on the German V-1 technology recreated at Aberdeen. The Loon program was mostly a research effort that proved the legitimacy and operational use of missiles. The second postwar U.S. cruise missile program was the Navaho, an intercontinental missile based on V-2 technology. Designed as a supersonic missile, the Navaho used a turbojet/ramjet engine combination that proved highly problematic. Due to a variety of reasons, the engine failed to ignite and only achieved one and a half hours in flight. Engineers working on the program referred to it as the “Never Go, Navaho” (Encyclopedia Britannica 1994-2001: 1; www.mit.edu/people/zimerman).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 58 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Scientists learned a lot from both the Loon and Navaho missile programs, which they rolled into subsequent research. By the end of 1945, advancements in electronic technology greatly improved research into rockets and missiles that served to separate German designs from postwar models. The Navy tasked the Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) to expand its missile program from primarily analysis and research and into development of a combat-ready prototype. This next generation of Naval missiles utilized new electronics with proven research. BuAer formed a study committee, headed by Commander Grayson Merrill, to review the status of American, English, and German guided missiles. The committee submitted a 69 page report on 15 December 1945 entitled “Study of Requirements for Pilotless Aircraft for Fleet Use in 1950”. The report resulted in a set of design criteria most likely to produce a successful guided missile. The Department of the Navy considered guided missiles the future of the armed forces and felt that a design competition was the best method to get American aircraft companies involved in the early development of this type of weapon system. BuAer distributed the design criteria to 18 of the nation’s leading aircraft companies, of which only 12 chose to participate. Subsequently, BuAer dispersed approximately $5 million for each of its 12 design contracts (Stumpf 1996: 20).
In May 1947, the Army Air Force awarded the Glenn L. Martin Company a contract for its turbojet-powered, subsonic missile, which later became known as the Matador. The Navy was much further behind schedule in choosing a company to manufacture a prototype and saw the selection of Martin as a threat to its role in guided missile technology. Consequently, the Navy ordered BuAer to immediately select one of the 12 companies involved in the design competition. By August, BuAer completed a review on the status of all contractors involved in the guided missile development competition and assessed which company had the most plausible design. BuAer selected a design by Chance Vought Aircraft.
Chance Vought Aircraft Wins the Guided Missile Competition As one of America’s first aircraft designers and manufacturers, Chance Vought Aircraft set many of aviation’s earliest records, including the first airplane to take-off and land on a carrier in 1922. The company manufactured for the Allies throughout World War II, producing such famed aircraft as the F4U Corsair, OS2U Kingfisher, and the SB2U Vindicator. Chance Vought Aircraft began its research into missiles in October 1943 after first hearing of Germany’s pilot-less aircraft program. The company was one of the 12 aircraft manufacturers that responded to the guided missile competition initiated by BuAer in 1945. The Navy offered the company the design specifications and Vought was tasked to develop a design plan that conformed to these standards:
· The missile had to carry a 3,000-pound nuclear warhead to a maximum range of 500 nautical miles at Mach .85 with a CEP of .5 percent of the range; · The vehicle had to be at least 30 feet in length, 10 feet in span, 4 feet in diameter; and, · Weigh between 10,000 and 12,000 pounds.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 59 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Because Chance Vought Aircraft had a design in development for nearly two years that was based roughly on these guidelines, the company had an advantage over other firms competing for BuAer contracts. Furthermore, Vought’s longstanding manufacturing history with the United States military afforded the company an additional edge. Vought knew how the military operated, its performance requirements, and that the armed forces often favored cost-effective manufacturing programs (www.voughtaircraft.com; www.fas.org).
In 1945, Vought submitted to BuAer a guided missile design, called the P/A VI. Vought’s design was conventional, meaning it looked like a small jet aircraft. The model closely resembled aircraft designs that the Navy liked and had purchased. The missile’s similarity to an aircraft meant that it could be manufactured with existing aircraft components and tooling equipment, machinery, and practices. Vought’s missile was sleek, tubular, and utilized the same engine as the Air Force’s Matador – the Allison J-33 engine. This power plant had a proven flight record and was already used in early jet aircraft designs by several different manufacturers, including the Glenn L. Martin Company. The aforementioned advantages made Chance Vought’s design the most likely to enter manufacturing quickly, but more importantly, it was the most affordable. The defining characteristic in the missile’s affordability was that the test version was recoverable and reusable. The P/A VI test models had landing gear and a parabrake that enabled most vehicles to be recovered and reused during test flight operations. This recoverability feature greatly reduced the cost of flight tests and development. Consequently, BuAer awarded Chance Vought Aircraft a manufacturing contract in early 1946 for one guided missile prototype (www.voughtaircraft.com; www.fas.org).
On 3 October 1947, Vought submitted its preliminary proposal to BuAer for the cost of fabricating one test vehicle. In Vought’s proposal, the company stated its primary goal was the quick production of “…a flight test vehicle that differed as little as possible from the tactical vehicle”. Vought estimated it would cost $4,997,309 for one prototype, referred to in the proposal as the Regulus Missile. Vought’s Regulus missile was to have the body of a Lockheed F-80 “Shooting Star” and be powered by the Allison J-33 jet engine. Vought relied on existing and successful designs in order to reduce delays and engineering time on engine development and trouble-shooting. BuAer accepted Vought’s design and cost estimate. On 17 November 1947, BuAer and Chance Vought Aircraft signed a Contract of Intent, number No(a) 9450 for the manufacture of one Regulus prototype (Stumpf 1996: 21).
Chance Vought began initial work on the Regulus prototype at its Stratford, Connecticut manufacturing plant. At the time, the company was moving its corporate headquarters and entire manufacturing operations to a Navy-owned manufacturing complex in Dallas, Texas. Following World War II, the Navy gained stewardship of 11 industrial plants dedicated to aircraft, missile, and engine development and manufacturing. Due to several factors – the most important of which was national security – the Department of the Navy was intent on distributing essential military manufacturers from congested, vulnerable coastal areas to inland states. Chance Vought was one of the Navy’s prime manufacturers and the Dallas plant was new, modern, and significantly larger than the Stratford plant.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 60 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Members of the Dallas City Chamber of Commerce traveled the Stratford plant and met with Vought officials. The visitors encouraged the company to move to Dallas by describing the area’s excellent year-round flying weather, affordable housing, well-trained labor pool, and diminutive tax burden. The Navy also persuaded Vought to move to Dallas by offering them use of Hensley Field at NAS Dallas, located immediately east of the main manufacturing plants and hangars. Finally, the Navy offered a lease on the Dallas Plant of $1 per year so long as Vought manufactured products for the armed forces. Vought agreed to the lease and carried out the move to Dallas in incremental phases that took 14 months to complete. Throughout the transition, Vought continued to manufacture the F4U Corsair and the F6U Pirate jet aircraft as well as development of the Regulus missile prototype (www.voughtaircraft.com).
Chance Vought Moves to Dallas, Texas Prior to the move, the Department of the Navy invested $12.4 million to renovate Facility 6, the main manufacturing plant at NIRAP Dallas. The Navy funds also expanded existing buildings and structures as well as provided monies for new construction. Vought invested nearly $9 million in this expansion. Overall, the renovation and expansion at NIRAP Dallas provided the company enough space to meet productive commitments, reduce company backlog, and increase research and development capabilities (www.voughtaircraft.com).
Facility 6, received four newly constructed internal processing areas as part of the expansion effort. One the processing areas was dedicated to the manufacture of jet aircraft and another dedicated entirely to the Regulus missile. According to former employees at the plant, the Regulus manufacturing space was a high security area where employees wore special badges for clearance into manufacturing and production. Along the west end of Facility 6, the Navy built and installed equipment for a Metallite Processing Department. Vought created and patented Metallite during World War II and used the product on the wings of jet aircraft and the Regulus missile. The Metallite Processing Department was centrally located between the jet and missile manufacturing spaces. Vought relied heavily on aluminum, steel, metal, and other lightweight alloys for most aircraft and missile skins and frames. The final processing area was devoted to heat treatment of both steel and aluminum, and for the anodizing, dichromate, and other metal-working requirements (Barksdale 1958: 19; Analysis of Leasehold Improvement nd: 1; Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4).
Facility 49, a 129,000-sqaure foot building, was the largest project undertaken during the Vought expansion at NIRAP Dallas. This building cost $1.6 million to construct and accommodated a new Engineering Department and Laboratory. Chance Vought Aircraft utilized Facility 49 in the design of all its products, from aircraft to missiles and rockets (Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 61 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
VOUGHT RESUMES REGULUS WORK AT NIRAP DALLAS
In April 1948, Chance Vought Aircraft completed its move to Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plant (NIRAP) Dallas. Vought immediately resumed the engineering phase of the Regulus missile prototype. Vought submitted a proposal to BuAer detailing the specifics of the manufacturing and testing phases. The plan submitted to BuAer covered all items that the company would deliver to the Navy under its 1947 contract valued at approximately $4.9 million:
· Fabrication of one Regulus Flight Test Article, complete in all details and ready for flight testing upon delivery to the Navy; · Instrumentation of the Flight Test Article; · Fabrication of the launcher; · Fabrication of a mock-up; · Fabrication of the Beacon Guidance System; and · Fabrication of ten test missiles and airborne Beacon Guidance units. On 1 June 1948, Vought informed the Navy that it could produce 30 Regulus test missiles for the amount originally allocated. The fabrication and testing phase of the project was to occur in the company’s new and modern plant. NIRAP Dallas’ production capabilities enabled the company to consolidate Regulus manufacturing and testing in one single location, which further reduced manufacturing costs and permitted the company to fabricate 29 additional models. By 17 December 1948, Vought delivered the first 10 Regulus production models (Stumpf 1996: 21).
Vought Faces an Early Challenge in the Regulus Program In November 1949, qualification tests began in Dallas, which consisted of vehicle fabrication quality. The next phase of testing was airborne and ground radio command control, which occurred at Naval Air Station Chincoteague, Virginia. Radio testing was completed in a month and the Regulus Project Team returned to Dallas to prepare for field operations. Upon the team’s return, Vought learned that budgetary constraints forced the Pentagon to re-focus its funding into guided missiles. At the time, the Pentagon was simultaneously funding the Navy’s Regulus and the Air Force’s Matador missile projects. The Matador and the Regulus were similar – both powered by the Allison J-33 and both in fabrication stages. The Pentagon decided that the two programs would be combined into a single program that would save the Department of the Defense a significant amount of money. The Pentagon recommended an interservice competition between the two missiles, with the winner placed under the cognizance of the Navy. The winning missile was to then be used by both branches of the Armed Forces (Stumpf 1996: 21-22). The Pentagon convened a joint Research & Development Board to study and compare the Matador and the Regulus programs. Most observers at the time considered the Matador to be about a year ahead of the Regulus in fabrication, but the Navy argued that it could not be adapted for fleet use.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 62 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Regulus advocates pointed to its simpler guidance system, which required only two submarines and one aircraft to control the missile, as compared with the Matador, which required three submarines. Also, the Matador’s single booster had to be fitted to the missile after it was on the launcher while, in contrast, the Regulus was stowed with its two boosters attached. In addition, Chance Vought built a recoverable version of the missile, which saved approximately $400,000 per test launch. Recoverability meant that Vought’s missile was cheaper to use. This also meant that in comparison to the Regulus, the Matador would require more money, men, and machinery (www.fas.org).
The Research & Development Board selected the Regulus program and consolidated funding in guided missile development with the Navy for the next few years. The selection of the Regulus settled the interservice competition between the Navy and Air Force that began during World War II. The Navy developed a way to deliver a more powerful warhead via a lightweight missile launched from a submarine, seagoing vessel, or land. The Regulus victory seemed to confirm the Navy’s return to importance within the armed forces. “It now found itself with a modern weapons system with which to play in the big game” (www.users.erols.com; www.fas.org).
The Navy’s victory was short-lived and the Regulus Project Team was back to work. BuAer quickly turned its attention to completing the flight-testing phase, which began in February 1950. Flight-testing was a joint effort between Chance Vought and the Navy and occurred incrementally over a two-year period. The Navy planned to test and fine-tune the missile at Edwards Air Force Base, California, using the recoverable prototypes (Stumpf 1996: 21). Testing the missile at NIRAP Dallas would cause unnecessary and unwarranted attention. The dry lakebeds at Edwards afforded Vought the necessary room for evaluating the missile as well as extreme privacy. Once the missile’s initial flight characteristics and recoverability were proven at Edwards, the Navy then tested the missile at Pt. Mugu, California and nearby San Nicolas Island (Stumpf 1996: 30).
REGULUS HISTORY DURING THE COLD WAR PERIOD, 1950-1989
The Regulus/Matador guided missile consolidation placed additional pressures on Chance Vought Aircraft’s manufacturing facilities. The company now had to produce nearly double the amount of guided missiles, enough for both the Navy and the Air Force as well as in three variants:
· The Fleet Test Vehicle, later renamed the flight training or fleet training missile; · The Tactical Missile, which came equipped with removable landing gear, additional fuel capacity, and a either a W-5 or W-27 nuclear warhead; and, · The Target Drone, which was nearly identical the Fleet Test Vehicle, but differed in the telemetry for target mass indication and had greater fuel capacity.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 63 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Each Regulus version had identical dimensions and launching requirements, using two Jet Assisted Take-off solid fuel booster rockets. In all, the Pentagon wanted over 500 production models (Stumpf 1996: 24).
NIRAP Dallas Expands to Meet New Production Demands From 1950-1955, Chance Vought received expanded Regulus production orders on top of increased orders for its jet aircraft. The Korean conflict placed demands on Vought that its existing facilities simply could not accommodate. Vought needed new workers to meet its contractual requirements on the Cutlass and Corsair jet aircraft and the Regulus missile. In addition to hiring new employees during the Korean War, Vought needed additional manufacturing space at NIRAP Dallas. In late 1951, Chance Vought announced a $4 million expansion program that it called the Spring Building Program in company newsletters and local newspapers. The expansion included construction of new buildings, upgrading existing NIRAP Dallas facilities, and adding new parking lots to accommodate elevated employment levels (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5). Chance Vought submitted its construction request to the Navy. After examining the specifications of the proposed expansion – referred to as the Spring Building Program – the Navy agreed to supply Vought land for new construction as well as contribute some funds for plant and building renovations. Since construction occurred on Navy-owned lands, work was approved and supervised by the Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, located in New Orleans, Louisiana. In some of the cases, the Bureau of Yards & Docks supplied the architectural drawings, but independent contractors carried out at least half of the design work. Vought constructed several facilities for use in fabrication of both jet aircraft and missiles. Facility 94, a research, design, and structures test lab for the Regulus missile, was one of the first new buildings constructed as part of Vought’s Spring Building Program. The company utilized the space to verify the structural stability of production missiles as well as aid Vought in developing new technologies. Along with Facility 94, Vought constructed five additional buildings – Facilities 95, 97, 102, 103, and 106. The first two supported the Regulus exclusively while the other served jet aircraft operations.
Construction on Facility 95, the Regulus test cell building, began in 1953 and was in early 1954. Test cells consist of both the power and control mechanisms for guided missiles and can be either self-contained rocket motors or air-breathing jet engines. The equipment and machinery installed at Facility 95 was capable of testing both types of engines as well as the outside booster charges from tube launchers. On 18 June 1953, Vought broke ground on Facility 97, a $1.7 million guided missile hangar to store and test the Regulus. The nearly 70,000 square foot hangar contained a high bay area, electronics test area, and storage space, as well as offices and workrooms. Vought used Facility 97 primarily to check and ground test the Regulus prior to its delivery to the west coast for flight operations (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1-2). Regulus missiles leaving Facility 6 were transported to Facility 97 for installation of electrical systems, internal components, as well as final testing operations. Following final component testing, the Regulus missile was moved to nearby Facility 95 for engine simulation, testing, and clearance. Vought used Facility 95’s test cells to simulate engine start-up, take-off, climb, cruise, and let-down (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 64 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Once all systems were tested and cleared, the Regulus missiles were moved to Facility 93, the Shipping and Manufacturing Building, for delivery to the navy. Vought utilized Facility 93’s manufacturing space to fabricate special shipping containers for the Regulus because it needed to be shipped intact with no assembly required. The large, cylindrical metal containers held one missile and came equipped with tethers that stabilized the missile during shipping. The tethers prevented shifting and damage to delicate electrical components. Facility 93 employees folded the missile’s wings, loaded one Regulus missile into a shipping container, and then attached the tethers. Vought transported the containers via flatbed, commercial trucking lines from Dallas to military testing ranges in Southern California.
During construction of the Regulus-dedicated buildings – Facilities 94, 95, and 97 – the Navy and Vought completed testing of the initial prototypes in California. Flight-testing resulted in the first successful launch of a missile from a submarine. On 15 July 1953, the Navy launched a Regulus missile from the deck of the USS Tunny in the Pacific and landed at San Nicolas Island airfield near coastal California. During this same year, the Regulus was repeatedly launched from surface ships. The Navy believed that the Regulus enhanced the usefulness of its Cruisers by extending the vessels’ offensive range and mission capabilities. Following completion of both flight-testing and construction at NIRAP Dallas, the Department of the Navy gave Vought permission to begin full-scale manufacturing on the Regulus (www.fas.org; Stumpf 1996: 48).
Fleet Testing and Use of the Regulus Missile In January 1954 – and following 46 successful launches of the Regulus – the Chief of Naval Operations decided that the Regulus must undergo the most rigorous form of testing to determine if the missile was ready to enter fleet operations. Chance Vought’s newly expanded facilities at NIRAP Dallas enabled the company to deliver additional production models of the Regulus for use in fleet testing. They Navy planned to launch the extra missiles during combat training exercises that tested the operational usefulness of the Regulus. Fleet operational testing began in August 1954 and was completed in June 1956. The training schedule required 146 missile launches from the ground as well as aboard surface ships and submarines.
Just prior to fleet testing, Chance Vought hosted several weeks of training at NIRAP Dallas where ten Naval engineers learned about the Regulus missile’s major subsystems and detailed knowledge of Regulus production and assembly. Vought believed the training helped naval engineers to deal with unanticipated problems during operational testing and better explain and describe problems with company engineers. Upon graduation from the conference, the Navy deployed the engineers to each Regulus support unit with the task of monitoring fleet operational testing. The success of the NIRAP Dallas conference led to repeat training sessions in which Chance Vought updated Naval personnel on changes and modifications in the engineering and manufacturing processes of the Regulus (Stumpf 1996: 48-49).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 65 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
The Navy conducted the great bulk of fleet operations testing at the Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station (MCAAS) in Mojave, California. Edwards Air Force Base was the Navy’s first choice for testing, but the installation’s already overburdened training schedules made MCAAS Mojave a good alternative. Near Edwards Air Force Base, MCAAS Mojave was isolated far in the southern California desert and afforded the level of privacy necessitated for the secret missile program. In addition, MCAAS was close to Naval Ordnance Test Station China Lake and the Inyokern nuclear warhead test area, where additional Regulus testing occurred. Fleet training also took place from the aircraft carrier USS John Hancock, deployed in the Western Pacific, as well as aboard the USS Lexington, USS Bon Homme Richard, and the Norfolk-based USS Randolph (Stumpf 1996: 49, 54).
The results of the fleet operational testing were incredibly favorable to Chance Vought, earning the prestigious “highly reliable” rating by the Navy. Of 146 launches of the Regulus tactical missiles, 82% were considered successful. Tactical missiles – the ones the Navy used in deployment from land, vessel, and submarine – were awarded a 91% reliability rating (Stumpf 1996: 53-54, 74; www.fas.org; www.collinsmuseum.com; www.vectorsite.tripod.com). The success of the initial Regulus program led to a successor missile called the Regulus II. Development on this program began at NIRAP Dallas in 1954, but was cancelled a few years later. The Navy determined that this second program was not a significant improvement on its predecessor, primarily because it could not be launched from a submerged submarine. The Polaris ballistic nuclear missile, which was in development, could launch a nuclear warhead from underwater. The Navy considered the Polaris, not the Regulus II, as the long- term future of Naval missiles. Termination of Vought’s Regulus II program saved the Navy $100 million and these funds were immediately diverted to the Polaris program (Stumpf 1996: 53-54, 74; www.fas.org; www.collinsmuseum.com; www.vectorsite.tripod.com). It took nearly a decade for the Polaris to be operationally ready, so the Navy continued to support, purchase, and utilize the Regulus I as an interim program. From 1954 to January 1959, Chance Vought manufactured 514 Regulus I tactical missiles. All of these missiles were manufactured at NIRAP Dallas, (now known as NWIRP Dallas). Even though production ended in 1959, the missile remained in service until August 1964. Admiral Zumwalt called the cancellation of the Regulus I as the “single worst decision about weapons [the Navy] made during my years of service.” (www.fas.org). For 16 years, the Regulus served aboard specially designed submarines, a variety of surface ships, and from the ground (Stumpf 1996: 58; www.vectorsite.tripod.com).
Naval Vessels and Deployments Associated with the Regulus Missile For nearly a decade, the Navy extensively used the Regulus I aboard sea-going vessels and submarines. The Regulus was launched from sea-going vessels by means of a mobile catapult system, which required a minimum amount of mechanical work and installation. The first operational deployment of a Regulus I aboard a sea-going vessel occurred in 1955 and onboard the cruiser USS Los Angeles (CA-135) and later aboard three additional Baltimore Class cruisers – the USS Helena (CA-75), USS Macon (CA-132), and the USS Toledo
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 66 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
(CA-133). Each of the four heavy cruisers carried three Regulus I missiles and one catapult launching system. The Regulus I was used in support of Western Pacific patrol routes from 1955-1961 in which American vessels monitored Soviet Naval movements (www.collinsmuseum.com).
In late 1955, the Navy configured a total of ten aircraft carriers to support the Regulus I missile. Of the ten carriers fitted for Regulus I operations, only six actually carried out deployments with the weapon. In general, aircraft carriers supported 4-6 Regulus I missiles and multiple catapult launching systems; therefore, the configuration of aircraft carriers was a more complicated process than with cruisers. Configuration required installation of new power and instrumentation lines from the below-deck storage area to the carrier deck, where the missiles were launched. The first operational warship to launch a Regulus I missile was the USS Princeton (CV-37). The USS Randolph (CV-15) was the first aircraft carrier to be deployed abroad with Regulus I missiles. The USS Randolph, along with the USS Shangri-La (CV-38), the USS Lexington (CV-16), and the USS Ticonderoga (CV-14), were all deployed to the Mediterranean for NATO training exercises.
The USS John Hancock (CV-19) was the most heavily involved aircraft carrier in both the testing and deployment of the Regulus I missile. It was deployed with each version of the Regulus I, the most noteworthy of which was the Regulus Assault Mission concept, or RAM missile, the first of its kind. Part of the 7th Fleet Operations division, the USS Hancock carried Regulus I missiles on deployments in Hawaii, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Laos, and on Soviet patrols in the South China Seas. The USS Hancock also tested the Regulus II missile near San Diego, prior to its cancellation in favor of the Polaris missile (www.collinsmuseum.com; www.navyhistory.com).
The Regulus missile was the first nuclear weapon capable of launch from a submarine – a feat that took the Soviet Union more than a decade after the Regulus to achieve. Regulus submarine launches were a much more complicated process than vessel or land-based launches. Submarines carried the Regulus missiles in a two- round hangar mounted on the exterior body of the ship. The ship surfaced and then sailors removed the weapon from the hangar compartment and loaded it onto the catapult launching system. The entire launch sequence took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The Navy selected five diesel-powered, World War II-era submarines to be specially retrofitted with a Regulus hangar compartment and launching protocol. In the early 1950s, the Navy dry-docked the USS Cusk (SSG-348), USS Tunny (SSG-282), USS Barbero (SSG-577), USS Grayback (SSG-574), and the USS Growler (SSG-577) to install instrumentation, wiring, the hangar compartment, and an exterior catapult launching system. With the modifications, each submarine supported between two and four nuclear missiles (www.vectorsite.tripod.com; www.collinsmuseum.com).
The Navy completed alterations to the diesel-powered submarines in 1956. Subsequently, the submarines were re-designated SSG class and placed in service with the Peal Harbor Submarine Force Family. In October 1959, the USS Cusk, USS Tunny, USS Barbero, USS Grayback, and the USS Growler made their first missions as part of a top secret program called Regulus Deterrent Patrols. The details of these missions are still largely classified
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 67 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
nearly four decades after the program ended. According to veterans of the deterrent missions, these submarines traveled through the Artic and into Soviet waters and the South China Sea, enabling the Navy to monitor Soviet submarine and naval operations. Oral histories also indicate that these ships carried Regulus missiles directly to Russia’s coast. The five aforementioned submarines made a total of 40 patrols over a five year period (www.users.erols.com; www.scs.wsu.edu; www.vectorsite.tripod.com; www.collinsmuseum.com).
Concurrent with the SSG program was a move by the Department of the Navy to develop and manufacture nuclear-powered submarines, referred to as the SSG(N) program. Work on the SSG(N) class submarines began at the same time as diesel-powered submarines were retrofitted for Regulus Deterrent Patrols. The first SSG(N) class submarine was the USS Halibut (SSG(N)-587). Manufactured at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California, the USS Halibut was commissioned in January 1960. The Halibut was not only the Navy’s first nuclear-powered submarine, but it was also the first submarine designed and manufactured from keel up to launch guided missiles. Designed to carry the Regulus I missile, the Halibut’s main deck was taller than other submarines to provide a dry “flight-deck” for loading the missile onto the catapult and launched. The loading mechanism was completely automated with hydraulic powered machinery that brought the Regulus from the hangar compartment and up to the deck (www.geocities.com; www.users.erols.com; www.scs.wsu.edu).
On 11 March 1960, the USS Halibut sailed to Hawaii to join the Pearl Harbor Submarine Force Family. During its first year of operation, the Navy used the Halibut for worldwide demonstrations of the U.S. nuclear capabilities in locations such as Australia, Southeast Asia, and locations throughout the western Pacific. In April 1961, the USS Halibut began Regulus Deterrent Patrols as part of Pacific Fleet operations. From 1961-1964 the USS Halibut made an unknown number of deterrent patrols in classified locations. Unlike diesel-powered submarines, the Halibut was capable of making extended, submerged missile deterrent patrols, possibly up to six months per mission. Prior to the Halibut, lengthy, covert missions were impossible for both the U.S. and the Russians. In 1965, the USS Halibut returned to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard to be reconfigured for use with the Polaris Missile (www.geocities.com; www.users.erols.com).
Significance of the Regulus Missiles At the end of World War II, the crux of the United States military’s massive nuclear retaliation depended solely on the Air Force, which greatly limited the strategic capabilities of the armed forces – military leaders could only deliver a nuclear bomb to areas accessible by heavy bomber aircraft. The advent of guided missiles changed military planning because they provided strategists an opportunity to deliver thermonuclear weapons directly upon enemy territory, regardless of the location and its accessibility. In this post-war environment, the Navy found itself in a uniquely important position, especially after it combined its guided missile programs with a modern, strong fleet of vessels and submarines. The development, acceptance, and operational readiness of the Regulus missile reinstated the Navy’s position within the armed forces and placed it on equal footing with the Air Force in terms of strategic and wartime planning. For a decade, the Navy had the only guided missile
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section E Page 68 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
capable of delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world and in a matter of days. Not even the Soviet Union had a comparable weapon or delivery system. In this sense, Chance Vought’s Regulus I missile was a true product of the Cold War – conceived during a time in which the United States military was looking for a powerful deterrent to Soviet and communist expansion worldwide. Even though the Regulus was not the most technologically advanced of guided missiles, it was a proven design, affordable, recoverable, and a multipurpose weapon capable of launch from land, ship, or submarine. Furthermore, the Navy designed, constructed, and commissioned a submarine (USS Halibut) around the Regulus in an effort to maximize the usefulness of the weapon. The Halibut’s operations were top secret and classified even today. These characteristics made Chance Vought’s Regulus missile important to Cold War policies and practices and valuable to the government of the United States of America (www.collinsmuseum.com/regulus; www.scs.wsu.edu; www.fas.org; www.users.erols.com).
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section F Page 69 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Associated Property Types
DESCRIPTION: MILITARY MANUFACTURING-RELATED PROPERTIES Naval Weapons Industrial Plant Dallas contains 159 government-owned buildings and structures. Although these resources are diverse and embody a variety of building forms and types, all NWIRP Dallas properties house functions that either directly or indirectly support the station’s primary mission of manufacturing defense- related products. Based on this similarity, NWIRP Dallas resources can be grouped into one broad category or property type, Military Manufacturing-Related Properties.
In order to facilitate an effective and analytical approach for evaluating NWIRP Dallas’ resources, these properties have been further divided into subcategories or subtypes based upon the original or intended use of each resource. Each subtype includes resources that may possess physical and associative qualities that distinguish them from other properties at the plant. There are seven property subtypes found at NWIRP Dallas:
· Office/Administration · Hangar · Manufacturing · Warehouse/Storage · Operational Support · Laboratory/Engineering · Utilities/Infrastructure
Office/Administration Resources in this category include those buildings that house administrative activities related to the day-to-day operations of the plant, such as accounting, engineering, facilities management. There are six Office/Administration buildings at NWIRP Dallas. The earliest properties within this category (Facilities 7, 2, 5, and 49) were constructed between 1942 and 1949. The remaining two Office/Administrative resources, Facilities 194 and 220, were erected in 1968 and 1969, respectively. The four office buildings constructed in the 1940s are located in the north-central and northwestern part of the plant and, with the exception of Facility 5, are similar in scale, construction method, and use of material. These resources are large three- or four-story, irregular- or rectangular-plan buildings resting atop concrete slab-on-grade foundations. Construction systems are steel frame, and exteriors are ribbed steel siding and concrete. Roofs are flat and constructed of built-up roofing materials. Primary exterior entrances are hinged paired and hinged single aluminum-frame doors. Because these buildings were designed to “black-out” standards, they lack windows.
Facility 5, also situated in the northern portion of the plant, is a small, one-story, lean-to that was appended to Facility 1’s west façade in 1941. The resource, much like it contemporaries, is a steel-frame, flat-roof building
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section F Page 70 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
that rests atop a concrete slab-on-grade foundation. It exterior walls, however, are clad with vinyl siding. Additionally, its exterior entrances are metal horizontal-sliding doors and rubber overhead doors. Facility 5’s windows are single-hung, aluminum-sash units.
Facilities 194 and 220 are both situated in the western portion of the plant. Both buildings are rectangular-plan, steel-frame resources with flat, built-up roofs. They are two- or three-stories high and display aluminum-frame storefront primary entrances. Windows are fixed aluminum-sash units.
Hangar The six buildings in this category – Facilities 16, 20, 76, 97, 104, and 244 – are situated within a grouping in the east-central portion of NWIRP Dallas. The interior of each hangar typically consists of an open cavernous space with several smaller partitioned areas dedicated to administrative and/or manufacturing-oriented uses. The hangars, built between 1941 and 1969, are large one- to three-story, steel-frame buildings with irregular or rectangular plans. Foundations are concrete slab-on-grade and roofs are flat or shallow-gabled and constructed of built-up roofing material. Exteriors are clad with ribbed steel siding with concrete bases or skirting. Each hangar’s primary façade prominently displays a bank of massive tracked horizontal-sliding steel doors. Also present are hinged-single and hinged-paired metal doors. Windows, when present, are industrial projected-panel steel sash units. Each of the resources in this category presents a restrained, unadorned exterior that reflects the strictly utilitarian functions they house. They display no architectural elaboration or stylistic ornamentation.
Manufacturing Properties in the Manufacturing category include those resources that house manufacturing and production activities at NWIRP Dallas. The majority of the 13 resources in this category are located within a cluster around the plant’s two primary manufacturing buildings (Facilities 1 and 6) in the northern portion of NWIRP Dallas. The earliest manufacturing buildings – Facilities 1, 6, 22, 23, and 32 – were constructed between 1941 and 1943. Much like the hangars, these buildings typically feature unpartitioned cavernous interior spaces accessed by banks of massive horizontal-sliding steel exterior doors. Smaller partitioned areas, sometimes located in lean-to wings, house administrative functions. These early manufacturing facilities are one- to three-story, irregular- or rectangular-plan buildings of steel- or wood-frame construction. Foundations are concrete slab-on- grade. Exteriors are clad with ribbed steel siding, concrete, wood siding, and vinyl siding. With the exception of Facility 32, which has a vaulted primary roofline with flat-roof wings, each of these facilities feature a shallow- gabled primary roofline with lower flat- or shed-roof wings. Exterior entrances include massive horizontal- sliding steel doors, metal canopy doors with an integral sliding panel, overhead single rubber doors, and hinged- paired wood doors. Windows, when present, are fixed aluminum-frame or industrial steel-sash projecting units.
Facilities 105, 106, 110, and 135 are manufacturing buildings erected between 1954 and 1956. They are one- story rectangular-plan buildings on concrete slab-on-grade foundations. Construction systems are steel frame and roofs are flat or vaulted. Facilities 105, 106, and 135 all feature ribbed steel siding-clad exteriors with
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section F Page 71 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
concrete bases or skirtings, while Facility 110’s exterior is clad only in ribbed steel siding. Exterior entrances are metal canopy doors, hinged paired metal doors, and hinged single metal doors with vision panel. All manufacturing facilities built during this period lack windows.
Built between 1967 and 1969, Facilities 198, 207, 222, and 225 are the most recent group of manufacturing buildings constructed at NWIRP Dallas. Facilities 222, 207, and 225 are situated in the northern portion of the plant within the grouping of manufacturing buildings near Facilities 1 and 6, while Facility 198 is more centrally located. These resources, much like the earlier manufacturing buildings, are distinctive yet utilitarian buildings lacking exterior ornamentation or stylistic influences. All are rectangular plan, one- to four-story buildings of steel-frame construction. Foundations are concrete slab-on grade. Roofs are flat and constructed of built-up roofing materials. Exteriors are primarily clad with ribbed-steel siding, although brick and concrete is also present. Exterior entrances are horizontal-sliding metal doors, overhead metal doors, and hinged paired metal doors. None of the buildings have windows.
Warehouse/Storage Warehouse/Storage buildings at NWIRP Dallas are those facilities that house functions related to the stockpiling of goods, supplies, materials, and finished products manufactured at the plant. In total, there are 47 warehouse/storage facilities at NWIRP Dallas. Rather than being located within a grouping or cluster, these resources are in various locations throughout the plant. Construction dates for warehouse/storage facilities range from 1942 to 1980. Resources in the Warehouse/Storage category are utilitarian in nature, with minimal, if any amounts of architectural styling or exterior ornamentation.
The earliest Warehouse/Storage buildings (Facilities 3,4,12,30,46,47, and 48), constructed in 1942 and 1943, are small one-story, wood- or steel-frame, rectangular-plan structures with shed or flat roofs. Foundations are pier-and-beam, concrete slab-on-grade, and raised concrete slab. Exteriors are typically clad with vinyl siding, although ribbed steel siding and concrete also occur. These buildings lack windows, and doors are horizontal- sliding metal doors and overhead metal doors.
The remaining non-historic Warehouse/Storage buildings were erected between 1950 and 1980. These resources are typically rectangular-plan, one-story buildings of steel-frame construction. Roofs are most often gabled, although flat and vaulted rooflines are also present. Exterior materials are ribbed steel siding, concrete, or steel plate. Primary entrances are overhead metal doors, horizontal-sliding metal doors, and hinged paired or hinged single metal doors. Windows are steel-sash industrial projecting panel units.
Laboratory/Engineering Resources in this category include buildings originally constructed to house functions directly related to the design and testing of new products and weapons. Constructed between 1954 and 1980, Laboratory/Engineering
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section F Page 72 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
buildings constitute a small number of resources at NWIRP Dallas and are easily defined because of the highly specialized activities they house.
The buildings in this category are one- to two-story, irregular- or rectangular-plan buildings with concrete slab- on-grade foundations. Eight of the twelve Laboratory/Engineering buildings utilize steel-frame construction, while the remaining four are of reinforced concrete construction. Roofs are flat, shed, vaulted, or gabled. The exterior wall surfaces of the majority of Laboratory/Engineering resources are clad with ribbed steel siding. A smaller number display stucco, steel plate, or concrete exteriors. Facility 6, with its fixed, aluminum-frame windows, and Facility 22, with its steel-sash industrial windows, are the only Laboratory/Engineering resources with fenestration. Primary entrances include hinged single metal doors, horizontal-sliding metal doors, hinged single metal doors, and overhead sectional metal doors. The resources in this category are not concentrated in any one area but are dispersed throughout the plant’s acreage.
Infrastructure/Utilities This category includes a diverse range of resources that provide underlying support for the operation of the station. Examples of this property type include structures and buildings that are primarily related to utilities, waste, and storage. The buildings and structures in this category are generally not intended for human occupancy but for the housing of equipment.
Infrastructure/Utility buildings were constructed primarily to house above or underground equipment. This category includes buildings such as pumphouses, powerhouses, and generator sheds. These resources are typically small, rectangular-plan structures with flat or shed roofs. The majority of Infrastructure/Utility buildings are of steel-frame construction, although a small number utilize load-bearing masonry (brick or concrete masonry units), reinforced concrete, or wood-frame construction. Exteriors are typically clad with ribbed steel siding. The Infrastructure/Utility buildings that utilize load-bearing masonry or reinforced concrete construction systems have either brick, concrete block, or concrete exteriors. Because Infrastructure/Utility buildings were not constructed for human occupancy, most lack windows. Those with fenestration have industrial steel projecting-panel windows or fixed aluminum-sash units. Primary entrances are hinged doors or metal overhead sectional doors.
Also included in the Infrastructure/Utilities category are structures such as tanks, water cooling towers, and industrial waste treatment facilities. Because these resources are structures rather than buildings, they typically lack architectural features such as roofs, doors, and windows. The tanks included in this category are rectangular- or irregular-plan structures of riveted steel or reinforced concrete construction. The water cooling towers are typically rectangular-plan steel structures with transite or ribbed steel exteriors. Foundations are concrete pads.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section F Page 73 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Waste treatment structures are above or below grade circular-, rectangular-, or irregular-plan resources of steel- frame or reinforced concrete construction. Foundations are raised or below-grade concrete slabs.
Operational Support The Operational Support category includes a wide variety of resources that were constructed to provide services for NWIRP Dallas personnel. Buildings and structures within this category were constructed between 1941 and 1990 and are found in various locations throughout the plant.
Operational Support resources at NWIRP Dallas are typically one- or two-story facilities of wood-frame, load- bearing masonry, steel-frame, or reinforced-concrete construction. Roofs are flat, shed, or gabled. Exterior materials include vinyl siding, brick, concrete, steel plate, and ribbed steel siding. Primary exterior entrances are overhead sectional single doors, hinged single doors, and hinged paired doors. Fenestration, when present, includes industrial, steel sash projected-panel units, steel-sash casement units, or aluminum-frame fixed windows.
SIGNIFICANCE: MILITARY MANUFACTURING-RELATED PROPERTIES Noteworthy primarily for their historical associations, Military Manufacturing-Related Properties are significant because they represent important trends in national, state, and local history. NWIRP Dallas’ properties may be eligible under Criteria A due to their role in aircraft and missile manufacturing during both World War II and the Cold War. A number of the resources at NWIRP Dallas date to 1940-1945 and the United States’ World War II Industrial Mobilization Program. The use of steel in the construction of these buildings is significant because the material was highly restricted and used only in the construction of facilities considered critical to the war effort. Buildings at NWIRP Dallas erected between 1947 and 1989 reflect a nationwide, government-funded manufacturing construction program that served as the foundation for the Cold War industrial program referred as Government-Owned, Contractor Operated (GOCO) facilities. GOCOs produced aircraft, missiles, ships and vessels, ordnance, and guns throughout the Cold War years (1949-1989) and were considered crucial to military-related production for the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The facilities at NWIRP Dallas, particularly Manufacturing Facilities, Hangars, and Laboratory/Engineering Facilities, represent the expanded and increasingly significant role that aircraft and missile manufacturing played in winning World War II and the Cold War. Furthermore, Manufacturing Facilities, Hangars, and Laboratories and Engineering Buildings comprised the integral part of NWIRP Dallas’ original, subsequent, and current mission – the manufacture of defense-related products. Thus, the properties at NWIRP Dallas are tangible links to pivotal periods of modern United States’ history.
Other buildings at NWIRP Dallas may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A because they played supportive roles in the day-to-day operations of the complex. Their subtle significance does not undermine their importance to the successful functioning of NWIRP Dallas. To be eligible, each must have a strong argument that illustrates why it is noteworthy and how the property is significant when compared to
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section F Page 74 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
similar resources at the activity. The role that a property played in the successful operation must be clearly delineated and articulated.
Military Manufacturing-Related Properties may also be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria B for their association with historically significant individuals. For example, a property might be considered eligible when an engineer achieved significance or designed a militarily significant product while working at the building. A person who attained importance prior to or after his or her tenure at the building does not warrant eligibility under Criteria B. Likewise, a historically significant person who merely visited the a property is also insufficient ground for NRHP eligibility.
Besides its associations with important historical events, trends, or people, Military Manufacturing-Related properties may be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria C for their architectural merits. Although most of the buildings and structures at NWIRP Dallas conform to standardized construction, Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. – an internationally known industrial design firm of the early 20th century – designed Facility 49. The mere association such a prominent firm is not sufficient to merit eligibility. The building’s significance should be assessed within the context of the firm’s existence. A Military Manufacturing-Related property may be noteworthy because it embodies distinctive characteristics of a building type or period of construction. Rarely used methods of construction, such as wooden trusses in a hangar or distinctive ornamentation, may be sufficient grounds for NRHP consideration.
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS: MILITARY MANUFACTURING-RELATED PROPERTY All historic resources within the project area that were associated with NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945, 1949-1989 were evaluated according to National Register guidelines for eligibility. Military Manufacture-Related properties may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP if they are at least 50 years old, retain a sufficient degree of architectural integrity to convey their significance, and meet at least one of the four NRHP Criteria for Evaluation. If the property is less than 50 years old, it must not only meet the aforementioned conditions, but must also demonstrate exceptional significance when evaluated within the historic context. Although they may be listed individually or as part of a historic district, all NRHP-eligible Military Manufacture-Related properties must be strongly linked with, and related to, the historic context. The Statement of Significance should discuss how the property meets the NRHP Criteria and how it relates to the historic context developed for the multiple-property nomination.
A property being nominated under NRHP Criterion A or B must possess strong historical associations but is not necessarily noteworthy for its physical attributes. As such, it need not be unaltered nor does it need to be significant example of a style, type or form. However, it should be clearly recognizable to period in which it attained historical significance and should be closely associated either with important trends and/or events of the past (Criterion A) or with individuals who attained significance while associated with the property (Criterion B). Whether the property is nominated under NRHP Criterion A or B, a strong argument must be
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section F Page 75 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
made to establish the relative importance of that event, trend, or person within the historic context developed for NWIRP Dallas. Stating that a property was associated with aircraft production during World War II is insufficient justification for nominating a property to the NRHP under Criterion A. The role that the property played within the plant’s operation and the overall significance of that role within in the manufacturing process must be fully described and articulated. For a property to be nominated under Criterion B, the person should have derived significance while associated with the property. The fact that a historically significant person visited or worked in the building does not constitute significance within NRHP Criterion B. Properties being nominated under NRHP Criterion A or B do not need retain their integrity to a high degree but should be recognizable to the Period of Significance.
In order to be considered eligible for the NRHP under Criteria C, Military Manufacture-Related resources must retain sufficient integrity and be recognizable to the time span covered with the historic context. Alterations, changes, or additions that detract from the properties’ ability to convey significance may be grounds for NRHP ineligibility under Criteria C. Properties should still possess their most essential physical features, and distinctive architectural ornamentations, detailing and workmanship must be sufficiently intact. Integrity is particularly important for properties considered eligible for the NRHP under Criteria C, which emphasizes the importance of a property’s physical attributes. The construction of new additions, the replacement of original windows, or the installation of exterior sheathing materials that are incompatible with the historic character of a property may deem a building ineligible for the NRHP.
Ordinarily, properties less than 50 years are not considered eligible for the NRHP. However, the transcendent significance of World War II and subsequent Cold War makes resources directly associated with the war effort – such as military installations and manufacturing facilities – able to be considered for NRHP designation under Criteria Consideration G, but only at a national level of significance. Military Manufacture-Related properties may be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria Consideration G if they possess exceptionally significant historic associations and remain recognizable to the Period of Significance.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section G Page 76 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Geographical Data
The geographical area encompasses the industrial compound comprising Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas. The land is owned by the United States of America and is leased to Northrop Grumman Corporation, which sub-leases the property to Vought Aircraft Industries in accordance with Public Law 106- 65, for parcels of real property consisting of approximately 314 acres.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section H Page 77 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Summary of Identification and Evaluation Methods
This study has been undertaken to determine if any of the 19 buildings and structures constructed from 1950- 1959 at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional task undertaken as part of this survey is to provide the current lessee of NWIRP Dallas, Vought Aircraft Industries, with a management plan on how to deal and preserve its historic properties. The scope of work for HHM’s 2001 ICRMP stipulates that all extant resources constructed between 1950-1959 be examined and their relative significance considered relative to aircraft, missile, and space-related manufacturing activities during the Cold War period. All work was conducted in accordance with applicable federal regulations and guidelines, including National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Registration Form; National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance within the Past Fifty Years; and, National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys – A Basis for Preservation Planning.
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS The Historical Architect supervised all aspects of the field investigations. Prior to the start of fieldwork, the Historical Architect reviewed information contained in the November 1999 survey report of NWIRP Dallas by Hardy•Heck•Moore, Inc. The Historical Architect also reviewed information furnished by the Department of the Navy and in the form of P164 Real Property Records and Class II Property Records. Additionally, the Historical Architect viewed photographs of the resources taken in October 1998 as part of the initial historic and architectural survey of the plant. Using existing data, the Historical Architect familiarized himself with the 19 buildings and structures constructed between 1950-1956, including their location and salient physical features. Finally, the Historical Architect conducted a field survey of the 19 federally owned buildings and structures at NWIRP Dallas. The field documentation process included the following steps:
1. Complete Historic Resources Survey form for each building/structure, noting:
· Facility number; · Property type; · Exterior materials; · Number of stories; · Site features; and · Photographic reference.
2. Photograph each resource, first digitally and then using both Kodak T-Max 100 and Kodachrome 100 film. This photodocumentation provides several oblique exterior views and primary elevations
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section H Page 78 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
of each resource in both black-and-white and color-transparency film mediums. Significant interior features and/or spaces are also documented. Photos are linked to the inventory in this initial overview process.
3. Note significant physical attributes of each resource, such as site features, exterior materials, locations and types of doors and windows, and condition, as well as any obvious changes that had taken place to the building over time.
RESEARCH M ETHODS The Project Historian conducted some supplemental facilities-related research on the 19 buildings in May 2001, but often relied on previously collected primary and secondary research as part of the November 1999 survey report of NWIRP Dallas by Hardy•Heck•Moore, Inc. As part of the 1999 survey, the Project Historian viewed and copied records at:
· Naval Historical Center Library and Archives at the Washington Naval Yard, Washington, DC; · Textual Archives Division of the National Archives in College Park, Maryland; · Southwest Regional Branch of the National Archives in Ft. Worth, Texas; · SeaBee Museum, Naval Construction Battalion Center in Port Hueneme, California; · Dallas Public Library, Dallas, Texas; · Inglewood Public Library, Inglewood, California; and · Perry Castaneda Library at the University of Texas in Austin.
Facility records on file at NWIRP Dallas proved invaluable to the Project Historian during the 1999 survey and the 2001 ICRMP. When the Project Historian conducted research at the facility on 9-10 May 2001, she began by collecting and photocopying original architectural plans on file in Facility 2’s vault, located on the building’s second floor. The Project Historian copied original architectural plans, building elevations, sections, roof plans, and plot maps on Vought Aircraft Industries’ full-size Hewlett-Packard cartographic photocopier. On 10 May, the Project Historian continued with facility research by viewing Vought-maintained records on the 3rd floor of Facility 2. Inside several rows of metal file cabinets the Project Historian found records on each of the major buildings at NWIRP Dallas that included contracts, historic photographs, construction details, and modification to the buildings over time. The project historian photocopied the records and scanned the historic photographs for later use in building history section of the 2001 ICRMP report. She also took notes regarding architect, contractor, and date-of-construction for each of the 19 buildings under review.
Also on 10 May 2001, the Project Historian met with Vought Aircraft Industries’ Retirees Club, located in an unoccupied building at NWIRP Dallas. She interviewed former employees at the plant that worked exclusively
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section H Page 79 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
on the Regulus missile program during the Cold War. Persons interviewed included Mr. Bill Michelli, the Regulus Program Director; Mr. Peter Farina, Director of Manufacturing and Production on the Regulus; Mr. Joe A. Milsap, Mechanical Engineer; and, Mr. Joe Engler, a Chance Vought Test Pilot. The Retirees offered incredibly valuable information on design methodology, manufacturing processes, as well as the testing and development history of the missile. The also played a video tape of Regulus II testing at Edwards Air Force Base detailing testing efforts and supplied the Project Historian with formally top secret photographs of manufacturing and shipping practices on the Regulus. Later in the day, Mr. Peter Farina gave the Project Historian a tour of NWIRP Dallas indicating which buildings were involved in the manufacture of the Regulus missile and the role each played in the overall production program. The Project Historian utilized the information she collected to develop individual histories of each of the 19 buildings, evaluate their overall importance in the Regulus program, and write NRHP assessments.
Following facility related research at NWIRP Dallas, the Project Historian conducted extensive secondary source research at the Engineering Library and the Perry Castaneda Library at the University of Texas at Austin. Both repositories provided background information on the Regulus missile program and technical information regarding the United States’ development of missile-related technology from 1945-1990. The Project Historian also relied on the Internet to supplement research into missile development, especially for technology created around the same time as the Regulus. These three secondary sources permitted the Project Historian to compare the Regulus with other missile programs in order to evaluate its relative importance within the Department of Defense as well as at a local and national level.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 80 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Major Bibliographic References
Addition to Fuel Calibration Building. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 3 October 1967.
Analysis of Leasehold Improvements – Grand Prairie Facility by Chance Vought Corporation. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: November 1967.
Analysis of TEMCO Leasehold Improvements in Plant A. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: nd.
Barksdale, Ethelbert Courtland. The Genesis of the Aviation Industry in North Texas. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas Press, 1958.
Beisel, Rex. “Book on Move From Stratford to Dallas,” [ca. 3 August 1949]. MS, Northrop Grumman Facility Files. Dallas, Texas.
Biddle, Wayne. Barons of the Sky. New York: Barnes & Nobel, Inc., 1997.
Bilstein, Roger and Jay Miller. Aviation in Texas. Austin, Texas: Texas Monthly Press, Inc., 1985.
Brown, Stanley H. Ling: The Rise, Fall, and Return of a Texas Titan. New York: Athenaeum Publishing, 1972.
Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineering Corps, 1940-1946, Vol. I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, nd.
“Chance Vought Firsts” [ca. 1970]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas.
Chance Vought News. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc, various dates.
The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. Edited by Davis Donald. New York: Barnes & Nobel, Inc., 1997.
“Composites at LTV” [ca. 1988]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 81 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Cornish, Bruce B. General Services Administration Appraisal of 31.97 Acres of Outlying Field #26803 Grand Prairie, Texas. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 14 September 1960.
Curtis A. Roos to the United Stated of America General Services Administration, 30 October 1970. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas.
Dallas Morning News. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by the Dallas Public Library, various dates.
Dallas Times Herald. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by the Dallas Public Library, various dates.
“Dallas, Texas: Bureau of Aeronautics Representative to naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plant”. Navy Shipping Guide. SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: 1945.
Defense Plant Corporation, NAA, Inc. Plant Site: Exhibit I(a) Map Showing Plancor-owned Property Line. College Park, Maryland: Textual Archives Division of the National Archives, nd.
Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DoD No. 387 – Sponsor – BuAer. SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: nd.
Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DoD No. 387 – Sponsor – BuAer. SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: August 1958.
Drummond, D.F. The Passing of American Neutrality: 1937-1941. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1955
Eltscher, Louis R. and Edward M. Young. Curtiss-Wright: Greatness and Decline. New York: Twayne Publishing, 1998.
Empires of Industry, “World War II Aircraft,” The History Channel, 29 June 1999.
Engineer’s Final Report of Defense Plant Corporation Plancor 25, North American Aviation, Inc., Grand Prairie, Texas. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Branch of the National Archives, College Park, Maryland: 1 September 1944.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 82 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Engineer’s Semi – Final Report of Defense Plant Corporation Plancor 25, North American Aviation, Inc., Grand Prairie, Texas. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Branch of the National Archives, College Park, Maryland: 1 October 1944.
Environmental Statement for the Disposal of the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 16 June 1971.
Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report. Historical Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: May 1974.
Fairchild, Byron and Jonathan Grossman. United States Army in World War II: The Army and Industrial Manpower. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.
Final Report of Accountability. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Branch of the National Archives, College Park, Maryland: nd.
Fine, L. and J.A. Remington. The Corps of Engineers: Construction in the United States. Washington, D.C.: United States Army Office of Chief of Military History, 1972.
The Flying V News. Vertical File Collection Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates.
Ginter, Steve. Chance Vought F7U Cutlass. Simi Valley, California: Steve Ginter, 1982.
General Services Administration – Utilization and Disposal Service. Real Property Status Record for Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant No. 387. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: nd.
General Correspondence Records of the Office Services Division/Administrative Services of the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics. Washington, D.C.: Downtown Branch of the National Archives, various dates.
“Government-Owned Industrial Plants for Sale or Lease,” The Wall Street Journal, 10 December 1945, np.
“Grand Prairie to Get $6.5 million Airplane Factory: Plant at Hensley Field First in Nations’ Defense Program, Work Planned to Start Soon,” The Grand Prairie Texan, 23 August 1940, p. 1.
Green, William and Gordon Swanborough. The World’s Great Fighter Aircraft. New York: Crescent Books, 1981.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 83 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Greer, Thomas H. The Development of Air Doctrine in the Army Arm: 1917-1941. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University press, 1955.
Grossnick, Roy A. United States Naval Aviation, 1910-1995. Washington, D.C.: Naval Historical Center, 1997.
GSA Introduction to Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 12 February 1970.
“Guided Missiles.” Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997, np.
“Guided Missiles.” Encarta ’97 Encyclopedia Deluxe Edition, 1997, np.
The Handbook of Texas, Vol. I. Edited by Walter Prescott Webb and H. Bailey Carroll. Austin, Texas: The Texas State Historical Association, 1952.
Hanley, Craig. “High Flying Forties,” Dallas Magazine, 10 October 1986, p. 44-50.
History of the Dallas Naval Air Station, October 1940 to 31 December 1958. Naval Historical Center at the Washington Naval Yard, Washington, D.C.: nd.
Historical Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas. Dallas, Texas: Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates.
International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 1. Edited by Thomas Derdak. Chicago, Illinois: St. James Press, 1988.
International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 11. Edited by Paula Kepos. Chicago, Illinois: St. James Press, 1994.
Jones, Jesse H. and Edward Angly. Fifty Billion Dollars: My Thirteen Years with the RFC, 1932-1945. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951.
Jones, Lloyd S. U.S. Naval Fighters: Navy/Marine Corps, 1922-1980s. Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishing, Inc., 1977.
Kane, Kimberly. Historic Context for the World War II Ordnance Department’s Government-Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) Industrial Facilities. No. 1. Fort Worth, Texas: U.S. Army Materiel Command Series Report of Investigation, October 1995.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 84 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Klagsbrunn, Hans A. “Some Aspects of War Plant Financing,” The American Economic Review, Vol. XXXIII. No. 1, part 2 (March 1943): p. 199-127.
“Korean War”. Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997, np.
Leasehold Improvements over $25,000. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 11 April 1974.
Lt. G.W. Hamilton, CEC, USN to C.E. Rau, 18 January 1955. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas.
LTV Profile. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates.
“Manufacturing Technology Contracts” [ca. 3 October 1986]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas.
Moran, Gerald P. A Short History of Vought Aeronautics. Northrop Grumman Facility Files and Archives: nd.
Munson, Kenneth. Bombers: Patrol and Transport Aircraft, 1939-1945. London: Blandford Press, Ltd., 1969.
Munson, Kenneth. Fighters: Attack and Training Aircraft, 1939-1945. London: Blandford Press, Ltd., 1969.
NAS Dallas Historical Record. SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: nd.
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Buildings and Improvements Constructed By Corporate and Navy Funding as of 31 December 1978. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1978.
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Leasehold Improvements Vought Corporation Funded, Completed 30 June 1968. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1977.
Northrop Grumman Reports 29% Increase in Net Income,” PR Newswire, 18 October 2000, np.
“Northrop Grumman Completes Aerostructures Sale to Carlyle,” PR Newswire, 24 July 2000, 12:05.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 85 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
“Notes on North American and TEMCO in Years 1941-1945” [ca. 21 December 1982]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas.
Olson, James S. Saving Capitalism: The Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the New Deal, 1933-1940. Princeton, New Jersey: The Princeton University Press, 1988.
Plancor 25 Manufacturing and Assembly Plant: Appraisal, Buildings, Utilities, Yard, and Land. Records of the Navy’s Real Property Case Files, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 21 May 1945.
Plancor 25 North American Aviation, Inc.: Buildings and Installations. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Division of the National Archives, College, Park, Maryland: nd.
Poynor, Ticky. “You Can Ration Fashion,” North American Skyline, Vol. 4, no. 3, (May-June 1943): pp. 8-10.
Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas. Dallas, Texas: Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates.
Rae, John B. Climb to Greatness: The American Aircraft Industry, 1920-1960. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1968.
Real Property Cards. Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas, originals obtained from the SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: 1941-1955.
Real Property Card Listing NWIRP – Dallas, Texas. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1977.
Record Report on Paint Hangar Building No. 104 and Paint Stripping Building No. 105 at NIRAP Dallas. Prepared by ROICC, NoA-1105. Dallas, Texas: Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, 26 January 1957.
Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property. Ft. Worth, Texas: NARA Southwest Region, various dates.
Records of the Navy’s Real Property Case Files. Ft. Worth, Texas: NARA Southwest Region, various dates.
Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation. College Park, Maryland: Textual Archives Division of the National Archives, various dates.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 86 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Records of the War Assets Administration – Real Property Disposal Case Files. Ft. Worth, Texas: NARA Southwest Region, various dates.
Report of Change Order Board Meeting, 23 February 1955. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas.
Restrictions Covering the Sale of NWIRP Dallas. Records of the War Assets Administration – Real Property Disposal Case Files, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: nd.
Riddle, Donald H. The Truman Committee: A Study in Congressional Responsibility. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1964.
Rubenstein, Murray and Richard M. Goldman. To Join with Eagles: Curtiss-Wright Aircraft, 1903-1965. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974.
Schedule 2: Buildings, Installation, Leasehold Improvements, and Service Costs. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Division of the National Archives, College Park, Maryland: nd.
Schoeni, Arthur L. “Father of the Zero?” Air Classics, Vol. 16, no. 2 (February 1980): pp. 58-65, 99.
Schoeni, Arthur L. “The First Corsairs,” Air Classics, Vol. 15, no. 9 (September 1979): pp. 14-27.
Schoeni, Arthur L. “Jet Aircraft Built By Chance Vought Corporation” [ca. 1972]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas.
Secretary of the Navy. Energy Conservation Awards Program, Fiscal Year 1982. Dallas, Texas: Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, 1982.
Smith, R. Elberton. The United States in World War II: The Army and Economic Mobilization. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.
Special Disposal Plan. Records of the War Assets Administration – Real Property Disposal Case Files, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 14 December 1970.
Summary of Acquisition Values of Facilities Provided by NWIRP Contractor. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 1983.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 87 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Stumpf, David. K. Regulus: The Forgotten Weapon. Paducah, Kentucky: Turner Publishing Company, 1996.
Tate, James P. The Army and its Air Corps: Army Policy Toward Aviation, 1919-1941. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University Press, 1985.
TEMCO Tidings. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates.
Trimble, William F. Wings for the Navy: A History of the Naval Aircraft Factory, 1917-1956. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1990.
U.S. Civilian Production Administration. Industrial Mobilization for War: History of the War Production Board and Predecessor Agencies, 1940-1945. Washington, D.C.: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1947.
U.S. Department of the Navy. Detailed Inventory of the Naval Shore Facilities Publication. Records of the Navy’s Real Property Case Files, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 2 February 1969.
U.S. Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: Attorneys Report on Title. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: nd.
U.S. Navy A-7E. Dallas, Texas: Vought Corporation: nd.
Vatter, Harold G. The U.S. Economy in World War II. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
“Vietnam War.” Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997, np.
Vought Aircraft History. Dallas, Texas: Vought Corporation, nd.
Vought and the Space Program. Dallas, Texas: Vought Corporation, nd.
Vought Dallas Facilities. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1977.
“Vought Name Returns to Aerospace Industry with Carlyle Purchase of Northrop Grumman Aerostructures Business,” PR Newswire, 24 July 2000, 12:12.
Vought Owned Miscellaneous Severable Buildings on NWIRP Property. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1983.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Historic and Architectural Resources of Section I Page 88 NWIRP Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
The Vought Vanguard. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates.
Wagner, Ray. American Combat Planes. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968.
White, Gerald T. Billions for Defense: Government Financing by the Defense Plant Corporation during World War II. University, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1980.
White, Gerald T. “Financing Industrial Expansion for War: The Origins of the Defense Plant Corporation Leases,” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. IX, no. 2, (November 1949): pp. 159-183.
Wings for the Navy: A History of Chance Vought Aircraft. Stratford, Connecticut: Chance Vought Aircraft: 1943.
Yenne, Bill. Rockwell: The Heritage of North American. New York: Crescent Books, 1989.
Yoshpe, Harry B. and Charles F. Franke. National Security Management: Production for Defense. Washington, D.C.: Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1968.
Internet Sources http://archive.dallasnews.com www.collinsmuseum.com/regulus www.geocities.com www.hoovers.com www.scs.wsu.edu www.thecarlylegroup.com/html www.vectorsite.tripod.com www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
REGISTRATION FORM
1. NAME OF PROPERTY
HISTORIC NAME: Plant “A” Manufacturing Plant
OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Facility 1, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas
2. LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER: 9314 Jefferson Boulevard NOT FOR PUBLICATION: N/A
CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINITY: N/A
STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTY: Dallas CODE: 113 ZIP CODE: 75265-5907
3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _x_nomination
___request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property
_x_meets ____does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant ___nationally
___statewide _x_locally. (___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official Date
State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ___meets ___does not meet the National Register criteria.
(___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
____ entered in the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined eligible for the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined not eligible for the National Register
____ removed from the National Register
____ other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 2
5. CLASSIFICATION
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY: Public-Federal
CATEGORY OF PROPERTY: Building
NUMBER OF RESOURCES WITHIN PROPERTY: CONTRIBUTING NONCONTRIBUTING
1 0 BUILDINGS 0 0 SITES 0 0 STRUCTURES 0 0 OBJECTS
1 0 TOTAL
NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES PREVIOUSLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER: 0
NAME OF RELATED MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING: Historical and Architectural Resources at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Dallas, Texas
6. FUNCTION OR USE
HISTORIC FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRY/manufacturing facility
CURRENT FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRY/manufacturing facility
7. DESCRIPTION
ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION: no style
MATERIALS: FOUNDATION concrete WALLS ribbed steel, concrete ROOF built-up, composition shingles OTHER
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION (see continuation sheet 7-5) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 3
8. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICABLE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA _X_ A PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. ___ B PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. ___ C PROPERTY EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER, OR POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUE, OR REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. ___ D PROPERTY HAS YIELDED, OR IS LIKELY TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: N/A
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Industry
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1942-1951
SIGNIFICANT DATES: 1942, 1947
SIGNIFICANT PERSON: N/A
CULTURAL AFFILIATION: N/A
ARCHITECT/BUILDER: Allen & Kelley Architects/Stewart, James & Company and Turnball, J. Gordon, Inc. NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (see continuation sheets 8-6 through 8-7)
9. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY (see Historic Resources Survey Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas) PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION ON FILE (NPS): N/A _ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested. _ previously listed in the National Register X previously determined eligible by the National Register _ designated a National Historic Landmark _ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # PRIMARY LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DATA: _ State historic preservation office (Texas Historical Commission) _ Other state agency _ Federal agency _ Local government _ University _ Other -- Specify Repository: USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 4
10. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF PROPERTY: approximately 20.5 acres
UTM REFERENCES: Zone Easting Northing 14 689463E 6324443N
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: The exterior walls of Facility 1 define the boundaries of the property to be nominated. An attached map graphically depicts the boundaries and is used in lieu of a detailed metes and bounds description of the boundaries (see continuation sheet Map-8).
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: Facility 1 is within an industrial complex that includes over 300 buildings and structures (see continuation sheet Map-9).
11. FORM PREPARED BY
NAME/TITLE: Laurie A. Pospisil-Gotcher/Historian, Jennifer Ross/Architectural Historian, and Thomas P. Eisenhour/Historical Architect
ORGANIZATION: Hardy-Heck-Moore (HHM), Inc. DATE: February 2002
STREET & NUMBER: 611 S. Congress Avenue, Suite 300 TELEPHONE: 512-478-8014
CITY OR TOWN: Austin STATE: TX ZIP CODE: 78704
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
CONTINUATION SHEETS
MAPS (see continuation sheets Map-8 through 9)
PHOTOGRAPHS (see continuation sheet Photo-10)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME: United States of America: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command
STREET & NUMBER: 47123 Buse Road TELEPHONE:
CITY OR TOWN: Patuxent River STATE: MD ZIP CODE: 20670-1547
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 5 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Description Erected in 1940-1941 in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas, Facility 1 is a one story, steel-frame manufacturing building with concrete and ribbed steel exteriors. The rectangular-plan facility displays a variety of roof heights and shapes, including flat, gabled, and truncated gabled. The roof is covered with both composition shingles and built-up roofing materials. A large metal canopy door on the resource’s east façade visually dominates the building. Also noteworthy is the building’s massive 850,000 square foot size. The facility’s interior is dominated by cavernous open spaces necessary for the manufacture of aircraft and other products. Facility 1 retains its historic integrity to a good degree.
Constructed in 1940-1941, Facility 1 is a one-story, blackout-type manufacturing building in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas, directly southeast of the main entrance. The rectangular-plan resource sits atop a level terrain and is surrounded on all sides by paved parking lots. Facility 10 -an elevated enclosed passageway appended to the facility’s west façade in 1943- connects Facility 1 to Facilities 2, 6, 7, and 11. An 800'-0" x 23'-0" railroad loading dock is adjacent to the facility’s south façade.
Facility 1 has a concrete slab-on-grade foundation and utilizes a structural system of steel columns spaced 50”-0’ in both directions. Exterior walls are concrete, ribbed steel panels, and flat steel panels. The facility's flat and shallow-gabled roof consists of a metal deck, a layer of rigid insulation board, and built-up or composition shingle roofing supported by steel trusses and purlins.
The corners of the building are raised slightly above the main parapet and project from the line of the facade, forming broad pilasters. Flat steel panels, painted dark gray in contrast to the white facade, border these pilasters. Facility 1's primary entrance, a metal pivoting canopy door, is featured prominently on the north end of the building’s east facade. The door consists of three 50'-wide sections that can be opened individually or collectively to provide a 150'-wide opening. Additional door types include sliding doors on the east and west facades, overhead metal doors on the north and south facades, overhead rubber doors on the east and west facades, hinged metal doors on the east and west facades, and aluminum-frame doors with glazing on the west facade. Concrete bomb baffles, a distinctive architectural feature that appears on several buildings at NWIRP Dallas, shield Facility 1’s west facade entrances. The baffles are solid concrete panels that are designed to protect building entrances from bomb blasts. Facility 1 was designed to blackout standards and has no windows.
The ground floor of the building, which contains 911,375 square feet of space, originally consisted of a large open room with a few smaller partitioned areas. The ground floor is currently partitioned into specialized manufacturing work areas with only a small number of unpartitioned portions. Partitioned engineering/administrative offices are within a 45,749 square-foot mezzanine located directly above the manufacturing floor. The facility, which measures 900'-0" north/south by 950'-0" east/west, contains a total of 957,124 square feet of useable interior space.
Since its construction, Facility 1 has housed functions related to the manufacture of aircraft and aircraft-related products. It remains on its original site and has undergone only minor interior and exterior alterations. The essential features of its design, such as its overall form, roof shape, and interior space configuration, remain relatively intact. The building retains its historic and architectural integrity to a good degree NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Statement of Significance Facility 1 was historically referred to as the Plant “A” Manufacturing Building, and was the product of a massive military construction program in which the Defense Plant Corporation built thousands of highly specialized factories in support of the World War II Industrial Mobilization Program. Throughout its history, the building has functioned as a manufacturing facility and has been used for final assembly and production efforts. It is a massive building that encompasses just less than one million square feet and remains the focal point of what was originally known as the Plant “A” manufacturing. The significance of Facility 1 stems primarily from its associations with important patterns of history, specifically its contributions to aircraft manufacturing efforts during World War II and the Cold War. As such, Facility 1 is directly linked to all aspects of the historic context developed for the activity, NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945 and 1949-1989. Because of its role in a locally significant military-industrial plant, Facility 1 is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A.
Facility 1 is a manufacturing building at NWIRP Dallas and is among the activity’s most unique and functionally important buildings. It is in the north-central portion of the plant, just southeast of the main entrance. It fronts onto Jefferson Boulevard, the road providing service to the complex. Facility 1 was part of the Plant “A” or initial phase of construction at the plant. As the centerpiece of the industrial complex, the building was among the first to be completed and used.
Once completed, the Facility 1 plant was reportedly the first blackout, windowless, air-conditioned, and artificially lighted airplane factory in America. The blackout design was a measure of protection against possible enemy air attack. The War Department's blackout specifications and features included no external windows, special ventilation, artificial lighting, thick firewalls, and solid exterior walls and roofing. The lack of windows made the building less visible, and thus more difficult to target during a nighttime bombing attack.
The main floor, with 911,375 usable square feet of manufacturing floor space, was widely considered by the War Department, DPC, and industrial analysts across the United States in 1942 to be among the largest industrial rooms in the world. Facility 1 was specifically intended to accommodate the production and manufacture of the single-engine AT-6 Texan trainer and the single-engine P-51 Mustang fighter aircraft for use by the Army Air Forces in World War II.
North American Aviation's manufacturing operations in Facility 1 began in April 1941 and continued until July 1945. During this period, the Dallas plant reportedly produced more planes than any other plant in the country: 18,661 flyaway units with additional equipment and enough spare parts to build 25,000 more aircraft. North American employees produced over 15,000 AT-6 Texan trainers and 8,000 P-51 Mustang fighters in Facility 1 and averaged 18 and 16 planes per day, respectively. In a single 30-day period, workers in Facility 1 built 728 AT-6 Texans and P-51 Mustangs, a production mark unsurpassed in U.S. industrial and aircraft manufacturing history.
Briefly abandoned in 1945 after North American Aviation ceased operations at the plant, the building and surrounding support buildings were leased to TEMCO in 1947. TEMCO used Facility 1 to manufacture F-24 Fairchilds, as well as assemblies and subassembiles for the C-82 Packet and Globe Swift aircraft. While the building continued to be used principally for the manufacture of aircraft, it was also a variety of missile and aerospace production as TEMCO expanded its product lines. NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
In 1960 TEMCO merged with Ling-Altec Electronics to form Ling-TEMCO and, in 1961, merged with Chance Vought. The newly created company, LTV, utilized Facility 1 for the manufacture of items related to the space program and for the production of Vought-designed missiles, such as the $9.2 million Scout Missile Program. Northrop Grumman of El Segundo, California, purchased LTV in 1992 and assumed operations at NWIRP Dallas. Northrop Grumman manufactured large assemblies for the B-2 Stealth Bomber in Facility 1. The company subsequently shipped these items to its Southern California manufacturing plants for final production. Vought Aircraft Industries is the current tenant and uses Facility 1 for manufacturing purposes.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 8 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a QMB Approval No. 7024- 0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 9 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 1, NWIRP Dallas Section Photo Page 10 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Photo Log
Facility 1 Plant “A” Manufacturing Plant/ Facility 1, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. Detail of west façade, camera facing northeast Photograph 1 of 3
Plant “A” Manufacturing Plant/ Facility 1, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. Detail of east façade, camera facing southwest Photograph 2 of 3
Plant “A” Manufacturing Plant/ Facility 1, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. Interior, camera facing west Photograph 3 of 3
Detail of W facade of Facility 1, camera facing NE Detail of E facade of Facility 1, camera facing SW Interior of Facility 1, camera facingW
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
REGISTRATION FORM
1. NAME OF PROPERTY
HISTORIC NAME: Facility 6, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas
OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Manufacturing Plant
2. LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER: 9314 Jefferson Boulevard NOT FOR PUBLICATION: N/A
CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINITY: N/A
STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTY: Dallas CODE: 113 ZIP CODE: 75265-5907
3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _x_nomination
___request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property
_x_meets ____does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant ___nationally
___statewide _x_locally. (See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official Date
State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ___meets ___does not meet the National Register criteria.
(See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
____ entered in the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined eligible for the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined not eligible for the National Register
____ removed from the National Register
____ other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 2
5. CLASSIFICATION
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY: Public-Federal
CATEGORY OF PROPERTY: Building
NUMBER OF RESOURCES WITHIN PROPERTY: CONTRIBUTING NONCONTRIBUTING
1 0 BUILDINGS 0 0 SITES 0 0 STRUCTURES 0 0 OBJECTS
1 0 TOTAL
NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES PREVIOUSLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER: 0
NAME OF RELATED MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING: Historical and Architectural Resources as Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Dallas, Texas
6. FUNCTION OR USE
HISTORIC FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
CURRENT FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
7. DESCRIPTION
ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION: no style
MATERIALS: FOUNDATION concrete WALLS concrete, ribbed steel panels ROOF composition shingles OTHER
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION (see continuation sheet 7-5) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 3
8. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE APPLICABLE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA
_X_ A PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. ___ B PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. ___ C PROPERTY EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER, OR POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUE, OR REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. ___ D PROPERTY HAS YIELDED, OR IS LIKELY TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: N/A
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Industrial
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1942-1974
SIGNIFICANT DATES: 1942, 1945, 1947, 1951, 1962
SIGNIFICANT PERSON: N/A
CULTURAL AFFILIATION: N/A
ARCHITECT/BUILDER: Turnball, J. Gordon Inc.
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (see continuation sheet 8-6 through 8-7)
9. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY (see Historic Resources Survey Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Dallas) PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION ON FILE (NPS): N/A X preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested. _ previously listed in the National Register _ previously determined eligible by the National Register _ designated a National Historic Landmark _ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # PRIMARY LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DATA: _ State historic preservation office (Texas Historical Commission) _ Other state agency _ Federal agency _ Local government _ University _ Other -- Specify Repository: USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 4
10. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF PROPERTY: approximately 31.7 acres
UTM REFERENCES Zone Easting Northing 14 689107E 3624473N
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: The exterior walls of Facility 6 define the boundaries of the property to be nominated. An attached map graphically depicts the boundaries and is used in lieu of a detailed metes and bounds description of the boundaries (see continuation sheet Map-8).
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: Facility 6 is within an industrial complex that includes over 300 buildings and structures (see continuation sheet Map-9)
11. FORM PREPARED BY
NAME/TITLE: Laurie A. Pospisil-Gotcher/Historian, Jennifer Ross/Architectural Historian, and Thomas P. Eisenhour
ORGANIZATION: Hardy-Heck-Moore, Inc. (HHM) DATE: November 1, 2001
STREET & NUMBER: 611 South Congress, Suite 300 TELEPHONE: 512-478-8014
CITY OR TOWN: Austin STATE: TX ZIP CODE: 78704
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
CONTINUATION SHEETS
MAPS (see continuation sheets Map-8 through 9)
PHOTOGRAPHS (see continuation sheet Photo-10)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME: United States of America: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command
STREET & NUMBER: 47123 Buse Road TELEPHONE:
CITY OR TOWN: Patuxent River STATE: MD ZIP CODE: 20670-1547
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 5 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Description Constructed in 1943, Facility 6 is a massive 1, 381,141 square-foot, steel-frame manufacturing building. Facility 6 rests atop concrete slab-on-grade foundation in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas. Its exterior walls are clad with ribbed steel siding with a concrete foundation skirting. The facility displays a variety of roof heights and shapes, including flat and gambrel with parapet. The roof is covered with both composition shingles and built-up roofing materials. Facility 6’s principle physical feature is a large metal canopy door on its west façade. Architecturally, the building is noteworthy for its monumental size. Despite several minor additions, the resource appears much as it did when originally constructed. Facility 6 retains its historic integrity to a good degree.
Facility 6, erected in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas, is a massive, irregular-plan manufacturing building. The building abuts to Facilities 7 and 49 on the north. Facility 10, an enclosed elevated passageway, connects Facility 6 to Facilities 1, 7, and 11. A second covered passageway or "staging area" adjoins Facility 6 to Facility 93. The facility, constructed during the 1943 expansion of the plant, rests atop a level terrain with paving on all sides.
The steel-frame facility sits atop a reinforced-concrete foundation. Exterior walls are reinforced concrete up to 5'-6' above finished floor, then vertical box-rib steel panels to the roofline. The facility’s corners are raised slightly above the main parapet and projected from the line of the facade, forming broad, articulated pilasters. The corners are further accentuated through the use of flat steel panel borders, painted dark gray in contrast to the white facade. Facility 6 's steel-frame roof has a variety of heights and shapes, including flat and gambrel with parapet. The resource's roof is constructed of metal decking, rigid insulation board, and built-up or composition shingle roofing.
Facility 6's primary entrance is a large pivoting canopy door on its west facade. The door consists of two 100'-wide x 30'-high sections. These sections can be opened either individually or together to provide a 200'-wide opening. Additional door types include sliding steel doors on the south, east, and west facades; overhead sectional metal doors on the south facade; overhead rubber doors on the south, east, and west facades; and aluminum-and-glass hinged doors on the west facade. Bomb baffles, solid concrete panels that are designed to protect building entrances from bomb blasts, shield east facade doors. Because Facility 6 was designed to blackout standards, it originally had no windows. Fixed-pane windows have recently been installed in an office on the facility’s west facade.
Facility 6 measures 454'-0" north/south x 1,205'-0" east/west and contains a total of 1,381,141 square feet of useable interior space. The three-story facility contains a sub-basement, a ground floor, and two upper-level mezzanines. Facility 6’s interior space consists of a large open 30'-high x 200'-wide x 1,200'-long work area or “high bay” with smaller partitioned areas in the north end of the building and a two-level mezzanine in its south end. These first floor partitioned areas are situated on the east end of the high bay and along its north wall. The partitioned areas at the east end of the floor include an electronics test lab, an operational test lab, and a materials area. The partitioned spaces along the north wall are administrative offices. The first level of Facility 6’s mezzanine houses manufacturing areas, offices, and support functions related to the C-17A military transport. The second level mezzanine houses partitioned offices.
Since its construction, Facility 6 has served as a manufacturing plant. The facility remains on its original site and the essential features of its design, such as its overall form and roof shape, remain intact. Facility 6 is easily recognizable to its period of significance and retains its historic and architectural integrity to a good degree. NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Statement of Significance Facility 6 was the centerpiece of the Plant “B” expansion project, and, like Facility 1, was used for aircraft production and final assembly. Whereas Facility 1 was designed for the manufacture of trainers and fighters, Facility 6 was designed for B-24 Liberator bomber production. Unlike most, if not all, other contemporaneous aircraft manufacturing plants, NWIRP Dallas was a diversified industrial complex and was capable of producing trainers, fighters, and bombers. Facility 6 also functioned as the final assembly area for Chance Vought Aircraft and thus is closely associated with jet aircraft, missile, rocket, and stealth bomber manufacturing during the Cold War period. Therefore, Facility 6 is closely associated with important trends in history and is significant within the historic context NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945 and 1949-1989. Because it retains sufficient integrity and is associated with an important historical trend, Facility 6 is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A.
Constructed from March 1942 to October 1943, Facility 6 served as supplemental manufacturing space within the North American plant. Facility 6 was designed by J. Gordon Turnball Inc. for the mass production of B-24 Liberator bombers under a licensing agreement with Consolidated Vultee. Facility 6 was comparable to Facility 1 in its production role during the war effort; therefore, the War Department and DPC instructed J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. to design it as a blackout-type building as a measure of protection against possible enemy air attack. War Department blackout specifications included no external windows, special ventilation, artificial lighting, thick firewalls, and solid exterior walls and roofing. Almost all of the vast interior space within Facility 6 was reserved for manufacturing purposes.
By January 1943, Facility 6 was completed and employees began full-scale manufacturing of the B-24s. Workers produced B-24 Liberator bombers at an average rate of six per day; ultimately, they manufactured only 300 aircraft at the plant. Following V-J Day in August 1945, North American Aviation closed the plant as a result of a dramatic reduction in aircraft orders.
Facility 6 remained unused in the years immediately following the war, but in 1947 the Department of Navy assumed responsibility for the plant and planned to reopen it. The Navy leased part of the plant, including Facility 6, to Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation of Stratford, Connecticut. Vought subsequently transferred more than 1,300 people to Dallas in 1948. In addition, the company moved 27,077,078 pounds of its own machinery to be installed in Facility 6. Manufacturing activities began in 1949 with the F4U Corsair, F6U Pirate, and the F7U Cutlass jet aircraft and the Regulus I guided missile, the first to carry an atomic warhead.
In 1961 Chance Vought merged with Ling-TEMCO to form LTV. The company produced the F8U Crusader and A-7 Corsair II line of jets and the Regulus II guided missile throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The A-7 Corsair II had an enormous impact on the Vietnam Conflict, flying more than 90,000 combat missions and serving in 27 different squadrons. The Corsair II was the last Vought-designed jet aircraft to be produced in Facility 6. In the mid-1980s, production activities focused on fulfilling a $1.3 billion subcontract from Rockwell International to build the aft fuselage of the B-1 Stealth Bomber aircraft.
In 1992 Northrop Grumman acquired LTV and became the lessee of NWIRP Dallas. Throughout the 1990s, Northrop Grumman continued subassembly production on the B-1 Stealth Bomber, as well as production of electronics and guidance systems for other Northrop Grumman products that were shipped to the company's Southern California plants for final assembly. The building's current tenant is Vought Aircraft Industries. NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Whereas Facility 1 was designed for the manufacture of fighter and trainer aircraft, Facility 6 was designed for heavy bomber production. Facility 6 is closely associated with important trends in history and is significant within the context of aircraft manufacturing during World War II. It also functioned as the final assembly area for the Chance Vought production line and thus is closely associated with aircraft manufacture during the Cold War era. Facility 6 appears much as it did when originally constructed and is easily recognizable in its period of significance.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 8 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 9 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 6, NWIRP Dallas Section Photo Page 10 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Photo Log
Facility 6 Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. Detail of east façade, camera facing northwest Photograph 1 of 3
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. Detail of west façade aircraft door, camera facing east Photograph 2 of 3
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. Interior, camera facing north Photograph 3 of 3
Detail of E facade of Facility 6, camera facing NW Detail of W facade aircraft door of Facility 6, camera facing E Interior of Facility 6, camera facing N
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
REGISTRATION FORM
1. NAME OF PROPERTY
HISTORIC NAME: Facility 7, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas
OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Office Building
2. LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER: 9314 Jefferson Boulevard NOT FOR PUBLICATION: N/A
CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINITY: N/A
STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTY: Dallas CODE: 113 ZIP CODE: 75265-5907
3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _x_nomination
___request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property
_x_meets ____does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant ___nationally
___statewide _x_locally. (___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official Date
State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ___meets ___does not meet the National Register criteria.
(___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
____ entered in the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined eligible for the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined not eligible for the National Register
____ removed from the National Register
____ other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 2
5. CLASSIFICATION
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY: Public-Federal
CATEGORY OF PROPERTY: Building
NUMBER OF RESOURCES WITHIN PROPERTY: CONTRIBUTING NONCONTRIBUTING
1 0 BUILDINGS 0 0 SITES 0 0 STRUCTURES 0 0 OBJECTS
1 0 TOTAL
NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES PREVIOUSLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER: 0
NAME OF RELATED MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING: Historic and Architectural Resources at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Dallas, Texas
6. FUNCTION OR USE
HISTORIC FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
CURRENT FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
7. DESCRIPTION
ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION: no style
MATERIALS: FOUNDATION concrete WALLS concrete, ribbed steel panels ROOF built-up OTHER
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION (see continuation sheets 7-5 through 7-6) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 3
8. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICABLE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA _X_ A PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. ___ B PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. ___ C PROPERTY EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER, OR POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUE, OR REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. ___ D PROPERTY HAS YIELDED, OR IS LIKELY TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: N/A
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Industrial
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1942-1974
SIGNIFICANT DATES: 1942, 1949
SIGNIFICANT PERSON: N/A
CULTURAL AFFILIATION: N/A
ARCHITECT/BUILDER: Turnball, J. Gordon Inc.
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (see continuation sheet 8-7)
9. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY (see Historic Resources Survey Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas) PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION ON FILE (NPS): N/A X preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested. _ previously listed in the National Register _ previously determined eligible by the National Register _ designated a National Historic Landmark _ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # PRIMARY LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DATA: _ State historic preservation office (Texas Historical Commission) _ Other state agency _ Federal agency _ Local government _ University _ Other -- Specify Repository: USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 4
10. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF PROPERTY: approximately 4.9 acres
UTM REFERENCES Zone Easting Northing 14 689199E 3624595N
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: The exterior walls of Facility 7 define the boundaries of the property to be nominated. An attached map graphically depicts the boundaries and is used in lieu of a detailed metes and bounds description of the boundaries (see continuation sheet Map-8).
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: Facility 7 is within an industrial complex that includes over 300 buildings and structures (see continuation sheet Map-8).
11. FORM PREPARED BY
NAME/TITLE: Laurie A. Pospisil-Gotcher/Historian, Jennifer Ross/Architectural Historian, and Thomas P. Eisenhour/Historical Architect
ORGANIZATION: Hardy-Heck-Moore, Inc. (HHM) DATE: November 1, 2001
STREET & NUMBER: 611 S. Congress, Suite 300 TELEPHONE: 512-478-8014
CITY OR TOWN: Austin STATE: TX ZIP CODE: 78704
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
CONTINUATION SHEETS
MAPS (see continuation sheets Map-8 through 9)
PHOTOGRAPHS (see continuation sheet Photo-10)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME: United States of America: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command
STREET & NUMBER: 47123 Buse Road TELEPHONE:
CITY OR TOWN: Patuxent River STATE: MD ZIP CODE: 20670-1547
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 5 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Description Facility 7 is a three-story, steel-frame office building constructed in 1943 as part of the Plant “B” expansion of NWIRP Dallas. The building, which abuts Facility 6 on its north façade and Facility 49 on its south facade, fronts onto Jefferson Boulevard in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas. The rectangular-plan facility has a flat, built-up roof and ribbed steel and concrete exteriors. Since its construction, Facility 7 has housed administrative offices for NWIRP Dallas staff. The building retains its historic integrity to a high degree.
Facility 7 is a large office building in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas. The facility, constructed in 1943, faces north onto Jefferson Boulevard. A paved parking lot is directly east of Facility 7 and a concrete sidewalk is to the north. Beyond the sidewalk, a grass strip with trees borders Jefferson Boulevard. Facility 7 shares a common wall with Facility 6 on its north and Facility 49 on its south.
The facility is three stories tall with a basement and an elevator penthouse and measures 153'-6" north/south x 353'-6" east/west. The building's foundation, basement floor, and basement walls are reinforced concrete. Facility 7 utilizes a steel- frame structural system and has concrete and vertical ribbed steel panels exterior cladding. The building has a flat roof of ribbed-metal decking, rigid insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. The roof has a slight slope towards interior drains near its center and along the southern edge. An elevator penthouse is situated in the roof's southeast corner. The building's original architectural plans depict a guard station in the roof's northwest corner. This feature however is no longer present.
The building's corners are slightly raised above the roof's main parapet and projected beyond the line of the facade, forming broad articulated pilasters. The corners are further accentuated through the use of flat steel panel borders, painted dark gray in contrast to the white facade. Exterior architectural elaboration is limited to the building's north facade main entrance. The entrance is framed by a 20'-0" high x 51'-10" wide concrete panel capped with a fluted band. Although modest, this ornamentation is one of the few examples of architectural embellishment at NWIRP Dallas. The facility’s main entrance has two single aluminum-and-glass doors, separated by a 3'-wide concrete pane. A bomb baffle, constructed of 12"-thick concrete and measuring 36'-0" long x 9'-0" high, shields the doorway. Secondary entrances include paired metal doors with vision panels on the building’s north facade and set of paired horizontal-sliding aluminum-and-glass doors on the facility’s east facade. A concrete bomb baffle shields this set of doors.
An entry vestibule, located on the building’s north facade, has been formed from a former bomb baffle. Additional exterior wall features include a full-width cantilevered vehicle canopy on the building’s east facade and downspouts on the building’s north facade.
Corridors divide Facility 7's first, second, and third story interior spaces into office areas. Fixed walls further divide each office area into private offices and conference rooms. Smaller workstations are formed by moveable metal partitions. Floor finishes are generally carpet; walls are textured and painted gypsum board. Interior doors are typically flush wood, solid- core units. Ceilings are suspended acoustical tile with recessed fluorescent troffers. In the late 1990s, Facility 7 underwent a massive interior modernization that included floor repair, carpet replacement, and painting. Additionally, the facility’s original partition walls were replaced.
Since its construction, Facility 7 has contained offices for the administrative staff of NWIRP Dallas. It remains on its original site and has undergone no major interior or exterior alterations. The essential features of its design, such as its overall NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
form and roof shape, remain intact. The building retains its historic and architectural integrity to a high degree. NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Statement of Significance Since its construction, Facility 7 has contained offices for the administrative staff of NWIRP Dallas, including executives, managers, public affairs, and administrative support. It is vital component to the successful day-to-day operations of the plant. Facility 7 is noteworthy for its supportive functions to the primary mission of NWIRP Dallas and is closely related to the historic context developed for the activity, NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945 and 1949-1989. Due to its historical association with aircraft and missile manufacturing, Facility 7 is nominated to the NRHP under Criteria A as a locally significant military manufacturing plant.
In March 1942, Vought initiated a second phase of construction at NWIRP Dallas. The new facilities made up what became known as Plant “B.” J. Gordon Turnball, Inc., a Cleveland-based architectural-engineering firm, designed all the buildings in the new section of the complex, including Facility 7. Since its construction, Facility 7 has housed administrative and support staff overseeing day-today operations at the government-owned aerospace manufacturing complex.
During the initial nationwide construction of Plancors, the War Resources Board limited the use of certain building materials, primarily steel, because they were vital to the war mobilization effort. Because Facility 7 was integral to the manufacturing process and connected to Facility 6, the War Resources Board allowed the architect to use steel in its construction. Facility 7 is an example of Type “A” construction, which meant that the building makes use of steel and concrete. The building encompasses 216,983 square feet and cost $1,619,544.48 to construct.
Facility 7 is directly north of, and abuts, Facility 6, which enables quick and easy access between the office and manufacturing/production spaces. The building provided office space to administer Plant “B” Manufacturing and, later, became Vought’s main office building. In order to allow for more engineering space, Vought constructed Facility 49, which is connected to Facility 7’s south façade, in 1948. Facility 7 continued to serve as a main administrative office building after the merger in 1962 that created LTV. The first-floor lobby area faces north and opens onto Jefferson Boulevard, accommodating guests and visitors. All three floors of Facility 7 are used for offices for a variety of support functions critical to the management of the plant. Its function has remained constant, to the present.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 8 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 9 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 7, NWIRP Dallas Section Photo Page 10 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Photo Log
Facility 7 Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour December 1998 Negative with HHM Inc. Northeast corner, camera facing southwest Photograph 1 of 2
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour December 1998 Negative with HHM Inc. Oblique view of east façade, camera facing northwest Photograph 2 of 2 NE corner of Facility 7, camera facing SW Oblique view of E facade of Facility 7, camera facing NW
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
REGISTRATION FORM
1. NAME OF PROPERTY
HISTORIC NAME: Facility 16, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas
OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Hangar
2. LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER: 9314 Jefferson Boulevard NOT FOR PUBLICATION: N/A
CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINITY: N/A
STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTY: Dallas CODE: 113 ZIP CODE: 75265-5907
3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _x_nomination
___request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property
_x_meets ____does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant ___nationally
___statewide _x_locally. (___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official Date
State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ___meets ___does not meet the National Register criteria.
(___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
____ entered in the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined eligible for the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined not eligible for the National Register
____ removed from the National Register
____ other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 2
5. CLASSIFICATION
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY: Public-Federal
CATEGORY OF PROPERTY: Building
NUMBER OF RESOURCES WITHIN PROPERTY: CONTRIBUTING NONCONTRIBUTING
1 0 BUILDINGS 0 0 SITES 0 0 STRUCTURES 0 0 OBJECTS
1 0 TOTAL
NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES PREVIOUSLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER: 0
NAME OF RELATED MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING: Historic and Architectural Resources at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Dallas, Texas
6. FUNCTION OR USE
HISTORIC FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRY/manufacturing facility
CURRENT FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRY/manufacturing facility
7. DESCRIPTION
ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION: No Style
MATERIALS: FOUNDATION concrete WALLS concrete, ribbed steel panels ROOF composition shingles OTHER
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION (see continuation sheets 7-5 through 7-6) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 3
8. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICABLE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA _X_ A PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. ___ B PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. _X_C PROPERTY EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER, OR POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUE, OR REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. ___ D PROPERTY HAS YIELDED, OR IS LIKELY TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: N/A
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Industry
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1942-1951
SIGNIFICANT DATES: 1942
SIGNIFICANT PERSON: N/A
CULTURAL AFFILIATION: N/A
ARCHITECT/BUILDER: Turnball, J. Gordon, Inc.
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (see continuation sheet 8-7)
9. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY (see Historic Resources Survey Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas) PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION ON FILE (NPS): N/A _ preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested. _ previously listed in the National Register X previously determined eligible by the National Register _ designated a National Historic Landmark _ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # PRIMARY LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DATA: _ State historic preservation office (Texas Historical Commission) _ Other state agency _ Federal agency _ Local government _ University _ Other -- Specify Repository: USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 4
10. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF PROPERTY: less than one acre
UTM REFERENCES Zone Easting Northing 14 689834E 3624509N
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: The exterior walls of Facility 16 define the boundaries of the property to be nominated. An attached map graphically depicts the boundaries and is used in lieu of a detailed metes and bounds description of the boundaries (see continuation sheet Map-8).
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: Facility 16 is within an industrial complex that contains over 300 buildings and structures (see continuation sheet Map-9).
11. FORM PREPARED BY
NAME/TITLE: Laurie A. Pospisil-Gotcher/Historian, Jennifer Ross/Architectural Historian, and Thomas P. Eisenhour/Historical Architect
ORGANIZATION: Hardy-Heck-Moore, Inc. (HHM) DATE: November 1, 2001
STREET & NUMBER: 611 S. Congress, Suite 300 TELEPHONE: 512-478-8014
CITY OR TOWN: Austin STATE: TX ZIP CODE: 78704
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
CONTINUATION SHEETS
MAPS (see continuation sheets Map-8 through 9)
PHOTOGRAPHS (see continuation sheet Photo-10)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME: United States of America: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command
STREET & NUMBER: 47123 Buse Road TELEPHONE:
CITY OR TOWN: Patuxent River STATE: MD ZIP CODE: 20670-1547
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 5 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Description Facility 16, a 34,265-square-foot steel-frame hangar, is situated in the east ramp section of NWIRP Dallas. The one- story facility rests atop a concrete slab-on-grade foundation and has exterior walls of concrete and ribbed steel panels. Facility 16’s gambrel-type and flat, steel-frame roof is constructed of ribbed metal decking, rigid insulation board, and composition shingles. The resource’s principal exterior features are banks of monumental sliding steel doors on its north and south facades. Facility 16 is in good condition and retains its architectural and historic integrity to a good degree, with only minor exterior modifications undertaken since its construction in 1943.
Facility 16, constructed in 1943, is a one-story hangar in the northeast portion of NWIRP Dallas. The facility is along Bomber Road, east of Facility 20 and northwest of Facility 15. Facility 16 sits atop a level terrain with paved parking lots on all sides. The resource consists of a large aircraft hangar and a semi-detached service wing. An enclosed, shed-roof passageway connects the hangar’s east facade to its service wing.
Facility 16's hangar, which measures 159'-9½" north/south x 246'-2" east/west, utilizes steel-frame construction. The building rests atop a concrete slab-on-grade. On its exterior, the building displays a 5'-6" wide concrete foundation skirting, then vertical ribbed steel panels to the roofline. The facility's steel-frame gambrel roof is composed of ribbed metal decking, rigid insulation board, and composition roofing material. On its interior, the building has a uniform 30'-0" overhead clearance to the bottom of the steel trusses.
The hangar’s primary entrances are 10-panel, power-operated sliding steel doors on its south and north facades. These doors slide into large openings at the east and west ends of each facade. When fully open, each set of doors provides a 200'-0" wide x 30'-0" high opening. Steel canopies hood each set of doors. A hinged "pilot door” or access panel is located within the end panels of each set of doors. Because the building was designed to black-out standards, it has no windows.
The hangar’s interior is partitioned into three spaces. A wall running east/west -the length of the facility- divides the interior into two distinct northern and southern work areas. A second north/south partition further subdivides the northern work area in half. The entire southern work area is used for general materials storage. The northeastern partitioned area functions as a miscellaneous storage space for the Grumman G-5 Gulfstream while the northwestern partitioned area is mainly used for storage and production and/or post-production activities.
An enclosed passageway connects a 676 square-foot service wing to the hangar’s east façade. The service wing is one story in height and measures 43'-4" north/south x 33'-4" east/west. It rests on a reinforced-concrete foundation. Exterior walls are reinforced-concrete up to 5'-6" above finished floor, then vertical ribbed steel panels on structural steel framing to the roofline. Gutters and downspouts are on the wing’s north and south facades. The wing’s shallow-gabled, steel-frame roof is composed of ribbed steel decking, insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. The service wing's interior space is partitioned into toilet facilities for men and women. Access to the service wing is through the hangar and single steel door on the north and south facades of the passageway. Additionally, a single steel door is centrally placed on the east facade. The service building has no windows.
Since its construction, Facility 16 has functioned as storage hangar for finished aircraft and aircraft-related products. It remains on its original site and has undergone no major interior or exterior alterations. The essential features of its design, such as its overall form, roof shape, and interior space configuration, remain intact. The building retains its historic and NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
architectural integrity to a high degree
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Statement of Significance Facility 16 is one of six hangars within NWIRP Dallas that supported the plant’s primary mission as an aircraft manufacturing complex. The building was originally designed to be a paint shop, but during construction was converted to a hangar that was used to store just completed bomber aircraft at nearby Facility 6.Although it was never directly involved in the actual manufacture of aircraft at the plant, the building played a critical role in the transfer of aircraft to the military, and, therefore, contributed to the plant’s success. Although it is a relatively unaltered example of a hangar dating from the World War II period, Facility 16 is significant not for its architecture but rather for its historical associations as defined in NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945 and 1949-1989. Facility 16 is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A for historical associations with a locally significant military manufacturing plant.
Part of the 1943 Plant "B" expansion of the industrial complex, Facility 16 is a hangar originally used to store aircraft completed at the plant. The facility was designed by the Cleveland-based architectural/engineering firm of J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. and James Stewart & Company of New York supervised the facility’s construction.
The DPC, which built and owned the plant, deemed the storage of aircraft an essential part of the manufacturing process, and targeted the building for Type "A" construction. This designation meant that Facility 16's building materials consisted of steel and concrete. The DPC also designated the building as a blackout-style facility, which placed additional design burdens on project architects J. Gordon Turnball. The building design included the elimination of external windows and the installation of special lighting and ventilation. The intent of a blackout-style building was to reduce the amount of light emanating from the building, thus making Facility 16 less vulnerable to potential enemy air attacks. Construction costs totaled $324,447.49.
The one-story, 34,265-square-foot building is in the east ramp section of NWIRP Dallas. Whereas another hangar, Facility 20, was used to store completed aircraft manufactured at Plant "A" (Facility 1), Facility 16 was reserved exclusively for Plant "B" products. Its strategic location near Bomber Road made it easy to transport finished bombers from production facilities to the west. The hangar also provided access to Hensley Field to the east, where aircraft was tested. Although the facility is no longer used to store completed aircraft, much of the facility’s interior space still houses functions related to storage, production, and/or post-production of aircraft-related materials. A semi-detached 676-square-foot, flat-roof wing contains an area for maintenance purposes.
The importance of Facility 16 in the manufacturing process at NWIRP Dallas is demonstrated by its high priority for wartime construction and its constant function as an aircraft hangar for completed Plant "B" products.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 8 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 9 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 16, NWIRP Dallas Section Photo Page 10 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Photo Log
Facility 16 Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 16 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. North and east facades, camera facing southwest Photograph 1 of 3
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 16 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. North and west facades, camera facing southeast Photograph 2 of 3
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 16 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour March 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. North and west facades of service wing, camera facing southeast Photograph 3 of 3
N and E facades of Facility16, camera facing SW N and W facades of Facility 16, camera facing SE N and W facades of service wing of Facility 16, camera facing SE
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
REGISTRATION FORM
1. NAME OF PROPERTY
HISTORIC NAME: Facility 49, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas
OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Engineering Building
2. LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER: 9314 Jefferson Boulevard NOT FOR PUBLICATION: N/A
CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINITY: N/A
STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTY: Dallas CODE: 113 ZIP CODE: 75265-5907
3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _x_nomination
___request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property
_x_meets ____does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant ___nationally
___statewide _x_locally. (___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official Date
State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ___meets ___does not meet the National Register criteria.
(___See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
____ entered in the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined eligible for the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined not eligible for the National Register
____ removed from the National Register
____ other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 49, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 2
5. CLASSIFICATION
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY: Public-Federal
CATEGORY OF PROPERTY: Building
NUMBER OF RESOURCES WITHIN PROPERTY: CONTRIBUTING NONCONTRIBUTING
1 0 BUILDINGS 0 0 SITES 0 0 STRUCTURES 0 0 OBJECTS
1 0 TOTAL
NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES PREVIOUSLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER: 0
NAME OF RELATED MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING: Historic and Architectural Resources at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Dallas, Texas
6. FUNCTION OR USE
HISTORIC FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
CURRENT FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
7. DESCRIPTION
ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION: no style
MATERIALS: FOUNDATION concrete WALLS concrete, ribbed steel panels ROOF built-up OTHER
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION (see continuation sheet 7-5) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 49, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 3
8. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICABLE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA _X_ A PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. ___ B PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. ___ C PROPERTY EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER, OR POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUE, OR REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. ___ D PROPERTY HAS YIELDED, OR IS LIKELY TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: N/A
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Industry
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1949-1974
SIGNIFICANT DATES: 1949, 1952
SIGNIFICANT PERSON: N/A
CULTURAL AFFILIATION: N/A
ARCHITECT/BUILDER: Albert Kahn Associates, Inc.
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (see continuation sheet 8-6)
9. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY (see Historic Resources Survey Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas) PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION ON FILE (NPS): N/A X preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested. _ previously listed in the National Register _ previously determined eligible by the National Register _ designated a National Historic Landmark _ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # PRIMARY LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DATA: _ State historic preservation office (Texas Historical Commission) _ Other state agency _ Federal agency _ Local government _ University _ Other -- Specify Repository: USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 49, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 4
10. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF PROPERTY: approximately three acres
UTM REFERENCES Zone Easting Northing 14 689102E 3624595N
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: The exterior walls of Facility 49 define the boundaries of the property to be nominated. An attached map graphically depicts the boundaries and is used in lieu of a detailed metes and bounds description of the boundaries (see continuation sheet Map-7).
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: Facility 49 is within an industrial complex that includes over 300 buildings and structures (see continuation sheet Map-8).
11. FORM PREPARED BY
NAME/TITLE: Laurie A. Pospisil-Gotcher/Historian, Jennifer Ross/Architectural Historian, and Thomas P.Eisenhour
ORGANIZATION: Hardy-Heck-Moore, Inc. (HHM) DATE: November 1, 2001
STREET & NUMBER: 611 S. Congress, Suite 300 TELEPHONE: 512-478-8014
CITY OR TOWN: Austin STATE: TX ZIP CODE: 78704
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
CONTINUATION SHEETS
MAPS (see continuation sheets Map-7 through 8)
PHOTOGRAPHS (see continuation sheet Photo-9)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME: United States of America: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command
STREET & NUMBER: 47123 Buse Road TELEPHONE:
CITY OR TOWN: Patuxent River STATE: MD ZIP CODE: 20670-1547
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 49, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 5 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Description Constructed in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas in 1949, Facility 49 is a 134,457-square-foot engineering building. The building abuts to Facility 7 along its east façade and Facility 6 along its south façade. The steel-frame facility features concrete and ribbed steel exterior cladding. The flat roof is constructed of ribbed-metal decking, rigid insulation boards, and built-up roofing materials, all of which are supported by steel trusses and purlins. Facility 49 has undergone few alterations and is in good condition. Facility 49 retains its historic and architectural integrity to a good degree.
Facility 49, constructed in 1949, is a three-story building in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas. The facility, which faces north onto Jefferson Boulevard, is adjacent to the west facade of Facility 7, the former Plant “B” Office. It also shares a common wall Facility 6 on the south. A concrete sidewalk lies directly north of the facility. Beyond the sidewalk, a grass strip with trees borders Jefferson Boulevard. To the west of the building is paved employee parking lot. A steel picket fence separates the building from the parking lot.
The steel-frame facility, which measures 151'-0" north/south x 275-0"' east/west, rests atop a concrete slab-on-grade foundation. Exterior walls are reinforced concrete up to 5'-6" above the ground floor, then ribbed steel panels on structural steel framing to the roofline. The building's steel-frame flat roof consists of a ribbed-metal deck, a layer of rigid insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. An elevator penthouse tops the roof. Roof drains lead to downspouts on the facility’s north facade.
Clear acrylic wall panels form an entry porch on the building’s east facade. Exterior entrances include hinged single doors with vision panels on the north and west facades, and hinged single aluminum-and-glass doors on the west facade. The building was designed to blackout standards and has no windows.
Facility 49's interior is subdivided into large offices by corridors on each floor. Each office area is further partitioned into private offices, reception areas, and conference rooms by fixed walls. Moveable metal partitions form temporary workspaces. An auditorium and meeting rooms are on the building's second floor. Floors are generally carpeted and interior wall finishes include textured and painted gypsum board. Interior doors are typically flush wood solid-core units. Ceilings are suspended acoustical tile with recessed fluorescent troffers.
Facility 49 remains in its original location and remains identifiable to its period of significance, despite a 1,450- square-foot addition, constructed in 1956, and a 458-square foot addition, erected in 1990. Because both additions utilize structural systems, exterior materials, and roof forms similar to those of the building’s original portion, they do not significantly detract from the facility’s original appearance. Although the resource currently functions as an office building, throughout much of its history, the resource functioned as an engineering building. The building is in good condition and retains its historic and architectural integrity to a good degree.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 49, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Statement of Significance Facility 49, the Engineering Building, was the largest construction project undertaken by Chance Vought Aircraft in conjunction with the company’s move from Connecticut to NWIRP Dallas in 1948. Throughout its history, Facility 49 has been used as an Engineering and Office building, supporting Chance Vought’s missile and jet aircraft design programs during the Cold War period. Facility 49’s significance stems primarily from its association with important patterns of history, specifically its contributions to military defense from 1949 to 1989. Consequently, Facility 49 is directly linked to all aspects of the historic context developed for the activity, NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945 and 1949-1989. Although the property was not directly involved in the production of aircraft and missiles, it played a key role in product development and design. Because of its role in a locally significant military-industrial plant, Facility 49 is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A.
Facility 49 is in the northwest portion of the NWIRP Dallas complex and adjoins Facilities 6 and 7 along the south and east façade respectively. Referred to as the Engineering Building, Facility 49 was the largest construction project undertaken by Chance Vought Aircraft in conjunction with the company’s move from Connecticut to NWIRP Dallas in 1948. Albert Kahn Associates Inc., a prominent industrial design firm based in Detroit, Michigan, designed the four-story office and engineering building. Albert Kahn’s firm is credited with setting the standard for industrial architecture for much of the 20th century. Although Chance Vought Aircraft financed the $1,697,341.71 construction project, Facility 49 became government owned through a process of amortization in which the federal government offered the company tax credits to offset construction costs. The period of amortization ended in 1953 and Vought subsequently transferred ownership to the Navy and remained as a tenant.
Impetus for the building’s construction stemmed from the transfer of 107 members of Vought’s engineering team to Dallas in September 1948. Carpenter Brothers Construction Company, of Dallas, completed the new 134,457-square-foot building in 1949. Property cards on file at NWIRP Dallas show minor interior alterations to Facility 49, such as the installation of air conditioning and interior expansion of the Antenna Test Laboratory. In 1956, property cards indicate that Chance Vought funded a 1,450-square-foot addition to the building as part of a Korean War expansion at NWIRP Dallas.
Throughout the Cold War period, the function of Facility 49 remained constant as an Engineering Building. Chance Vought utilized Facility 49 to design its Cold War products, including modifications to the Regulus I missile and Cutlass jet aircraft as well as the complete design of the Regulus II missile, F8U Crusader, the Corsair II. In the 1980s and 1990s, the tenant of NWIRP Dallas – LTV – received a massive subcontract for work on the B1B Stealth bomber. To accommodate engineering work on the stealth bomber, LTV funded a 458-square foot addition to Facility 49. In 1993, NWIRP Dallas tenant Northrop Grumman converted the property from an Engineering Building to administrative offices. Today, Facility 49 continues to be used as an office building by current tenant Chance Vought Aircraft Industries.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 49, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 49, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 8 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 49, NWIRP Dallas Section Photo Page 9 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Photo Log
Facility 49 Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 49 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour October 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. North and west facades, camera facing southeast Photograph 1 of 2
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 49 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour October 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. Oblique view of north façade, camera facing southwest Photograph 2 of 2
N and W facades of Facility 49, camera facing SE Oblique view of N facade of Facility 49, camera facing SW
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
REGISTRATION FORM
1. NAME OF PROPERTY
HISTORIC NAME: Facility 94, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas
OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Structures Test Laboratory
2. LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER: 9314 Jefferson Boulevard NOT FOR PUBLICATION: N/A
CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINITY: N/A
STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTY: Dallas CODE: 113 ZIP CODE: 75265-5907
3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _ x_nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
In my opinion, the property_x_meets ___does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant nationally __statewide _x_locally. (See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official Date
State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ___meets ___does not meet the National Register criteria.
(See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
____ entered in the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined eligible for the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined not eligible for the National Register
____ removed from the National Register
____ other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 2
5. CLASSIFICATION
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY: Public-Federal
CATEGORY OF PROPERTY: Building
NUMBER OF RESOURCES WITHIN PROPERTY: CONTRIBUTING NONCONTRIBUTING
1 0 BUILDINGS 0 0 SITES 0 0 STRUCTURES 0 0 OBJECTS
1 0 TOTAL
NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES PREVIOUSLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER: 0
NAME OF RELATED MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING: Historic and Architectural Resources at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Dallas, Texas
6. FUNCTION OR USE
HISTORIC FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
CURRENT FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
7. DESCRIPTION
ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION: no style
MATERIALS: FOUNDATION concrete WALLS concrete, ribbed steel panels ROOF built-up OTHER
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION (see continuation sheet 7-5)
USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 3
8. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICABLE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA _X_ A PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. ___ B PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. ___ C PROPERTY EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER, OR POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUE, OR REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. ___ D PROPERTY HAS YIELDED, OR IS LIKELY TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: N/A
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Industrial
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1954-1974
SIGNIFICANT DATES: 1954, 1964
SIGNIFICANT PERSON: N/A
CULTURAL AFFILIATION: N/A
ARCHITECT/BUILDER: Corgan, Lane & Associates/Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson, Consulting Engineers
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (see continuation sheets 8-6 through 8-7)
9. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY (see Historic Resources Survey Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas) PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION ON FILE (NPS): N/A X preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested. _ previously listed in the National Register _ previously determined eligible by the National Register _ designated a National Historic Landmark _ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # PRIMARY LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DATA: _ State historic preservation office (Texas Historical Commission) _ Other state agency _ Federal agency _ Local government _ University _ Other -- Specify Repository: USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 4
10. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF PROPERTY: approximately two acres
UTM REFERENCES Zone Easting Northing 14 688873E 3624570N
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: The exterior walls of Facility 94 define the boundaries of the property to be nominated. An attached map graphically depicts the boundaries and is used in lieu of a detailed metes and bounds description of the boundaries (see continuation sheet Map-8).
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: Facility 94 is within an industrial complex that includes over 300 buildings and structures (see continuation sheet Map-9).
11. FORM PREPARED BY
NAME/TITLE: Laurie A. Pospisil-Gotcher, Jennifer Ross, and Thomas P. Eisenhour
ORGANIZATION: Hardy-Heck-Moore, Inc. (HHM) DATE: November 1, 2001
STREET & NUMBER: 611 S. Congress, Suite 300 TELEPHONE: 512-478-8014
CITY OR TOWN: Austin STATE: TX ZIP CODE: 78704
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
CONTINUATION SHEETS
MAPS (see continuation sheets Map-8 through 9)
PHOTOGRAPHS (see continuation sheet Photo-10)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME: United States of America: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command
STREET & NUMBER: 47123 Buse Road TELEPHONE:
CITY OR TOWN: Patuxent River STATE: MD ZIP CODE: 20670-1547
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 5 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Description Facility 94, a three-story, steel-frame research and development building, sits atop a concrete slab-on-grade foundation in the northwest portion of NWIRP Dallas. The irregular-plan resource displays ribbed-steel and concrete exteriors. Facility 94’s flat roof is constructed of ribbed steel decking, rigid insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. Facility 94’s most prominent exterior feature is a bank of metal tracked horizontal sliding doors on its south façade. The property is in good condition and has undergone no significant alterations since its construction in 1954. The facility retains its historic and architectural integrity to a high degree.
Constructed in 1954, Facility 94 is an irregular-plan hangar-type laboratory that is adjacent to the northwest corner of Plant “B” (Facility 6). The facility, which is in the northwest portion of NWIRP Dallas, sits within a fenced compound of laboratory facilities and associated support buildings. A large paved parking lot is directly west of Facility 94.
The rectangular-plan building rests atop a concrete slab-on-grade foundation. Exterior walls are reinforced concrete up to 5'-6"above the first finished floor, then insulated vertical box-rib steel panels to the roofline. The facility’s flat roof is constructed of ribbed metal decking, rigid insulation board, and built-up roofing materials.
Facility 94’s primary entrance, located on its south façade, is a 4-panel vertical-tracked metal door. Secondary door types include horizontal-tracked metal doors on the building's south façade, paired metal doors on the east and north facades, single metal doors on the east façade and single metal doors with vision panels on the building's east and north facades. Each set of doors is hooded with a metal canopy. Because the building was designed to blackout standards it has no windows.
The three-story resource measures 356'-0" in length, 159'-0" in width, and contains a total of 88,647 square feet of usable interior space. The facility’s interior space houses a number of functions primarily related to the testing structural components of F-18, F-14, and B-1 jet aircraft. The building’s first floor rooms include a test hangar, a universal test floor, an x-ray lab, a test machine storage room, a toolcrib, a steel storage and rigging room, a bathroom, a test machine room, and a machine shop. The facility's second floor interior space is partitioned into two distinct areas. A suite of offices is in the northern portion of the building’s second floor while the southern portion contains two labs, two bathrooms, a camera room, a darkroom, a machine shop, and a storage room. An east/west corridor divides the building's third floor into two distinct areas. The southern half of the third floor functions as a hydraulics equipment storage area. The northern portion of the building functions as a hydraulics test lab.
Since its construction, Facility 94 has functioned as a structural test laboratory for products manufactured at NWIRP Dallas. It remains on its original site and has undergone no major interior or exterior alterations. The essential features of its design, such as its overall form, roof shape, and interior space configuration, remain intact. The building retains its historic and architectural integrity to a high degree. NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Statement of Significance Facility 94, a hangar-type structural laboratory, is an integral part of the research, design, and development processes at NWIRP Dallas. During the Cold Was Era, Facility 94 played a critical role in the development of the Regulus II missile program, the F8U Crusader, and the A-7A Corsair II. All three projects were designed and developed exclusively at NWIRP Dallas during the Cold War and were nationally significant aerospace products. In later years, Facility 94 played an important manufacturing role in the B-1B and B-2 subassembly programs. Facility 94 related closely to the historic context, NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945 and 1949- 1989. Because its importance lies primarily in its historic associations, Facility 94 is nominated to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A at the national, state, and local levels of significance. Facility 94 is virtually unaltered and thus retains much of its historic character and integrity.
In the summer of 1952, construction began on additional buildings and structures at NIRAP Dallas (now NWIRP Dallas), an aircraft and missile manufacturing plant owned by the Department of the Navy and located in Dallas/Grand Prairie, Texas. The contractor of the plant, Chance Vought Aircraft, funded the construction effort – called the Spring Building Program – to expand the plant to meet Cold War manufacturing requirements on jet aircraft and missiles. Designed by the Dallas-based Architect and Engineering firm Corgan, Lane & Associates, Facility 94 was designed to be immediately accessible to Facility 6, the main manufacturing space at the complex. Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson Consulting Engineers of Dallas served as the structural engineers for Facility 94, which had to be constructed of steel in order for it to adjoin Facility 6. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks, 8th District, located in New Orleans, Louisiana, approved the architectural drawings submitted by Corgan, Lane & Associates and Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson and also authorized the construction, which was carried out by Carpenter Brothers Construction Company of Dallas.
Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson worked with Corgan to design Facility 94 as a hangar-type laboratory with steel columns, steel trussing, and “Robertson” metal siding, which matched existing Plant “B” structures constructed during World War II. Mosher Steel Company provided the steel used in Facility 94’s construction and Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson supervised all work related to the steel frame, columns, and trusses. With the steel work complete, Carpenter Brothers began general construction of Facility 94 in spring 1952. Vought invested $1,756,632 on the construction of Facility 94, a structures lab, capable of testing all the different components of aircraft and missile casings. The three-story, 88,647-square foot steel structure was constructed immediately west of Facility 49 and connected to the northwest corner of Plant “B” (Facility 6). The building’s location provided Vought with convenient access to both the engineering offices within Facility 49 and the final production areas of Facility 6. Vought’s first use of Facility 94 was to test the structural components of the Regulus II missile design. This was made of varying composite materials and metals, including Metallite, a Vought-developed product used on many of the company’s jet aircraft. The interior of Facility 94 was large enough to accommodate the testing of multiple design-related issues on both missiles and aircraft. During its first years of operation, Vought also used Facility 94 to help design and test the structural system of its F8U Crusader prior to entering into full-scale production of the design. Facility 94 could accommodate the testing of pieces or entire assemblies of both jets and missiles, simulating strains on the outer structures of products to increase durability, flight properties and characteristics, and the performance of the item under varying weather conditions. (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4; Chance Vought News June 1953:1). NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page 7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Since its completion in 1954, Facility 94’s function has gone unchanged. As a structures laboratory, Facility 94 was never dedicated or associated with any one product manufactured at NWIRP Dallas, but its funding and construction request was directly tied to the Regulus missile program and jet aircraft development. After the end of the Regulus program in the early 1960s, Vought utilized the hangar-type lab to accommodate the testing of all the company’s future products, including the F8U Crusader and A-7A Corsair II. During the 1970 and 1980s, Facility 94 proved a very flexible and versatile building as its interior was modified to accommodate the testing of multiple projects at one time. These projects included aircraft, missile and rocket programs for the Navy, Air Force and NASA, such as the Scout Rocket, Lance Missile, Tactical Missile, and Multiple Launch Rocket System programs. This work was conducted in the high bay area of Facility 94 and alongside the testing of Boeing 747 tail assemblies, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 tailplanes and elevators, and Lockheed P-3 Orion control surfaces and landing gear. In 1979, LTV received a large contract to complete the intermediate and rear fuselage sections of the Rockwell B1-B bomber and became the principal airframe builder on the Northrop Grumman B-2 stealth bomber. Work on these two projects began in 1981 and dominated the type of testing that occurred in Facility 94 throughout the end of the Cold War, and, to some extent, still occurs today. Currently, the tenant at NWIRP Dallas, Vought Aircraft Industries, utilizes Facility 94 to test the landing gear of the F-18 and F-14 jet aircraft and conduct variable wing sweep tests on the B-1 (www.voughtaircraft.com).
Even today, Facility 94 continues to function as a structural test laboratory for products manufactured at NWIRP Dallas. Class II property records indicate that Facility 94 underwent improvement in 1970 and probably reflected interior modifications necessary to accommodate the testing of different products. Current Department of the Navy P164 records show that Facility 94 has maintained its original square-footage and Class II records value the lab and its contents at $12,178,730. The only major repair or renovation work to Facility 94 after 1970 was an exterior and interior paint job, which occurred plant-wide and reflected a change in tenancy from LTV to Northrop Grumman.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 8 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 9 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 94, NWIRP Dallas Section Photo Page 10 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Photo Log
Facility 94 Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 94 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour October 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. North and west facades, camera facing southeast Photograph 1 of 2
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 94 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour October 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. South and west facades, camera facing northeast Photograph 2 of 2 N and W facades of Facility 94, camera facing SE S and W facades of Facility 94, camera facing NE
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
REGISTRATION FORM
1. NAME OF PROPERTY
HISTORIC NAME: Facility 97, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas
OTHER NAME/SITE NUMBER: Engineer Flight Test Hangar
2. LOCATION
STREET & NUMBER: 9314 Jefferson Boulevard NOT FOR PUBLICATION: N/A
CITY OR TOWN: Dallas VICINITY: N/A
STATE: Texas CODE: TX COUNTY: Dallas CODE: 113 ZIP CODE: 75265-5907
3. STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _x_nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of
Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property x_meets _does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant ___nationally
___statewide _x_locally. (See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official Date
State Historic Preservation Officer, Texas Historical Commission
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property ___meets ___does not meet the National Register criteria.
(See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of commenting or other official Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper Date of Action
____ entered in the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined eligible for the National Register ___ See continuation sheet. ____ determined not eligible for the National Register
____ removed from the National Register
____ other (explain): USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 2
5. CLASSIFICATION
OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY: Public-Federal
CATEGORY OF PROPERTY: Building
NUMBER OF RESOURCES WITHIN PROPERTY: CONTRIBUTING NONCONTRIBUTING
1 0 BUILDINGS 0 0 SITES 0 0 STRUCTURES 0 0 OBJECTS
1 0 TOTAL
NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTING RESOURCES PREVIOUSLY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER: 0
NAME OF RELATED MULTIPLE PROPERTY LISTING: Historic and Architectural Resources at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Dallas, Texas
6. FUNCTION OR USE
HISTORIC FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
CURRENT FUNCTIONS: INDUSTRIAL/manufacturing facility
7. DESCRIPTION
ARCHITECTURAL CLASSIFICATION: no style
MATERIALS: FOUNDATION concrete WALLS concrete, ribbed steel panels ROOF built-up OTHER
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION (see continuation sheet 7-5) USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 3
8. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
APPLICABLE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA _X_ A PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS THAT HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE BROAD PATTERNS OF OUR HISTORY. ___ B PROPERTY IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LIVES OF PERSONS SIGNIFICANT IN OUR PAST. ___ C PROPERTY EMBODIES THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A TYPE, PERIOD, OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OR REPRESENTS THE WORK OF A MASTER, OR POSSESSES HIGH ARTISTIC VALUE, OR REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND DISTINGUISHABLE ENTITY WHOSE COMPONENTS LACK INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION. ___ D PROPERTY HAS YIELDED, OR IS LIKELY TO YIELD, INFORMATION IMPORTANT IN PREHISTORY OR HISTORY.
CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: N/A
AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Industrial
PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1954-1975
SIGNIFICANT DATES: 1954, 1962
SIGNIFICANT PERSON: N/A
CULTURAL AFFILIATION: N/A
ARCHITECT/BUILDER: Smith, Harwood K. & Miles, Joseph M./O’Rourke Construction Company
NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE (see continuation sheets 8-6 through 8-7)
9. MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
BIBLIOGRAPHY (see Historic Resources Survey Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas) PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION ON FILE (NPS): N/A X preliminary determination of individual listing (36 CFR 67) has been requested. _ previously listed in the National Register _ previously determined eligible by the National Register _ designated a National Historic Landmark _ recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey # _ recorded by Historic American Engineering Record # PRIMARY LOCATION OF ADDITIONAL DATA: _ State historic preservation office (Texas Historical Commission) _ Other state agency _ Federal agency _ Local government _ University _ Other -- Specify Repository: USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Page 4
10. GEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF PROPERTY: approximately 1.6 acres
UTM REFERENCES Zone Easting Northing 14 689635E 3624082N
VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION: The exterior walls of Facility 6 define the boundaries of the property to be nominated. An attached map graphically depicts the boundaries and is used in lieu of a detailed metes and bounds description of the boundaries (see continuation sheet Map-8).
BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION: Facility 97 is within an industrial complex that includes over 300 buildings and structures (see continuation sheet Map-9).
11. FORM PREPARED BY
NAME/TITLE: Laurie A. Pospisil-Gotcher/Historian, Jennifer Ross/Architectural Historian, and Thomas P. Eisenhour
ORGANIZATION: Hardy-Heck-Moore, Inc. (HHM) DATE: November 1, 2001
STREET & NUMBER: 611 S. Congress, Suite 300 TELEPHONE: 512-478-8014
CITY OR TOWN: Austin STATE: TX ZIP CODE: 78704
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
CONTINUATION SHEETS
MAPS (see continuation sheets Map-8 through 9)
PHOTOGRAPHS (see continuation sheet Photo-10)
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME: United States of America: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command
STREET & NUMBER: 47123 Buse Road TELEPHONE:
CITY OR TOWN: Patuxent River STATE: MD ZIP CODE: 20670-1547
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas Section 7 Page 5 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Description Facility 97, constructed in 1954, is a massive five-story hangar with a flat, built-up roof. The rectangular-plan building utilizes steel-frame construction and is clad with ribbed steel siding and concrete. Situated within the southeast portion of NWIRP Dallas, Facility 97’s most distinctive features include a control tower on its roof and large overhead pivoting doors on its north and south facades. The property is in good condition and has undergone no major alterations. Facility 97 retains its architectural integrity to a good degree.
Constructed in 1954, Facility 97 is a hangar-type manufacturing building in the southeast portion of NWIRP Dallas. The facility sits atop a level terrain directly southeast of Facility 33 with paved parking lots surrounding. A 396’-long concrete loading ramp was appended to the facility’s south façade a year after it was constructed.
The facility utilizes a concrete foundation and a steel-frame structural system. Facility 97 has a multi-level flat roof constructed of ribbed metal decking, insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. Exterior walls are reinforced concrete up to 5'-6' above the first finished floor, then ribbed steel panels to the roofline.
Metal canopy doors on the facility’s north and south facades function as its primary entrances. Each of these doorways feature an integral hinged panel and sliding panels. Additional entries include a set of paired metal doors with vision panels on the building’s east facade. Facility 97’s windows are industrial, steel-sash units and fixed aluminum-frame units. Additional exterior wall openings include louvered vents and steel ladders on the building’s east façade.
The four-story resource measures 213'-0" in width, 253'-0" in length, and houses a total of 70,634 square feet of usable interior space. Facility 97’s primary interior space is a large open “high bay” area that is currently used for general materials storage. To the east of the high bay is a two-level mezzanine that currently houses administrative offices. A primary feature of the hangar interior space is a massive underground scale that forms much of the high bay’s floor. Although the scale is currently on tin use, throughout the Cold War Era, it was used to weigh and qualify Regulus I and II missiles as well as the F8U Crusader and A-7 Corsair II jet aircraft.
Facility 97 remains on its original site and has undergone no major interior or exterior alterations since its construction in 1954. Although the resource currently functions as a storage facility for aircraft-related materials, it housed functions related to the manufacture and testing of avionic products throughout much of its history. The essential features of Facility 97’s design, such as its overall form, roof shape, and interior space configuration, remain intact. The building retains its architectural integrity to a good degree. NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page _6 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Statement of Significance Since its completion in 1954, Facility 97 has served as an integral part of the manufacturing, testing, and certification processes at NWIRP Dallas. One of the many buildings erected during Chance Vought’s Spring Building Program (1952- 1956), Facility 97 has strong historical associations to the Chance Vought’s most successful Cold War products – the Regulus missile programs, the F8U Crusader, and A-7 Corsair II. When work on the Regulus ended, the function of the building was modified to installation, repair, and testing of avionics on jet aircraft, such as the Crusader and Corsair II. These products were designed and developed exclusively at NWIRP Dallas during the Cold War era and were nationally significant aerospace products. Facility 97 is closely related to the historic context established for the activity, NWIRP Dallas: A World War II and Cold War Aircraft and Missile Manufacturing Plant, 1942-1945 and 1949-1989. Because Facility 97 retains much of its historic character and integrity, the facility is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “A”.
On June 18, 1953, construction began on Facility 97, a $1.7 million jet aircraft and guided missile hangar used initially to test and store production-quality Regulus missiles. One of 17 buildings constructed at NIRAP Dallas (now NWIRP Dallas) as part of Chance Vought Aircraft’s Spring Building Program, Facility 97 was designed by Harwood K. Smith & Joseph M. Miles, an Architect – Engineer firm based in Dallas. The more than 70,000 square foot hangar was not of standardized construction, but unique to NWIRP Dallas and designed to the specifications and needs of Vought. The four- story hangar contained a high bay area, electronics test areas, storage, engineering offices, and workroom space for expanded production on the Regulus missile. Vought required this hangar to satisfy Cold War manufacturing demands on the weapons system. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks, 8th District, located in New Orleans, Louisiana, approved the architectural drawings and authorized the construction, which was carried out by O’Rourke Construction Company and completed in January 1954 (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1-2).
Originally, Vought used Facility 97 exclusively in support of the Regulus missile program. Regulus missiles leaving the Plant “B”, Facility 6 production lines were taken to Facility 97 for final installation of the missile’s internal avionics components and the individual testing of all electronic systems. Vought Retiree Club members indicated that installation of the missile engine also occurred in Facility 97. Following both of these complex processes, Vought employees moved the production missiles to flight testing, which occurred in Facility 95 and included simulation of engine starting-up, take-off, climb, cruise, and let-down simulation. Once the missile passed testing, it was moved back to Facility 97 for any rework and the official weigh-in. A large commercial scale was built into the floor of Facility 97 to weigh and certify production models. Once all final touches were complete, the missiles were shipped through Facility 93 in specially designed cargo carriers that prevented the Regulus from shifting and possibly damaging its delicate circuitry. Vought delivered the missiles to the Navy either by rail or on commercial trucks (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1-2).
In the early 1960s, the Navy cancelled Vought’s Regulus missile program and the contractor dedicated Facility 97 to electronic and avionics repair as well as testing of the company’s jet aircraft programs. At the time, Vought had just begun full-scale production on its F8U Crusader and used Facility 97 to store the completed jets prior to and following airborne testing at nearby Hensley Field. Vought employees, including a former flight test pilot, indicated that the aircraft would be taken outside Facility 97 and moved into an engine run-up shelter for pre-flight operations. Following clearance, the jet was then moved to Hensley Field for airborne operations. An octagonal flight control room on Facility 97’s southeast corner permitted the contractor to observe airborne flights from the building’s fourth floor tower. During an NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8 -86)
United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas Section 8 Page _7 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas interview with Vought Retiree Club members, former engineers recalled that some electronics and avionics installation on the F8U Crusader and the A-7 Corsair II occurred in Facility 97 as well as pre-delivery weight and certification.
Department of the Navy Class II property records do not exist for Facility 97, and contractor-generated property files do not indicate any significant renovation or alteration. Facility 97 retains its original form, appearance, and location and is still 70,634 square feet. Charles Hampton, one of the Navy’s representatives at NWIRP Dallas, reported that the only major work completed at Facility 97 in the past decade has been interior and exterior painting, which occurred plant-wide and reflected a change in tenancy. Currently, the majority of Facility 97 is used as a storage space for high volume quantities of steel, metal, and composites in various shapes and sizes. They are stored in tall steel shelves similar to those found in Facility 93 and Facility 94, except in much higher quantities and volume. The varying shapes and sizes of the materials require that they be moved with a forklift to the manufacturing spaces at NWIRP Dallas. The eastern portion of the hangar is unoccupied and is used to store discarded office partitions.
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 8 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas Section Map Page 9 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
NPS Form 10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
Facility 97, NWIRP Dallas Section Photo Page 10 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
Photo Log
Facility 97 Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 97 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour October 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. North and east facades, camera facing southwest Photograph 1 of 3
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 97 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour October 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. South and west facades, camera facing northeast Photograph 2 of 3
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Facility 97 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas Photographed by Thomas Eisenhour October 2001 Negative with HHM Inc. Detail of east façade, camera facing southwest Photograph 3 of 3 N and E facades of Facility 97, camera facing SW S and W facades of Facility 97, camera facing NE Detail of E facade of Facility 97, camera facing SW