Lockheed Model 24 (XFM-2) Navy Fighter

Tailspin Turtle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
6 December 2007
Messages
721
Reaction score
361
Website
www.tommythomason.com
My understanding is that Lockheed proposed the P-38-like Model 24 for the 1937 Navy twin-engine carrier-based airplane competition. The engines were air-cooled R-1535s. Ironically, Grumman proposed a V-1710-powered twin. Neither was accepted.


[Admin edit 20/09/2014 - this is actually a drawing of the V-1710 powered Model 24A. See later in topic for the R-1535 engined Model 24W]


D'oh! I obviously didn't look at the drawing very closely. Thanks for the correction and followup.
 

Attachments

  • MODEL_24_01.jpg
    MODEL_24_01.jpg
    212.3 KB · Views: 1,580
Last edited by a moderator:
Source: Bill Slayton article in Dirty Plastic newsletter Issue 116/118 IPMS Phoenix
 

Attachments

  • LockheedModel24.png
    LockheedModel24.png
    426.6 KB · Views: 699
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Source: Bill Slayton article in Dirty Plastic newsletter Issue 116/118 IPMS Phoenix

This re-use of the designation "XFM-2" is quite puzzling, considering this was previously assigned to Vega's Model 11 project, quite a different beast.

I'm still in awe that you somehow seem to have access to all of Fatz's articles from the bulletins of various IPMS chapters... Very cool.
Do you perchance have the previous installments in this series? (this article says that Fatz previously covered all designations running up to Model 23).
 

Attachments

  • Vega XFM-2.jpg
    Vega XFM-2.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 584
Skyblazer said:
This re-use of the designation "XFM-2" is quite puzzling, considering this was previously assigned to Vega's Model 11 project, quite a different beast.
I agree with Skyblazer. The development of the XFM-2 two seat fighter was commenced in 1937 but was dropped in favour of the P-38 design. The designation XPB-3 has also been linked to this design. I have attached a photo of what has been labelled XPB-3. Looks similar to Skyblazers XFM-2, as I would expect.
I would suggest Bill Slayton's article is somewhat mixed up, which is a pity because it immediately casts a potential doubt over some of the other 'way-out' information he has provided.
 

Attachments

  • PB-3.jpg
    PB-3.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 389
With the twin-boomed Lockheed proposal, where were they going to put the arrestor hook?
 
Probably at the end of the fuselage gondola, as in the DH Sea Venom/Sea Vixen, I think.
 
Jos Heyman said:
Skyblazer said:
This re-use of the designation "XFM-2" is quite puzzling, considering this was previously assigned to Vega's Model 11 project, quite a different beast.
I agree with Skyblazer. The development of the XFM-2 two seat fighter was commenced in 1937 but was dropped in favour of the P-38 design. The designation XPB-3 has also been linked to this design. I have attached a photo of what has been labelled XPB-3. Looks similar to Skyblazers XFM-2, as I would expect.
I would suggest Bill Slayton's article is somewhat mixed up, which is a pity because it immediately casts a potential doubt over some of the other 'way-out' information he has provided.

The XFM-1 initially was the designation for the winner of the competition for Circular Proposal 604, so to start with Lockheed's design was internally known as XFM-1. The competition was close, and Lockheed's design scored less then 0.4% lower than Bell's proposal. Ben Kelsey, fighter project officer at Wright Field who authored CP 604 and was looking for heavier, more capable twin engined fighter designs, personally thought Lockheed's design approach superior and Wright Field Project Office recommended both designs be put into production, Bell's as XFM-1 and Lockheed's as XFM-2. This was rejected, and only Bell got a contract on May 12, 1936. Kelsey continued to develop his ideas and wanted to give Lockheed another chance.

Lockheed continued some work on XFM(-1/-2) after submission but by March 1936 (2 months prior to losing to Bell) a new "Model 22" supplanted the earlier design number. Early docs also refer to it as Project M-12-36.

6 basic configurations were considered by Johnson and Hibberd (attached). It was likely influenced by advance notice of what later was formally Circular Proposal 608 from Kelsey and Gordon P. Saville at Wright Field. Lockheed was able to respond to CP X-608 issued February 19th 1937 and received a contract to build one XP-38 23rd June 1937. Vultee's rival XP1015 proposal was more conventional and less developed, perhaps due to Lockheed's head start.

Bell's XFM-1 first flew on 1 September 1937 with Kelsey at the helm. Lockheed's XP-38 flew 27th Jan 1939. Kelsey got to be test pilot on that one too. Lucky guy!

If we consider this development timeline it is not unreasonable in 1937 for the Model 22 and derivative designs e.g. Navy Model 24 to be designated "XFM-2" in certain Lockheed documentation in 1937, when viewed either as continuations of the not built XFM-2 or as successors to the XFM-1 in terms of heavy fighter development.

Given Bill Slayton worked at Lockheed with full access to their archives, and the lack of any obvious mistakes in the rest of his research, I would side with this being the correct interpretation.

Sources:

Warren M. Brodie, P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter (Widewing Publications, 1991)
Michael O' Leary, Production Line to Front Line 03: Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Osprey, 1999)
Frederick A. Johnsen, Warbirdtech 02: Lockheed P-38 Lightning (Speciality Press, 1996)
 

Attachments

  • Model22.png
    Model22.png
    87.9 KB · Views: 341
Thanks a lot Jos and Paul for advancing the subject in such a clear and definitive manner.
 

Attachments

  • 1393379_10152583388504039_3765159843238090291_n.jpg
    1393379_10152583388504039_3765159843238090291_n.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 354
Thanks for that, Stephane. This is far from my area of expertise, but I tried :)


Radial Model 24W with R-1535s. Note Tommy's drawing at start of the thread is actually Model 24A with V-1710 engines, not "air-cooled R-1535s".
 

Attachments

  • Model24Radial.png
    Model24Radial.png
    507.3 KB · Views: 242
Thanks Paul and Stephane - in particular for the various statements.
If only we could go back to that era to get the full story.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom