• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Lockheed CL-1201 Logistic Support Aircraft

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Lockheed 1982 Logistic Support Aircraft
 

Attachments

  • lockLSA1982c-sm.jpg
    lockLSA1982c-sm.jpg
    200.9 KB · Views: 2,955
  • lockLSA1982a.jpg
    lockLSA1982a.jpg
    74.5 KB · Views: 1,785
  • lockLSA1982b-sm.jpg
    lockLSA1982b-sm.jpg
    80.2 KB · Views: 1,591

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,379
Reaction score
1,418
Funny I was thinking of a design very much like that less than two minutes ago when I was reading the Lockheed nuclear aircraft thread. There was an airborn aircraft carrier that sported something like 24 fighter aircraft beneath it's wings and looked a LOT like that design. There was a drawing of it in the book Future Combat Aircraft by Gunston IIRC.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,902
Reaction score
1,136
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Lockheed CL-1201-1
Span: 1,120 feet
Gross weight: 11.85 million pounds
Endurance: 41 days:
Reactor output: 1830 megawatts
Crew: 845
Tactical fighters carried: 24
Lift engines for VTOL: 182

Knowledge that we *could* build this: priceless.
 

Attachments

  • CL-1201-1.gif
    CL-1201-1.gif
    38.5 KB · Views: 1,776

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
Significant economy leap: just 54 engines for VTOL on Logistic Support Aircraft version)))
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,902
Reaction score
1,136
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
The attack version weighed more, and was intended for VTOL landings of vast numbers of troops and equipment, along with the airplanes under the wing; the transport version was intended for STOL operations (for an airplane this big, "STOL" probably meant "runway less than 10km long.")
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
447
Reaction score
86
Website
rp-one.net
A question on the reactor output - is that thermal megawatts or shaft power megawatts?

And a general statement: OMFG.

RP1
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,902
Reaction score
1,136
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
RP1 said:
A question on the reactor output - is that thermal megawatts or shaft power megawatts?

*Appears* to be total thermal output. The total thrust of the engines is claimed to be 500,000 pounds... which seems pretty damned weak. Possible that 500,000 pounds *per* *engine.*

And a general statement: OMFG.

Indeed!
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
From Bill Gunston's 'An Illistrated Guide To Future Fighters...'
 

Attachments

  • lockmega.jpg
    lockmega.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 1,425

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
And why do you think it was back then?
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,235
Reaction score
454
sublight is back said:
Why do you say 1982, I thought this was designed in the 50's?

Neither. CL-1201 studies date back to the 1969-70 period. But of course it's not so unusual to see them appear in a report that's only a little over a decade later.
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
778
Reaction score
58
Skyblazer said:
sublight is back said:
Why do you say 1982, I thought this was designed in the 50's?

Neither. CL-1201 studies date back to the 1969-70 period. But of course it's not so unusual to see them appear in a report that's only a little over a decade later.

Could you point me to that report please? :)
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,043
Reaction score
865
It was a date of AIAA paper LSA was mentioned in.
Looking more pages then I did in a hurry, I would find that LSA traces back - as it was said - to late 60s

G. D. Brewer, Dalton Sherwood, P.J. Sibley
"A Study of Very Large Nuclear-Powered Aircraft in a Potential Mission Application"
Lockheed Report No. 22802, 12 September 1969
 

carsinamerica

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
113
Reaction score
17
Oh, jeez, it had landing gear? I remember Gunston speculating that it would be a flying boat. Imagine parking that thing. I suspect it'd go something like this:
TWR: Attention all aircraft: DFW is now closed to all traffic."
QF7: Dallas, Qantas 7, has there been an accident?"
TWR: "Qantas 7, DFW, uh, negative. We just had a CL-1201 land."
QF7: "Oh, right then."
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
83
It appears that the centre of aerodynamic lift should be pretty far back (near the reactor and the centre of gravity). However, the centre of lift from the lift jets should be much further forward. This should apply to both known variants but be even more evident for the transport variant (which had less wing mounted lift-jets)

This suggests that the lift jets were designed to produce a strong upward pitching moment (probably used at lower throttle settings for control during takeoff and landing). This might be to compensate for a backward moment in the lift distribution when flaps are extended.

However, I could do with someone checking to ensure that I haven't messed up in my assessment of where aerodynamic lift should be distributed.

P.S. What is the Reynold's number for a 20 metre thick wing (vertical dimension) going at Mach 0.8? One billion or something like that? What implications does that have - do we even know?
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,630
Reaction score
560
I cannot think of a runway that would take that span of wing, let alone the weight. Taxiways might have been a problem too not to mention finding a way to brake the thing to a halt.
 

circle-5

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,159
Reaction score
130
That's precisely why it's a VTOL design.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,630
Reaction score
560
I got the VTO bit but you will still need a runway/pad and taxiways around some kind of secure zone. The logistics of this would be mind boggling on their own let alone the services required to turn this thing around. Sooner or later it WILL have to come back down.
 
Top