Lockheed CL-423 : P2V-7 derived troop transport for Japan

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
16,873
Reaction score
21,513
Source:


http://home.comcast.net/~wmiipms/NewsLetters/1995/WMIIPMS_09-1995_NL.pdf
 

Attachments

  • CL-423-text.png
    CL-423-text.png
    184.6 KB · Views: 900
  • CL-423-drawing1.png
    CL-423-drawing1.png
    138.5 KB · Views: 914
  • CL-423-drawing2.png
    CL-423-drawing2.png
    137.2 KB · Views: 821
  • CL-423-drawing3.png
    CL-423-drawing3.png
    89.1 KB · Views: 713
  • CL-423-drawing4.png
    CL-423-drawing4.png
    203.3 KB · Views: 693
Whoa! Thanks for posting these! I've been intrigued with this design since finding an artist concept in an AW&ST issue from sometime in the '60s and had a Neptune model and some other odds and ends for making one for years! Happy New Year!
 
Nice find!! :p

However I must say what a strange and very unpractical transport/cargo aircraft configuration Lockheed was proposing !!

The obvious fact that the wing passes through the middle of the main cargo compartment is three-steps back in the evolution of the military transport aircraft design! This wing through cargo area would have been an operational nightmare for the the JSDF!
For someone who has operated from Caribou and Hercules, I can imagine the practical, let alone operational restrictions this crazy proposal by Lockheed would have imposed on the JSDF - regardless of so-called comparability with the P-2J.
Re-engine older Curtiss C-46 Commando's with turboprops would have been a far better and practical idea in my opinion!


Regards
Pioneer
 
Some of these old designs look really neat, but this definitely isn't one of them... Looks like someone grafted the tail of a Hercules onto a Neptune and didn't quite know how to connect the two...
 
Pioneer said:
Nice find!! :p

However I must say what a strange and very unpractical transport/cargo aircraft configuration Lockheed was proposing !!

The obvious fact that the wing passes through the middle of the main cargo compartment is three-steps back in the evolution of the military transport aircraft design! This wing through cargo area would have been an operational nightmare for the the JSDF!
For someone who has operated from Caribou and Hercules, I can imagine the practical, let alone operational restrictions this crazy proposal by Lockheed would have imposed on the JSDF - regardless of so-called comparability with the P-2J.
Re-engine older Curtiss C-46 Commando's with turboprops would have been a far better and practical idea in my opinion!


Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Oh! :eek:
 
I think this was clearly a case of economical and political realities getting in the way of engineering common sense. The Japanese had the permission, and the tooling, to make the P2V parts that made up most of this proposal. They also had a political preference for made-at-home, rather than imported. One wonders if the obvious disadvantages of this proposal made it easier to push the subsequent C-2 program. That was a technically superior airplane, but made very little economical sense (at least from a non-Japanese point of view).

As for re-engining the C-46, that still left you with side loading doors. Having wrestled a few large loads in and out of side loading aircraft like the DC-3 and the Twin Otter, I think the rear ramp on this proposal looks pretty sweet.
 
This IPMS stuff is great! thanks to Paul (and was it Hesham?) for digging it up and posting it here. :)
 
These are all fragments from the research done by Bill Slayton's unpublished opus on Lockheed proposals that also formed the basis of several articles in APR and AAHS Journal.

If only the original manuscript could be published, I know I'd buy a copy :)

I believe at least one person on this forum knows where the original is...
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
These are all fragments from the research done by Bill Slayton's unpublished opus
Click to expand...

And to think I had once posted a link to one of these articles (Vega 41), not realizing there were quite a few more at the same address!!! :(

PaulMM (Overscan) said:
If only the original manuscript could be published, I know I'd buy a copy :)
Click to expand...

I have a strong feeling you wouldn't be the only one... ;)

PaulMM (Overscan) said:
I believe at least one person on this forum knows where the original is...
Click to expand...

If it's true and if they haven't shared any of it yet, do you think they are willing to eventually?
And if not, do you think we should bribe them? Extort them? Kidnap them? ;D
 
Just as I said: a Hercules's tail grafted onto a Neptune fuselage. How much uglier can it get?!?

Thanks for sharing the picture, Jens, it's awesome!
 
From Naval Aviation News 1954,

with jet pod engines ?.
 

Attachments

  • 10.png
    10.png
    596.7 KB · Views: 95
This proposal makes us wonder why more WW2 bombers (e.g. Stirling and Whitley) were not reftrofitted with similar belly pods after they were obsolete as bombers. Belly pods would have allowed more graceful exits for paratroopers (vice round belly hatch where the belly turret used to be).
 
riggerrob said:
This proposal makes us wonder why more WW2 bombers (e.g. Stirling and Whitley) were not reftrofitted with similar belly pods after they were obsolete as bombers. Belly pods would have allowed more graceful exits for paratroopers (vice round belly hatch where the belly turret used to be).
Click to expand...
Quite a few were so modified--for air freight. With C-47s 9and their engines) cheap and available throughout the bombers' remaining service life and better solutions on the drawing boards, I doubt that the development costs for such conversions could be justified. The P2V transport never came to be, after all.
 
What got that P2V pregnant?

In practice, I cannot see the volume above the wing spar and forward as anything resembling usable. Fill it with a fuel tank and call it "for ballast"



hesham said:
From Naval Aviation News 1954,

with jet pod engines ?.
Click to expand...
Yep! all the military end-of-piston big planes got them. J34s will happily run on almost anything, the ones at my aircraft mechanic school ran on automotive gas (and built up a lot of sulfur on the turbines as a result). 115 octane Avgas is something that they'd love!

Turboprops made jet booster engines obsolete due to how much lighter the engines were for the same horsepower.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom