Fight for yor Right!
- Jan 14, 2007
- Reaction score
I have the CL.239 for the T.33, CL.245 for T2V/T.1 and CL.531 for C.5 "Galaxy". Correct??????????????
This is not what the Putnam book says. Francillon quotes CL-255 as the earliest. Perhaps -255 to -268 were changed from L- to CL- at some point, the way it was done with (C)L-257.Skybolt said:Firstly, the CL-XXX designation started with CL-269.
AM said:282 High-altitude reconnaissance version of the F-104
AM said:342 U-2
In a sense, the U-2 is an F-104 development: OK, this may seem rather far fetched, but, bit oversimplified, the U-2 is an F-104 with new, glider type, wings, new forward fuselage section with revised cockpit and recce bay etc..Stargazer2006 said:- CL-351 is either given as a STARFIGHTER-related project or as the U-2R (TR-1) DRAGON LADY
No they're not, and in fact, until you mentioned it, I hadn't even seen "342" before. The book, however, describes the first U-2 as "Article 341", which COULD be an indication that CL-341 was the actual inhouse designator... except that elsewhere in the book, it says that the CL-282 proposal became known as the U-2, so we can assume that that designation covered a vast array of different designs, from the initial F-104-like design to the U-2 as we know it. "Article 341" must have been a cover-up CIA designation to conceal what the program actually was.Antheii said:Unfortunately neither the -342 or -351 designations are mentioned in the book.
Thanks for this great link! I thought I knew quite a bit about Japanese trains... but this one is completely new to me. Proves once again that the more you think you know, the more you realize you don't!nugo said:
Well, I don't know a thing about whatever designation system is used by most U.S. manufacturers nowadays. Sometimes you see a designation popping here and there, but it's hard to make anything of it. For instance, I have the designation "Model 230" for the X-35... But is this a Lockheed Martin system? Only restricted specifically to a certain factory's projects?Maveric said:I´ve found the designation Model 631 for the F.22 "Raptor". Can you tell me the right designation, is this a Lockheed-Martin-number??
Thanks for this insider's viewpoint! I kind of fancied the old 249/649/749/1049 type designations. The split between model numbers and design numbers also made sense (and didn't exclude the possibility of suffix letters either). One thing is for sure: aircraft manufacturers once used coherent designation systems for their projects... no more. :'(gatoraptor said:I worked on the F-22 program for many years, but never saw a company model number for it; all our drawings read "F-22A", even during the period when it was officially designated "F/A-22".
On the other hand, the C-130 drawings use the company model numbers 82, 182, 282 and 382; these represented the YC-130, the C-130A, the C-130B and the C-130E and their derivatives.
Theoretically the later production models should have been 482 and 582, but that was never done; instead suffix letters were added. The current model numbers are 382U for standard-length C-130Js and 382V for stretched C-130Js (which are often still referred to as C-130J-30s).
Jay Miller said:L-204—By the time F-94C contractor trials had been completed and the flight test program was assimilated by the Air Force, the Skunk Works, as it existed at that time, had become involved in a totally different aircraft program. Concurrently, Hall Hibbard and "Kelly" Johnson had elected to carry the basic F-94—and by default, the original P-80 configuration - to its ultimate level of development. The resulting L-204 variants, though stillborn, are worthy of mention. These studies, initiated during July of 1950, and assigned temporary design designations from L-204-1 to L-204-3, were conducted by Willis Hawkins with the intent of improving the aircraft's performance (specifically top speed and range). The resulting designs were all single-seat configurations with the normal back seat position replaced with a 143.5 gallon (543l) saddle tank. All three configurations were equipped only with air-to-air rocket armament, an E-5 fire control system, and Pratt & Whitney's 8,750 Ib. thrust J48-P-5 engine. The L-204-2 was to be equipped with a new 6% thickness/chord ratio wing similar in planform to its predecessors, while the L-204-3 was to have a 6% thickness/chord ratio wing with a low-aspect ratio and high taper ratio. Even more interesting was the L-204-1 which was to be equipped with a variable-geometry wing having a 0°- to 55° sweep capability. At each pivot point the sweep angle was to be controlled by a hydraulically-operated screw drive. Two horizontal tail configurations were proposed. In one, the single-piece horizontal tail was to be mounted at the extreme end of the empennage above the exhaust; in the other, the horizontal tail was to be rigidly attached to the vertical tail, which in turn was hinged and hydraulically moved around a hinge point—thus changing the horizontal tail incidence.
Source: Books about Lockheed Martin an their aircraft from Jay Miller & R. J. FrancillonJay Miller said:Principle characteristics and calculated performance were as follows:
Model L-204-1 L-204-1 L-204-1 L-204-2 L-204-3
Wing Sweep 0° 35° 55° n.a. n.a.
Length (feet/inches) n.a. n.a. n.a. 42,70 42,50
Span (feet/inches) // (mtcm 37,60 30,90 25,30 37,30 31,00
Wing area (square feet) 233,00 254,00 271,00 392,00 275,00
Zero fuel weight (pounds) 14.573,00 n.a. n.a. 13.316,00 12.305,00
Combat weight (pounds) 18.330,00 18.380,00 18.750,00 18.390,00 16.190,00
Max. Takeoff weight (pounds) 22.186,00 n.a. n.a. 24.098,00 20.345,00
Internal fuel (gallons) 665,00 665,00 665,00 812,00 730,00
External fuel (gallons) 460,00 n.a. n.a. 750,00 460,00
Vmax at sea level (mph) 654,00 739,00 765,00 704,00 706,00
Combat climb rate (feet/minute) 3.500,00 3.800,00 6.200,00 4.100,00 4.150,00
Combat ceiling (feet) 50.000,00 48.800,00 44.500,00 49.500,00 49.000,00
Combat radius (miles) 575,00 560,00 455,00 760,00 540,00
Absolutely. Designations like L-300 (Starlifter), L-400 (Twin Hercules) and L-500 (Galaxy) were purely commercial designations, meant to be easily memorized (like Boeing's 7*7 series or Douglas's DC- series).pometablava said:L-400 twin engine Hercules is not a designation into the TDN sequence.
Stargazer2006 said:The CL-388 was a surface-to-surface missile proposal from 1958.
I had it previously as related to the F-104, but I guess it could have loosely been based on the Starfighter design (unless of course it was the result of a typo).
REPORT 11908, CONTRACT NO. AF18(600)1642, PRESENTS PERFORMANCE, STABILITY, AND CONTROL CHARACTERISTICS OF CL-346-1 DEVELOPED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF VERTICAL TAKEOFF AND LANDING (VTOL) AIRCRAFT. DESCRIPTION OF CL-346-1/2 AIRCRAFT; POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE; ADDITIONAL CONFIGURATIONS STUDIED; DRAWINGS OF LOW LEVEL/HIGH LEVEL BOMBING MISSION; SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS OF PROPOSED VTOL.
I am doubtful of the "Q-1008" or "Q1008" designation as well, but I didn't want to name the topic "Unknown Lockheed Jet Fighter profile." I was hoping that one of the fine members of Secret Projects might be able to identify the drawing and the "Q1008" would be a clue. Hopefully, the date of the drawing will eliminate possibilities.Stargazer said:I'm doubtful of the designation "Q-1008". For a start the plan says "Q1008" and it would be out of sequence with the numbering systems at the time. This number most likely indicated something else. This is most likely an L- something that doesn't say its name.
Was L-200 skipped to avoid confusion with the L-2000?Skyblazer said:Absolutely. Designations like L-300 (Starlifter), L-400 (Twin Hercules) and L-500 (Galaxy) were purely commercial designations, meant to be easily memorized (like Boeing's 7*7 series or Douglas's DC- series).pometablava said:L-400 twin engine Hercules is not a designation into the TDN sequence.