Lockheed L2000

overscan (PaulMM)

Staff member
27 December 2005
Reaction score


  • Lockheed L2000_sc1.jpg
    Lockheed L2000_sc1.jpg
    128.5 KB · Views: 996
  • Lockheed L2000_sc2.jpg
    Lockheed L2000_sc2.jpg
    130.9 KB · Views: 943
  • Lockheed L2000_sc3.jpg
    Lockheed L2000_sc3.jpg
    139.4 KB · Views: 759
  • Lockheed L2000_sc4.jpg
    Lockheed L2000_sc4.jpg
    130.9 KB · Views: 748
  • Lockheed L2000_sc5.jpg
    Lockheed L2000_sc5.jpg
    107.5 KB · Views: 766
  • Lockheed L2000_sc6.jpg
    Lockheed L2000_sc6.jpg
    363.2 KB · Views: 626
Gorgeous!! Any chance of seeing a L2000 in Air Force One markings?
That model looks great, incredibly realistic. If only a person could make a FS2004 or FSX version that was that good!

I'd love to see one in a Delta paintjob.

Those look great. The second shot from the top is my favorite. It really highlights the fuselage camber.
I love the curvaceous fuselage of the L-2000-7A and its elegant, large-area, highly-swept twisted-cambered double-delta.

Did you know the plane required no trim-tanks for efficient supersonic flight? The shape of the wings were such so that as the plane went faster the wings forward-delta produced disproportionate amounts of lift supersonically which compensated for the aft shift in the center of pressure. At Mach 3.0, the elevon-deflections were pretty much flush with the wing (I'm not sure if the rear and outboard part of the delta produced lift supersonically too, or if they acted like a giant trimming surface that flew at an extremely low negative alpha).

The inlets also were of fixed geometry as well. The geometry of the inlet (combined with it's sharp cowl-angles) produced a substantial pressure-recovery, which when combined with porous ramps (of various sizes) was able to, in the event of an aerodynamic-disturbance/unstart, self-stabilize using no bypass doors (and obviously, moving parts)

It's kind of sad that it lost out to Boeing, as Lockheed could have probably built this airplane and flew it before politics were able to get in the way. While Boeing's design had a greater capacity, and was more aerodynamically-efficient (there was also a heavy bias towards swing-wings so it would seem), Lockheed's design was far more practical and realistic. Allegedly, much like how in the CX-HLS program when Lockheed won the contract due to it's political connections in the defense-industry even though Boeing's design was considered by many to be better, Boeing was able to use it's connections to secure the contract (probably regardless of how good Lockheed's design was, however I'm not 100% sure about that).

Hello All~
My first post. Couldn't resist to post my L2000 artwork. Enjoy~
<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/Hotelgulf718/AirlinerPosters/photo#5185431718465958466"><img src="http://lh3.google.com/Hotelgulf718/R_ZarKI08kI/AAAAAAAAAHI/Dw1gkcA0svI/s400/04.-L2000WEB8.jpg" /></a>

Beautiful work Overscan!
Ultra Connie!


  • L2000.jpg
    363.2 KB · Views: 190
  • connie.jpg
    57.3 KB · Views: 154
Did Lockheed ever plan to give the L-2000 a name (like Tristar, Constellation)
KJ_Lesnick said:
Did Lockheed ever plan to give the L-2000 a name (like Tristar, Constellation)

The Tristar did come later and the Electra was around the same time, so it's likely it would've received a name as well. However, they probably decided to wait and see which design Congressional funding would favor, and since it favored the Boeing 2707, they probably never coined an official name for it.
When you compare the photos of the Constellation and the L-200 the similarities are too great to pass up. I've have called it the Constellation II. Both have those wonderful, almost marine mammal like lines.
Great to see the old Braniff logo. I grew up in Dallas and visited the observation deck at Love Field many times to watch Braniff props and jets. Would have been great to see the Lockheed L2000 take off from Love!
When I created 3D model of L-2000 three years ago I had only poor drawing as source. I really like this design and I plan create new more detailed model, with undercarriage etc. And what to do with this old model? I will export it on this page in freeware PovRay format and you will be able to render pictures of L-2000 in quality as are on this topic. You can download PovRay from www.povray.org and try it. If you mean quality of rendered pictures from freeware is low you can guess what from my TSR.2's pictures are rendered in PovRay. Small help - in PovRay I was able to render true 3D flame, in my next two profi renders - no.

If you will take some photos from Love Field L-2000 in Braniff logo will certainly visit that airport.
PlanesPictures said:
When I created 3D model of L-2000 three years ago I had only poor drawing as source. I really like this design and I plan create new more detailed model, with undercarriage etc.

That was very nice of you to post the model for free -- some people would have payed a bundle for that thing.

As for the new model, that sounds absolutely incredible. The L-2000-7A is one of my favorite aircraft designs (I have contemplated making a FS2004 model of it actually) on so many levels.

Best of Luck,
Kendra Lesnick
Has anyone contemplated revisiting modeling this plane for Flight Simulator now that better drawings are available? I've considered it, but left the idea on the back burner until I get some experience with the necessary software, as the shape of the L-2000 looks like a beast to render in 3D. And you'll have fun with the landing gear, and its retract sequence, I guarantee it!

One bit of advice to those modeling these planes is this. Only the North American NAC-60 intended to offer passengers windows like those in a normal jetliner. Both Boeing's and Lockheed's proposals had smaller, round window, and with the L-2000, having the typical 17" pitch of the windows was optional, as 34" was standard. As a matter of fact, Concorde's windows, while generally rectangular, were also smaller.

Similar threads

Top Bottom