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

Lockheed XFV-1 "Salmon" variants

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,937
Reaction score
604
Great find!
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
116
Before the XFV-1 received its USN BuAer designation, it was known in-house as the Lockheed L-200 study. Attached photos of L-200-1 manufacturer model show a number of differences with the XFV-1: Three tail stabilizers instead of four, four-bladed props, slimmer fuselage with underside instead of lateral air intakes, etc. Does anybody know what the "curb feelers" on the three legs are for?
 

Attachments

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,770
Reaction score
221
circle-5 said:
Does anybody know what the "curb feelers" on the three legs are for?
I was thinking static dischargers at first, but I've never seen those modeled on a plane model like this. Could they be antenna for some sort for a radio landing aid, giving accurate height above the ground readings, like a RADAR Alt system? That's my best guess.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
374
I'll second Sundog's idea.

Curb feelers - now that is funny and an apt description! All we need now are some fuzzy dice on the rear view mirror :D

Impressive model Circle-5 - thanks! Mark
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
116
Thank you both -- I concur. Concept models generally don't show small details unless they illustrate unique or significant features. A special ground proximity indicator would definitely qualify in the case of this tail sitter. In addition, I believe static dischargers would have been installed parallel to the flight path.
 

Kevin Renner

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
94
Reaction score
4
At the time the Salmon and the Pogo were unworkable ideas. Now with modern fight control systems they could be done, but why? IMO at the time they would of better off to pursue a twin engine tilt wing with the engines buried in the fuselage
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,770
Reaction score
221
Kevin Renner said:
At the time the Salmon and the Pogo were unworkable ideas. Now with modern fight control systems they could be done, but why? IMO at the time they would of better off to pursue a twin engine tilt wing with the engines buried in the fuselage
Form a weight and complexity standpoint, at least regarding aircraft performance, I doubt there would be a design that could compete, in terms of a pure vertical take-off and landing vehicle.

The drawbacks; you aren't going to be doing any rolling STOL take-offs or landings and maintenance, arming, and ingress-egress are going to be problematic without extensive ground support equipment.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
435
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Lockheed XFV-1 "Salmon" model

Lockheed XFV-1 "Salmon" model found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/FXV-1-Lockheed-Model-Aircraft-Vintage-Navy-Officers-Estate-Item-Rare-Military-/321049558159?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ac00b7c8f
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
435
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Re: Lockheed XFV-1 "Salmon" model

Sold for the amazing price of $26.00 with $5.00 Expedited Shipping.

I guess I can't find treasures all the time. ;)
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
374
Greetings All -

The cover of "Western Aviation 26th Annual Directory, April 1954" had this XFV-1 artwork. Being the cover of a magazine, it hasn't fared too well with scratches and the like but nice artwork nonetheless.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

cluttonfred

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,357
Reaction score
86
Website
cluttonfred.info
Since Mark has revived this old thread -- which would be better titled "Lockheed XFV-1 variants" -- let me point out that there is one variant pictured above that is quite striking. L-210-2 in reply #2 by Justo Miranda appears to show a STOL and not VTOL version with no less than TWELVE forward-firing guns in wing pods. Wow!
 

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
116
Sundog said:
circle-5 said:
Does anybody know what the "curb feelers" on the three legs are for?
I was thinking static dischargers at first, but I've never seen those modeled on a plane model like this. Could they be antenna for some sort for a radio landing aid, giving accurate height above the ground readings, like a RADAR Alt system? That's my best guess.
Thanks to a post by Tailspin Turtle in another thread, we now know these were retractable stoppers to rest the L-200-1 legs onto a landing net platform. The net was hydraulically pitch-compensated to cancel the ship's roll motion and had a 6-inch mesh. An additional net, mounted on a side platform, would catch one of the wingtip tanks in similar fashion, after the tank was guided in place by a wall of rubber rollers (backstop). The process of backing down into the tip net was assisted by a landing officer (LSO).
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,075
Reaction score
3,003
Hi,


here is the orginal model to Lockheed XFV-1,from the book;
Lockheed XFV-1 VTOL fighter,by Steve Ginter
 

Attachments

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
151
Reaction score
23
While they never got around to it, it would've been fascinating to see what kind of dogfighting performance the tailsitters had with such high thrust to weight ratios.
 

Jos Heyman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
597
Reaction score
12
Interesting concept.
My information states that the first conventional flight of the XFV-1 was made on 16 June 1954 with a fixed undercarriage. VTOL was performed in flight but no actual VTOL landings or starts were performed. As such I think it is unlikely that the parachute concept was installed - and definitely not used.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,177
Reaction score
797
The chute and the opening to eject it look a bit too small, to my opinion, and IIRC, the spinner
would have housed a radar in the series version. So this arrangement probably could have been
used only on the prototype either.
 

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
151
Reaction score
23
Is there any "true" data on how fast this and the Convair XFY were? Seems I can't find any confirmed data, just projections and estimates.

It would be interesting if it really did turn out these were the fastest propeller driven aircraft ever made, even if a good deal of the thrust was from exhaust (I would figure so).
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
30
NUSNA_Moebius said:
Is there any "true" data on how fast this and the Convair XFY were? Seems I can't find any confirmed data, just projections and estimates.

It would be interesting if it really did turn out these were the fastest propeller driven aircraft ever made, even if a good deal of the thrust was from exhaust (I would figure so).
500 mph from either one would be about their best. The McDonnell XF-88B "Trimotor" - powered by two turbojets and a turbrprop, hit 1.12 Mach number in a dive.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,241
Reaction score
388
Steve Pace said:
The McDonnell XF-88B "Trimotor" - powered by two turbojets and a turbrprop, hit 1.12 Mach number in a dive.
But it had much better aerodynamics to help! None of the VTO tailsitters could have gone transonic under any circumstances.
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
30
Skyblazer said:
Steve Pace said:
The McDonnell XF-88B "Trimotor" - powered by two turbojets and a turbrprop, hit 1.12 Mach number in a dive.
But it had much better aerodynamics to help! None of the VTO tailsitters could have gone transonic under any circumstances.
I did not say that they did. But 500 mph for The XFV or XFY isn't out of the question.
 

Jos Heyman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
597
Reaction score
12
The source from which I got my information a long, long time ago did state 500 mph - I doubt if this was ever tested.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
374
Good Day All!

A few recent finds in the Gerald Balzer collection for your perusal.
Note the later date (and not in the L-200 range though I am not sure it is the actual Model #).

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

circle-5

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,161
Reaction score
116
Very nice – thank you Mark. I'm surprised to see wheels (casters) on the L-200-1 empennage. A land variant, probably ...
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,075
Reaction score
3,003
Nice find my dear Mark.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,075
Reaction score
3,003
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19540426/18/2
 

Attachments

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,798
Reaction score
61
The 'Air Trails' illustration shows a Leonard concept.

(Air Trails March 1952)
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,075
Reaction score
3,003
lark said:
The 'Air Trails' illustration shows a Leonard concept.

(Air Trails March 1952)
Thank you my dear Lark,

I suspected in it at first,but they didn't mention his name in the article.
 
Top