Lockheed XFV-1 "Salmon" variants

hesham · 8 October 2008

Hi,

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930084609_1993084609.pdf

flateric · 8 October 2008

Great find!

Justo Miranda · 10 October 2008

Here some Lockheed projects from "Journal American Historical Society" spring 2000

Justo Miranda · 10 October 2008

And two additional patents ...

circle-5 · 13 April 2010

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?

Sundog · 13 April 2010

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 · 14 April 2010

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

Impressive model Circle-5 - thanks! Mark

circle-5 · 18 April 2010

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 · 18 April 2010

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 · 18 April 2010

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 · 9 January 2013

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

Orionblamblam · 9 January 2013

Re: Lockheed XFV-1 "Salmon" model

Looks like a built-up Aurora kit. Worth maybe $10.

overscan (PaulMM) · 9 January 2013

Re: Lockheed XFV-1 "Salmon" model

Yup, agreed.

Triton · 23 January 2013

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 · 30 April 2013

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

cluttonfred · 1 May 2013

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 · 1 May 2013

Sundog said:
circle-5 said:

Does anybody know what the "curb feelers" on the three legs are for?

Click to expand...

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).

hesham · 4 July 2013

Hi,

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

NUSNA_Moebius · 4 July 2013

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.

jmnjohn · 12 January 2014

I found this Lockheed Star news paper dated march 18, 1954 vol. 21 no.6 ....enjoy .....

Steve Pace · 22 October 2015

I just discovered this patent re the XFV-1 program. I have no idea whether this recovery system was ever installed. -SP

Jos Heyman · 23 October 2015

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 · 23 October 2015

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 · 23 October 2015

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 · 23 October 2015

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.

Stargazer · 23 October 2015

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 · 23 October 2015

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.

Click to expand...

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 · 25 October 2015

The source from which I got my information a long, long time ago did state 500 mph - I doubt if this was ever tested.

Bill S · 11 February 2016

A couple of additions to post 3 of this topic are
general arrangements of the L200-2 and L200-5.
Both from NARA II files.

Bill S · 11 February 2016

Inboard Profiles of L200-2 and L200-5
Again from NARA II research.

Mark Nankivil · 7 November 2017

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

circle-5 · 8 November 2017

Very nice – thank you Mark. I'm surprised to see wheels (casters) on the L-200-1 empennage. A land variant, probably ...

hesham · 8 November 2017

Nice find my dear Mark.

Mark Nankivil · 8 November 2017

Good Day All!

I think the "Stripped Version" may be the prototype landing gear arrangement - the bracing wires look familiar.

One more from the Gerald Balzer Collection - Model 181-43-02 Tactical Version.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Mark Nankivil · 20 July 2018

Lockheed Model 81 VTO Fighter Display Model

Good Day All -

On EPay at the moment.... Mark

hesham · 12 September 2018

Hi,

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

hesham · 16 April 2019

From Ailes 4/1954,

the journal shows a hypothetical imagine for Lockheed XFV-1,done by Air Trials magazine
in 1952.

lark · 17 April 2019

The 'Air Trails' illustration shows a Leonard concept.

(Air Trails March 1952)

hesham · 17 April 2019

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.

Walker · 7 June 2019

Lockheed L-210-10 Boxart by Eugeny Knupfer.

Lockheed XFV-1 "Salmon" variants

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Above Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Above Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Confidential

ACCESS: Top Secret

Donald McKelvy

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Administrator

Donald McKelvy

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

I really should change my personal text

This Forum is AWESOME !!!!

Attachments

Aviation History Writer

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Moderator

I really should change my personal text

Aviation History Writer

ACCESS: USAP

Aviation History Writer

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: USAP

Attachments

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: USAP

ACCESS: Restricted

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.