Lockheed L-/CL- Temporary Design Number (TDN) designations

[Maveric]

I have the CL.239 for the T.33, CL.245 for T2V/T.1 and CL.531 for C.5 "Galaxy". Correct??????????????

 

[Skybolt]

Firstly, the CL-XXX designation started with CL-269.
L-239 is a modified T-33 with a new mid-fuselage and nose section. 1952.
L-245 is a series of modified extisting aircarfts (T-33, F-94, F-104) for a slightly supersonic trainer
CL-531 is a TDN covering the installation of telemetry equipment on the C-5 for flight testing. It is one of the few out-of-chronological-order TDNs. Presumably it wasn't used at the end of the 50s, where it belongs, and was used later (end of the '60s ?). The Galaxy is a Georgia-Lockheed airplane, and as such sports GL-XXX TDNs, and the subsequent trasformation of GALAC designations that it is too long to explain here (please refer to Putnam's relevant volume by Renè Francillon).
L-257 has a complex history. It started as an "L" designation, during the development, and a brief interval, of subsequent iterations (from -4 on), it was changed to "CL". The definitive design (Phase II) was under another TDN, CL-373.

 

[Stargazer]

Firstly, the CL-XXX designation started with CL-269.

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.

 

[nugo]

CL-942---60-passenger stopped/folded rotor vehicle ("NASA-Lockheed Short Haul Transport Study")

 

[Skybolt]

BTW, the L-255 (I confirm the designation) was a proposed modification of the Super Constellation 1049D as a maritime recon aircraft for RCAF. It had a 20 mm turret in the nose, a MAD tail and assorted pods for radars etc.
Probably Francillon did a typo between 255 and 257.

 

[Apophenia]

Brilliant ... thank you Marco! I've been looking for the designation of that RCAF Connie for ages. Any other details on that L-255 proposal?

 

[Skybolt]

Yep, I'm posting in the Post War section.

 

[Stargazer]

For lack of any better place to post it, here is a beautiful painting from a Lockheed advertisement published circa 1992.

 

[Stargazer]

Lockheed model numbers do not apply only to aircraft... Here is the Model 901 (not to be mistaken for the CL-901), which was an all-terrain truck. I remember seeing these at one Paris Air Show (must have been 1977) where this leaflet was handed to me (it was printed in October 1974).

Also noteworthy is the recurring use of the word "Dragon" for Lockheed types. "Dragon Lady" for the U-2R, "Dragon Wagon" for this truck, and also "Dragon Star" for both an early 1960s VTOL test vehicle and more recently a special version of the Gulfstream IV.

As the scans of the leaflet are in GIF, I've added a JPG of the Model 901 to keep the color quality of the original.

 

[Antheii]

Hi,

Some thoughts on the U-2;

282 High-altitude reconnaissance version of the F-104

342 U-2

- CL-351 is either given as a STARFIGHTER-related project or as the U-2R (TR-1) DRAGON LADY

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..

Combining different bits and pieces found on the net with the above, I now tend to believe we could read this as:

L-342 - U-2 Basic Model Number
CL-282 - TDN for the 'short' U-2's (U-2A to U-2H)
CL-351 - TDN for the 'long' U-2's (U-2R/TR-1 variants), together with other F-104 developments (U-2R fitted in with this TDN for security reasons?)

Any comments on those brain-fa##s would be appreciated

Hans

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks for the input. However, I still can't see why the U-2 couldn't be the CL-342. According to your reasoning, "342" could be the model number; however, keep in mind that these are always made of a two-digit model number with a single-digit prefix for the main variant. For instance, Model 49 was the Constellation, with main sub-types such as 049, 249, 749 and so forth.

If the U-2 had been the "Model 342" (and NOT "L-342", since the "L-" prefix was strictly for the Temporary Design Numbers, and was replaced by the "CL-" in the mid-fifties), it implies that the basic Model Number would have been "42". Under that logic, the later TR-1 should have carried a higher prefix number (such as "742" for instance). There never was such a system applied to the Angel/Dragon Lady family, at least none that we know of. I believe that keeping the type as a temporary design was a way to avoid its being too visible, which a proper model number might have resulted in.

The other problem with that hypothesis is that the would-be "Model 42" would predate even the Harpoon and the Excalibur design (Models 43 and 44). This of course goes against the chronology (although of course there have been examples on non-sequential numbers being allocated). Also, there already WAS a Model 42, which was the proposed Vega V-114 aerial target.

So until we know better, I think it is safe to assume that, since CL-282 was the pre-U-2 development of the Starfighter, and CL-351 was allocated to the U-2 proper, the CL-342 must have been an intermediate stage of development. What do others think?

 

[Antheii]

Hi,

Some more background, including the link between the U-2 and F-104, can be found in the book The CIA and The U-2 Program, 1954-1974, published by the CIA itself (page 11 and further).

Below the CL-282 (from this book) at the time it was (unsolicited) proposed to the USAF as an alternative to the Bell X-16 and B-57 high-altitude version (the Lockheed proposal was not accepted at the time: only later the CIA and eventually the USAF would buy it as U-2).

Unfortunately neither the -342 or -351 designations are mentioned in the book.

Hans

 

[Stargazer]

Unfortunately neither the -342 or -351 designations are mentioned in the book.

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]

'342' was already mentioned before in this thread (the "Putnam list"), and can be found elsewhere too.

The 'articles' mentioned in the book (not just 341, but also 347, 354, 360 etc) refer to the individual airframes while still in CIA service.

 

[nugo]

Hi All!
CL-437------Monorail
CL-452-1---Monorail
Source: www.monorails.org/tmspages/Lockheed01.html

 

[Stargazer]

Hi All!
CL-437------Monorail
CL-452-1---Monorail
Source: www.monorails.org/tmspages/Lockheed01.html

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!

 

[Stargazer]

From the Bernard Lindenbaum Vertical Flight Research Collection:

CL-346..........dispersed site VTOL fighter-bomber
CL-519..........V/STOL Utility Aircraft proposal
CL-757..........V/STOL Flying Simulator

 

[Maveric]

Hi all,


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 Maveric

 

[Stargazer]

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??

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?

At any rate, be assured it has NOTHING to do with the old CL- system or even the "classic" model system. Apart from old types like the Orion or the TriStar which continue to be designated according to that old system, it seems to have been dropped about three decades ago...

 

[gatoraptor]

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).

 

[Stargazer]

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).

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. :'(

 

[toura]

Hi all
From an old "Fana de l'aviation"

 

[fightingirish]

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.

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

Source: Books about Lockheed Martin an their aircraft from Jay Miller & R. J. Francillon

 

[kenneth]

from the lists drawn by AM and Stargazer, it seems that the no. 400 is used twice:
CL-400 SUNTAN (not SATURN) space aircraft, and the
L-400 Hercules (twin engine version)

 

[Antonio]

L-400 twin engine Hercules is not a designation into the TDN sequence.

 

[Stargazer]

L-400 twin engine Hercules is not a designation into the TDN sequence.

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).

 

[kenneth]

thanks all for your reply.

so the L- designations are not company official ones.

i have in mind all the Constellation's L- designations (L-049 to L-1749). is it possible that they are not official company ones?

Pometablava can you pl explain what do you mean by 'L-400 twin engine Hercules is not a designation into the TDN sequence'.

 

[Antonio]

From late 1930's Lockheed began to assign a Temporary Design Number (TDN) during the preliminary phase of each project. That's the L-100 to L-267 series and the CL-269 to CL-2105 (that's the higher TDN number, from mid 80's, to my knowledge) from Lockheed-California. Lockheed- Georgia ran from GL-101 to GL-402 (1954 - 1965) and were replaced by LG numbers from 1966 until 1970.

I have no idea about the designation system of Lockheed Martin


When the project was formalized and/or commited to production the TDN was replaced with the Basic Model Number. For instance the TDN L-246 (XF-104) was replaced with Model 83 number. Related variants to Model 83 received a prefix: Model 183 (F-104A), Model 483 (F-104C)

As Stargazer explained commercial designations out of the TDN exist

I hope this could help,
Antonio

Source: Lockheed Aircraft since 1913. R. J. Francillon. Ed Putnam

 

[hesham]

My dear Pometablava,


the Lockheed martin used essentially the Model series,such as Model-645.

 

[kenneth]

thanks Pometablava and Hesham.

that's far more clear now.

 

[Stargazer]

The CL-388 was a surface-to-surface missile proposal from 1958.

http://airforcehistoryindex.org/data/001/032/357.xml

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).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The CL-388 was a surface-to-surface missile proposal from 1958.

http://airforcehistoryindex.org/data/001/032/357.xml

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).

It was an Starfighter turned into an SSM with cockpit deleted, ZELL rockets for takeoff and extra fuel inside and out.

 

[Stargazer]

It was an Starfighter turned into an SSM with cockpit deleted, ZELL rockets for takeoff and extra fuel inside and out.

Thanks for this confirmation, Paul.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

http://airforcehistoryindex.org/data/001/088/480.xml

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.

Sounds a potentially interesting document.

 

[Triton]

Lockheed Q-1008 Jet Fighter inboard profile drawn 8/13/47 found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vtg-47-Lockheed-Q-1008-Jet-Fighter-AIRCRAFT-Technical-DRAWING-Blueprint-CONCEPT-/370995642228?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5661103f74

 

[Stargazer]

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.

 

[Triton]

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.

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.

 

[Triton]

L-400 twin engine Hercules is not a designation into the TDN sequence.

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).

Was L-200 skipped to avoid confusion with the L-2000?

 

[Stargazer]

Was L-200 skipped to avoid confusion with the L-2000?

L-200 was not skipped. It was a proposed commercial version of the C-141 Starlifter.

 

[Triton]

Was L-200 skipped to avoid confusion with the L-2000?

L-200 was not skipped. It was a proposed commercial version of the C-141 Starlifter.

I know about the L-300 designation for the C-141 Starlighter.