Lockheed Organic Army Aviation Design Studies

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

From the San Diego Air and Space Museum (SDASM) archives are these interesting pieces of artwork. The designs include the Model 33 Sky Trooper (otherwise known as Little Dipper), what appears to be the Model 34 Big Dipper and what may be the Super Dipper (high wing 4 seat variant of the Model 34 (possibly the Model 44?)). Also seen is the Lockheed Model 75 Saturn. Anyone know of more data on the Model 307 and 344?

In regards to the Model 33, there's some interesting info on the design and its development as part of a discussion regarding the building of a replica:

http://eaach1.org/Design/comm5v1_PR4_Part1.pdf

Another gentleman did build a replica - https://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/2015-eaa-airventure-oshkosh/07-23-2015-little-dipper-reborn-70-years-later

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Stargazer]

Brilliant discovery, Mark!

Yes, the Model 307 has been seen on this forum before, it was a Vega design (V-307), just like the Model 344 must have been V-344.

 

[Stargazer]

Just going back over what I wrote yesterday. I removed that part of my comment and this replaces/updates it.

The Model 344 IS a BIG surprise, completely unheard of as far as I'm concerned!

The so-called "Model 44" looks pretty much to me like it is simply the Model 34, a.k.a. the Big Dipper.
Since these were only sketches and not finalized company documents, it is possible that the artist got the number wrong...

The designation "Model 344" is highly surprising, because the Vega list that I know ended at V-313... I did find a V-314 once, though, possibly a commercial transport related to the Big Dipper, but that was not confirmed. It is very possible that the artist got that one wrong too and wrote "344" instead... (can't blame him if he did, it's confusing to deal at once with three aircraft designated 33, 34 and 314!!)

 

[Stargazer]

The first four illustrations in Mark's post are signed C. Prothero.

After digging a bit, I managed to find the artist's exact identity: he was Clifford R. Prothero (1920-2004), a technical illustrator for Lockheed.

Source: www.donaldprothero.com/files/47445390.pdf

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Nice detective work there! Mark

 

[hesham]

Also great find my dear Mark,

so the Model-344 maybe just a V-344.

 

[Stargazer]

so the Model-344 maybe just a V-344.

Yes, but very possibly a mistake for V-314 by the artist, as there do not seem to have been any V-315 to V-343...
And since he made the mistake between Model 34 and Model "44" it is possible that he made another mistake too...

 

[royabulgaf]

Were they cage free in addition to being organic? ;D

 

[Bill S]

Interesting designs, thanks for sharing them Mark

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

V-313 was the last Vega number known to be assigned.

V-305 "Little Dipper" Model 33-82-01
V-306 - Model 34-82-01 "Big Dipper"
V-307 - 1 place helicopter
V-308 - Model 33-82-02 "Flying Infantryman" (military liaison version of "Little Dipper")
V-309 - Military liaison version of "Big Dipper" (no model number assigned)
V-310 - Jet lift Model 34
V-311 - tractor propeller version of Model 34
V-312 - 4 place light aircraft with tail propeller
V-313 - 3 place liaison version of Model 34

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Rene Francillion implies the V-314 was the Super Dipper (4 seat high wing monoplane with 145hp engine driving a pusher propeller) in his Putnam on Lockheed (he lists it as a related designation, along with V-306, V-309, V-311 which are known Big Dipper related designations).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Just going back over what I wrote yesterday. I removed that part of my comment and this replaces/updates it.

The Model 344 IS a BIG surprise, completely unheard of as far as I'm concerned!

The so-called "Model 44" looks pretty much to me like it is simply the Model 34, a.k.a. the Big Dipper.
Since these were only sketches and not finalized company documents, it is possible that the artist got the number wrong...

The designation "Model 344" is highly surprising, because the Vega list that I know ended at V-313... I did find a V-314 once, though, possibly a commercial transport related to the Big Dipper, but that was not confirmed. It is very possible that the artist got that one wrong too and wrote "344" instead... (can't blame him if he did, it's confusing to deal at once with three aircraft designated 33, 34 and 314!!)

Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Lockheed did have a habit of prepending numbers to model numbers eg.

Model 49 Constellation - 649, 749, 1049, 1649 etc

So 344 could be a modification of Model 44, this being a military version of Model 34. Model 44 had been previously used for the original Excalibur design which became the Model 49 Constellation but was never built and this Model number would effectively be "free" in this timeframe. The nice correspondence with Model 33 (army liason) / and Model 34 may have determined the reuse.

Given that the Model 75 Saturn is present in this timeframe, this seems a more logical conclusion than inventing a much higher range of Vega designations with no supporting evidence and assuming the in-house Lockheed artist couldn't even get the model numbers right on his drawings.

 

[hesham]

I agree with my dear Paul.

 

[Stargazer]

Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Lockheed did have a habit of prepending numbers to model numbers eg. Model 49 Constellation - 649, 749, 1049, 1649 etc

I don't think that's what I did... :

Given that the Model 75 Saturn is present in this timeframe, this seems a more logical conclusion than inventing a much higher range of Vega designations with no supporting evidence and assuming the in-house Lockheed artist couldn't even get the model numbers right on his drawings.

That's certainly NOT what I said!!
In fact I said quite the contrary! Only numbers up to V-313 known, with a possible V-314 unconfirmed as legit. I certainly never purported the notion that 30 numbers could have existed in between!

As for the drawings, these were only sketches, not a final version set for publishing. An artist did these quick renderings only to give a general impression, there is no reason to believe the artist was either conversant with the designation system's intricacies nor necessarily was under any obligation to get it right on such preliminary documents. Perhaps the Model Numbers had not even been set for good at that early stage, and 33 and "44" were initially considered instead of 33 and 34.

So 344 could be a modification of Model 44, this being a military version of Model 34. Model 44 had been previously used for the original Excalibur design which became the Model 49 Constellation but was never built and this Model number would effectively be "free" in this timeframe. The nice correspondence with Model 33 (army liason) / and Model 34 may have determined the reuse.

Nice theorizing... but I can't think of another instance of Lockheed reusing a Model Number...

Besides, I can see little logic in having a separate Model Number for a military variant of the Big Dipper, when we clearly see from your own posted list of V- designations that Model 33, for instance, applied to both civilian and military versions of the Little Dipper!

And again, considering the whole system of designating aircraft at Lockheed, it would have been highly different from common practice. Both military and civilian versions of the Constellations were Model 49, for instance. The same with the Super Electra and Hudson both being Model 14. Only the Prop-Jet Electra vs. Orion situation could be a case in point, with separate Model Numbers 88 and 85 being allocated, but even then these are not exactly the same aircraft type and differences must have been numerous enough to justify a separate allocation.

So unless it was a substantially different aircraft (i. e. a high-wing or tractor version), I believe a simple military version of the Big Dipper would have been a Model 34-... or maybe a "Model 334" or "Model 434". No reason to go "Model 44" just because it's military.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That's certainly NOT what I said!!
In fact I said quite the contrary! Only numbers up to V-313 known, with a possible V-314 unconfirmed as legit. I certainly never purported the notion that 30 numbers could have existed in between!

hesham suggested Model 344 might be V-344, not you. My reply wasn't solely directed at your post. Apologies if you thought it was.

As for the drawings, these were only sketches, not a final version set for publishing. An artist did these quick renderings only to give a general impression, there is no reason to believe the artist was either conversant with the designation system's intricacies nor necessarily was under any obligation to get it right on such preliminary documents. Perhaps the Model Numbers had not even been set for good at that early stage, and 33 and "44" were initially considered instead of 33 and 34.

Not sure I get the logic. Presumably the artist had access to information on the design in order to draw it e.g. a set of drawings. Presumably he could read the designation listed on his source material. It seems perverse to assume that he didn't really mean to write Model 44 just because it complicates our understanding of the Lockheed Model designation systems.

Besides, I can see little logic in having a separate Model Number for a military variant of the Big Dipper, when we clearly see from your own posted list of V- designations that Model 33, for instance, applied to both civilian and military versions of the Little Dipper!

I would venture it's no less likely than "the artist made a mistake".

When I said "military version" I meant a derivative. Model 44 seems to be a high wing "Big Dipper" derivative for Army medevac/light transport, its definitely not the same design. Look at the pictures. Might be "Super Dipper".

Model 344 seems to be a liason/observation design loosely based on elements of the the Model 44 (in particular the rear fuselage boom).

They may well be

V-312 - 4 place light aircraft with tail propeller (Model 44)

V-313 - 3 place liaison version of Model 34 (Model 344)

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks Paul.

Apologies for not seeing that the Model 44 drawing actually displayed a high-wing design, therefore justifying a change of designation entirely.

I have a feeling that the Model Numbers in the thirties and forties (say, 31 to 49) were kind of reserved for Vega.

With Models 32 (a Lodestar derivative), 33 (Little Dipper), 34 (Big Dipper), 35 (former NAA NA-35), 37 (Ventura), and 40 to 42 (target drones) all being Vega models, 44 would have been logical in that sequence.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

According to Rene Francillon's Putnam the "original documentation for models 40-60 was lost"

Stephane, given you previously speculated on the idea of Vega having their own "Model Numbers" due to odd duplications of Model no's, it seems quite possible that when Vega were folded back into Lockheed, then-current or planned Vega designs were reallocated with Lockheed Parent Company Model Numbers. If the Vega design was Model 44, and Model 44 was free (due to cancellation of the Excalibur) it could have been reused Alternatively, it could simply be Model 44 in the Vega sequence. Like you say, 30-50 has a lot of Vega designs.

 

[Stargazer]

Alternatively, it could simply be Model 44 in the Vega sequence. Like you say, 40-50 has a lot of Vega designs.

Yes. And maybe even the "Dippers" were 33 and 44 under Vega, then became 33 and 34 in the unified Lockheed system?
One mystery among others... for instance I think the Models 44 and 344 are so different from each other that it's hard to imagine the latter could be seen as simply a variant of the former.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Yes, its closer to the Model 34 in appearance.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All!

A few recent finds in the Gerald Balzer collection covering the Model 33 Airtrooper.

Enjoy the Day! Mark