"Locust", unknown mixed-powered US Type

[Triton]

Model of Lockheed Locust found on eBay.

URL: http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/rare-1950s-usaf-prototype-desk-model-lockheed

Seller's description:

RARE 1950s USAF Prototype Desk Model LOCKHEED "THE LOCUST"
WE HAVE FOR SALE A RARE PROTOTYPE AIRPLANE FROM THE 50S THIS ITEM HAS COME FROM AN ESTATE THE OWNER WAS EMPLOYED BY LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT IN THE 40S AND 50S HE WAS A LOCKHEED JET DESIGNER THE INITIALS ON THE BOX ARE L.E AND T.E AND AFT THIS PLANE IS CALLED "THE LOCUST" IT LOOKS TO HAVE A PROPELLER IN THE FRONT AND JETS ON THE SIDE OF THE PLANE MAYBE THIS IS A RAMJET OR TURBOSHAFT DESIGN I TRIED TO FIND SOME INFO ON THIS PLANE AND CAME UP EMPTY IF ANYONE HAS SOME INFO THAT I COULD ADD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT I BELIEVE THIS IS A "TRUE PROTOTYPE MODEL" NOT A PLASTIC OR METAL PRODUCTION ITEM BUT A ONE OF A KIND PROTOTYPE PLANE THE BODY LOOKS TO BE IN VERY GOOD CONDITION FOR ITS AGE T ARE SOME SMALL CRACKS IN THE FILLER AS SHOWN THE PLANE COMES APART AS SHOWN AND FITS INTO THE CARRY CASE THE WINGS, WHEELS, WING TIPS, ALL COME OFF T IS A SMALL WHEEL FOR THE BACK OF THE PLANE AND ONE EXTRA LARGE WHEEL THE PLANE MEASURES 16.5" BY 15" BY 9.5" TALL WHEN ON THE STAND THIS IS VERY COOL ONE OF A KIND ITEM WITH THE ORIGINAL BOX AND INSTRUCTIONS AS SHOWN.

IMAGES REMOVED: Larger images appear later in this topic.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Lockheed Locust

A neat little design! A COIN fighter, presumably? Looks pretty streamlined and modern for a 1950s type, but I guess the box and stand are compatible with that period. Maybe circle-5 would know something about it?

Anyway, I'd love to know how much the item eventually went for...

 

[Triton]

Re: Lockheed Locust

The seller says he received e-mail that the design was a contemporary of the Ryan XF2R Dark Shark, Ryan RF Fireball, and the Convair XP-81, so this is the reason why I placed this topic in the "Early Aircraft Projects" section. It's possible that this is a mixed powered (piston and jet -powered) fighter aircraft.

 

[circle-5]

Re: Lockheed Locust

The seller says he received e-mail that the design was a contemporary of the Ryan XF2R Dark Shark, Ryan RF Fireball, and the Convair XP-81, so this is the reason why I placed this topic in the "Early Aircraft Projects" section. It's possible that this is a mixed powered (piston and jet -powered) fighter aircraft.

Yes, it is mixed-powered. There is no information about who the designer or manufacturer was. After closely examining the box and all of its contents, I found nothing to suggest this is, in fact, a Lockheed project.

Based on established model-shop techniques, stand design, nameplate typeface, materials selection and more, there is a 99% chance this model has nothing to do with Lockheed. For example, the Lockheed model shop never put out anything that required assembly. I believe this to be an independent entry to a COIN competition, probably dated much later than the XP-81 or Fireball.

Of course, it is very possible this engineer worked for Lockheed, then proposed this design to other airframe manufacturers. He may also have built this model as part of a capital-raising effort to create his own start-up company. Hopefully its true origin will be uncovered, thanks to this forum.

To answer an earlier question, the purchase price was about $600, nearly 3 years ago.

 

[Triton]

Re: Lockheed Locust

Thank you for your analysis, circle-5.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Lockheed Locust

Thanks, circle-5. I knew you were the person to ask!

 

[royabulgaf]

Re: Lockheed Locust

The design doesn't make sense to me. It looks like the prop engine would be a horizontally opposed 6 cylinder engine, maybe 400 hp tops? The jet engines look like they could be 1000-1500 lbs of thrust.

Does the model disassemble more? I'm wondering if it is some sort of modular project, where the same airframe with different engines could be used for primary training up to fast jet.

 

[circle-5]

Re: Lockheed Locust

The design doesn't make sense to me.

Me neither. And no, the model does not disassemble any further. It's meant to have a flat-six and a couple of turbojets at all times. What kind of a mission profile calls for that? And if it's a trainer, why single-seat?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Re: Lockheed Locust

The color screams "US Army, Late 1950's/Early 1960's" prior to the Miami agreement. If I had to guess (I don't have to, but what the hell, I will anyway) I'd say it's a COIN-type plane meant to cruise on the piston engine and fire up the turbojet for both takeoff assist and gettin'-the-hell-outta-Dodge purposes after an attack run on an enemy capable of returning fire.

Compare with the Army A-4 proposal model:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1481.msg115503.html#msg115503

 

[taildragger]

That would be my bet also. Although there are a couple of other odd details about this model:
- for a COIN airplane, little effort seems to have gone into maximizing the pilot's field of view. The canopy looks like it's borrowed from an F-84, or something similarly shaped for speed, and the placement of the air intakes seems to limit the pilot's downward view.
- the propeller might interfere with the jet's operation by disturbing the inlet flow. I can't think of a similar arrangement - the typical turboprop draws air from much closer to the propeller plane and from close to the center of the disk. These inlets look like they would be getting propwash from the whole disk.
- the model seems built to demonstrate removable wingtips that can be replaced with tip tanks. Don't know why this would be terribly important to demonstrate.

 

[Grey Havoc]

That would be my bet also. Although there are a couple of other odd details about this model:
- for a COIN airplane, little effort seems to have gone into maximizing the pilot's field of view. The canopy looks like it's borrowed from an F-84, or something similarly shaped for speed, and the placement of the air intakes seems to limit the pilot's downward view.
- the propeller might interfere with the jet's operation by disturbing the inlet flow. I can't think of a similar arrangement - the typical turboprop draws air from much closer to the propeller plane and from close to the center of the disk. These inlets look like they would be getting propwash from the whole disk.
- the model seems built to demonstrate removable wingtips that can be replaced with tip tanks. Don't know why this would be terribly important to demonstrate.

I have a feeling I've seen that particular intake arangement before, but I can't think exactly where.
As for it's purpose, I'm going to go out on a limb and say, battlefield chemical agent sprayer rather than COIN bird.

 

[martinbayer]

The canopy looks like it's borrowed from an F-84, or something similarly shaped for speed

The cruciform tail with swept constant chord tailplanes also vaguely evokes the F-84F and XF-91. Potentially a Republic design?

Martin

 

[Stargazer]

A competitor design to North American's YAT-28E, maybe?

Do the wingtips necessarily have to accomodate wingtips? What about some weapons?

Anyway, if you want to promote a COIN aircraft, you try to fit the model with some ordnance or at least underwing attachments. At first I thought it looked like a trainer, but indeed a single-seat cockpit doesn't make any sense either...

So I guess we're kinda back to square one...

 

[martinbayer]

The bulge under the piston engine looks a bit peculiar. Could this perhaps be some sort of reconnaissance bird?

Martin

 

[Orionblamblam]

The bulge under the piston engine looks...

... to me like the exhaust system for the piston engine, to keep the exhaust from getting sucked into the jet inlet.

 

[fightingirish]

The bulge under the piston engine could also the nose wheel, if this aircraft has tricycle gear undercarriage instead of a conventional landing gear (taildragger).
The wheels are only shown in the box and are not attached to the model, but they look quite large compared to the size of the aircraft.
Maybe such wheels would be better for rough terrain and unprepared airstrips.

 

[Stargazer]

I have vainly tried to compare this model with other company models of the period to find similarities.

What struck me though is that round wooden stands were not the norm. Most companies had almond shaped or faceted plastic stands, and most of the time the company's name appeared there. May I ask you, circle-5, if the type of stand, the type of packaging (wooden case) and perhaps even the type of decals used could help you to restrict the model to a certain company?

 

[circle-5]

I have vainly tried to compare this model with other company models of the period to find similarities.

What struck me though is that round wooden stands were not the norm. Most companies had almond shaped or faceted plastic stands, and most of the time the company's name appeared there. May I ask you, circle-5, if the type of stand, the type of packaging (wooden case) and perhaps even the type of decals used could help you to restrict the model to a certain company?

No, this model is completely unique, probably from an independent model maker under contract. It's not very large, yet a lot of cost and effort went into make it collapse into an even smaller box. The wheels and tires are from radio-controlled models. This might even be an imaginary design, created to showcase the talent of the model maker. Attached are other views.

 

[Orionblamblam]

No, this model is completely unique, probably from an independent model maker under contract. It's not very large, yet a lot of cost and effort went into make it collapse into an even smaller box. The wheels and tires are from radio-controlled models. This might even be an imaginary design, created to showcase the talent of the model maker.

It looks a whole lot like a militarized air racer. Perhaps a manufacturer of such aircraft tried pitching a COIN version?

 

[circle-5]

Per request from Triton, here are some larger views of what he posted earlier, plus a couple more for good measure.

The Locust: a single-seat, triple-engine attempt at meeting a questionable requirement with an unproven design.

 

[Orionblamblam]

OK, yeah... "nosewheel housing."

 

[Jemiba]

If the wheels weren't just a replacement for the maybe lost original wheels, to my opinion they take
away quite a lot of the credibility of this model. The look too large to be housed in a wheel well, that
would fit into this aircraft and destroy a lot of the elegance of the model, something probably unmeant
by the company, that made this proposal. I think, such a model, even if simplified, would show every detail
in scale, or are there other examples, where a detachable landing gear gave a model such a toy-like
appearance ?

 

[topspeed3]

Mig-13 did apparently 510 mph !

 

[Dynoman]

Looks a little like the Fletcher 25 with added jets and tip tanks. The large fixed (apparently non-retractable -no retracting system visible) landing gear of the Locust may be indicative of the small airframe. The engine propeller engine's inlets and fairings suggest a horizontally opposed engine. In all, these features suggest the aircraft may be the size of a small single seat kit aircraft, possibly as large as a Beech Bonanza. If this is the case then it opens up the playing field to many manufacturers. I would also speculate that the design is later than he 1950s and 60s. My thought on dating it would be late 1960s, maybe 1970s with the compound curves in the cowling.