Lockheed V-156 Jet Patrol Airplane Project of 1944

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by jzichek, Dec 15, 2011.

  1. jzichek

    jzichek Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Check out this article at RetroMechanix.com on the Lockheed V-156, a little-known project for a naval jet patrol airplane from November 1944:

    [​IMG]

    The accompanying gallery features 26 images, including several high resolution artist's impressions of this elegant design.

    -Jared
     
  2. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,072
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Kinda looks like a glider. Very interesting.
     
  3. fastmongrel

    fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,340
    Likes Received:
    406
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Motor Mechanic
    Location:
    Lancashire
    An early U2 perhaps
     
  4. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4 Siegfried, Dec 16, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2011
    The tail turret is most interesting. I suspect that the method of rotating along the axis would in some cases lead to a kind of gimbal or axis lock, nevertheless it looks plausible.
    Also noteworthy is the large rocket, almost certainly a guided missile, being launched. Anyone know what missile proposal this was?
     
  5. vikingBerserker

    vikingBerserker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24,072
    Likes Received:
    655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Korporate Kontrolleur
    Location:
    South Carolina
    :lol: Fast, I love the cartoon!
     
  6. GrauGeist

    GrauGeist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    15,201
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Public Safety Automotive Technician
    Location:
    Redding, California
    Home Page:
    Interesting how they were considering the "V" tail configuration on that design.
     
  7. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,769
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
  8. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Doesn't 10 forward firing 20mm cannon seem a bit of overkill?
     
  9. Denniss

    Denniss Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    This was my first impression as well.
     
  10. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not to an American, I suspect.
     
  11. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,202
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Meaning???
     
  12. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing perjorative; Americans have a reputation, which I suspect is cultivated somewhat by themselves, for incorporation of lots of firepower. What seems over the top or lavish would be considered just better.
     
  13. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Still, what targets require 10 20mm cannon? Aren't 4-6 plenty?

    I recall that the XP-67 was intended to have 6 37mm cannon, but it was, at the time, intended as a bomber destroyer. The V-156 would be attacking tanks and ships, so wouldn't the extra weight be better as ammo for the 6 fuselage mounted cannon, rather than 4 extra cannon plus their ammo?

    Was the 37mm cannon any good? I have read that it had poor muzzle velocity and lacked penetrating power. Is this correct?

    Would an option of 2 x 37mm and 4 x 20mm be a better armament for this type of aircraft?

    Also interesting to read their reasoning behind the defensive fire cones. I think that reasoning could be used for all fast bombers, such as the Mosquito.
     
  14. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,769
    Likes Received:
    800
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    What I get from the article is that the guns were intended 1. to suppress AA guns on ships. A lot of shells hitting over a large area (compared to a tank or aircraft target) in a short period of time. 2. for ground strafing, beacheads, airfields and such, again the maximum amount of shells in the least time.
    Repeated strafing runs into enemy anti-aircraft fire were to be avoided.
    It's muzzle velocity was 2000fps which is low for an aircraft gun but better than the German MK 108 and MG/FF cannon or the early Japanese Navy 20mm guns. It wasn't very good for armor penetration but probably not much different than 20mm Hispano.

    air to air was a bit a of a problem for the 37mm but no worse than the already mentioned guns.
     
  15. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,184
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    Wouldn't 4 20mm plus several .30s achieve the "shells hitting over a large area"? Or .50s.
     
  16. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The V tail was popular for some time as it was a seen as a way of avoiding shock wave impingment effects on horizontal tail surfaces. T-tails and all flying tails seem to have carried the day.
     
  17. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17 Siegfried, Dec 18, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
    They were trying to sink submarines and ships. 10 x 20mm would probably be able to do the job in terms of suppressing the ships defensive AAA, radar and directors as well as penetrate into the waterline etc.

    Some Me 262 pilots reported succesfull tank busting with the Mk 108, they just sprayed the rear deck. The explosive and incendiary content was probably enough to penetrate the louvers with shock, shrapnel etc and wreck the tanks cooling and induction systems.
     
  18. Milosh

    Milosh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    When did the Me262 get the MK103 cannons?
     
  19. Siegfried

    Siegfried Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2010
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    typo, they used Mk 108's to get mobillity kills on tanks. I've corrected my orginal post.
     
  20. johnbr

    johnbr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,501
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    London Ontario Canada
    They did test one in combat with the MK-103 canon.
     
Loading...

Share This Page