Lockheed V-156 Jet Patrol Airplane Project of 1944

[jzichek]

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:

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

-Jared

 

[vikingBerserker]

Kinda looks like a glider. Very interesting.

 

[fastmongrel]

An early U2 perhaps

 

[Siegfried]

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?

 

[vikingBerserker]

Fast, I love the cartoon!

 

[GrauGeist]

Interesting how they were considering the "V" tail configuration on that design.

 

[Shortround6]

Anyone know what missile proposal this was?

Probably the "Tiny Tim" rocket

Tiny Tim (rocket) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wuzak]

Doesn't 10 forward firing 20mm cannon seem a bit of overkill?

 

[Denniss]

An early U2 perhaps

This was my first impression as well.

 

[Siegfried]

Doesn't 10 forward firing 20mm cannon seem a bit of overkill?

Not to an American, I suspect.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Not to an American, I suspect.

Meaning???

 

[Siegfried]

Meaning???

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.

 

[wuzak]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[wuzak]

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.

Wouldn't 4 20mm plus several .30s achieve the "shells hitting over a large area"? Or .50s.

 

[Siegfried]

Interesting how they were considering the "V" tail configuration on that design.

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.

 

[Siegfried]

Wouldn't 4 20mm plus several .30s achieve the "shells hitting over a large area"? Or .50s.

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.

 

[Milosh]

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 103, 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.

When did the Me262 get the MK103 cannons?

 

[Siegfried]

When did the Me262 get the MK103 cannons?

typo, they used Mk 108's to get mobillity kills on tanks. I've corrected my orginal post.

 

[johnbr]

They did test one in combat with the MK-103 canon.