Lockheed L-133

rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us...

tanks45.tripod.com...

www.combatsim.com...

What about it? Please don't just start a thread with just pictures and no comments. Please tell us what is special about it, or why you're sharing it with us.

uh it's interesting the cunards look neat. but it appears to be a canned project i
dea from the 1950's or something.

[edit on 21-12-2008 by BASSPLYR]

There is a good show on the Discovery channel I rhink called Planes that never flew. They had quite a good section on this one. Most people thought that the L-133 would of scored the first Jet to Jet kill in history (in WW2 against the ME262) if the project wasn't canned. Instead that happened in Vietnam years later.

They did say that a lot of the work for the progect was taken and used in another project.. But for the life of me I can't remember right now.

Originally posted by Now_Then
Most people thought that the L-133 would of scored the first Jet to Jet kill in history (in WW2 against the ME262) if the project wasn't canned. Instead that happened in Vietnam years later.

Uh, no it didn't. It happened in Korea. F-80s and F-86s against MiG-15s.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Well I was going from memory on that one... Which is notoriously bad in my case

Looks like something out of the closet of WWII arsenal. I wouldnt doubt that it is. No swept wings, body shape is very primative, and the wing positions are not a new concept.



Cheers!!!!

Here you go..something from the era of WWII. LINK

The examples in that article look much more futuristic!

But thanks for sharing the L-133 with us!



Cheers!!!!

[edit on 21-12-2008 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by Now_Then
They had quite a good section on this one. Most people thought that the L-133 would of scored the first Jet to Jet kill in history (in WW2 against the ME262) if the project wasn't canned. Instead that happened in Vietnam years later.

What about the Korean War? F-80 versus MiG-15? F-86s? MiG Alley?

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


This has already been addressed if you where to read a post dowm

Uh, no it didn't. It happened in Korea. F-80s and F-86s against MiG-15s. - Zaphod

Originally posted by Canada_EH
This has already been addressed if you where to read a post dowm

Seems like the classy thing to do would be not to draw attention to it.

No excuses about why I did it. I did it. Faux pas on my part.

Is it just me, or does the design of the jet seem ahead of its time?

Is that what the thread author was trying to say? Some sort of allusion to the general idea that the government has technologies and design principals that are ahead of the technologies and design principals of the private sector?

[edit on 12/21/2008 by prototism]

[edit on 12/21/2008 by prototism]

[edit on 12/22/2008 by prototism]

It was not designed, nor ever sanctioned by the Govt, but it is a good example of the genius that was Kelly Johnson due to its very far sighted design.

The L133 dates from 1939/40, the same time that design on the Meteor and Me 262 began, and is remarkable for that alone, but was canned (by Johnson) because there was no realistic engine programme to power it (the Metrovick F. 2 Beryl which would have done the job ws unknown outside Britain) . Those who claim it could have made the first jet v jet kill are living in cloud cuckoo land because, while canards are common now, the lack of any FBW controls meant they were very problematical in WW2 and none of the prototypes that flew with them reached production or service, the L133 would have been no different in this respect.

The 'other project' which benefitted from the L133 was the P-80 shooting star, the most visible evidence of this is that the P-80 inherited its wings almost unchanged but there were also many unseen benefits. The reason the P-80 looks more conventional is that Kelly knew canards were a dead end with current technology and the airframe needed to accomodate the larger Whittle type centrifugal engine which was the only type available.

Also, while the first jet v jet dogfights between fighter aircraft occurred in Korea, the first recorded jet v jet kill happened in WW2 when a 616 Sqn Meteor intercepted and destroyed a V1.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


classy thing to do would be to read the thread in its entirety before posting. seriously where do u get the guts to correct someone who has learned the way this site works for 4 years?


Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.

[edit on Mon Dec 22 2008 by Jbird]

Originally posted by waynos

Also, while the first jet v jet dogfights between fighter aircraft occurred in Korea, the first recorded jet v jet kill happened in WW2 when a 616 Sqn Meteor intercepted and destroyed a V1.

Was that the one that the guns jammed on the Meteor so he tipped the V1 with his wing?
Also if we where technical we could say that it has to to be defined as a manned jet.

Yes, thats the one. The first recorded instance of one jet powered aircraft destroying another.

Now, if you are talking about aerial combat between manned aircraft then that is another matter entirely, but the original wording used was 'jet v jet kill'.

If one is going to manipulate the question so that the answer is the one you want then one can prove anything. A 'jet v jet kill' is what it is, no more no less, whether one of the aircraft is unmanned or not is immaterial unless it forms part of the original question.

Its like when people say that the Wright brothers were the first to fly. No, they weren't. If you mean something different then say it.

I like the new Avatar Canada, its very red isn't it.





[edit on 22-12-2008 by waynos]

reply to post by Cutaway


duh which way did they go oops you don't know either

reply to post by waynos


The reason other canard projects did not make it in WW2 was that they were propeller driven, all pushers, and thus all shared the bail-out problem. This also meant they had driveshafts and all the other associated issues with mid-airframe mounted gasoline engines. Also pushers, because they do not have propblast over the pitch and yaw control surfaces, are not conducive to short runway requirements (high power settings with low control authority).

A canard can be as dynamically stable as the more conventional planform. Lack of electronic or other artificial stability assistance was not a factor. They had existed previous and were well known. It IS true that they are a very poor mix with conventional gear. Tricycle gear was looked at with suspicion in a grass-field era.

Not enough is known regarding the L1000 other than it was axial-flow and thus the "right" architecture as history proved out. The Germans couldn't make it work but this was mostly a product of wartime metallurgical deficiencies. A USA axial project would have had no such issue, in theory. A few short years later, the US built the finest axial-flow turbines on Earth. This would have been a several-year head-start.

This airframe/engine combo was a lost opportunity. Oh, regarding wingsweep.... the ME262's was a design accident (to fix a CG problem and originally the inboard section remained straight but changed to also swept to fix a buffeting problem) and was not sufficient to make a significant difference. However, it's poor agility was a partial result.

Given that the 262 was a bomber interceptor, the poor agility was acceptable. Given that an P-133 would have been a fighter (engaging a mix of mostly prop and a few jet adversaries), the better turn performance and superior range of the straight wing was likely the superior choice.

When in doubt, listen to Kelly J.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


No, that was not the reason. Jets are pushers too. But you are right, canards CAN be stable. In order to be an effective fighter with the required responsiveness a canard design needs to be dynamically unstable but obviously remain controllable, this is only possible with FBW. The canard fighters built were not cancelled because of the bail out problem, they were cancelled because, being stable in flight, they were unresponsive and slow to manouver, which is death. This is why canards have been built successfully since the Wright Flyer (which was itself deliberately unstable) , but have only ever made successful fighters since the 1980's. MiG had the same problems with their canard MiG 21 development the Ye 8 of 1960.
Similarly the Focke Wulfe Ente was a canard, the Fw 190 fighter was not.

The Germans couldn't make it work but this was mostly a product of wartime metallurgical deficiencies.

The Germans made axial jet engines work very well indeed, their problem was the lifespan of the engine, not the workings of it.

A USA axial project would have had no such issue, in theory. A few short years later, the US built the finest axial-flow turbines on Earth. This would have been a several-year head-start.

Except for the aforementioned Metrovick Beryl which was flying in the Gloster Meteor during WW2 and was then developed into the Armstrong Siddely Sapphire and licenced to the USA who built it as the Wright J65, one of those 'finest in the world' you referred to.

Your point about the straight wing of the L133 being 'a better choice' is also mistaken. It was the ONLY choice. While swept wings for reducing transonic drag were known to NACA, using them for fighter aircraft had only really been developed with any vigour in Germany, however they never got to test their designs in flight but the point was proven by the excellent F-86 with its Messerschmitt pattern swept wing and by MiG with their Focke Wulf pattern swept wing on the MiG 15, which was not itself based on the Ta 183 as many think.