Lockheed Lancer?

[Brendan Grace]

Does anyone have any links or info on the Lockheed effort back in the 70s
for competition with the YF-16 and YF-17? It was
a derivative of the F-104 but I don't know what happened to the program or
even if a mock up was built.

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

"Brendan Grace" > wrote in
:

> Does anyone have any links or info on the Lockheed effort back
> in the 70s for competition with the YF-16 and YF-17? It was
> a derivative of the F-104 but I don't know what happened to the
> program or even if a mock up was built.

Google never lets us down. :)


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&q=lockheed+lancer


Regards...

[Brendan Grace]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> "Brendan Grace" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Does anyone have any links or info on the Lockheed effort back
> > in the 70s for competition with the YF-16 and YF-17? It was
> > a derivative of the F-104 but I don't know what happened to the
> > program or even if a mock up was built.
>
> Google never lets us down. :)
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> &q=lockheed+lancer
>
>
> Regards...

Actually Google does let us down. Note that none of the links supplied give
much information or any pictures.

Regards to you too...

[Brett]

"Brendan Grace" > wrote:
>
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Brendan Grace" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > Does anyone have any links or info on the Lockheed effort back
> > > in the 70s for competition with the YF-16 and YF-17? It was
> > > a derivative of the F-104 but I don't know what happened to the
> > > program or even if a mock up was built.
> >
> > Google never lets us down. :)
> >
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> > &q=lockheed+lancer
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> Actually Google does let us down. Note that none of the links supplied
give
> much information or any pictures.
>
> Regards to you too...

You could try finding a copy of "The X-Planes X-1 to X-nn", Jay Miller (the
value of nn depends on the edition you find). The Lockheed X-27 Lancer
coverage includes pictures of the mock-up and a reasonable history of the
program.

[Steve Jahn]

and found this too.
Steve
http://members.home.nl/noor.luijkx/northam/lancer.htm
"Brendan Grace" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have any links or info on the Lockheed effort back in the 70s
> for competition with the YF-16 and YF-17? It was
> a derivative of the F-104 but I don't know what happened to the program or
> even if a mock up was built.
>
>

[Steve Jahn]

There was a mock-up made. It was then modified into the X-27.If you can get
ahold of the Jay Miller "X-Planes book, it has a lot of info on it.
Steve
"Brendan Grace" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have any links or info on the Lockheed effort back in the 70s
> for competition with the YF-16 and YF-17? It was
> a derivative of the F-104 but I don't know what happened to the program or
> even if a mock up was built.
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:02:19 GMT, "Brendan Grace" >
wrote:

>Does anyone have any links or info on the Lockheed effort back in the 70s
>for competition with the YF-16 and YF-17? It was
>a derivative of the F-104 but I don't know what happened to the program or
>even if a mock up was built.
>


Actually IIRC the design that was put forward in that competition was
the CL-1600. According to a *Boeing* engineer the Lockheed design
should have beat out both the F-16 and F-17. Obviously he's biased
somewhat but the reason Kelly Johnson put forth for them losing was
that the CL-1600 was better than the *F-15* and the USAF didn't want
anything jepordizing the program. Kindof like if one of the JSF
contenders had been better than the F-22. There was also speculation
that Kelly Johnson had essentially been blackballed. Anyway the
relevant info is in Jay Miller's "Skunk Works" 2nd Edition.

[Brendan Grace]

Thanks for the reading tips all. Amazon time for book hunting!

[nemo l'ancien]

Some info at
http://users.dbscorp.net/jmustain/x27.htm
regards

[Brendan Grace]

Outstanding, just what I've been searching for, cheers!


"nemo l'ancien" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some info at
> http://users.dbscorp.net/jmustain/x27.htm
> regards
>

[Thomas Schoene]

Brendan Grace wrote:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Brendan Grace" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Does anyone have any links or info on the Lockheed effort back
>>> in the 70s for competition with the YF-16 and YF-17? It was
>>> a derivative of the F-104 but I don't know what happened to the
>>> program or even if a mock up was built.
>>
>> Google never lets us down. :)
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>> &q=lockheed+lancer
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> Actually Google does let us down. Note that none of the links
> supplied give much information or any pictures.

Try these (which I found from a similar Google search)

For text:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_34.html

For pictures:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-27-pics.htm

Note that in the first picture, the airplane with the rectangular inlets is
a mockup of the X-27, not the CL-1200 Lancer. The other two are the Lancer
itself. It took me a second to spot the differences from the F-104 -- note
the wing and tail positions.

I have to say the original Starfighter looks nicer.



--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Brendan Grace]

>
> Try these (which I found from a similar Google search)
>
> For text:
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_34.html
>
> For pictures:
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/x-27-pics.htm
>
> Note that in the first picture, the airplane with the rectangular inlets
is
> a mockup of the X-27, not the CL-1200 Lancer. The other two are the
Lancer
> itself. It took me a second to spot the differences from the F-104 --
note
> the wing and tail positions.
>
> I have to say the original Starfighter looks nicer.
>
>
>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>

I worked on the 104 for a few years in the late 70s-early 80s. A very
exciting aircraft, that sort of lead to my
interest in the spin off. Thanks for you help.

[WaltBJ]

Basically the Lancer was a 104 development with a turbofan
afterburning engine, highwing, low elevator. There is a picture of the
mockup o page 124 in Motorbooks International Warbird History
"Lockheed F104 Starfighter", ISBN 0-87938-608-8. In the book it is
called 'CL-1200', the designation we knew it by, and is said to have
been engined by the J79-19. We understood (as best I remember from
1969) from our tech rep the J79 engined version was the CL985; the
production version (CL1200) was to have a turbofan afterburning engine
of around 25,000 pounds of thrust in AB. Performance would have been
superlative judging from my hours in the F104A with the J79-19 engine.
Endurance and range, even without additional fuel, would have been
rather greater than the 104A/Dash 19 because of the higher sfc with a
turbofan. Since the Dash19 104A would cruise at 1.05 in military
power, I am of the opinion the CL1200 would be capable of somewhere
around 1.2 or better in miitary with military thrust close to the Dash
19's AB range. It is true that Kelly didn't suffer foools gladly. And
he never held back on calling a spade a spade. So the USAF high brass
got tired of being told they didn't know anything about airplanes in
general and fighters in specific and did blackball him. See Ben Rich's
excellent book "Skunk Works".
Walt BJ

[Scott Ferrin]

On 4 Jan 2004 19:06:19 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>Basically the Lancer was a 104 development with a turbofan
>afterburning engine, highwing, low elevator. There is a picture of the
>mockup o page 124 in Motorbooks International Warbird History
>"Lockheed F104 Starfighter", ISBN 0-87938-608-8. In the book it is
>called 'CL-1200', the designation we knew it by, and is said to have
>been engined by the J79-19. We understood (as best I remember from
>1969) from our tech rep the J79 engined version was the CL985; the
>production version (CL1200) was to have a turbofan afterburning engine
>of around 25,000 pounds of thrust in AB. Performance would have been
>superlative judging from my hours in the F104A with the J79-19 engine.
>Endurance and range, even without additional fuel, would have been
>rather greater than the 104A/Dash 19 because of the higher sfc with a
>turbofan. Since the Dash19 104A would cruise at 1.05 in military
>power, I am of the opinion the CL1200 would be capable of somewhere
>around 1.2 or better in miitary with military thrust close to the Dash
>19's AB range. It is true that Kelly didn't suffer foools gladly. And
>he never held back on calling a spade a spade. So the USAF high brass
>got tired of being told they didn't know anything about airplanes in
>general and fighters in specific and did blackball him. See Ben Rich's
>excellent book "Skunk Works".
>Walt BJ


In "Skunk Works" by Jay Miller he goes through the whole lineup of CLs
(well not the whole lineup but the ones relevant to the LWF). The
X-27/CL-1200/Lancer would have had either a TF-30 or an F100. (I know
the TF-30 was one but I'm iffy on the F100). The CL-1600 was the one
actually proposed for the LWF competition though. It was a twin
engine with a single vertical tail. It had the half-cones in the
intakes and had a LERX also. It somewhat resembled a Hornet but the
vertical tails were further back as was the wing.