TC`s build thread.

[Tophe]

Overall I`m petty happy with this model

I am fully happy with your model, final, as far as I am concerned...
By the way, the tail position seems much moved forward compared to a standard P-38, is this visual illusion (because it is wider) or (another nice) invention of yours?

[tc2324]

Overall I`m petty happy with this model

I am fully happy with your model, final, as far as I am concerned...
By the way, the tail position seems much moved forward compared to a standard P-38, is this visual illusion (because it is wider) or (another nice) invention of yours?

Thanks Tophe.   

I wish I could say that the shorter tail booms were an invention of mine but really it came down where I had to cut the tail booms in half to make it look streamlined and also I had to take into account the CoG of the model. There was only so much space for balance weights in the nose section and if the tail had gone any further back it would have been a tail sitter.

[NARSES2]

Why does that look like a twin engined Vampire to me ...inspired build, I always fancied the idea of a jet engined Lightning myself just never got around to visualising it, you've done that really well 

[tc2324]

Found some time tonight to get the picture I wanted, so..., on with the show....!!!!

Lockheed XP-55 `Skunk`

Jet Engines and Jet Planes

The history and development of the Lockheed XP-55 began after Major General Henry H. Arnold had become aware of the British jet programme when he attended a demonstration of the Gloster E.28/39 in April 1941. He requested, and was given the plans for the Gloster`s power plant, the Power Jets W.1.
By September 4th 1941 he had instructed General Electrics to produce an American version and then approached the chief designers from Bell and Lockheed Aircraft companies. Bell was later to incorporate the copied engine into it`s Bell XP-59 fighter project which flew for the first time on 1st October 1942.

Design and Background.
 
Lockheed`s chief designer Clarence `Kelly` Johnson had reviewed the data and was not convinced that the copied jet engines supplied by General Electric were powerful enough to produce an effective fighter aircraft. He was however interested in designing, developing and studying jet technology and dynamics and set a small team, headed by himself, the task of integrating the engines into a testbed aircraft by the end of 1942.
 
At that time Lockheed was producing two main types for the war effort, the Hudson and P-38 Lightning. The team did not have the time or materials to design a new testbed and it was quickly decided that an existing airframe would be modified to accommodate the new engines. The Hudson was quickly dismissed due to the fact the jet engines would struggle to cope with it`s size and weight and so it left the P-38 as the only option.
 
By November 1st 1942 the modified P-38, now given the unofficial designation XP-55 was delivered by road to Muroc Army Airfield and assembled. Various modifications had been carried out and the first thing that most personnel noticed about the new aircraft was it`s very `squat` appearance, but as test pilot Tony LeVier later remarked, `it`s a lot damn easier to jump into,,,!`
 
In place of the two Allison V-1710 111/113 V-12 piston engines were now two W.1. turbojets each producing 1,700 lbf (7.7 kN) of power. The wing span was also increased by 3 feet on each wing partly due to the width of the jet engines but also because Clarence `Kelly` Johnson also wanted to investigate and explore how high a jet aircraft could operate. He surmised that the increased wing area would aid the aircraft and pilot in the thinner air at higher altitudes. (Much of this basic original data from the XP-55 test flights was used by Lockheed 10 years later when the U-2 spy plane was in development).
 
Other changes to the airframe had been the increased width of the tail booms by 6 feet, retracting undercarriage placed between the cockpit and engines, which in turn led to the removal of the fuel tanks. This again in turn led to the development of wing tip fuel tanks technology which was used on the next Lockheed project the XP-80 Shooting Star.
The horizontal stabiliser was also lifted to avoid burning from the jet exhaust. The standard P-38 cannon and .50 cal machine gun weapon load was kept as live fire exercises were planned during the testing phases.

What's in a name?
 
The unflattering and unofficial nickname `Skunk` was given to the XP-55 after it was visited by the engineers one morning to find that the word `Skunk` with an arrow pointing down towards the undercarriage, had been written on the side of a tail boom near the port engine in chalk. When they asked the armed guard as to what it referred to, the guard replied that during the night a Skunk had set up home by the tyre on the port side and did not want to move. The guard had tried to remove it with the butt of his rifle and then thought better of it when the animals tail was raised at him. The guard wisely decided to leave it be, but felt it best to write a warning on the side of the aircraft so everyone was aware of the potential smelly danger. The engineers and ground crew thanked the guard for his consideration and started the port engine in short order. The poor creature was last seen scurrying away as quick as it could across the pan and into the undergrowth to escape the loud noise. After this incident, the name stuck.
 
The XP-55 is also credited with creating another well known phrase associated with Lockheed, although no-one has ever confirmed if the story is true. It is alleged that after the XP-55 obtained it`s `Skunk` name tag the engineers alway refered to the hangar it was stored and maintained in as the `Skunk Works`.
It seems too much of a coincidence that not 6 months later those same designers and engineers that worked on the XP-55 started work on the XP-80 at what is now known as the legendary Lockheed `Skunk works` buildings situated in Burbank, California at that time.

Test Flights and Secrecy
 
Shortly after the first test flight on the 1st December 1942, the XP-55 went on to complete a further 28 test flights. No records exist, or at the very least been made public regarding these flights, however it is understood that after completing basic handling at low and high speeds, it went on to set an `unofficial` altitude and speed record after climbing to height and then commencing a shallow dive. The height and speed has never been admitted or released. 
It is reported from sources that a few days later when a similar flight was taking place the vibration was so intense that the pilot lost control for a short period of time. Control was regained at around 3,000 feet and after this near disaster Clarence `Kelly` Johnson banned all further high speed `testing`.
 
Further flights were completed with regards to air to air and air to ground weapons testing and they all seem to have been completed without mishap. A second incident however did occur in mid February 1943 when during the testing phase of jettisoning the wing tanks in flight, the port wing tank was released, caught in a reportedly `unusual` airstream and hit the port tail boom causing considerable damage. Luckily for the test pilot the wing tip tank was empty at that time and the aircraft was able to return to base and make an emergency landing.
 
It is also said that the XP-55 also took part in air to air refuelling tests, however no pictures exist of it in this configuration and their are no records of any modifications to support this story.

Verdicts and Moving on
 
The verdict on the XP-55 was simple. On the up side it was reported to as easy to fly, was very stable in most aspects of flight and able to out fly all the propeller aircraft of the day when involved in air to air dogfights. However, on the down side, as Clarence `Kelly` Johnson had guessed correctly the XP-55 was never going to be a production aircraft. The P-38 airframe was outdated and the W.1. turbo jets were not powerful enough to take the project forward. The `Skunk` was destined to be a `one off` test bed aeroplane only.
 
By June 1943 Lockheed had started work on the XP-80 and the XP-55 aircraft and project were quietly drawn down.
The XP-55`s final flight is reported to be on the 3rd July 1943 to an undisclosed storage facility in Arizona.
 
But that's not where the story ends....?
 
In 1957 a `Jet`, looking like a P-38 was reported flying low over Interstate Highway 375 heading south towards what is now known as Groom Lake. It`s never been confirmed, but perhaps Lockheed did not send the `Skunk` to a scrappers yard like so many aircraft were in those early days. Perhaps the `Skunk` is sitting in a small hangar within the Groom Lake facility as a reminder and memorial to the new generation of designers of what the original `Skunk works` designers had built, flown and tested in a very short period of time?

Listed below are the only known poor quality B+W photo`s of the XP-55 at aN undisclosed location.

[Tophe]

Thanks a lot for this very secret and very interesting story...
Well, I am mainly interested, as far as I am concerned, by the detail of dimension changes and other features, but historians will appreciate other things. (Mainly, the true origin of the nickname "Skunk Works" will remain forever from now as the very truth, that had been hidden more than a half century... officials told us the secrecy was so high that nobody could approach those engineers, like if they were smelling bad... no, that was not a correct explanation, how fool were we to believe them, thanks to put the truth right back ).

[Tophe]

Well, today I have corrected my Skunk drawing (for my what-if Lightning site http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/#Sit ): old drawing left, new one right:
-- Thanks again for this great addition to the family! --  

[bobbo]

It looks absolutely fantastic.  After looking at it for a while, I no linger think it looks too "short" - sort of unstable in pitch axis.  I would suspect that particular 'problem" is a result of longer span wings. 

Great Plane! 

bobbo

[tc2324]

Well, today I have corrected my Skunk drawing (for my what-if Lightning site http://www.kristofmeunier.fr/#Sit ): old drawing left, new one right:
-- Thanks again for this great addition to the family! --  

Hi Tophe, that drawing looks great and I`m flattered that you have included it in your website. Thank you.

It looks absolutely fantastic.  After looking at it for a while, I no linger think it looks too "short" - sort of unstable in pitch axis.  I would suspect that particular 'problem" is a result of longer span wings. 

Great Plane! 

bobbo

Hi Bobbo, thanks for the compliment. I found it was one of those designs that looks better the more you look at it. Cheers. 

[tc2324]

Always wondered what a Buccaneer would have looked like in USN colours so I bought a kit but then needed to buy an Intruder kit for the decals. That got me thinking about what an Intruder would have looked like in RN colours?

Well, theres only one way to find out........,  Build...!!!!!

Kits in question below and both will be finished in eachothers shemes from the mid 70`s. Let the  commence. 

[Tophe]

Will you exchange only the decals or also the tails or something?

[tc2324]

Will you exchange only the decals or also the tails or something?

Hi Tophe, straight forward builds this time, just the colours and perhaps the weapons fit will be changed.

[lancer]

Got an Intruder in the stash for exactly the same purpose - to turn it into a FAA machine. Be interestong to see if we come up with the same idea's for colour schemes

[tc2324]

Got an Intruder in the stash for exactly the same purpose - to turn it into a FAA machine. Be interestong to see if we come up with the same idea's for colour schemes

Hey Lancer, if it helps I`m doing the all over wrap around dark blue scheme from the Bucc box in the picture. Much prefer that to the top dark blue/white bottom version last seen on the Sea Harriers before they went South in 1982. 

[tc2324]

A little bit of progress done tonight. Bucc`s main airframe weighted and then put together, also the cockpit decals applied and bang seat painted. (the decals are slippery little buggers ain`t they)

The intruder`s cockpit painted and control panel decaled.

I`m not one for cockpits but I`m trying to improve my skills. Thank god they are 1/72 and the canopy will hide some of the rubbish.....

[lancer]

TC, your cockpit's are a thousand times better than mine, I have wayh to much shake in my hands - Anti Rejection drug induced- to paint anything as great as that.
Your Intruder colour scheme sounds pretty dammed good. I was thinking along the lines of perhaps EDSG over either white of Sky, but I might do a wif scheme also. Haven't decided yet.