Lockheed XFM-2
Proposed fighter aircraft
The Lockheed XPB-3, later designated XFM-2 (PB – pursuit, biplace / FM – fighter, multi-seat), was a proposed American heavy fighter aircraft, developed by the Lockheed Corporation during the mid-1930s. Intended as a heavy fighter and bomber destroyer for operation by the United States Army Air Corps, it failed to win a contract for construction of a prototype, the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda being preferred.
Design and development
Given the Lockheed designation Model 11, the XFM-2 was developed in response to a United States Army Air Corps requirement for a heavy, twin-engined "bomber destroyer". Originally designated XPB-3 in the "pursuit, biplace" category, it was redesignated "XFM-2", for "fighter, multiplace" early in development. Intended to be powered by two Allison V-1710 supercharged engines, the aircraft was designed for an armament of two 37 mm cannons: one mounted in a nose turret and the other in a dorsal turret behind the cockpit.
The XFM-2 featured a tricycle landing gear configuration and was a mid-wing monoplane of nearly medium bomber size. The empennage featured a twin-tail arrangement. Although the XFM-2 design was evaluated favorably by the Air Corps, the Bell YFM-1 Airacuda was selected to fill the bomber destroyer requirement, and further work on the XFM-2 was abandoned.
The public source identifies “Lockheed XFM-2” as proposed fighter aircraft. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Lockheed, XFM-2 and Proposed.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Lockheed XFM-2”, the useful work is to connect “proposed fighter aircraft” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Nov 9, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q14897470. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1710.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Lockheed XFM-2”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Lockheed XFM-2 primary sources, Lockheed XFM-2 archive and Lockheed research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Lockheed XFM-2”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Lockheed XFM-2” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.