TEMCO Air Trailer
- Thread starter Bill S
- Start date
Bill S said:
The "load" drawing shows a substantially different vehicle. Is this explained in the documentation?
- Joined
- 17 October 2006
- Messages
- 2,281
- Reaction score
- 602
All it needs is a C-130Z with nine engines.
- Joined
- 17 May 2008
- Messages
- 675
- Reaction score
- 1,315
- Joined
- 4 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,440
- Reaction score
- 674
One has to wonder if the mutual interference effects between such closely spaced lifting surfaces would have made the combined contraption flyable. IIRC, both the Deichselschlepp and a similar towed device tested by Miles were marginal in that regard.
Still, very interesting concept and definitely unknown to me. I have seen the towing idea pop up from time to time in discussions about energy efficient transportation concepts. Maybe we'll see more of this idea in the future.
Thanks for sharing!
Still, very interesting concept and definitely unknown to me. I have seen the towing idea pop up from time to time in discussions about energy efficient transportation concepts. Maybe we'll see more of this idea in the future.
Thanks for sharing!
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,606
- Reaction score
- 3,046
No need for excuses,
I'm really not sure, if the glider in the drawing I've posted really is identical with
the TEMCO design. Even considering, that the tow aircraft is said to be a C-132,
it looks much smaller and the Saturn booster obviously isn't carried fully inside.
I'm really not sure, if the glider in the drawing I've posted really is identical with
the TEMCO design. Even considering, that the tow aircraft is said to be a C-132,
it looks much smaller and the Saturn booster obviously isn't carried fully inside.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,606
- Reaction score
- 3,046
"C-133, not C-132 !"
The text mentioned the C-132 and why not choose an unbuilt transport
as tow aircraft for an unbuilt glider ?
But you're right, in the drawing itself "C-130" is written and the profile indeed
looks more like a Herk, not like the C-132, I would assume a typo.
So, this glider would have been even smaller! A rough calculation gives a
length of about 28m, compared to about 60m for the design posted by Bill,
so surely a different design, although maybe drawn by TEMCO for the same
purpose.
The text mentioned the C-132 and why not choose an unbuilt transport
as tow aircraft for an unbuilt glider ?
But you're right, in the drawing itself "C-130" is written and the profile indeed
looks more like a Herk, not like the C-132, I would assume a typo.
So, this glider would have been even smaller! A rough calculation gives a
length of about 28m, compared to about 60m for the design posted by Bill,
so surely a different design, although maybe drawn by TEMCO for the same
purpose.
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 2,928
Jemiba said:
Drawing at the top of the page definitely represents a C-130 Hercules, but the one just above here shows a C-133 Cargomaster II. None of the illos shown here or on the links represents anything resembling the C-132.
- Joined
- 17 May 2008
- Messages
- 675
- Reaction score
- 1,315
Woody
Passionate about the advancement of technology
With such a ridged connection how would the tug aircraft even rotate to takeoff?
What possible advantage does this system offer over a more conventional cable tow? Is it intended to eliminate the need for a pilot in the trailer? If so, how is the trailer's role controlled?
Apart from the takeoff problem, it seams any disparity of movement between the units would cause a midair 3D 'jackknife'.
Interesting none the less.
Cheers, Woody
What possible advantage does this system offer over a more conventional cable tow? Is it intended to eliminate the need for a pilot in the trailer? If so, how is the trailer's role controlled?
Apart from the takeoff problem, it seams any disparity of movement between the units would cause a midair 3D 'jackknife'.
Interesting none the less.
Cheers, Woody
taildragger
You can count on me - I won a contest
- Joined
- 2 November 2008
- Messages
- 384
- Reaction score
- 440
I wonder why the towed concept was pursued at all. The trailer looks like a fully functional crewed aircraft and couldn't have been significantly less costly to develop and build than a powered aircraft. The additional cost would seem well worth avoiding the operational complexities and risks mentioned above.
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,606
- Reaction score
- 3,046
It looks like the "Starrschlepp" (rigid tow) tested by the german DFS. There the connection isn't
(wasn't) really rigid, but there was a kind of ball joint allowing for limited independent motions of
both aircraft. Tests are said to have been very successful, wit a considerable reduction of workload
for the glider pilot.
The advantage probably was, that with such a glider, the tow aircraft could transport oversized
cargo without many modifications, return to base, when the glider was just about to be unloaded
(or still in the air !) and so achieve a better "transport frequency"/efficiency.
(wasn't) really rigid, but there was a kind of ball joint allowing for limited independent motions of
both aircraft. Tests are said to have been very successful, wit a considerable reduction of workload
for the glider pilot.
The advantage probably was, that with such a glider, the tow aircraft could transport oversized
cargo without many modifications, return to base, when the glider was just about to be unloaded
(or still in the air !) and so achieve a better "transport frequency"/efficiency.
taildragger
You can count on me - I won a contest
- Joined
- 2 November 2008
- Messages
- 384
- Reaction score
- 440
This combination was on a whole different scale than anything the Germans tested in a rigid tow arrangement and could easily have run into problems they didn't encounter. The Starrschlepp testing was, I believe, done during the war and was probably "quick and dirty" by the standards of the '60's.
I wouldn't think that transport frequency / efficiency would be a big consideration for this project - it would have been a one or two-off (like the shuttle carrier 747's) with a use frequency similar to that of the Saturn rockets (how many launches were there, 25?). It might be that a glider / tug was thought to be an easier sell because it would superficially seem a more frugal approach than development of a powered aircraft.
I wouldn't think that transport frequency / efficiency would be a big consideration for this project - it would have been a one or two-off (like the shuttle carrier 747's) with a use frequency similar to that of the Saturn rockets (how many launches were there, 25?). It might be that a glider / tug was thought to be an easier sell because it would superficially seem a more frugal approach than development of a powered aircraft.
Similar threads
-
-
-
DUse of C-133 & C-5 for commercial loads (US State Cables)
- Started by Deleted member 2278
- Replies: 0
-
Bell ,Vertol & Lockheed Wing Extension VTOL Old Projects ?- Started by hesham
- Replies: 3
-
XC-Medium - Alternatives to the Lockheed C-130 Hercules?
- Started by Pioneer
- Replies: 53