Unknown Goodyear tow target

Stargazer

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
25 June 2009
Messages
13,492
Reaction score
2,300
Despite my attempts I haven't been able to identify this tow target proposal by Goodyear.

It could be a development of the Grebe (SUM-N-2) but this one has dorsal intake and canard-like surfaces.

Any help would be appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • unknown Goodyear tow target.jpg
    unknown Goodyear tow target.jpg
    196.9 KB · Views: 349
Looks a bit strange to me, the skids still extended and the towed (!) target is fitted with
a small, very small, jet engine ? :eek:
 
I know! It looked weird to me too!

It's from a Goodyear brochure of the early 1950s. Here is the accompanying text:
 

Attachments

  • target-text.jpg
    target-text.jpg
    48 KB · Views: 307
Thanks, hesham. I thought of that one too, and I think it's our best bet so far, but what made me hesitate is the fact that they don't mention any jet propulsion for it. The fact that the picture's caption mentions joint development with the Wright Air Development Center plus the F-86 Sabres in the image definitely points to a U.S. Air Force program, anyway.
 
IF the drawing is somewhat reliable, the engine would have been around 1.4 meters long.
Any idea of a suitable type from that era ?
 
At first I suspected that it was developed to MX-1588, which according to Andreas' site (designation-systems.net) was for a "3-dimensional tow target for fighter interceptor gunnery". However a bit more digging in the same list found MX-1668-B, which was a "3-dimensional tow target (Type A-2) for fighter interceptor gunnery; Goodyear Aircraft Co.".
 
Grey Havoc said:
At first I suspected that it was developed to MX-1588, which according to Andreas' site (designation-systems.net) was for a "3-dimensional tow target for fighter interceptor gunnery". However a bit more digging in the same list found MX-1668-B, which was a "3-dimensional tow target (Type A-2) for fighter interceptor gunnery; Goodyear Aircraft Co.".

Excellent, thanks a lot Grey Havoc! I must admit I hadn't thought of checking the MX- base... :-[
 
Perhaps the engine is less for propulsion and rather for generating power needed for a hydraulic system which produces a minimum of thrust? A compromise over adding more "dead"-weight to a towed-target?
 
_Del_ said:
Perhaps the engine is less for propulsion and rather for generating power needed for a hydraulic system which produces a minimum of thrust? A compromise over adding more "dead"-weight to a towed-target?

I think that's at least possible.
I was wondering if it was to simulate IR eflux but 1952 seems too early for that sort of thing either for missiles or IRST practice.
 
Kartek said:
I was wondering if it was to simulate IR eflux but 1952 seems too early for that sort of thing either for missiles or IRST practice.

... at least, if we take the gun firing Sabres literally ! ;)
 
Jemiba said:
Kartek said:
I was wondering if it was to simulate IR eflux but 1952 seems too early for that sort of thing either for missiles or IRST practice.

... at least, if we take the gun firing Sabres literally ! ;)
Well the newspaper article is from '52 and I know we had early IR ideas but it still seems too early.
 
I'm thinking a airflow powered APU myself. For powering scoring & telemetry systems and the like.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom