Design a WW2 target towing airplane.

In the Second World War there was a pressing need among the Western Allies for thousands of airplanes to be used for towing the targets for training the navies gunners to blast at, the armies anti-aircraft batteries to bang away at and for the air forces to do their aerial air to air gunnery practice for fighter pilots and bomber crews to shoot at.

Usually obsolete, obsolescent and flawed aircraft were shoved into this role as there was no other good use for those airplanes. But because of the cost of developing and producing these combat inadequate aircraft this was not the best use of valuable resources.

If the various design bureaus and air ministries and production boards had rejected a few more planes that turned out to be mistakes so they wouldn't have made it into production in OTL where would our target tugs come from? This maybe granting them a little more knowledge than likely but bear with me for the sake of discussion.

So we need to design and build 3000 or more target tugs in the U.S. for the U.S. and for Lend Lease to the U.K. and the Commonwealth for their training needs. We don't want to waste money and resources so we want an efficient design that is a one-size-fits-all so it can tow targets as fast as 200 mph at low and medium level for the armies AA and low,medium and high altitude for the navies and air forces.

What kind of plane would you design for this job? For low cost one engine for sure.
But radial air cooled or inline liquid cooled?
How many horsepower?
How big should the plane be?
How many crew members?
A rear tow hook only or an on board winch and drum for the towing?
All metal or wooden wings?
Who should build it?

What do you all think?
 
OTL provides the answer - Miles Martinet and Miles Monitor:)

Good point. The Martinet was a purpose designed airplane target tug. Was it powerful enough to pull targets at 200 mph? As for the Monitor that is a two engine design and looks a little too much like an expensive overkill produced too late to be useful for WW2. What would the Americans have built for their hot climate training locations in the U.S. South and South-west?
 

Driftless

Donor
Could it double as a glider tug?

Top of my head/or out of my mind....
  • two radial engines - 1000-1100 hp per.
    • I'd think you need some horsepower to deal with the drag of the target.
    • Also, I'd think this plane could be used in a number of environments, so simplified maintenance is a good attribute
  • Wood construction might allow for subcontracting to secondary aircraft manufacturers, or even non-aircraft sources, and not use up other strategic resources as much
  • Pilot and all-purpose crewman
  • winch would be useful, I believe, otherwise a releasable cable
  • If this machine is being used in non-combat zones, you wouldn't need armor, guns, self-sealing tanks. If you are towing gliders, you need real fighter cover anyway.
  • Size? 55'-60' wingspan (16-18m) Light enough to have some movement while towing the target, but enough mass for some stability as needed
*edit* Would it be useful for the 2nd crewman to have a canopy or open bay, to see what is happening with the target(or glider)?
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
Wisdom from Wiki.... Target Tug

I think the last paragraph (my bolding) is interesting, about the need for sufficient power.

World War 2[edit]
Boulton Paul Defiant TT Mk III target tug, number N1697; RAF Desford, May 1944. Note the wind-driven generator that provided power for the target winch

Prior to and during World War II target tugs were typically operated by the air arms on behalf of which they flew, and were usually conversions of aircraft that had failed in combat or that were otherwise unsuitable or obsolete in their design roles (see Fairey Battle and Short Sturgeon). These aircraft typically trailed a drogue fabric sleeve at the end of a several-thousand metre long cable. Student fighter pilots or air gunnerswould shoot at the target from other aircraft using painted bullets so that hits could be recorded and later analysed.

In the RAF, Miles Master IIs were used for this purpose as part of the Target Towing Flight at the Central Gunnery School whilst the School was based at RAF Sutton Bridge from April 1942 to March 1944. Other aircraft used in this role were the Hawker Henley, the Boulton Paul Defiant and the Westland Lysander, although the RAF was by no means the only air arm to use target tugs. They were used by most air forces. The USAAF used older aircraft such as the TBD Devastator as target tugs, and the Luftwaffe and the VVS (Red Army) also used them.

The chief modifications to the aircraft were a station for the drogue operator and a winch to reel in the cable prior to landing. The winch was typically powered by a small wind-turbine on the outside of the aircraft, driven by the airflow and attached to the winch via a clutch. Such devices are still used by some aerial refueling tankers to retract the refueling hose after the operation is completed. The drogue would often be jettisoned at some location convenient for recovery prior to the aircraft's landing. The drogue itself caused a great deal of drag and could be dangerous, particularly to less-powerful aircraft. If the engine failed, the drag from the drogue could be enough to reduce the airspeed of the aircraft below stall speed before the drogue could be jettisoned (see Hawker Henley).
 
Could it double as a glider tug?

Top of my head/or out of my mind....
  • two radial engines - 1000-1100 hp per.
    • I'd think you need some horsepower to deal with the drag of the target.
    • Also, I'd think this plane could be used in a number of environments, so simplified maintenance is a good attribute
  • Wood construction might allow for subcontracting to secondary aircraft manufacturers, or even non-aircraft sources, and not use up other strategic resources as much
  • Pilot and all-purpose crewman
  • winch would be useful, I believe, otherwise a releasable cable
  • If this machine is being used in non-combat zones, you wouldn't need armor, guns, self-sealing tanks. If you are towing gliders, you need real fighter cover anyway.



Sounds reasonable for a glider tug going into a contested drop zone. I think for sure you would need those two engines and other enhancements. But for our thread lets keep the cost down for our training only target tug. Could we getaway with a target tug with the Wright 2600 with its' 1700 hp? And a target tug would not have to be designed to be able to maneuver for its life normally so wood construction for the wings might be acceptable. This could ease the task of converting a furniture factory to building this airplane.

I'm not sure about the winch. Maybe it should be an optional feature. On those large U.S. training fields in the middle of a desert there is plenty of room for just hitching the target tow cable to a tow hook fitted to the rear of the plane. And landing with it or dropping it over the runway during a low pass. But on those compact little British airfields a winch is required I would think.
 
Wisdom from Wiki.... Target Tug

I think the last paragraph (my bolding) is interesting, about the need for sufficient power.


Jeez how long would it take the pilot to reach for and yank the jettison lever? Those target drogues were a little too good at being air brakes. I read another problem was chronic overheating of the engine regarding the Hawker Henley and other TT planes. The cowling and/or radiators must be designed for high power lower speed similar to the extended steep climb throttle setting but while still flying down low in the warm air flying straight and level.
 

Driftless

Donor
Sounds reasonable for a glider tug going into a contested drop zone. I think for sure you would need those two engines and other enhancements. But for our thread lets keep the cost down for our training only target tug. Could we getaway with a target tug with the Wright 2600 with its' 1700 hp? And a target tug would not have to be designed to be able to maneuver for its life normally so wood construction for the wings might be acceptable. This could ease the task of converting a furniture factory to building this airplane.

I'm not sure about the winch. Maybe it should be an optional feature. On those large U.S. training fields in the middle of a desert there is plenty of room for just hitching the target tow cable to a tow hook fitted to the rear of the plane. And landing with it or dropping it over the runway during a low pass. But on those compact little British airfields a winch is required I would think.

For the US, something configured like a "poor-man's" SBD/A-24, without the fighting gear? Big two-row Wright radial, with substantial parts of the airframe being made of wood.
 
For the US, something configured like a "poor-man's" SBD/A-24, without the fighting gear? Big two-row Wright radial, with substantial parts of the airframe being made of wood.


Yeah. I guess that is a good basic plan. Some design roughly the size of the Dauntless though a little bit fatter to accommodate a winch and the 2 crew with the 2600 engine to provide the needed speed. With as much as the air frame as practical built out of non-strategic materials.
 
Always figured we should have fired/jailed the entire Brewster management team and put the Bantam Motor Car people in charge...fix a problem and redress a slight simultaneously...
 
Always figured we should have fired/jailed the entire Brewster management team and put the Bantam Motor Car people in charge...fix a problem and redress a slight simultaneously...
By making a terrible fighter and dive bomber the direct descendants of the ground breaking Austin 7?
 
By making a terrible fighter and dive bomber the direct descendants of the ground breaking Austin 7?
Bantam invented the Jeep, and all they got for their brilliance was a contract to make the junky little 2 wheel trailers for the Jeep, while Willys was awarded the contract to build their vehicle by the shitpot loads for big $$$$$.
 
I know. To be fair the didn't have the facilities to build the numbers of Jeeps required, though they should have got hefty royalties and their name on the bonnet.

As for Brewster someone should have gone to jail for giving them any contracts. I wouldn't have trusted them to make mess tins.
 
Top