Author Topic: Would this have worked? (Read 757 times)

SunTracker · « **on:** February 02, 2005, 03:12:16 AM »

Could a B-17 have been rigged up to tow a P-47 into enemy territory? Perhaps a mounting system could have extended from the B-17s bombay, attaching to the 47 behind the cockpit.

I'm thinking of a setup similar to the B-36/Goblin configuration, except allowing the P47 to keep its engine running (to provide some thrust).

Wolfala · « **Reply #1 on:** February 02, 2005, 03:42:47 AM »

Look at the useful load of a B-17 and look at the mass of a fully loaded and gas'd P-47. In short - no.

SunTracker · « **Reply #2 on:** February 02, 2005, 12:31:11 PM »

But the P-47 produces lift at speed. So it would be only drag for the B-17 wouldnt it?

Guppy35 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 02, 2005, 01:06:53 PM »

The RAF tested something similar using a Spitfire and Wellington. It was tested to see if it would help increase the ferry range.

They encountered problems with the engine of the Spit. If shut down for too long it tended to oil up and had difficulty restarting.

They didn't proceed with the idea.

Dan/Slack

CMC Airboss · « **Reply #4 on:** February 02, 2005, 01:11:06 PM »

Quote

Ideas that Didn't Work in WW2

Towed Fighters. The idea was to increase the range of small planes. Two F4F's hooked to tow lines streamed behind a twin-engine Army A-20, cut their engines and were towed for an hour at 180 knots at 7,000 feet on 10May42.

From http://www.ww2pacific.com/ideas.html

It wouldn't be very efficient to use 4 engines to get a single engine P-47 to a target. This would also force an air-start for the fighter. With a cold soaked engine and sub-zero oil and fuel, the risk of dropping a fighter (now a glider) right into enemy territory is very high.

MiG

SunTracker · « **Reply #5 on:** February 02, 2005, 02:23:32 PM »

Surely the fuel consumption rate of a P-47 engine at idle isnt too great. Maybe a setup like the Fw-190 mounted on top of the Ju88 would have worked.

Fully loaded, a P47D weighs about 15,000 pounds. The B-17 was capable of hauling 16,000 pounds of bombs on short missions. Assuming that the P-47 carried 1 drop tank (to use while the engine was idling on the way to target), and that the P47 was also providing thrust for takeoff, I think a B-17 could have carried a 47 into Germany.

FTJR · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2005, 08:07:26 AM »

To what purpose?

Bodhi · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:00:56 AM »

It would take extensive mods to the 17 as it's tail is not strong enough to tow a 14000 lb fighter.

SunTracker · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:38:57 AM »

I'm talking a setup like this.

Angus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2005, 10:49:52 AM »

well, the germans didsomething like using a v-1 missile as a towed fuel tank. does anyone have some angles on that?

hawker238 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2005, 05:12:04 PM »

Suntracker, I'm guessing that those pictures are of the Mistel weapon, where the bomber suicide dived into the target while the fighter just guided it there. Not sure if this is the same concept as the towing of the P-47.

bunch · « **Reply #11 on:** February 04, 2005, 12:30:36 AM »

The VVS had something like this with the I-16SPB/Tb-3 combo

article here:
http://aerostories.free.fr/appareils/compopara/page19.html
Apparently used in combat

SunTracker · « **Reply #12 on:** February 04, 2005, 11:05:24 AM »

Hey bunch, how did you get that username?

HoHun · « **Reply #13 on:** February 04, 2005, 01:59:57 PM »

Hi Bodhi,

>It would take extensive mods to the 17 as it's tail is not strong enough to tow a 14000 lb fighter.

Hm, are you sure this would have been a problem?

The Germans had a lot of different setups for towing, and usually the tugs seem to have been able to tow something like 50% of their own weight without extensive modification. (I pulled this number out of my hat, so please don't consider it accurate or reliable :-)

Using the "lifting tow" (Tragschlepp) system, a He 111 was able to launch and tow a Ju 87, for example. The tow gear was monted near the centre of gravity, so the strength of the tail was not an issue.

The well-known Mistel system had the advantage of having the fighter's engine power available for take-off. It was not used for carrying escort fighters, but I believe this idea might have been behind the original conception.

The German even made air-to-air refueling experiments, developing a hose-and-drogue-system, but they only worked out the aerodynamics and never actually got to the actual refilling part :-)

The Russians had their Zveno system, using it to carry up to four fighters into the air on and below one bomber - a TB-3, I believe. They even used that one operationally, with a TB-3 carrying two I-16 fighter bombers to long-range targets.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

bunch · « **Reply #14 on:** February 04, 2005, 11:21:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SunTracker
Hey bunch, how did you get that username?

One name is as good as any other. Why do you ask?