Warbird Information Exchange

Found this on the Internet thought maybe you guys would find interesting .In 1997 and 1998, the Flight Research Center at Edwards, California, supported and hosted a Kelly Space & Technology, Inc. project which sought to demonstrate the feasibility of a reusable tow-launch vehicle concept. The project goal was to successfully tow, inflight, a modified QF-106 delta-wing aircraft with an Air Force C-141A transport aircraft. This would demonstrate the possibility of towing and launching an actual launch vehicle from behind a tow plane.

Wow,

that's just strange. It reminds me of when I used to fly gliders with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, but that doesn't look like much of a glider.

Cheers,

David

I never hear that this plane was used in that role!

_________________
Owner: http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com
Owner: http://www.letletlet-warplanes.com/forum
Owner: http://www.sreckobradic.com
Email: srecko.warplane@gmail.com
Skype: sreckobradic
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/LetLetLet ... 8234397758

Where's the pics of the landing?

_________________
Those who possess real knowledge are rare.

Those who can set that knowledge into motion in the physical world are rarer still.

The few who possess real knowledge and can set it into motion of their own hands are the rarest of all.

Here is a vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pEXuzi9IWg

i don't see the point of the testing........ but with the price of av gas today maybe it now has merit!!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Concept hardly new. P-51B was flown as a glider , towed behind a P-61 during war. IIRC it was flown from the same local, under the auspices of NACA Ames. Point of the excercise was to correlate model windtunnel data to that of full size. Pilot on all flights was Jim Nissen, later the manager of San Jose Municial Airport (now SJ International) and became well known on the West Coast for his Curtiss Jenny restoration.

_________________
Charles Neely

The point of the testing was part of one of the X-Prize competitors. They were studying the feasibility of towing a jet aircraft behind a large transport and then in-effect "air launching" the craft, eliminating the first stage of flight (the initial boost stage). The idea (if explored further) was to use a 747 to tow a spaceplane to 40,000 feet, release it, the spaceplane would then light its motors and proceed into orbit. It's not a new concept either, but its the first time that it was actually tested with high performance aircraft like the Delta Dagger. The aircraft was of the same general size and weight as the proposed X-Prize competitor, so it was probably as close of a test for the "real deal" as has been attempted.

They had the same concept of "parasitic" fighters for fuel economy in the 1950s- at one point had an a/c (B-29 I think) which had the wing tips modified so a similarly modified fighter could fly alongside & hook in, and glide along using the bomber's power. The concept was found to be hard to align: at the end(IIRC) they had a successful hook up, followed by oscillation of the fighter, which then did an uncontrolled hinged barrel roll, took the wing off the B-29, and killed both crews. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall Bud Anderson was involved in the testing of this system. Have to go reread some books, and see if I am right...

Robbie

Indeed, Bud was involved in the parasite testing.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

He's using the engine on take off, you can see the heat distortion.

Probably because he needs electrical and hydraulic power. No hydraulics, no flight controls.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

In the picture, the exhaust stream appears more to be swept away with the slipstream rather than pointed down along the aircraft axis as is often seen with an engine at power. Watching the youtube video, the F-106 performance isn't stunning, either.

My guess - the thing is it at idle for a possible cable snap and the subsequent release. Not to mention overcoming windmilling drag (assuming the engine wasn't removed) and, although I'm not up on Dart systems, if the flight controls are hydraulic, there'd probably need to be a turning engine to power the flight controls as well.

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

The parasite fighter was F-84s on a B-36 wing tip. Idea scrapped after the fatal accident.

Ober, there were two projects using F-84's connected to the tip of an aircraft. The Tip-Tow project was using EF-84Bs on the EB-29A wingtip as part of larger experiments that included the XF-85 Goblin to test various FICON (FIghter CONveyor) concepts. During the first flight to test the "automatic" mode of connection where the pilot could release control of the aircraft, the left Tip Tow aircraft (Bud flew the right) docked automatically, and then immediately flipped over the wingtip and both the EB-29A and the EF-84B crashed. The TOM-TOM project, the RB-36F based concurrent effort was a failure as well when one of the RF-84Fs was torn loose due to the wingtip vorticies, however all 3 aircraft landed safely. The GRB-36H, which was the only aircraft to operationally employ the FICON concept, married an RB-36H Featherweight III-configured aircraft with modified bomb bay doors and a trapeze to accept the RF-84K which was a specially built aircraft designed to be carried by the GRB-36H and was modified to mate with the trapeze and had a tail that was canted down to fit inside the modified bomb bay. The aircraft could be refueled inflight and the typical mission was for the two planes to take off separately & "dock" inflight. The B-36 would then carry the FICON to its release point, refueling the aircraft on the way and allowing the pilot to get out and stretch. The aircraft would then be released, fly its mission, and then return and re-dock to the B-36 before being flown back to "friendly" skies when it would be released yet again to land back at its base.

Some resources on the FICON project -

http://www.edwards.af.mil/moments/docs_ ... 04-27.html
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsh ... sp?id=2550
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICON_project