TEMCO Air Trailer

Bill S

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
17 May 2008
Messages
678
Reaction score
1,401
Here is an interesting concept for hauling Saturn C-4 Boosters.
They looked at C-130 and C-133 as "tugs".
Vought Archives

bill
 

Attachments

  • Temco_122_Air_Trailer.jpg
    Temco_122_Air_Trailer.jpg
    19.4 KB · Views: 513
3 view and data block
Vought Archives

bill
 

Attachments

  • Temco_122_Side_View.jpg
    Temco_122_Side_View.jpg
    14.3 KB · Views: 415
  • Temco_122_Top_View.jpg
    Temco_122_Top_View.jpg
    22 KB · Views: 372
  • Temco_122_Front_View.jpg
    Temco_122_Front_View.jpg
    13.9 KB · Views: 362
  • Temco_122_Data.jpg
    Temco_122_Data.jpg
    22.8 KB · Views: 345
Here is a cutaway and load illustration
Vought Archives

bill
 

Attachments

  • Temco_122_Air_Trailer_Load.jpg
    Temco_122_Air_Trailer_Load.jpg
    35.4 KB · Views: 176
  • Temco_122_Air_Trailer_Cut_Away.jpg
    Temco_122_Air_Trailer_Cut_Away.jpg
    26.2 KB · Views: 166
Orionblamblam said:
Bill S said:
Here is a cutaway and load illustration
\

The "load" drawing shows a substantially different vehicle. Is this explained in the documentation?

Yes sir, there are 2 concepts. Only posted the one so far with that additional
drawing of a second.
 
Growth potential version of the Air Trailer
Vought Archives

bill
 

Attachments

  • Temco_Air_Trailer_Growth_Potential_Side_View.jpg
    Temco_Air_Trailer_Growth_Potential_Side_View.jpg
    18.1 KB · Views: 98
  • Temco_Air_Trailer_Growth_Potential_Top_View.jpg
    Temco_Air_Trailer_Growth_Potential_Top_View.jpg
    34.4 KB · Views: 91
  • Temco_Air_Trailer_Growth_Potential_Front_View.jpg
    Temco_Air_Trailer_Growth_Potential_Front_View.jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 87
Temco Growth Potential Air Trailer with C-133 tug
Vought Archives

bill
 

Attachments

  • Temco_Air_Trailer_Growth_Potential.jpg
    Temco_Air_Trailer_Growth_Potential.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 169
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!
 
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.
 
C-133, not C-132 ! The latter was also Douglas but was cancelled before it was built.
 
"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.
 
Jemiba said:
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.

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.
 
You're absolutely right, of course ! Maybe I was fooled by the small
thimble radom, or maybe I need a new pair of glasses. ;)
 

Attachments

  • comp.JPG
    comp.JPG
    78.8 KB · Views: 300
It is fascinating to think of what the take-offs and turbulence would have
been like with this combination. How long of a runway to clear a 50' obstacle?
:eek:

bill
 
I recently found some more info on Temco Air Trailers
This time the considered tugs are the Caribou and the XC-142
Scans from Vought Heritage microfilm
 

Attachments

  • Tri-Service-VTOL_Air_Trailer.jpg
    Tri-Service-VTOL_Air_Trailer.jpg
    174.3 KB · Views: 301
  • US-ARMY-CARBOU_Air_Trailer.jpg
    US-ARMY-CARBOU_Air_Trailer.jpg
    250.5 KB · Views: 281
Here is more info Air Trailer specific

3 view and inboard profile
 

Attachments

  • US-ARMY-CARBOU_Air_Trailer_3_View.jpg
    US-ARMY-CARBOU_Air_Trailer_3_View.jpg
    69.5 KB · Views: 270
  • US-ARMY-CARBOU_Air_Trailer_INBD_Profile.jpg
    US-ARMY-CARBOU_Air_Trailer_INBD_Profile.jpg
    53.5 KB · Views: 262
Here are some of the loading plans.
 

Attachments

  • Air_Trailer_Loads_2.jpg
    Air_Trailer_Loads_2.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 117
  • Air_Trailer_Loads_1.jpg
    Air_Trailer_Loads_1.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 106
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
From "Der Flieger", August 1962, an artist impression of the Air Trailer:
 

Attachments

  • Temco_Air_Trailer_01.jpg
    Temco_Air_Trailer_01.jpg
    127 KB · Views: 117
Here's another cite to the TEMCO Air Trailer Concept:
 

Attachments

  • Temco Air Trailer002.jpg
    Temco Air Trailer002.jpg
    150.6 KB · Views: 108

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom