WWII Target Tugs – US types

He does say (hence why I titled it Target Tug)

The job of this plane was to pull the streamers that were used for target practise by our fighter pilots and bomber gunners in training. I recall these souped up hummingbirds pulling the target streamers for our AT-6s in the skies over Texas. And I recalled wondering at the time what would happen if our aim was so bad we plugged holes in the tow plane instead of the streamer.

The 100mph figure became important later as, during a moment of hedgehopping to relieve the boredom of the ferry flight he forgot to keep an eye on the fuel and one tank ran dry starving the engine. Whilst attempting to get it restarted the high stall speed of the plane became of everlooming importance to him, as did the proximity to the ground.

It all depends on how literally we read his ‘clipped wing’ statement, for example did the Culvers (or the other similar types used) have a wing span reduction between the civil piloted version and the radio controlled drone?
Even the ‘100 mph stalling speed’ could be a reasonable exaggeration for say 80 ish mph, again not unreasonable to assume on a small span drone.
I honestly would be very surprised if he is talking about a banner towing target tug, especially on such a small and marginal performance aircraft. A-26s were used in the role post war.
Nothing in the opening post suggests that this was a target tug, does he specifically mention that it is elsewhere?

Without being rude to the gentleman, there were several statements in the book that made me think that he was repeating ‘flightline facts’, however I guess we are still looking for a small one pilot machine with clipped wings (or at least squared off ends that look like they have been clipped) and which has a stalling speed in plus of 100mph.

I would presume the shortened/small wings was to reduce drag to assist a smaller engine in towing the banner, but with natural performance consequences.

Whilst the details may be mixed with time he seemed very contientious in keeping a diary at the time so I suspect that there is a reasonable basis of fact in the description.

Clipping the wings might reduce drag, thus allowing the aircraft to accelerate faster… but it would also reduce lift, thus raising the required take-off/landing speed.

You always lose more in lift than you gain in acceleration when you shorten the wings (without changing other things to compensate), so that is a bizarre statement.

For it was a miniature single seat job with it’s wings clipped to give it the extra speed needed for takeoff and landing, and boosted the stalling speed to over 100mph.

This statement makes no sense to me. In what context would you need to clip the wings of any airplane to gain extra speed for takeoff and/or landing? Now if you were to say that it needed the extra speed for takeoff and landing BECAUSE the wings were clipped that would be much more reasonable. It sounds like a statement by somebody with no knowledge of aerodynamics to me!

Thanks Pagen

They fit the description from the size but don’t have clipped wings and from that link if they only have a speed of 140mph they are unlikely to stall at 100mph (or they are very interesting to fly 🙂 )

This is what I mean, http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/pq-8.html

Should point out though that they were used as a target rather than as a target tug, but going from the description of a miniature single seat aircraft I would think this is along the lines of what he means.

I don’t know enough about them, but it sounds to me like he could be talking about one of those Culver Q/PQ-8 aircraft, they were a remote piloted target drone of the era, but could also be flown by pilot. Believe some went on to civil use after the war.