Bristol Skeet

[Tiger Tim]

Alright, somebody here has to know about this beast. While wandering through old NACA wind tunnel test photos I came across a target glider called the Bristol Target Glider (Skeet).


I build stick and tissue model airplanes so it looked like an appealing little thing... Until I realised it was HUGE!


It got me thinking, something like this would make a pretty neat model (scaled down, of course!). Does anyone know if any drawings exist or if this thing had any operational history would there be any survivors?

-Tim

[Randy Wilson]

Tim - is this the source of your photos?
http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/643_Test_134_-_Bristol_Target_Glider_(Skeet)
Unfortunately, I don't have any further info on the design. Randy

[The Inspector]

Aren't 'Target' and 'Glider' together oxymoronic?

[redvanner]

Aren't 'Target' and 'Glider' together oxymoronic?

Well, not necessarily so, I believe. Have a look here:

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/go345.html

In German called "Punktlandeflugzeug", translates as "Pointlandingaircraft". It was intended landing right on it´s nose (vertically!), speed reduced by a parachute, a shockabsorber should reduce the remaining speed, pilot and troopers having to endure a G-force of 10 which was thought to be tolerable for a very short time (seconds) IIRC.
(This regards the "B" version, the one with the large pointed nose, not the "A" variant with the stubby nose)

Quite interesting concept, though I would not have liked piloting this beast.

Michael

[The Inspector]

TARGET-Everyone is shooting at you
GLIDER-you are the slowest thing in the sky, so regardless of how the landing was planned or designed, you'll end up in a falling pile of kindling that whistles because of all the bullet holes.

[WallyB]

Aren't 'Target' and 'Glider' together oxymoronic?

Tautological I think you mean .

BTW this was the New Haven Bristol Aeronautic Corp., not the more famous UK company of similar name.

[redvanner]

TARGET-Everyone is shooting at you
GLIDER-you are the slowest thing in the sky, so regardless of how the landing was planned or designed, you'll end up in a falling pile of kindling that whistles because of all the bullet holes.

[Tulio]

I am sure that, as you say, it is a glider.

The photo however, shows what to me, look like exhaust stacks on the side of the nose, as well as what could be a prop spinner.
Was this then, a wind-tunnel test mockup for a particular fighter design? Or is it 100% confirmed that it was a glider? If so, is it painted
to represent the exhaust and the propeller spinner?

Saludos, and gracias!


Tulio

[C VEICH]

Tulio,

I think that, as it was intended to be a target, the idea was to paint it up to represent a fighter or at least something other than what it really was. As a builder of flying models I find the whole idea to be quite fascinating if a little bit hard to take very seriously. I've built rubber band powered models that were more complex than this thing appears to be!

[Mike Halbrook]

I think we are looking at two models of different sizes.
The Jim Walker "AJ Interceptor" catapult glider was used to train gunners, they shot at these 14" wingspan gliders with .410 ga shotguns.
The first model looks to be about that size, 14" wing, and the name "skeet" is suggestive.
I wonder about the second picture, technique and materials do not translate well from a 14" model to what appears to be a life size glider.

P.S I also build and fly RC, and I have an AJ Interceptor

[JDK]

Fascinating thread. The thing in the wind tunnel I'd say was a spoof, if it wasn't so unlikely and so evidently (I think!) real.

Has anyone got any more info?

That said I was reminded of Paul Garber's target kite:



http://robroy.dyndns.info/targetkites/



http://004dcee.netsolhost.com/gallery/2 ... rticle.htm

http://www.rexresearch.com/garbrkit/garbrkit.htm

[Tiger Tim]

Supposing the skeet was the size of that thing in the wind tunnel, I would assume it was meant to be shot at while being towed behind an airplane. Those wings look so flimsy, though...

-Tim

[JDK]

But something just don't add up.

The thing is, the wooden 'framework' can't be the size of the wind-tunnel model, as it'd be the size of a W.W.II fighter -



-see how it outsizes the P-26 here?

And the wooden structure wouldn't hold together or be the right framework for that size, surely?

[CAPFlyer]

I agree that the two pics are of two different models, but I see no reason why you couldn't scale the first model up to the size of the second, even using wood. Afterall, the aircraft doesn't appear to be much larger than the Waco or N3N, which have a lot of wood structure.

[JDK]

What I'm getting at CAP, is that you can make something out of wood at 1 ft and 30 ft long, but the scaling of the required structure for both to fly doesn't work - the uncovered model looks right for a 1 ft model, but if you scaled that structure as is to 30 ft, it wouldn't work - it'd be an overweight structurally weak brick. If you redesigned it at 30 ft, you'd start by changing the fuselage shape as it's too long and narrow for a sensible self-supporting structure at that size. It's the same as making a paper aeroplane out of a letter sized piece of paper or a table-sized piece of paper - only one works.

So what's the big thing about? What's the internal structure? Is it really a towed glider target? Other towed targets look enough like a real aeroplane, but don't have all that pointless (expensive) decoration.

e.g.:
http://www.rafmuseumphotos.com/towed_ta ... 98713.html

And:


Puzzled...