Structural Repair Manual for CG-4A Glider

[Forgotten Field]

Subject says it all. I know where to get the POH, E&M, and Training manuals. I'd like to know if anybody knows where to get hold of an SRM if such a book was written.

Thanks,

[ChrisK48]

Is this it?

http://www.esscoaircraft.com/p-10144-wa ... anual.aspx

I don't know anything about this company. Just ran across it by searching.

[Forgotten Field]

Chris,
Thanks for that. I had been trying to find it as just CG-4A SRM on my searches. When I put Waco in front of it, I was able to reproduce what you found. Sometimes, it's harder to be smarter than the computer.

[Rajay]

I'm quite surprised that there even was such a thing as an SRM for it. Wasn't the CG-4A a combat assault glider? As such, wouldn't it have been considered to be disposable and not worth repairing if it ever got damaged before what was essentially a one-time use? Just sayin'...well, askin'!

[shrike]

I'm quite surprised that there even was such a thing as an SRM for it. Wasn't the CG-4A a combat assault glider? As such, wouldn't it have been considered to be disposable and not worth repairing if it ever got damaged before what was essentially a one-time use? Just sayin'...well, askin'!

On the contrary, they were supposed to be reused as much as any other aircraft. Methods* were developed to snatch the gliders out of short fields with C-47's and following Normandy there were extensive recovery and repair efforts to collect as many airworthy gliders as possible for follow ups. Unfortunately a major windstorm blew through the collection area and comprehensively undid all of the previous weeks work.

In any case, there would have been a lot of repairs required in stateside training before they were ever used in anger.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKODILREEwc

[Forgotten Field]

Wasn't the CG-4A a combat assault glider? As such, wouldn't it have been considered to be disposable and not worth repairing if it ever got damaged before what was essentially a one-time use?

Anything meant to fly is going to need a manual to maintain it in any type of operations. The initial call for Gliders was 1500 of 8 and 13 man examples (the CG-3 and the CG-4 respectively) and they were going to be used in training before combat operations, so there was going to be damage. They also had to be moved from the US into Theatre, and between disassembly, re-assembly, transport or test flying there were bound to be mechanical issues which included structural repair. My main reason for asking about existence of an SRM was that I thought the information may have been available in the E&M manual and an SRM was not needed. I still don't have a set of manuals in hand. I will be real interested in how they are written. The SRM is ridiculously short for what actually went into manufacturing a CG-4. They are an incredibly engineered airplane.

[shrike]

I still don't have a set of manuals in hand. I will be real interested in how they are written. The SRM is ridiculously short for what actually went into manufacturing a CG-4. They are an incredibly engineered airplane.

If the SRM for the CG-4A is anything like the SRM for the TG-4A, most of it is the phrase "Can be repaired with standard practices"
Nothing in the CG (or TG, FTM) is unusual compared to the normal building practices of the previous 20-30 years, and it's all covered by the generic aspects of the TM1-4xx series of manuals.

[hang the expense]

Subject says it all. I know where to get the POH, E&M, and Training manuals. I'd like to know if anybody knows where to get hold of an SRM if such a book was written.

Thanks,

Yes, its called a bonfire.

[gliderman1]

USAAF used 09-40CA for CG-4A manuals.

09-40CA-3 is the USAAF num for Structural Repair Instructions.

The CG-4A design followed construction techniques of steel tubing, aircraft fabric, and wood used for aircraft, for years prior to use of Aluminium construction. So once the techniques for welding various types of steel tubing was mastered and you understood the glues and types of wood used you needed parts manual.

[shrike]

And again going back to my TG, the parts manual often called out just the rough size of the wood stock you needed to make the part.

[Brad]

I looked through all my glider manuals and this is what I have laying on my desk at home.

TG-6 Glider: AN 09-35AA-1, Pilot’s flight Operating Instructions 5 Aug 43. (Original)

CG-4A Glider: T.O. 09-40CA-6, Basic Weight Checklist and Loading Data, 20 Oct 44 (copy)

CG-4A Glider: T.O. 09-40CA-1, Pilot’s Flight Operating Instructions, 15 Jun 44 (copy)

CG-4A Glider: T.O. 09-40CA-3, Structural Repair Instructions, 10 May 43 (copy)

PG-2A Glider: AN 09-75DA-2, Erection and Maintenance Instructions, 5 Mar 46 (Original)

CG-4A and PG-2A Gliders: T.O. 09-40CA-3, Structural Repair Instructions, 12 Mar 46 (Original)

PG-2A Glider: AN 09-75DA-4, Parts Catalog, 1 Apr 46, (Original)

CG-15A Glider: AN 09-40CC-1, Pilot’s Handbook, 28 Nov 45, (Original)

[gliderman1]

Shrike,
If you were building a complete glider, you would have the blueprints for each finished piece size. As a wood worker/glider repairman, the rough size of the wood stock is all you would need to quickly form a needed replacement part. If you were trained in wood repairing, you were able to custom fit the part from wood stock. If you couldn't do that, the next piece of wood the Army would have given you would be attached to an M1 rifle.

[shrike]

Shrike,
If you were building a complete glider, you would have the blueprints for each finished piece size. As a wood worker/glider repairman, the rough size of the wood stock is all you would need to quickly form a needed replacement part. If you were trained in wood repairing, you were able to custom fit the part from wood stock. If you couldn't do that, the next piece of wood the Army would have given you would be attached to an M1 rifle.

Actually I am, and I do. (well, reasonably a complete set) Even so, the blueprints still require a lot of extrapolation, fitting, fiddling and referring to common practices, common sense and photographs.

Mine was built in a single factory, in two small production runs, so I've found certain undocumented evolutions of production methods. I'd assume that the CG's, having been mass produced by multiple contractors, probably had better documentation for the components and adherence to pattern. I do know that some of the subcontractors cut corners leading to a rather infamous inflight failure in a CG-4A during a VIP demonstration flight.

I'd still be happy to accept the M1 rifle tho'<G>

[CrewDawg]

You might want to contact Greatest Generation Aircraft in Forth Worth. He has a just about all the bits to make a complete CG-4A and enough parts to make extra wings. Most of the steel is pretty rusted, but it might be cleaned up and used or at least used for a pattern. I know that he would be interested in selling it.

http://www.gga1.org/waco-glider

[gliderman1]

Shrike,

Which factory built your frame(s)?
Do you have a (data plate) serial number?

The sub that made the faulty part in the Robertson CG-4A wing strut bored the fitting to deeply, not actually a shortcut, but use of a rejected, improperly manufactured part.

I would like to know more about your project, especially photos of what you have.

There seems to be a general opinion that gliders were built based on the whims of the manufacturer rather than according to USAAF specifications and requirements when in fact manufacturing requirements were as stringent for gliders as for power planes. The Wright Field engineer who was CG-4A project manager (and PGs and XCG-10 and CG-14 and CG-18) told me that most of the variations or changes in CG-4A production were approved for specific manufacturers to facilitate their production.