CG-4A, XCG-16, Snatch, glider pilots, Dreamflight
Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:26 am
"Listen up guys, what you are going to do tonight ....".
"Nothing is Impossible"
If everyone gets behind the Dreamflight CG-4A project and pushes, it will succeed!
Airnutz, Get up to Lubbock in the next month or so while they have the "Wisconsin Flying Trees" exhibit. For example, a Wisconsin plywood manufacturer supplied plywood to several CG-4A manufacturers, to England for the Mosquito and to H. Hughes for the Spruce Goose.
Book to read, "Silent Ones WWII Invasion Glider Test & Experiment CCAAF Wilmington Ohio. Lots of big pictures on non-glare paper. Printed in the US by Americans.
Read up guys!
I would like to correct some myths, half-truths and incorrect information:
CG-4A glider wingspan was 4" shy of 84', not 73'.
In combat the pilots had to fight with the troops, however, they were instructed to find their way to their assigned assembly area as soon as possible from which they were transported back to base. There was generally no safety in the glider after it landed because the Germans liked to shoot at things like that, so most got away from it ASAP. Many U.S. GP's are known to have done a bit of sight seeing and diversionary meandering in route to finding their assigned assembly area.
Most US GP's had MORE than 80 hours of flight training.
Damage to CG-4A gliders on landing depended on what it hit. Knocking off the wings or landing gear did not necessarily damaged the cargo section or the cargo. Many gliders that landed in flyable condition were destroyed by locals and combat troops who removed canvas, wheels, etc. There were more than 450 CG-4A gliders recovered by snatching from LZ's in Europe, Burma and Philippines. There were hundreds prepared for snatching from Holland that could not be snatched because they became mired in mud. Also, the flight path of recovery planes had to be altered because of combat, causing recoveries to take longer.
The CG-4A was NOT designed as a one-trip aircraft. It was considered as one-trip only by theater officers, troops and locals. By design, it was not intended to be stripped and destroyed after it landed.
The snatch of the CG-4A glider required the model 80 winch which was rated at 8,000 lb capacity. The next smaller, Model 40 winch was not heavy enough. The secret to the snatch was this winch, NOT the nylon tow line. The winch was a giant fishing reel. Elapsed time from when the hook hit the line to the time the glider was flying the same speed as the snatch plane was right at 7 seconds. During this time, depending on the weight of the glider and the settings of the winch dogs, 600 feet or more steel cable would payout from the winch. The G forces on the glider and occupants was slightly less than 7/10 of one G. The stretch of the nylon line helped, but was not the success of a snatch. Matter of fact, the snatch line was 125 feet shorter than the normal tow line which effectively eliminated a minimum of 38 feet of "stretch" compared with the normal tow line.
Training CG-4A gliders were not stronger than the production for combat. Some training landings and flights revealed "deficiencies" in the design. For example, many of the gliders were "dropped-in" from heights of 30 feet or higher when landing. This caused/required the wheel struts to be reinforced. The Cessna contract was rushed in order to get CG-4A to training and many of these gliders did not have a reputation of being top quality.
Original CG-4A design called for skids for landing. Wheels were drop off type and were designed only for take off use for training. The decision to install permanent wheel carriage with brakes may have been the result of Generals Ridgway and Swing being ordered to jump from an XCG-4 after it touched down at Wright Field. The GP ordered them out as he thought the brake-less, wheeled glider was going to hit a power plane on the runway.
Most of the plywood on the CG-4A wings was 3/32". All surfaces were covered with fabric, doped and painted. There are no compound curves in the steel tube of the CG-4A excepting one tube on the back of each pilot seat. All other tube is straight. In the beginning the fuselage tail had curvature, but that was quickly changed, with the curves made by wood.
Richard duPont's glider snatch demonstrations were done with two aircraft (not a double snatch); a Piper with prop removed and a soaring glider.
In the beginninig, the MC-1 was not a contract with the Army Air Force. It was a private job being developed "as a commercially viable aircraft in order that they could then be contracted through the Commerce Department rather than the AAF simply because Wright Field had turned down the plans and design in December of 1942. When the MC-1 crashed, it was at the start of a trip to Washington, DC. to sell it to Congress, not the AAF.
There were four passenger plus two pilots when it crashed. Three jumped, two lived, one died. According to the C-60 tug pilot, the prop-wash had nothing to do with the crash. When the MC-1 tried to cut loose, the tow release did not open. The porposing apparently was caused by the glider pilot trying to force a release. This action quickly forced the tail of the tug up so the tug pilot said he was looking straight down at the ground. The release finally let go and the glider went into a spin. Unfortunately for those killed in the crash, when Wright Field engineers turned down the design in 1942, they also suggested the tow release be redesigned as they felt it to be prone to malfunction.
The CG-4A being restored at Yanks is one of 580 NW 1944-45 production articles built with a "paper" floor. Yes, these gliders could still carry a Jeep. The "paper" material was developed in Wisconsin and came into war production in late 1943. Besides glider floors, radio boxes, ammunition boxes, instrument panels and other products were made from the "paper"material. It was stronger than plywood, did not splinter when punctured, did not sustain a flame and was more water and moisture resistant than plywood. Currently a small group is working on exactly reproducing this material for the Yanks CG-4A floor.
"Nothing is Impossible"
If everyone gets behind the Dreamflight CG-4A project and pushes, it will succeed!
Airnutz, Get up to Lubbock in the next month or so while they have the "Wisconsin Flying Trees" exhibit. For example, a Wisconsin plywood manufacturer supplied plywood to several CG-4A manufacturers, to England for the Mosquito and to H. Hughes for the Spruce Goose.
Book to read, "Silent Ones WWII Invasion Glider Test & Experiment CCAAF Wilmington Ohio. Lots of big pictures on non-glare paper. Printed in the US by Americans.
Read up guys!
I would like to correct some myths, half-truths and incorrect information:
CG-4A glider wingspan was 4" shy of 84', not 73'.
In combat the pilots had to fight with the troops, however, they were instructed to find their way to their assigned assembly area as soon as possible from which they were transported back to base. There was generally no safety in the glider after it landed because the Germans liked to shoot at things like that, so most got away from it ASAP. Many U.S. GP's are known to have done a bit of sight seeing and diversionary meandering in route to finding their assigned assembly area.
Most US GP's had MORE than 80 hours of flight training.
Damage to CG-4A gliders on landing depended on what it hit. Knocking off the wings or landing gear did not necessarily damaged the cargo section or the cargo. Many gliders that landed in flyable condition were destroyed by locals and combat troops who removed canvas, wheels, etc. There were more than 450 CG-4A gliders recovered by snatching from LZ's in Europe, Burma and Philippines. There were hundreds prepared for snatching from Holland that could not be snatched because they became mired in mud. Also, the flight path of recovery planes had to be altered because of combat, causing recoveries to take longer.
The CG-4A was NOT designed as a one-trip aircraft. It was considered as one-trip only by theater officers, troops and locals. By design, it was not intended to be stripped and destroyed after it landed.
The snatch of the CG-4A glider required the model 80 winch which was rated at 8,000 lb capacity. The next smaller, Model 40 winch was not heavy enough. The secret to the snatch was this winch, NOT the nylon tow line. The winch was a giant fishing reel. Elapsed time from when the hook hit the line to the time the glider was flying the same speed as the snatch plane was right at 7 seconds. During this time, depending on the weight of the glider and the settings of the winch dogs, 600 feet or more steel cable would payout from the winch. The G forces on the glider and occupants was slightly less than 7/10 of one G. The stretch of the nylon line helped, but was not the success of a snatch. Matter of fact, the snatch line was 125 feet shorter than the normal tow line which effectively eliminated a minimum of 38 feet of "stretch" compared with the normal tow line.
Training CG-4A gliders were not stronger than the production for combat. Some training landings and flights revealed "deficiencies" in the design. For example, many of the gliders were "dropped-in" from heights of 30 feet or higher when landing. This caused/required the wheel struts to be reinforced. The Cessna contract was rushed in order to get CG-4A to training and many of these gliders did not have a reputation of being top quality.
Original CG-4A design called for skids for landing. Wheels were drop off type and were designed only for take off use for training. The decision to install permanent wheel carriage with brakes may have been the result of Generals Ridgway and Swing being ordered to jump from an XCG-4 after it touched down at Wright Field. The GP ordered them out as he thought the brake-less, wheeled glider was going to hit a power plane on the runway.
Most of the plywood on the CG-4A wings was 3/32". All surfaces were covered with fabric, doped and painted. There are no compound curves in the steel tube of the CG-4A excepting one tube on the back of each pilot seat. All other tube is straight. In the beginning the fuselage tail had curvature, but that was quickly changed, with the curves made by wood.
Richard duPont's glider snatch demonstrations were done with two aircraft (not a double snatch); a Piper with prop removed and a soaring glider.
In the beginninig, the MC-1 was not a contract with the Army Air Force. It was a private job being developed "as a commercially viable aircraft in order that they could then be contracted through the Commerce Department rather than the AAF simply because Wright Field had turned down the plans and design in December of 1942. When the MC-1 crashed, it was at the start of a trip to Washington, DC. to sell it to Congress, not the AAF.
There were four passenger plus two pilots when it crashed. Three jumped, two lived, one died. According to the C-60 tug pilot, the prop-wash had nothing to do with the crash. When the MC-1 tried to cut loose, the tow release did not open. The porposing apparently was caused by the glider pilot trying to force a release. This action quickly forced the tail of the tug up so the tug pilot said he was looking straight down at the ground. The release finally let go and the glider went into a spin. Unfortunately for those killed in the crash, when Wright Field engineers turned down the design in 1942, they also suggested the tow release be redesigned as they felt it to be prone to malfunction.
The CG-4A being restored at Yanks is one of 580 NW 1944-45 production articles built with a "paper" floor. Yes, these gliders could still carry a Jeep. The "paper" material was developed in Wisconsin and came into war production in late 1943. Besides glider floors, radio boxes, ammunition boxes, instrument panels and other products were made from the "paper"material. It was stronger than plywood, did not splinter when punctured, did not sustain a flame and was more water and moisture resistant than plywood. Currently a small group is working on exactly reproducing this material for the Yanks CG-4A floor.
CG-4A, XCG-16, Snatch, glider pilots, Dreamflight
Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:28 am
"Listen up guys, what you are going to do tonight ....".
"Nothing is Impossible"
If everyone gets behind the Dreamflight CG-4A project and pushes, it will succeed!
Airnutz, Get up to Lubbock in the next month or so while they have the "Wisconsin Flying Trees" exhibit. For example, a Wisconsin plywood manufacturer supplied plywood to several CG-4A manufacturers, to England for the Mosquito and to H. Hughes for the Spruce Goose.
Book to read, "Silent Ones WWII Invasion Glider Test & Experiment CCAAF Wilmington Ohio. Lots of big pictures on non-glare paper. Printed in the US by Americans.
Read up guys!
I would like to correct some myths, half-truths and incorrect information:
CG-4A glider wingspan was 4" shy of 84', not 73'.
In combat the pilots had to fight with the troops, however, they were instructed to find their way to their assigned assembly area as soon as possible from which they were transported back to base. There was generally no safety in the glider after it landed because the Germans liked to shoot at things like that, so most got away from it ASAP. Many U.S. GP's are known to have done a bit of sight seeing and diversionary meandering in route to finding their assigned assembly area.
Most US GP's had MORE than 80 hours of flight training.
Damage to CG-4A gliders on landing depended on what it hit. Knocking off the wings or landing gear did not necessarily damaged the cargo section or the cargo. Many gliders that landed in flyable condition were destroyed by locals and combat troops who removed canvas, wheels, etc. There were more than 450 CG-4A gliders recovered by snatching from LZ's in Europe, Burma and Philippines. There were hundreds prepared for snatching from Holland that could not be snatched because they became mired in mud. Also, the flight path of recovery planes had to be altered because of combat, causing recoveries to take longer.
The CG-4A was NOT designed as a one-trip aircraft. It was considered as one-trip only by theater officers, troops and locals. By design, it was not intended to be stripped and destroyed after it landed.
The snatch of the CG-4A glider required the model 80 winch which was rated at 8,000 lb capacity. The next smaller, Model 40 winch was not heavy enough. The secret to the snatch was this winch, NOT the nylon tow line. The winch was a giant fishing reel. Elapsed time from when the hook hit the line to the time the glider was flying the same speed as the snatch plane was right at 7 seconds. During this time, depending on the weight of the glider and the settings of the winch dogs, 600 feet or more steel cable would payout from the winch. The G forces on the glider and occupants was slightly less than 7/10 of one G. The stretch of the nylon line helped, but was not the success of a snatch. Matter of fact, the snatch line was 125 feet shorter than the normal tow line which effectively eliminated a minimum of 38 feet of "stretch" compared with the normal tow line.
Training CG-4A gliders were not stronger than the production for combat. Some training landings and flights revealed "deficiencies" in the design. For example, many of the gliders were "dropped-in" from heights of 30 feet or higher when landing. This caused/required the wheel struts to be reinforced. The Cessna contract was rushed in order to get CG-4A to training and many of these gliders did not have a reputation of being top quality.
Original CG-4A design called for skids for landing. Wheels were drop off type and were designed only for take off use for training. The decision to install permanent wheel carriage with brakes may have been the result of Generals Ridgway and Swing being ordered to jump from an XCG-4 after it touched down at Wright Field. The GP ordered them out as he thought the brake-less, wheeled glider was going to hit a power plane on the runway.
Most of the plywood on the CG-4A wings was 3/32". All surfaces were covered with fabric, doped and painted. There are no compound curves in the steel tube of the CG-4A excepting one tube on the back of each pilot seat. All other tube is straight. In the beginning the fuselage tail had curvature, but that was quickly changed, with the curves made by wood.
Richard duPont's glider snatch demonstrations were done with two aircraft (not a double snatch); a Piper with prop removed and a soaring glider.
In the beginninig, the MC-1 was not a contract with the Army Air Force. It was a private job being developed "as a commercially viable aircraft in order that they could then be contracted through the Commerce Department rather than the AAF simply because Wright Field had turned down the plans and design in December of 1942. When the MC-1 crashed, it was at the start of a trip to Washington, DC. to sell it to Congress, not the AAF.
There were four passenger plus two pilots when it crashed. Three jumped, two lived, one died. According to the C-60 tug pilot, the prop-wash had nothing to do with the crash. When the MC-1 tried to cut loose, the tow release did not open. The porposing apparently was caused by the glider pilot trying to force a release. This action quickly forced the tail of the tug up so the tug pilot said he was looking straight down at the ground. The release finally let go and the glider went into a spin. Unfortunately for those killed in the crash, when Wright Field engineers turned down the design in 1942, they also suggested the tow release be redesigned as they felt it to be prone to malfunction.
The CG-4A being restored at Yanks is one of 580 NW 1944-45 production articles built with a "paper" floor. Yes, these gliders could still carry a Jeep. The "paper" material was developed in Wisconsin and came into war production in late 1943. Besides glider floors, radio boxes, ammunition boxes, instrument panels and other products were made from the "paper"material. It was stronger than plywood, did not splinter when punctured, did not sustain a flame and was more water and moisture resistant than plywood. Currently a small group is working on exactly reproducing this material for the Yanks CG-4A floor.
"Nothing is Impossible"
If everyone gets behind the Dreamflight CG-4A project and pushes, it will succeed!
Airnutz, Get up to Lubbock in the next month or so while they have the "Wisconsin Flying Trees" exhibit. For example, a Wisconsin plywood manufacturer supplied plywood to several CG-4A manufacturers, to England for the Mosquito and to H. Hughes for the Spruce Goose.
Book to read, "Silent Ones WWII Invasion Glider Test & Experiment CCAAF Wilmington Ohio. Lots of big pictures on non-glare paper. Printed in the US by Americans.
Read up guys!
I would like to correct some myths, half-truths and incorrect information:
CG-4A glider wingspan was 4" shy of 84', not 73'.
In combat the pilots had to fight with the troops, however, they were instructed to find their way to their assigned assembly area as soon as possible from which they were transported back to base. There was generally no safety in the glider after it landed because the Germans liked to shoot at things like that, so most got away from it ASAP. Many U.S. GP's are known to have done a bit of sight seeing and diversionary meandering in route to finding their assigned assembly area.
Most US GP's had MORE than 80 hours of flight training.
Damage to CG-4A gliders on landing depended on what it hit. Knocking off the wings or landing gear did not necessarily damaged the cargo section or the cargo. Many gliders that landed in flyable condition were destroyed by locals and combat troops who removed canvas, wheels, etc. There were more than 450 CG-4A gliders recovered by snatching from LZ's in Europe, Burma and Philippines. There were hundreds prepared for snatching from Holland that could not be snatched because they became mired in mud. Also, the flight path of recovery planes had to be altered because of combat, causing recoveries to take longer.
The CG-4A was NOT designed as a one-trip aircraft. It was considered as one-trip only by theater officers, troops and locals. By design, it was not intended to be stripped and destroyed after it landed.
The snatch of the CG-4A glider required the model 80 winch which was rated at 8,000 lb capacity. The next smaller, Model 40 winch was not heavy enough. The secret to the snatch was this winch, NOT the nylon tow line. The winch was a giant fishing reel. Elapsed time from when the hook hit the line to the time the glider was flying the same speed as the snatch plane was right at 7 seconds. During this time, depending on the weight of the glider and the settings of the winch dogs, 600 feet or more steel cable would payout from the winch. The G forces on the glider and occupants was slightly less than 7/10 of one G. The stretch of the nylon line helped, but was not the success of a snatch. Matter of fact, the snatch line was 125 feet shorter than the normal tow line which effectively eliminated a minimum of 38 feet of "stretch" compared with the normal tow line.
Training CG-4A gliders were not stronger than the production for combat. Some training landings and flights revealed "deficiencies" in the design. For example, many of the gliders were "dropped-in" from heights of 30 feet or higher when landing. This caused/required the wheel struts to be reinforced. The Cessna contract was rushed in order to get CG-4A to training and many of these gliders did not have a reputation of being top quality.
Original CG-4A design called for skids for landing. Wheels were drop off type and were designed only for take off use for training. The decision to install permanent wheel carriage with brakes may have been the result of Generals Ridgway and Swing being ordered to jump from an XCG-4 after it touched down at Wright Field. The GP ordered them out as he thought the brake-less, wheeled glider was going to hit a power plane on the runway.
Most of the plywood on the CG-4A wings was 3/32". All surfaces were covered with fabric, doped and painted. There are no compound curves in the steel tube of the CG-4A excepting one tube on the back of each pilot seat. All other tube is straight. In the beginning the fuselage tail had curvature, but that was quickly changed, with the curves made by wood.
Richard duPont's glider snatch demonstrations were done with two aircraft (not a double snatch); a Piper with prop removed and a soaring glider.
In the beginninig, the MC-1 was not a contract with the Army Air Force. It was a private job being developed "as a commercially viable aircraft in order that they could then be contracted through the Commerce Department rather than the AAF simply because Wright Field had turned down the plans and design in December of 1942. When the MC-1 crashed, it was at the start of a trip to Washington, DC. to sell it to Congress, not the AAF.
There were four passenger plus two pilots when it crashed. Three jumped, two lived, one died. According to the C-60 tug pilot, the prop-wash had nothing to do with the crash. When the MC-1 tried to cut loose, the tow release did not open. The porposing apparently was caused by the glider pilot trying to force a release. This action quickly forced the tail of the tug up so the tug pilot said he was looking straight down at the ground. The release finally let go and the glider went into a spin. Unfortunately for those killed in the crash, when Wright Field engineers turned down the design in 1942, they also suggested the tow release be redesigned as they felt it to be prone to malfunction.
The CG-4A being restored at Yanks is one of 580 NW 1944-45 production articles built with a "paper" floor. Yes, these gliders could still carry a Jeep. The "paper" material was developed in Wisconsin and came into war production in late 1943. Besides glider floors, radio boxes, ammunition boxes, instrument panels and other products were made from the "paper"material. It was stronger than plywood, did not splinter when punctured, did not sustain a flame and was more water and moisture resistant than plywood. Currently a small group is working on exactly reproducing this material for the Yanks CG-4A floor.
Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:54 pm
most informative info!! i wasn't aware that the glider was re-usable!!!
Re: CG-4A, XCG-16, Snatch, glider pilots, Dreamflight
Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:39 am
gliderman1 wrote:"Listen up guys, what you are going to do tonight ....".
"Nothing is Impossible"
If everyone gets behind the Dreamflight CG-4A project and pushes, it will succeed!
Airnutz, Get up to Lubbock in the next month or so while they have the "Wisconsin Flying Trees" exhibit. For example, a Wisconsin plywood manufacturer supplied plywood to several CG-4A manufacturers, to England for the Mosquito and to H. Hughes for the Spruce Goose.
Book to read, "Silent Ones WWII Invasion Glider Test & Experiment CCAAF Wilmington Ohio. Lots of big pictures on non-glare paper. Printed in the US by Americans.
Read up guys!
I would like to correct some myths, half-truths and incorrect information:
CG-4A glider wingspan was 4" shy of 84', not 73'.
In combat the pilots had to fight with the troops, however, they were instructed to find their way to their assigned assembly area as soon as possible from which they were transported back to base. There was generally no safety in the glider after it landed because the Germans liked to shoot at things like that, so most got away from it ASAP. Many U.S. GP's are known to have done a bit of sight seeing and diversionary meandering in route to finding their assigned assembly area.
Most US GP's had MORE than 80 hours of flight training.
Damage to CG-4A gliders on landing depended on what it hit. Knocking off the wings or landing gear did not necessarily damaged the cargo section or the cargo. Many gliders that landed in flyable condition were destroyed by locals and combat troops who removed canvas, wheels, etc. There were more than 450 CG-4A gliders recovered by snatching from LZ's in Europe, Burma and Philippines. There were hundreds prepared for snatching from Holland that could not be snatched because they became mired in mud. Also, the flight path of recovery planes had to be altered because of combat, causing recoveries to take longer.
The CG-4A was NOT designed as a one-trip aircraft. It was considered as one-trip only by theater officers, troops and locals. By design, it was not intended to be stripped and destroyed after it landed.
The snatch of the CG-4A glider required the model 80 winch which was rated at 8,000 lb capacity. The next smaller, Model 40 winch was not heavy enough. The secret to the snatch was this winch, NOT the nylon tow line. The winch was a giant fishing reel. Elapsed time from when the hook hit the line to the time the glider was flying the same speed as the snatch plane was right at 7 seconds. During this time, depending on the weight of the glider and the settings of the winch dogs, 600 feet or more steel cable would payout from the winch. The G forces on the glider and occupants was slightly less than 7/10 of one G. The stretch of the nylon line helped, but was not the success of a snatch. Matter of fact, the snatch line was 125 feet shorter than the normal tow line which effectively eliminated a minimum of 38 feet of "stretch" compared with the normal tow line.
Training CG-4A gliders were not stronger than the production for combat. Some training landings and flights revealed "deficiencies" in the design. For example, many of the gliders were "dropped-in" from heights of 30 feet or higher when landing. This caused/required the wheel struts to be reinforced. The Cessna contract was rushed in order to get CG-4A to training and many of these gliders did not have a reputation of being top quality.
Original CG-4A design called for skids for landing. Wheels were drop off type and were designed only for take off use for training. The decision to install permanent wheel carriage with brakes may have been the result of Generals Ridgway and Swing being ordered to jump from an XCG-4 after it touched down at Wright Field. The GP ordered them out as he thought the brake-less, wheeled glider was going to hit a power plane on the runway.
Most of the plywood on the CG-4A wings was 3/32". All surfaces were covered with fabric, doped and painted. There are no compound curves in the steel tube of the CG-4A excepting one tube on the back of each pilot seat. All other tube is straight. In the beginning the fuselage tail had curvature, but that was quickly changed, with the curves made by wood.
Richard duPont's glider snatch demonstrations were done with two aircraft (not a double snatch); a Piper with prop removed and a soaring glider.
In the beginninig, the MC-1 was not a contract with the Army Air Force. It was a private job being developed "as a commercially viable aircraft in order that they could then be contracted through the Commerce Department rather than the AAF simply because Wright Field had turned down the plans and design in December of 1942. When the MC-1 crashed, it was at the start of a trip to Washington, DC. to sell it to Congress, not the AAF.
There were four passenger plus two pilots when it crashed. Three jumped, two lived, one died. According to the C-60 tug pilot, the prop-wash had nothing to do with the crash. When the MC-1 tried to cut loose, the tow release did not open. The porposing apparently was caused by the glider pilot trying to force a release. This action quickly forced the tail of the tug up so the tug pilot said he was looking straight down at the ground. The release finally let go and the glider went into a spin. Unfortunately for those killed in the crash, when Wright Field engineers turned down the design in 1942, they also suggested the tow release be redesigned as they felt it to be prone to malfunction.
The CG-4A being restored at Yanks is one of 580 NW 1944-45 production articles built with a "paper" floor. Yes, these gliders could still carry a Jeep. The "paper" material was developed in Wisconsin and came into war production in late 1943. Besides glider floors, radio boxes, ammunition boxes, instrument panels and other products were made from the "paper"material. It was stronger than plywood, did not splinter when punctured, did not sustain a flame and was more water and moisture resistant than plywood. Currently a small group is working on exactly reproducing this material for the Yanks CG-4A floor.
Kooool! Gliderman1 in the house!!! 2 questions? Got any pics of Dragon #39-028 other than the
'stock' snaps of her picking the CG-3?
#2....How far along are Dreamproject with their build??? Piccies please???
Thank you Suh...for the heads-up for 'Wisconsin Trees" exhibit, but Lubbock is quite a long haul.
I believe I might have to wait until the Fall showing in New Orleans..tho a road-trip is never out of the cards...
B-23, Dreamproject
Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:40 pm
#1... Got any pics of Dragon #39-028 other than the
'stock' snaps of her picking the CG-3?
#2....How far along are Dreamproject with their build??? Piccies please???
#1 - I have the "stock" pics of the pickups. I have not seen any full length shots of 39-028. Archives might have. I used one in Silent Ones with Lt. Cardenas (B.Gen., Ret.) standing in front of her, but you would have to know her to recognize her. I have not seen the AIC but understand she was sold off as excess in late 1945.
#2 - I do not know that any building has been done. Parts collection has begun. Send John an email and sign up. He is working on a new web site that will have images.
Question: What color scheme do you think should be used on that glider? The colors of the two XCG-4 or plain old olive drab and gray?
'stock' snaps of her picking the CG-3?
#2....How far along are Dreamproject with their build??? Piccies please???
#1 - I have the "stock" pics of the pickups. I have not seen any full length shots of 39-028. Archives might have. I used one in Silent Ones with Lt. Cardenas (B.Gen., Ret.) standing in front of her, but you would have to know her to recognize her. I have not seen the AIC but understand she was sold off as excess in late 1945.
#2 - I do not know that any building has been done. Parts collection has begun. Send John an email and sign up. He is working on a new web site that will have images.
Question: What color scheme do you think should be used on that glider? The colors of the two XCG-4 or plain old olive drab and gray?
Re: B-23, Dreamproject
Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:34 pm
gliderman1 wrote:#1... Got any pics of Dragon #39-028 other than the
'stock' snaps of her picking the CG-3?
#2....How far along are Dreamproject with their build??? Piccies please???
#1 - I have the "stock" pics of the pickups. I have not seen any full length shots of 39-028. Archives might have. I used one in Silent Ones with Lt. Cardenas (B.Gen., Ret.) standing in front of her, but you would have to know her to recognize her. I have not seen the AIC but understand she was sold off as excess in late 1945.
#2 - I do not know that any building has been done. Parts collection has begun. Send John an email and sign up. He is working on a new web site that will have images.
Question: What color scheme do you think should be used on that glider? The colors of the two XCG-4 or plain old olive drab and gray?
Ahh, Thank you for the info. We have a list of B-23 survivors floating around here and
39-028 is the one which is maintained on the list but she's been unconfirmed as
a survivor. The Lorenair bird was last seen in Florida in the late 70's or early 80's.
For various reasons I've been meaning to buy your book, but the B-23 ID was
a biggy. I only learned recently on another forum from you that the 'snatch' test bird and
-028 Lorenair were one in the same.
Yep..understand the Dreamflight project will soon have a website and they'll e-mail updates until the
site happens.
Apologies for not replying to your response, my employer had other plans for me the past
coupla' days and rainwater in phone lines have been a pain as well.
Well,
I got him shipped of to Perth and the cold front is here and the lines are dry(er), so I'll continue some tonight.
Your in one of the right places to be, there are many talented Pros 'round the WIX who will certainly be
of aid to the Dreamflight project. The fellow posting as Forgotten Field(and others) is big into vintage military aircraft parts
schtuff..maybe he(or they) could help them track-down or knows someone who may have a lead
on the Model 40, 80,120, or 160 snatch winch they're seeking? The heavier duty, the better
as I understand of their request?
Last edited by airnutz on Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: B-23, Dreamproject
Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:41 pm
gliderman1 wrote:Question: What color scheme do you think should be used on that glider? The colors of the two XCG-4 or plain old olive drab and gray?
Well since she's being debuted in France to honor those on D-Day then she would
have her greatest impact and meaning in her combat uniform...plain old OD and Gray,
with invasion stripes of course...tarts her up quite nicely!
Paint ain't forever tho..
snatch winch
Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:28 am
schtuff..maybe he(or they) could help them track-down or knows someone who may have a lead
on the Model 40, 80,120, or 160 snatch winch they're seeking? The heavier duty, the better
as I understand of their request?
==========
I am not an engineer but my understanding of the winch designs is that the heavier the better would NOT necessarily be better. The model 80 was tested up to 9,000 lbs. snatching an empty YCG-13A. Also, there may not have been more than a handful of the larger winches built. Half of the model 80's installed in C-47's that arrived in England were "ripped" out on the order of of an unnamed higher rank TC command officer. Attempts to operate several winches were made by untrained crew who allowed all the cable to be pulled completely off the winch (in flight). Those winches were reportedly removed and set aside. What with the penchant of the Brits to save stuff, there should be several of these winches still setting about somewhere in England.
on the Model 40, 80,120, or 160 snatch winch they're seeking? The heavier duty, the better
as I understand of their request?
==========
I am not an engineer but my understanding of the winch designs is that the heavier the better would NOT necessarily be better. The model 80 was tested up to 9,000 lbs. snatching an empty YCG-13A. Also, there may not have been more than a handful of the larger winches built. Half of the model 80's installed in C-47's that arrived in England were "ripped" out on the order of of an unnamed higher rank TC command officer. Attempts to operate several winches were made by untrained crew who allowed all the cable to be pulled completely off the winch (in flight). Those winches were reportedly removed and set aside. What with the penchant of the Brits to save stuff, there should be several of these winches still setting about somewhere in England.
Re: snatch winch
Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:14 am
gliderman1 wrote:schtuff..maybe he(or they) could help them track-down or knows someone who may have a lead
on the Model 40, 80,120, or 160 snatch winch they're seeking? The heavier duty, the better
as I understand of their request?
==========
I am not an engineer but my understanding of the winch designs is that the heavier the better would NOT necessarily be better. What with the penchant of the Brits to save stuff, there should be several of these winches still setting about somewhere in England.
I tend to agree with you..the Model 80 is more than adequate for the 'lightloaded' CG-4A..as I
alluded to earlier, in the birds demo snatches she'll never have to endure the
stresses of a 4000# payload on the airframe...
True..gotta love the Brits..the planets most AbFab Pack Rats...
Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:48 am
Now, I think that it would be cool to follow up the Glider Snatch, with a Sky-Hook Snatch using a YB-17 with the sound track from Thunderball blaring across the flight line
sky hook snatch
Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:32 am
"follow up the Glider Snatch, with a Sky-Hook Snatch using a YB-17"
Although the model 80 and the 130 mph minimum tug speed was not suggested for the human snatch, it could be done without having to switch to the Fulton sky hook snatch as long as you could find a willing pigeon.
The model 15 winch was used for the first human snatch in Sept 1943 and that basically same winch was in the helicopters that were to retrieve the Mars craft a couple years ago. Get one of those winches and install it into something with a few hundred hp and do an authentic WWII human snatch.
Although the model 80 and the 130 mph minimum tug speed was not suggested for the human snatch, it could be done without having to switch to the Fulton sky hook snatch as long as you could find a willing pigeon.
The model 15 winch was used for the first human snatch in Sept 1943 and that basically same winch was in the helicopters that were to retrieve the Mars craft a couple years ago. Get one of those winches and install it into something with a few hundred hp and do an authentic WWII human snatch.
Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:29 pm
How about the B-17 that was used in the snatch in Thunderball.
B-17 that was used in the snatch in Thunderball.
Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:08 pm
The Thunderball snatch plane was a special C-130 not a B-17. However, somewhere in a desert situation there were some B-17 snatches done in the late 1940's whcih did not involve a winch system.
The Thunderball movie used the Fulton system. Balloon raised a line vertically from the ground. C-130 had a big steel tube yoke out front to channel and snag the line. There was other tubing to keep the line out of the props.
This system replaced the first human snatch system which used two poles to support the line to be hooked onto. In this system the snatch plane had have a clear flight path into and away from the pickup station, flying as low as 15-18 feet to contact the pickup line. Fulton allowed the snatch plane to fly several hundred feet above ground to contact the line.
The Thunderball movie used the Fulton system. Balloon raised a line vertically from the ground. C-130 had a big steel tube yoke out front to channel and snag the line. There was other tubing to keep the line out of the props.
This system replaced the first human snatch system which used two poles to support the line to be hooked onto. In this system the snatch plane had have a clear flight path into and away from the pickup station, flying as low as 15-18 feet to contact the pickup line. Fulton allowed the snatch plane to fly several hundred feet above ground to contact the line.
B-17 that was used in the snatch in Thunderball.
Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:10 pm
The Thunderball snatch plane was a special C-130 not a B-17. However, somewhere in a desert situation there were some B-17 snatches done in the late 1940's whcih did not involve a winch system.
The Thunderball movie used the Fulton system. Balloon raised a line vertically from the ground. C-130 had a big steel tube yoke out front to channel and snag the line. There was other tubing to keep the line out of the props.
This system replaced the first human snatch system which used two poles to support the line to be hooked onto. In this system the snatch plane had have a clear flight path into and away from the pickup station, flying as low as 15-18 feet to contact the pickup line. Fulton allowed the snatch plane to fly several hundred feet above ground to contact the line.
The Thunderball movie used the Fulton system. Balloon raised a line vertically from the ground. C-130 had a big steel tube yoke out front to channel and snag the line. There was other tubing to keep the line out of the props.
This system replaced the first human snatch system which used two poles to support the line to be hooked onto. In this system the snatch plane had have a clear flight path into and away from the pickup station, flying as low as 15-18 feet to contact the pickup line. Fulton allowed the snatch plane to fly several hundred feet above ground to contact the line.
Re: B-17 that was used in the snatch in Thunderball.
Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:30 pm
gliderman1 wrote:The Thunderball snatch plane was a special C-130 not a B-17.
Funny looking C-130! First one I've ever seen with 4 round engines.
I think you'll find that it was the B-17 now with Evergreen.