Waco CG-4 Restored to Flying Status
Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:21 pm
In research on my cockpit, I have found rumors of two CG-4's being restored to fly. Can anybody give contacts for these projects?
Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:25 pm
Probably will never happen. In the 1970's the CAF had a "hope" of getting one restored to airworthy when they were optimistically trying to get "one of everything that flew in WWII" back in the air.
THey are a massive airplane, you could probably restore 2 or 3 Stearmans or a couple of Staggerwings for the effort to restore one CG-4A.
Most surviving examples were found abandoned outside womewhere and would need tons of new metal tubing, new spars cut, all new wood and a truck load of fabric and supplies. Not to mention an unbelievable amount of labor.
I saw one for the first time at Fort Campbell, Kentucky last year. You wouldn't believe how much drag the design has on it. Lots of landing gear struts, wing struts, blunt nose, etc that just scream "high sink rate at best glide speed."
My impression was that it was an incredibly dangerous idea. I've met a few wartime CG pilots and have never met one that ever wanted to have anything to do with aviation after the war!
THey are a massive airplane, you could probably restore 2 or 3 Stearmans or a couple of Staggerwings for the effort to restore one CG-4A.
Most surviving examples were found abandoned outside womewhere and would need tons of new metal tubing, new spars cut, all new wood and a truck load of fabric and supplies. Not to mention an unbelievable amount of labor.
I saw one for the first time at Fort Campbell, Kentucky last year. You wouldn't believe how much drag the design has on it. Lots of landing gear struts, wing struts, blunt nose, etc that just scream "high sink rate at best glide speed."
My impression was that it was an incredibly dangerous idea. I've met a few wartime CG pilots and have never met one that ever wanted to have anything to do with aviation after the war!
Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:32 pm
Hey John,
I've often wondered this myself and would love to see one of the gliders flying again but like Marine Air pointed out...they can be dangerous even under the best conditions.
I know they are restoring one up here in North Central Wisconson at the local airport in Wausau, WI. Once it's complete the plan is to put it on display in a museum somewhere up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I remember reading an article about the restoration in the local paper and the fact that it had been used as a primitive deer hunting shack in the woods before being rescued by a group of guys.
John
I've often wondered this myself and would love to see one of the gliders flying again but like Marine Air pointed out...they can be dangerous even under the best conditions.
I know they are restoring one up here in North Central Wisconson at the local airport in Wausau, WI. Once it's complete the plan is to put it on display in a museum somewhere up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. I remember reading an article about the restoration in the local paper and the fact that it had been used as a primitive deer hunting shack in the woods before being rescued by a group of guys.
John
Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:59 pm
I think a couple of them have been or are being restored to high standards, the Kalamazoo Air Museum's is one that comes to mind.
IF you had one restored to airworthy standards, a safer way to "fly it" would be to do an auto type launch behind some sort of powerful truck. You could get 40 or 50 feet and bring it back down while still connected or the pilot could release and glide back down on the remaining runway.
We do this in glider training when simulating a rope break on takeoff. Even if you just stayed a few feet off the ground in tow it would give an opportunity to safely fly a CG-4 for a few moments.
IF you had one restored to airworthy standards, a safer way to "fly it" would be to do an auto type launch behind some sort of powerful truck. You could get 40 or 50 feet and bring it back down while still connected or the pilot could release and glide back down on the remaining runway.
We do this in glider training when simulating a rope break on takeoff. Even if you just stayed a few feet off the ground in tow it would give an opportunity to safely fly a CG-4 for a few moments.
Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:30 pm
The Kalamazoo Air Zoo's CG-4A is one of those recovered from thje Upper Penninsula (I used to be a docent at the museum) From what I understand, when the plant in Greenville (north of Grand Rapids) shut down at the end of the war, everything was sold off surplus. Area farmers bought up all the wood and metal components (the museum found a set of wing spars used as barn rafters.)
Many complete gliders were purchased just for their shipping crates..you could sell the lumber from the crate for more than you paid for the glider! Some were purchased and shipped to the U.P., where the crates were turned into hunting cabins, and the gliders left to rot (although I'm sure the wings made great firefwood!) By the time the glider was recovered in the late '80s, nothing was left by the steel skeleton of the fuselage.
As for flying a CG-4A, I also heard a museum out west somewhere wanted to, but the really hard part was how to get it up there. The towing gear has long since been stripped out of the surviving C-47s, and they couldn't find the equipment or the drawings to make it.
Personally, I don't think it would be a good idea to fly one..they were basically a winged box, and considered disposable. Like military parachutes, they were designed to get men and equipment on the ground as quickly as possible without killing them. On combat missions, the landing gear would normally be jettisoned, and they'd land on the skids. I once read that pilots were told to steer between a couple of trees on landing and shear the wings off, to stop faster (as long as it's still moving, it's a target!)
Cheers!
Steve
Many complete gliders were purchased just for their shipping crates..you could sell the lumber from the crate for more than you paid for the glider! Some were purchased and shipped to the U.P., where the crates were turned into hunting cabins, and the gliders left to rot (although I'm sure the wings made great firefwood!) By the time the glider was recovered in the late '80s, nothing was left by the steel skeleton of the fuselage.
As for flying a CG-4A, I also heard a museum out west somewhere wanted to, but the really hard part was how to get it up there. The towing gear has long since been stripped out of the surviving C-47s, and they couldn't find the equipment or the drawings to make it.
Personally, I don't think it would be a good idea to fly one..they were basically a winged box, and considered disposable. Like military parachutes, they were designed to get men and equipment on the ground as quickly as possible without killing them. On combat missions, the landing gear would normally be jettisoned, and they'd land on the skids. I once read that pilots were told to steer between a couple of trees on landing and shear the wings off, to stop faster (as long as it's still moving, it's a target!)
Cheers!
Steve
Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:33 pm
Hey Steve,
Why don't you come in any more?
Why don't you come in any more?
Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:31 am
Well, I was only doing it on Saturdays, and anymore it seems like I've always got something going on. Probably something to do with getting one of those "girlfreind" thingies. 
I suppose if I'd just marry her, then she'd be trying to find excuses to get me out of the house.
Also, on a more personal note, I'm really not wild about the whole "Info-tainment" concept. I really couldn't care less about the kiddie carnival rides and simulators. I understand it was necessary to go in that direction in order to keep the doors open, but it seems like the airplanes have simply become window dressing..something that just gets in the way of the "fun" stuff.
I do plan to stop in next weekend for Open Cockpits!
SN
I suppose if I'd just marry her, then she'd be trying to find excuses to get me out of the house.
Also, on a more personal note, I'm really not wild about the whole "Info-tainment" concept. I really couldn't care less about the kiddie carnival rides and simulators. I understand it was necessary to go in that direction in order to keep the doors open, but it seems like the airplanes have simply become window dressing..something that just gets in the way of the "fun" stuff.
I do plan to stop in next weekend for Open Cockpits!
SN
Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:19 am
FYI, that doesn't work.Steve Nelson wrote: I suppose if I'd just marry her, then she'd be trying to find excuses to get me out of the house.
Some interesting findings in my initial research on CG-4
Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:29 am
1. They were nice to fly. I have to qualify the next statement- those who I have spoken to and who had more than the minimal experience with training thought they flew pretty good and were a stable aircraft. I know what the pop culture take is on this one- they were death traps in public opinion. But after talking with some of the Glider Pilots, I think it was more the lack of experience, the deployment in the middle of the MOONLESS night, the Hedgerows, towplanes releasing them out at sea, and the small arms and large calibre reception that made them "death traps." Even after the initial experiences in Sicily and France, they were a major consideration for Operations Olympic and Coronet, because the casualties were going to be lower than the beach landings due to the Japanese defense.
2. Waco did not design or build junk before the war, and I doubt that they would purposefully set out to design and build junk (their major contribution to the war) with their post war reputation riding on the line (post war success notwithstanding). They were forced by the needs of the service to license out the aircraft to 15 other manufacturers and hence 100's more further subcontractors. There is a very famous photo of a glider carrying the dignitaries aboard including the mayor of St Louis and Richard DuPont to their deaths. On subsequent examination, parts found on the aircraft had been rejected for use by one inspector (Jack Laister) and used anyway by another manufacturer. There was a thorough re-examination of the program, and they didn't stop until almost 15,000 were built.
3. There are none flying, and I figured that would be an impetus for SOMEBODY! So who's up for building 83 feet of ribs and a HUGE spar?
And who wants to be my co-pilot? It weighs about 4000# at minimum takeoff weight (you have to ballast with minimum aircrew of two) and has 820 square feet of wing area. So it weighs what a T-6 does with 4 times the wing area. I am told that when you deploy the spoilers, it just STOPS! It just sounds like FUN!
2. Waco did not design or build junk before the war, and I doubt that they would purposefully set out to design and build junk (their major contribution to the war) with their post war reputation riding on the line (post war success notwithstanding). They were forced by the needs of the service to license out the aircraft to 15 other manufacturers and hence 100's more further subcontractors. There is a very famous photo of a glider carrying the dignitaries aboard including the mayor of St Louis and Richard DuPont to their deaths. On subsequent examination, parts found on the aircraft had been rejected for use by one inspector (Jack Laister) and used anyway by another manufacturer. There was a thorough re-examination of the program, and they didn't stop until almost 15,000 were built.
3. There are none flying, and I figured that would be an impetus for SOMEBODY! So who's up for building 83 feet of ribs and a HUGE spar?
And who wants to be my co-pilot? It weighs about 4000# at minimum takeoff weight (you have to ballast with minimum aircrew of two) and has 820 square feet of wing area. So it weighs what a T-6 does with 4 times the wing area. I am told that when you deploy the spoilers, it just STOPS! It just sounds like FUN!
Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:27 am
I hope I didn't give the impression that the gliders were "junk." Quite the contrary..as I watched the Air Zoo restore theirs (which required scratchbuilding the wings) I was amazed at the detail that went into what the Army considered a "disposable" aircraft. The Air Zoo had the fuselage on display for awhile before they covered it..I always thought they should have left one side either uncovered, or maybe covered with clear mylar. It seemed a shame to cover up all that incredible workmanship.
As for pilot experience and training making a difference, you are absolutely correct! I remember talking with the guy (his name escapes me) who flew that reproduction Gee Bee on the airshow circuit back in the '90s. That's another airplane widely regarded as a "death trap," but the pilot told me that it was mainly due to the fact that it was cutting edge technology at the time, and very unforgiving. It was a more than most pilots of the day could handle, and they were flying it on the very edge of the envelope. He said he had more hours in the type than any of the pilots of the '30s, and had no problems with it at all.
SN
As for pilot experience and training making a difference, you are absolutely correct! I remember talking with the guy (his name escapes me) who flew that reproduction Gee Bee on the airshow circuit back in the '90s. That's another airplane widely regarded as a "death trap," but the pilot told me that it was mainly due to the fact that it was cutting edge technology at the time, and very unforgiving. It was a more than most pilots of the day could handle, and they were flying it on the very edge of the envelope. He said he had more hours in the type than any of the pilots of the '30s, and had no problems with it at all.
SN
Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:02 am
there is a guy just south of me restoring a cockpit section, i'll have to dig for his address, & i'll pm it to you
Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:37 am
Hi Steve,
You've just got to tell that girlfriend that some things are more important...your public needs you!
I understand about the info-tainment thing...lots of us feel the same way. My approach is to concentrate on the people who do want to know about the aircraft and history, and just let the 'riders' enjoy themselves. To each, his/her own.
John
You've just got to tell that girlfriend that some things are more important...your public needs you!
I understand about the info-tainment thing...lots of us feel the same way. My approach is to concentrate on the people who do want to know about the aircraft and history, and just let the 'riders' enjoy themselves. To each, his/her own.
John
Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:15 am
I got a behind the ropes tour of the Yanks museum at Chino seven or eight years ago. They were restoring a Waco at that time. The spars were cut up, but of HUGE section. Has progress come to a halt?
We had a very close friend of the family that had been a con man before and glider pilot during the war. After the war he changed his ways and became a minister.
We had a very close friend of the family that had been a con man before and glider pilot during the war. After the war he changed his ways and became a minister.
GB
Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:17 pm
Steve, Delmar Benjamin is the pilot of the modern Gee Bee. He is increibly skilled and maybe a little more daring than most others would be. I, and many others are glad he is not flying the replica anymore, but it was a hell of an act. He is a nice guy, I expressed interest in his Beucker? at a show and he took me for a flight. He would not take payment and didn't ask for anything in return. How the H do you spell Buecker? It is an amazing handling airplane.