WWII gilder found at Ft. Benning

[Gregory]

Color me stupid, but weren't these made of plywood and fabric? A glider left out in the eastern environs unattended would last about as long as a waffle cone on a hot day. How long was this glider supposed to be out there before being found?

Between late WW1 and the end of interwar period your country did huge R&D effort (in the wood and chemical industries) to develop very effective chemicals and synthetic resins protecting wooden airframe against aggressive environment. Thanks to it for example the CG-4A cargo glider was a termite-proof aerial craft, whereas British Horsa was not. I would say the USA developed then the best chemicals for aviation industry, for both wooden elements and fabric. That was also the period when first aviation industry autoclaves in the world were activated and they were in the USA. Vast majority of people think that an autoclave and GRP are the technologies of around 1970s.

 

Wings were wood ribs covered with 3/16", 5 ply aircraft plywood covered with cotton aircraft fabric, doped and painted. Fuselage was several types of steel tubing covered with fabric doped and painted. Floor was 3/16" aircraft plywood, honeycomb (said to be several thousand pieces) center, sealed surfaces.

Have you ever seen honeycomb in the internal structure of the CG-4A floor?

[Cobrahistorian]

Guys,

 

Check out the Silent Wings Museum in Lubbock, TX. They've got a complete CG-4A, nose section of a CG-15A and plenty of other stuff for glider guys!

I haven't been there since 2005, but hope to be headed back in a few weeks. Great stuff!

 

Jon

[Sabrejet]

Back in the 80s I visited the late Charlie Mann's military museum in Cornwall. He was the guy who was responsible for the "mock-up" German vehicles used in A Bridge Too Far (also for Raiders of the Lost Ark) The glider fuselage section from Bridge.. was also there. Very well done as I recall. I've no idea if the museum still exists. If so, the "glider" might still be there?

[5thwingmarty]

A couple of years ago a CG-4A fuselage (tube frame) sold on ebay. Can't remember if the wings were there but I think the tail framing was there. It was only like $2000 but you had to go pick it up yourself. A friend of mine works at the little museum at the airport in Columbus, Indiana and I contacted him when I saw the listing to see if their museum might be interested. They did glider training there during WWII and they have a restored CG-4A cockpit on display. They didn't have room for a full glider and passed on it. Someone else snapped it up pretty quickly.

 

Marty

[gliderman1]

"Have you ever seen honeycomb in the internal structure of the CG-4A floor?"

 

Gregory, I have not seen a real flooor internal, but have photos showing the internal (honeycomb) construction of the plywood floor. As well have photos of the papreg floor, internal and external.

[Gregory]

"Have you ever seen honeycomb in the internal structure of the CG-4A floor?"

 

Gregory, I have not seen a real flooor internal, but have photos showing the internal (honeycomb) construction of the plywood floor. As well have photos of the papreg floor, internal and external.

Hello Charles,

 

Thank you very much for your reply.

 

Maybe am wrong, correct me if possible, but in my opinion somebody in the USA many years ago wrote about "honeycomb" applied in the CG-4A and this misunderstanding runs through decades in various publications.

 

Yes, of course, the honeycomb is WWII era (1943) American invention but it has never been in mass production during WWII to aply it in any aircraft or glider. When engineers Arthur M. Howald and Leonard S. Meyer invented in 1943 the honeycomb structure for airframe they had very big problems to set up production of that material. It was really big technological problem and WWII era honeycomb was hand-made product only manufactured in minimum quantity for the tests only in the AAF Wright Field Structures and Materials Laboratory. What is more, pioneer honeycomb of WWII was extremely fragile and delicate. It was not designed for floors in the aerial crafts, but for tail sections and their stabilizers only. Such a delicate material would be pressed immediately by jeep or pack howitzer on board of CG-4A.

 

Technological problems how to manufacture honeycomb in mass quantities for aviation industry were solved after WWII in 1945 when the CG-4As were no longer manufactured.

 

Best regards

 

Gregory

[gliderman1]

Gregory,

You are not incorrect but you may be overly exact on technicals similarly as with aluminum. Seventy years later, the man who was project engineer for the CG-4A at Wright Field refers to the floor as being honeycomb. I have no idea who or when that word began use to describe the floor, but that is what it has been called by novices, writers and those who were there, despite that it is not a true honeycomb structure. This all is despite that the design specs refrer to the internal floor construction as "transverse beams and longitudinal reinforcing webs". Perhaps is is because Honeycomb, which is in 9 letters, more descriptive and more easily understood by all than 45 letters in six words.

[124cav]

Hey chaps

 

Silly question and not exactly on topic

 

When did the US stop glider training?

[Gregory]

When did the US stop glider training?

Much too early. This is why aviation law was broken and CG-4As were piloted by single pilots without their co-pilots -- against all possible flight safety standards.

[gliderman1]

"When did the US stop glider training?"

 

US WWII Glider Pilot training basically stopped in January 1945 with class 45-3 at SPAAF Lubbock. However, there were power pilots trained as gldier pilots post war in 1946-47.

 

US Airborne troops glider training and glider use ended circa 1948-49.

 

US Glider Branch engineering/test/etc was shut at Wright Field in 1952.

 

For Market operation during WWII the CG-4A was classified as a single-pilot aircraft similarly to a single pilot fighter, thus no international law was broken and the was was ended sooner.

[Gregory]

Charles,

 

You are not incorrect but you may be overly exact on technicals similarly as with aluminum. Seventy years later, the man who was project engineer for the CG-4A at Wright Field refers to the floor as being honeycomb. I have no idea who or when that word began use to describe the floor, but that is what it has been called by novices, writers and those who were there, despite that it is not a true honeycomb structure. This all is despite that the design specs refrer to the internal floor construction as "transverse beams and longitudinal reinforcing webs". Perhaps is is because Honeycomb, which is in 9 letters, more descriptive and more easily understood by all than 45 letters in six words.

 

OK, thank you for an interesting comment.

 

But... this is aviation, aviation. No place in this field for popular language. Everything is important -- both glider pilots' bios and the technicalities, the more so that the readers love both personal stories and technical aspects. We do not tell that a glider is made of tree but of wood. Aviation duraluminum is duraluminum, not aluminum. The same goes for precise aviation term "honeycomb". Aviation honeycomb is aviation honeycomb, not a construction like from a couch or bridgelet, as it was in CG-4A floor. No unimportant matters in aviation. I know a case when fruit candy caused glider crash and also a case when a pencil caused similar glider crash.

 

 

For Market operation during WWII the CG-4A was classified as a single-pilot aircraft similarly to a single pilot fighter, thus no international law was broken and the was was ended sooner.

 

I write about the US law, not "international" one which does not concern WWII era USAAF.

 

If it is the truth then it is one more proof of the USAAF's manner of thinking about combat gliders, proof of the ETO-based US commanders' mentality, proof of violations of the US law, proof of arrogance against own GPs. In democratic system the armed forces do not constitute the law -- they keep the law only and full stop. Can you imagine that same day today's USAF tells something like "Oh, our CV-22 is not as big as C-130, the CV-22 is a secondary machine only, from now on we will be using our CV-22s as single-pilot aerial craft because it is enough for this plane"? Can you imagine it? It would be huge scandal and big affair for the JAG.

 

There is no difference between US WWII era aviation law and modern one. During WWII you had very good Air Regulations (official name) or aviation law whatever we call it. The USAAF GPs were taught US wartime aviation law common for both civil and military sectors of US aviation. During op. M-G paragraph 20.616 (on dual control aerial crafts) of the US Air Regulations did not disappear from the US law system. Your aviation law was militarized then and served for both CAA and War Training Service, which means it served for AAF GPs as well. Like in entire civilized world the US dual control aerial craft had to be piloted by two pilots, never by one. And full stop. Every mid-air collision between US CG-4As in op. M-G were caused by the USAAF, never by the Germans, and the US servicemen were killed in such cases by American hands, not German ones. Those collisions were caused by inadequate crews composed of single pilot without any support from their co-pilots -- against the US law. Why the British Horsas have never had such catastrophes?

 

Where was the law, where were elementary flight safety standards and logic additionally? When the Germans added co-pilot in the last versions of their miniature DFS 230 cargo gliders then the Americans withdrew co-pilot from much greater CG-4A.

 

Regards

 

Gregory

[gliderman1]

"...glider is made of tree but of wood."

 

Gregory, you are short on this one.

 

Saying a glider is built of wood is like saying it was built of aluminum. Specific types of wood, not just wood, were specified and used for plywood manufactured for US gliders. Kind of like saying duraluminum, which is 94% aluminum (+- .5%), is aluminum.

 

Regards,

[Gregory]

 

Hello my favourite USMF interlocutor,

 

 

I look forward to it when an American author finally sees major differences between European and American glider technologies of the thirties and forties. I'm not sure whether I live it.

 

Best regards

 

Gregory