CG-4A to land in Normandy 2009?

[warbird1]

I'm talking to restorers building a static DH Mosquito in airworthy and original standards, and we should all be aware of Glynn Powell's work in NZ building new-wood Mosquitoes to fly. (I'm also supporting a project to build a 1914 biplane trainer - of wood, but that's another story.)

Not to get too far off topic, JDK, but how many Mossie's is Glynn planning on making? I'm familiar with the well publicized Jerry Yagen plane, but I haven't heard of any other plans after that one. Are you at liberty to elaborate?

[Baldeagle]

Also from down-under, a flying replica of Kingsford Smith's Fokker Trimotor, with tube fuselage and wood wing, built in the 1980s (?), 65 ft. span, with three Jacobs engines:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1216483/L/

I believe that it no longer flies after an undercarriage collapse, but is on static display somewhere?




-

[JDK]

Not to get too far off topic, JDK, but how many Mossie's is Glynn planning on making? I'm familiar with the well publicized Jerry Yagen plane, but I haven't heard of any other plans after that one. Are you at liberty to elaborate?

I know no more than what's public knowledge, and my rather vague memory. My understanding is probably two airworthy, including the Yagen machine, plus the already delivered static fuselage (to Canada) and maybe more. Better informed people may be able to clarify.

Also from down-under, a flying replica of Kingsford Smith's Fokker Trimotor, with tube fuselage and wood wing, built in the 1980s (?), 65 ft. span, with three Jacobs engines. I believe that it no longer flies after an undercarriage collapse, but is on static display somewhere?

Smithy's original 'bus' is on display at Brisbane Airport. The replica was hangared after damage, but the latest IIRC was it's been taken over by HARS, with a view to rebuild to fly, which would be great.

http://www.hars.org.au/

http://www.hars.org.au/news_previous.php#

(Scroll down to near the bottom where the headline is as below:)

'Old Bus' In HARS Care

The well-known Fokker F.VIIB-3m 'Southern Cross' replica which was built at Murray Bridge in South Australia as a bicentenial project in 1988 is to be gifted by the South Australian Government to HARS, after a gruelling 'expression of interest' period starting June 2003 in which our Society competed with three other organisations for the privelege and responsibility.
...
Repairs will be extensive, involving two new engines (one of which is being donated), Two new props, new strengthened undercarriage, three metres of wing (wood already being sourced) and crack testing for the steel tube fuselage. But three important factors render the task less onerous than first appears:
1) A substantial insurance payout is included with the arrangements.
2) The proposed base at Murray Bridge provides with a hangar and a house at no charge, for the aircraft and our members.
3)Murray Bridge boasts fourteen new HARS members who were associated with the original construction of the replica in 1988 (including the man who founded and managed the project) - together with a further five new members of from RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit (ARDU) at Edinburgh, South Australia who were involved with the first test flights.

The project promises to bring enormous satisfaction to many members and to increase our influence further afield in Australia and around the World. Once airworthy, the SA based Southern Cross will tour airshows and events around Australia, often joining (and being joined by) other aircraft of the HARS fleet.
...

gary
25 Feb 2004

[tom d. friedman]

a nobal effort, i'm sure flying volunteers are not scarce, i'd be writing my name to the participant list if the opportunity came up regardless, i'd take my chances. but i'm sure some $$$$ insurance faction is present, what are the terms of the policy?? this is ballsy stuff!!

[airnutz]

Not to get too far off topic, JDK, but how many Mossie's is Glynn planning on making? I'm familiar with the well publicized Jerry Yagen plane, but I haven't heard of any other plans after that one.

I've been following Glynn's project of at least the past 10 years, for the past 5 or 6.
His dedication to building the moulds and emulating the original techniques...combined with
modern adhesives and his own innovation suggest he's in for the long haul. The static bird and Yagen
may have got him started, but I'm guessing he'd pump out as many ordered...unless there's
a "break the mould" clause when they're done..

I was wondering a coupl'a years back what "exotic" adhesives he ran with...I was very
surprised to find he went "off the shelf" with the West System..IIRC...quite a nod to WS..

For the newbies..
www.mossie.org/NZ2308.htm
Yagen..
www.mossie.org/KA114.htm
Avspec..
www.warbirdrestoration.co.nz

[warbird1]

Not to get too far off topic, JDK, but how many Mossie's is Glynn planning on making? I'm familiar with the well publicized Jerry Yagen plane, but I haven't heard of any other plans after that one.

I've been following Glynn's project of at least the past 10 years, for the past 5 or 6.

Yes, I've been following it for quite some time as well. So, who's plane is going next into the moulds after Yagen's, do you know?

[airnutz]

So, who's plane is going next into the moulds after Yagen's, do you know?

Nope W'1, I don't have a clue. There was quite a bit of chatter on the boards regarding
which hulks or statics needed fuses and who'd be next, but that's the web for you..

[Broken-Wrench]

[quote="Bill Greenwood"]To me, building a WWII glider out of composites would be abut as attractive as putting an electric engine in a P-51.[/quote]


What?!!?!?!? And chop down the old growth forests to build a silly old glider. What would greenpeace or the friends of the forest say!

[airnutz]

The plywood in particular is of concern. There are all sorts of thickness used in that design. Waco used 3 ply 1/64" (that's .005" per veneer sheet! ), 5 ply 3/64" and on and on. Some of these sheets were special length/width combinations....12' long sheets or 6' widths. While this poses no issue for a static display, an airworthy version would be forced to step up the thicknesses and add many scarf splices. All adding weight, compromising the original design, and adding labor. You simply cannot special order plywood...especially mahogany.

I dunno how much of this detail affects the fellow involved with re-engineering the design to account for modern material availability, but remember...this bird will never get near carrying the 4000 pound maximum payload it was designed to haul operationally. I figure this gives them qute a bit of room to play with in the weight department, and true..they can use modern adhesives and composites where needed to augment the long term requirements of multiple "snatches" over time.

A 120 mph snatch sounds foreboding, but due to the flexibility of the DuPont towline the pull force was reduced to 7G...basically a bungee cord which would eventually springback smoothly toward the towbird.

The initial press release for this project is very exciting news. I wonder how far they are with the project. They must've
cut wood and started welding tube/or have an existing fuse frame ready. 1 year and 6mos for completion of build,
testing and perfecting the snatch training and transport to Europe...quite an ambitious plan
for a bird with..whut..70K pieces? I'm really looking forward to seeing their future project updates..

[Forgotten Field]

Weight is required in the glider. When you are flying with pilot and co-pilot, you need ballast just aft of the cockpit worth 4 men with equipment, or it don't quite fly right... According to the manual any way. Best load was 75 MM howitzer and ammo. It sat low to the deck and was just the right combo of weight density to make the glider fly well.

[Wheels up]

A 120 mph snatch sounds foreboding, but due to the flexibility of the DuPont towline the pull force was reduced to 7G...basically a bungee cord which would eventually springback smoothly toward the towbird.

Snatching requires the use of a special C47 (or suitable towplane) and some special winching/braking equipment......
http://www.silentwingsmuseum.com/images/Web%20Content/WWII%20USAAF%20Glider%20Aerial%20Retrieval%20System.pdf

Perhaps this stuff still exists from C119(and others) snatching days. But who's going to modify their C47?
The above link is interesting...I hadn't realized they snatched two at a time!

[airnutz]

Weight is required in the glider. When you are flying with pilot and co-pilot, you need ballast just aft of the cockpit worth 4 men with equipment, or it don't quite fly right... According to the manual any way. Best load was 75 MM howitzer and ammo. It sat low to the deck and was just the right combo of weight density to make the glider fly well.

Yes..FF, I figured they flew with some sort of ballast during training in order to give
the pilots some sort of "feel" of what they were in for. This is a manual strictly for the CG-4A?

There is also a manual I've read about for the, "M-80 Glider Pick-up Mechanism",
I need to see f I can find.

There is another book ya'll might keep an eye out for in involving the folks who
developed the Pick-up system for the Army from their mail retrieval system. I don't have it yet..
All American Aviation, Inc. , "Air Pick-Up Handbook, Wilmington Delaware,
All American Aviation, 1947.

One of these days, I'd really love to spend some time at the Silent Wings Museum..long drive north tho..

Last edited by airnutz on Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Forgotten Field]

I read it in the CG-4A manual. The CG-4A manual is the only one I have gotten to read. I don't know about the CG-5 or the CG-13.

[airnutz]

A 120 mph snatch sounds foreboding, but due to the flexibility of the DuPont towline the pull force was reduced to 7G...basically a bungee cord which would eventually springback smoothly toward the towbird.

Snatching requires the use of a special C47 (or suitable towplane) and some special winching/braking equipment......
http://www.silentwingsmuseum.com/images/Web%20Content/WWII%20USAAF%20Glider%20Aerial%20Retrieval%20System.pdf

Perhaps this stuff still exists from C119(and others) snatching days. But who's going to modify their C47?
The above link is interesting...I hadn't realized they snatched two at a time!

Two or "more" at a time in a train, depending on load and whether they're flying in tandem with another
tow aircraft. You could return a bunch of "empties" pretty quickly.

Richard C. Du Pont of All American Aviation had the idea and developed the Glider "Snatch" by
modifying AAA's Mail Pick-up Appartus they'd had in use since 1937. Their first mod involved
changing from a steel boom to one made of ash. Using a Stinson SR-10C they were snatching a
Piper TG with DuPont piloting the glider. They broke the towline 3 times until..."Overnight the
engineers produced a new line made of undrawn nylon that had far superior elasticity".
(I guess you can do that when your family has a chemical plant tat invented the stuff.)
Tonight I'll excerpt a couple of paragraphs from the All American book.

By what I read of the original post, Pappas has no problem laying hands on a Gooney.
The first "heavy" to snatch a glider was the Douglas Dragon...hope this old link works..
www.pointvista.com/WW2GliderPilots/1stC ... lesDay.jpg

I've wondered in the past coupla years if one of the DuPont foundations would turn
loose funds if the CAF restored the B-23 if they restored with the snatch gear as well
and dedicated it to Richard DuPont's vision, innovation and ultimate sacrifice in WW2.
They wouldn't necessarily have to go the whole CG-4 route, They could demonstrate the
technique with smaller warbird training gliders.
Same for the Pappas project, I wonder if they've explored DuPont funding?

[Forgotten Field]

Interesting this discussion on weight and balance in a glider. From Wikipedia about the XCG-16:

The ballast carried within the glider was not secured and slid causing a weight shift in the glider. The glider began to "porpoise" and the pilot was unable to gain control. The glider was released from the tow plane and began a flat spin downward. The order was given to jump, but the glider had gotten to low for a safe jump. The passengers jumped with several surviving. Richard Chichester du Pont, Special Assistant for the Glider Program, was killed when his parachute failed to completely open