Jos Heyman
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 February 2007
- Messages
- 597
- Reaction score
- 68
I am looking for a picture of the Douglas CG-19 glider project that was initiated in 1946. Anybody can help?
Jso Heyman
Jso Heyman
USAAF 1946 Informal Design Competition, Glider, Assault, Light
archipeppe
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 18 October 2007
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 2,761
Re: Douglas XCG-19 cargo glider
Also Fairchild C-123 started its career as glider as XCG-20 in 1950.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_XCG-20
Stargazer2006 said:
Also Fairchild C-123 started its career as glider as XCG-20 in 1950.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_XCG-20
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,105
- Reaction score
- 4,202
Re: Douglas XCG-19 cargo glider
Split the mysterious "J-19" from this topic as it is now clear it had nothing to do with the G-19 and was a Jensen design. You can find it here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20483.0
Split the mysterious "J-19" from this topic as it is now clear it had nothing to do with the G-19 and was a Jensen design. You can find it here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20483.0
Re: Douglas XCG-19 cargo glider
Request that this thread title be edited to:
USAAF 1946 Informal Design Competition, Glider, Assault, Light in light of new information.
Done, Many thanks for your input !
Request that this thread title be edited to:
USAAF 1946 Informal Design Competition, Glider, Assault, Light in light of new information.
Done, Many thanks for your input !
Re: Douglas XCG-19 cargo glider
NARA II
COLLEGE PARK, MD
RG 342
Entry P-26
Sarah Clark Central Decimal Correspondence
Box 3684
NND 917647
IN REPLY ADDRESS BOTH
COMMUNICATION AND
ENVELOPE TO ATTENTION OF
FOLLOWING OFFICE SYMBOL:
TSENG
ARMY AIR FORCES
HEADQUARTERS
AIR MATERIEL COMMAND
LJS
ad:TSESA-5
WRIGHT FIELD, DAYTON, OHIO
14 June 1946
SUBJECT: Informal Design Competition Glider, Assault, Light
TO: Commanding General
Army Air Forces
Washington 25, D.C.
Attn: AC/AS-4
Reference: AC/AS-4 letter, dated 11 January 1946,
"Military Characteristics for Gliders"
1. Under authority of reference letter, the Air Materiel Command circulated a total of twenty-one (21) established aircraft manufacturers to determine which were interested in participating in the development of a glider meeting "Military Characteristics of Aircraft", dated 3 January 1946, for "Glider, Assault, light, (8,000 lb. Useful Load)". Of the twenty-one (21) manufacturers circulated, only three (3), Bell Aircraft Corporation, Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., and Hughes Aircraft Company, submitted proposals for evaluation.
2. The Air Materiel Command has concluded its evaluation of the data submitted by the three (3) manufacturers. In this evaluation, the engineering data were examined and commented upon by the Aircraft Laboratory and the Equipment Laboratory, Air Materiel Command. These comments were used in the evaluation of the Engineering and Performance Characteristics. The Suitability Characteristics were evaluated by the Cargo Branch, Aircraft Projects Section, Air Materiel Command. The Army Ground Forces Liaison Officer and the Third Air Force (Troop Carrier) Liaison Officer, assigned to the Air Materiel Command, examined the engineering data and concurred entirely in the opinions of the Project Office as to the evaluation of the suitability. Manufacturers' Ratings were assigned by the Project Office based upon past experience and available information.
3. Transmitted herewith, as Inclosure 1 in tabular form, is a copy of a summary of Figures of Merit awarded to the various proposals.
4. It is the opinion of the Air Materiel Command that the design submitted by the Douglas Aircraft Company, as their Model No. 1028, is the superior of the three submitted and will produce the aircraft which will most nearly fulfill the military characteristics.
5. The following is a discussion of the Engineering and Suitability Characteristics of each design and also each manufacturer's status:
a. DOUGLAS MODEL NO. 1028 - In the evaluation of general configuration, structure, and detail design, this glider had few unsatisfactory items. The design is particularly outstanding as regards general arrangement, strength-weight ratio, general cockpit arrangement, flutter characteristics, stability and control characteristics, and suitability for quantity production. The few undesirable features may be easily remedied. Maintenance and Repair features for this glider are considered very good. Equipment installations range from "good" to "excellent". The guaranteed performance submitted by the Contractor was sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Military Characteristics. Air Materiel Command estimates, however, showed slightly less performance than the Contractor's guarantees. Because of this condition, the performance score is low as regards stall speed, minimum landing roll, and maximum rate of sink. (Contractor's guarantees for these items, however, are acceptable.) The power required for tow and maximum tow speed are excellent. The Suitability Characteristics of this design consistently rated very high and in first position. An excellent cargo compartment is provided as regards size, height from ground, loading ramp slope, and loading assist devices. The glider is considered quite satisfactory for initial assault with sufficient protection being furnished for crew and cargo. The suitability of the cockpit is considered to be above average. Provisions for personnel, such as seats, safety belts, and entrances, are very good. The paratroop provisions shown on the data submitted are satisfactory. The litter installation is excellent. Provisions for breakdown for transportation purposes are adequate. Douglas has been rated very high on background and financial status due to their wide experience in design and constructing of Army Air Forces type cargo aircraft. They were rated one hundred percent (100%) on work load as they planned to perform this development work in the Long Beach plant, which at the present time, is running at a very low capacity.
b. HUGHES MODEL NO. 31 - In the general configuration, structure, and detail design category, this design had few unsatisfactory items, rating slightly better than the Douglas Model 1028. The Maintenance and Repair features are good. Equipment installations are very good. In the total engineering category, this design is practically the equal of the Douglas Model 1028. On performance, the bidder's guarantee for minimum landing roll and maximum rate of sink do not meet the acceptable requirements. Air Materiel Command estimates also showed the design to be deficient in meeting minimum stall speed. This resulted in this design receiving the lowest performance point score. This design rated only fair on all four categories of Suitability Characteristics. Weak points were loading assist devices, cargo compartment size, limited loading weight in the event of alighting gear failure, lack of deceleration devices, insufficient crash and crew protection, poor cockpit arrangement, and small number of troops and litters possible of loading. Regarding manufacturer's status, Hughes was rated slightly under Douglas as they do not have as much experience on Army Air Forces cargo type aircraft and it is estimated that their work load is approximately twenty percent (20%) more than that of Douglas.
c. BELL MODEL NO. D-44 - Due to poor general arrangement, structural design, and alighting gear design and only fair stability and control characteristics, this design was rated approximately seventy-five percent (75%) as high as the Hughes Model No. 31 or the Douglas Model No. 1028, in the general configuration, structure and detail design category. Maintenance and Repair features of this glider are considered as satisfactory only due mostly to poor detail design. The equipment installations were very good comparing favorably to those in the Douglas Model 1028. The minimum stalling speed and landing roll on hard surfaces as estimated by the Air Materiel Command are slightly better than minimum acceptable requirements. The power required to tow this glider is excessive. The design tow speed meets the desired requirement. The overall performance is acceptable and slightly better than the other two models. The overall suitability characteristics of this design are approximately fifteen percent less than those of the Douglas Model 1028. This is due to lack of crash protection and also because no additional cargo space is provided above minimum requirements as is allowed in the Douglas model. Cockpit suitability and miscellaneous installations are very good. Regarding manufacturer's status, Bell was rated even with Hughes as it is estimated their experience, financial standing and work load are similar.
d. GENERAL - Each of the three glider designs are well adaptable to the addition of package power plants for conversion into assault type aircraft should this be desired at any future date.
6. The following delivery times were given by the three manufacturers in weeks after receipt of contractual authorization to proceed:
1st Flight
2nd Flight
Douglas Aircraft Company
50 wks
63 wks
Hughes Aircraft Corporation
52 wks
65 wks
Bell Aircraft Corporation
60 wks
69 wks
7. The total bid prices, including profit for the entire project submitted by the three manufacturers, are as follows:
Douglas Aircraft Company
$1,912,459.00*
Hughes Aircraft Corporation
$2,473,629.00
Bell Aircraft Corporation
$4,111,876.23
*This figure is reduced to $1,888,197.00 if a change in the wind tunnel model requirement is made to allow the testing of a tenth scale model by the Contractor at GALCIT in lieu of furnishing a model suitable of being tested in the 5' wind tunnel at Wright Field.
3. It is the recommendation of the Air Materiel Command that a contract be entered into between the Government and the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., utilizing 1946 Research and Development Funds (if possible, otherwise, 1947 funds will be used) to procure one (1) complete aircraft, one (1) aircraft to be used for static and flight tests and such other items and engineering data as is considered essential to the development of a successful experimental glider.
9. It is requested that the Air Materiel Command be notified of your decision at the earliest possible date.
FOR THE COMMANDING GENERAL:
/S/
L. C. CRAIGIE,
Brigadier General, U. S, A.,
Chief, Engineering Division.
1 Incl.(Dupl.)
Fig. of Merit Chart
V-32758
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ILLEGIBLE] ltr dtd 14 June 1946, from CG, AMC, Subj: Informal Design Competition Glider, Assault, Light
1st Ind.
Headquarters, Army Air Forces, Washington 25, D. C.
21 JUN 1946
TO: Commanding General, Air Materiel Command, Wright Field
Dayton, Ohio, ATTENTION: TSENG
1. Approval is granted to enter into a contract between the Government and the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. to procure one complete aircraft as recommended in paragraph 8 of basic communication.
BY COMMAND OF GENERAL SPAATZ:
/S/
JOHN G. MOORE
Colonel, Air Corps
Deputy Asst. Chief of Air Staff-4
1 Incl. – See TSESA-File
n/c
NARA II
COLLEGE PARK, MD
RG 342
Entry P-26
Sarah Clark Central Decimal Correspondence
Box 3684
NND 917647
IN REPLY ADDRESS BOTH
COMMUNICATION AND
ENVELOPE TO ATTENTION OF
FOLLOWING OFFICE SYMBOL:
TSENG
ARMY AIR FORCES
HEADQUARTERS
AIR MATERIEL COMMAND
LJS
ad:TSESA-5WRIGHT FIELD, DAYTON, OHIO
14 June 1946
SUBJECT: Informal Design Competition Glider, Assault, Light
TO: Commanding General
Army Air Forces
Washington 25, D.C.
Attn: AC/AS-4
Reference: AC/AS-4 letter, dated 11 January 1946,
"Military Characteristics for Gliders"
1. Under authority of reference letter, the Air Materiel Command circulated a total of twenty-one (21) established aircraft manufacturers to determine which were interested in participating in the development of a glider meeting "Military Characteristics of Aircraft", dated 3 January 1946, for "Glider, Assault, light, (8,000 lb. Useful Load)". Of the twenty-one (21) manufacturers circulated, only three (3), Bell Aircraft Corporation, Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., and Hughes Aircraft Company, submitted proposals for evaluation.
2. The Air Materiel Command has concluded its evaluation of the data submitted by the three (3) manufacturers. In this evaluation, the engineering data were examined and commented upon by the Aircraft Laboratory and the Equipment Laboratory, Air Materiel Command. These comments were used in the evaluation of the Engineering and Performance Characteristics. The Suitability Characteristics were evaluated by the Cargo Branch, Aircraft Projects Section, Air Materiel Command. The Army Ground Forces Liaison Officer and the Third Air Force (Troop Carrier) Liaison Officer, assigned to the Air Materiel Command, examined the engineering data and concurred entirely in the opinions of the Project Office as to the evaluation of the suitability. Manufacturers' Ratings were assigned by the Project Office based upon past experience and available information.
3. Transmitted herewith, as Inclosure 1 in tabular form, is a copy of a summary of Figures of Merit awarded to the various proposals.
4. It is the opinion of the Air Materiel Command that the design submitted by the Douglas Aircraft Company, as their Model No. 1028, is the superior of the three submitted and will produce the aircraft which will most nearly fulfill the military characteristics.
5. The following is a discussion of the Engineering and Suitability Characteristics of each design and also each manufacturer's status:
a. DOUGLAS MODEL NO. 1028 - In the evaluation of general configuration, structure, and detail design, this glider had few unsatisfactory items. The design is particularly outstanding as regards general arrangement, strength-weight ratio, general cockpit arrangement, flutter characteristics, stability and control characteristics, and suitability for quantity production. The few undesirable features may be easily remedied. Maintenance and Repair features for this glider are considered very good. Equipment installations range from "good" to "excellent". The guaranteed performance submitted by the Contractor was sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the Military Characteristics. Air Materiel Command estimates, however, showed slightly less performance than the Contractor's guarantees. Because of this condition, the performance score is low as regards stall speed, minimum landing roll, and maximum rate of sink. (Contractor's guarantees for these items, however, are acceptable.) The power required for tow and maximum tow speed are excellent. The Suitability Characteristics of this design consistently rated very high and in first position. An excellent cargo compartment is provided as regards size, height from ground, loading ramp slope, and loading assist devices. The glider is considered quite satisfactory for initial assault with sufficient protection being furnished for crew and cargo. The suitability of the cockpit is considered to be above average. Provisions for personnel, such as seats, safety belts, and entrances, are very good. The paratroop provisions shown on the data submitted are satisfactory. The litter installation is excellent. Provisions for breakdown for transportation purposes are adequate. Douglas has been rated very high on background and financial status due to their wide experience in design and constructing of Army Air Forces type cargo aircraft. They were rated one hundred percent (100%) on work load as they planned to perform this development work in the Long Beach plant, which at the present time, is running at a very low capacity.
b. HUGHES MODEL NO. 31 - In the general configuration, structure, and detail design category, this design had few unsatisfactory items, rating slightly better than the Douglas Model 1028. The Maintenance and Repair features are good. Equipment installations are very good. In the total engineering category, this design is practically the equal of the Douglas Model 1028. On performance, the bidder's guarantee for minimum landing roll and maximum rate of sink do not meet the acceptable requirements. Air Materiel Command estimates also showed the design to be deficient in meeting minimum stall speed. This resulted in this design receiving the lowest performance point score. This design rated only fair on all four categories of Suitability Characteristics. Weak points were loading assist devices, cargo compartment size, limited loading weight in the event of alighting gear failure, lack of deceleration devices, insufficient crash and crew protection, poor cockpit arrangement, and small number of troops and litters possible of loading. Regarding manufacturer's status, Hughes was rated slightly under Douglas as they do not have as much experience on Army Air Forces cargo type aircraft and it is estimated that their work load is approximately twenty percent (20%) more than that of Douglas.
c. BELL MODEL NO. D-44 - Due to poor general arrangement, structural design, and alighting gear design and only fair stability and control characteristics, this design was rated approximately seventy-five percent (75%) as high as the Hughes Model No. 31 or the Douglas Model No. 1028, in the general configuration, structure and detail design category. Maintenance and Repair features of this glider are considered as satisfactory only due mostly to poor detail design. The equipment installations were very good comparing favorably to those in the Douglas Model 1028. The minimum stalling speed and landing roll on hard surfaces as estimated by the Air Materiel Command are slightly better than minimum acceptable requirements. The power required to tow this glider is excessive. The design tow speed meets the desired requirement. The overall performance is acceptable and slightly better than the other two models. The overall suitability characteristics of this design are approximately fifteen percent less than those of the Douglas Model 1028. This is due to lack of crash protection and also because no additional cargo space is provided above minimum requirements as is allowed in the Douglas model. Cockpit suitability and miscellaneous installations are very good. Regarding manufacturer's status, Bell was rated even with Hughes as it is estimated their experience, financial standing and work load are similar.
d. GENERAL - Each of the three glider designs are well adaptable to the addition of package power plants for conversion into assault type aircraft should this be desired at any future date.
6. The following delivery times were given by the three manufacturers in weeks after receipt of contractual authorization to proceed:
1st Flight
2nd Flight
Douglas Aircraft Company
50 wks
63 wks
Hughes Aircraft Corporation
52 wks
65 wks
Bell Aircraft Corporation
60 wks
69 wks
7. The total bid prices, including profit for the entire project submitted by the three manufacturers, are as follows:
Douglas Aircraft Company
$1,912,459.00*
Hughes Aircraft Corporation
$2,473,629.00
Bell Aircraft Corporation
$4,111,876.23
*This figure is reduced to $1,888,197.00 if a change in the wind tunnel model requirement is made to allow the testing of a tenth scale model by the Contractor at GALCIT in lieu of furnishing a model suitable of being tested in the 5' wind tunnel at Wright Field.
3. It is the recommendation of the Air Materiel Command that a contract be entered into between the Government and the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., utilizing 1946 Research and Development Funds (if possible, otherwise, 1947 funds will be used) to procure one (1) complete aircraft, one (1) aircraft to be used for static and flight tests and such other items and engineering data as is considered essential to the development of a successful experimental glider.
9. It is requested that the Air Materiel Command be notified of your decision at the earliest possible date.
FOR THE COMMANDING GENERAL:
/S/
L. C. CRAIGIE,
Brigadier General, U. S, A.,
Chief, Engineering Division.
1 Incl.(Dupl.)
Fig. of Merit Chart
V-32758
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ILLEGIBLE] ltr dtd 14 June 1946, from CG, AMC, Subj: Informal Design Competition Glider, Assault, Light
1st Ind.
Headquarters, Army Air Forces, Washington 25, D. C.
21 JUN 1946
TO: Commanding General, Air Materiel Command, Wright Field
Dayton, Ohio, ATTENTION: TSENG
1. Approval is granted to enter into a contract between the Government and the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. to procure one complete aircraft as recommended in paragraph 8 of basic communication.
BY COMMAND OF GENERAL SPAATZ:
/S/
JOHN G. MOORE
Colonel, Air Corps
Deputy Asst. Chief of Air Staff-4
1 Incl. – See TSESA-File
n/c
No project drawings are found in the P-26 Sarah Clark Correspondence files. :-(
I think they may be in the accompanying P-27 files.
I think they may be in the accompanying P-27 files.
Vahe Demirjian
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 28 February 2013
- Messages
- 815
- Reaction score
- 557
Drawings of the Bell Model D-44 and Hughes Model 31 designs can be found in the book American Secret Projects: US Airlifters 1941-1961 on pages 68 and 73. The following specifications for the these designs are found in this volume on pages 68 and 72:
Bell Model D-44
Length: 59 feet 5 in (18.12 meters)
Wingspan: 91 feet 10 in (28.01 meters)
Height: 21 feet 4 in (6.51 meters)
Payload: 8,000 lb (3,632 kg)
Hughes Model 31
Length: 72 feet 5 in (22.09 meters)
Wingspan: 73 feet 6 in (22.42 meters)
Height: 26 feet 6 in (8.08 meters)
Height with tail raised: 40 feet 2 in (12.25 meters)
Wing area: 900 sq ft (834 sq meters)
Gross weight: 15,500 lb (7,037 kg)
Payload: 8,000 lb (3,632 kg)
Stalling speed: 53 mph (85 km/h)
Max tow speed: 200 mph (322 km/h)
Bell Model D-44
Length: 59 feet 5 in (18.12 meters)
Wingspan: 91 feet 10 in (28.01 meters)
Height: 21 feet 4 in (6.51 meters)
Payload: 8,000 lb (3,632 kg)
Hughes Model 31
Length: 72 feet 5 in (22.09 meters)
Wingspan: 73 feet 6 in (22.42 meters)
Height: 26 feet 6 in (8.08 meters)
Height with tail raised: 40 feet 2 in (12.25 meters)
Wing area: 900 sq ft (834 sq meters)
Gross weight: 15,500 lb (7,037 kg)
Payload: 8,000 lb (3,632 kg)
Stalling speed: 53 mph (85 km/h)
Max tow speed: 200 mph (322 km/h)
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,105
- Reaction score
- 4,202
Probably considered for the same 1946 competition, this image (from the Jay Miller collection) of a "concept from unknown source identified as 'K3A G-B' (image dated 12 April 1946)", taken from the AAHS article "Sideshow Curiosities - American Military Glider Experiments of WWII" by Bill Norton. The author comments that "The twin booms might have made installation of power units more expeditious."
Attachments
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,114
- Reaction score
- 12,183
Submission, unsolicited or otherwise, from the Chase Aircraft Company perhaps?
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,665
- Reaction score
- 3,517
Just an idea after browsing through Cox/Kaston "American Secret Projects-2_US Airlifters 1941-61", but it looks very much like the Bell Model D-44 shown on page 68.
Even the dividing line to the cargo pod is recognisable.
Even the dividing line to the cargo pod is recognisable.
- Joined
- 25 June 2009
- Messages
- 14,105
- Reaction score
- 4,202
You are absolutely right. Wow! Thanks for this.
Similar threads
-
USAAF Heavy Cargo and Troop Transport competition
- Started by nugo
- Replies: 5
-
Christopher AG-1 and Timm AG-2 assault gliders- Started by Stargazer
- Replies: 4
-
USAAF / USAF November 1945 Light Bomber Competition- Started by RyanC
- Replies: 13
-
Bendix Aircraft's forgotten postwar designs
- Started by Stargazer
- Replies: 6
-
