Intended to increase the weight of cargo a glider could carry. The engines were removed and the nacelles covered with hemispheres. Why? Why not land a C-47 with the gliders carrying troops? Surely it is easier to land a powered aircraft; at the very least it could abort and landing and make another try.
The first picture on that Wiki page shows this “glider” being towed. That must have taken one hungus of a strong tow rope!
Saving fuel, cutting costs and modifying logistics (how much one could carry) and silent troop delivery are the only things I could really see doing this. This was during a time that they were trying new radar technologies, so delivering troops silent may have been the best option, adding a different paint to the underside may have helped as well.
Not really a factual answer, but speculating and using what I know to the best of my ability. I am apologize if this isn’t what you are looking for.
I don’t know how much weight was saved without the engines or fuel.
It was towed with two C-47s (“the aircraft in the middle was under some danger”) with one dropping the tow when aloft, or a single C-54 Skymaster.
The reason is right in the article.
[QUOTE]
The flight testing of the XCG-17 proved that the aircraft was satisfactory; compared with conventional gliders in service, the aircraft possessed lower stalling and higher towing speeds than conventional gliders, as well as gliding at a significantly shallower angle.[4][10] Tow tests were conducted using a variety of aircraft; the most commonly used configuration was a tandem tow by two C-47s, with the towing aircraft coupled one in front of the other and the leading aircraft detaching following takeoff.[3] This configuration was dangerous for the “middle” C-47, however,[7] and it was determined that a single C-54 was the optimal tug aircraft.[2][7]
In other words, the converted C-47 had better gliding characteristics, and two XCG-17s being towed could carry more payload than the single C-54 that towed them. And a converted C-47 would be a lot more rugged than the fabric-covered gliders that were in use.
So why not use gliding C-47s instead of gliders? The question is more of why glide a C-47?, and the best answer is that it is quiet.
Why not fly C-47s to near the landing zone and cut the engines?
Cause then they give up a tremendous amount of payload in the weight of the two engines and the fuel. 2,500 pounds for the engines alone. 5,000+ pounds for the fuel. Who knows what else would be left out in a glider configuration but it’s got to be a few hundred pounds of tanks and hoses and stuff.
And engines didn’t grow on trees. I don’t know how short the AAF was for spares, but they’d probably not throw away two perfectly good engines if they didn’t have to.
Shucks, C-47s don’t grow on trees, either.
But Airspeed Horsas did!
I thought these “assault gliders” were essentially single use - i.e. expected to land in any open field and abandoned there. You need an actual runway to land a powered airplane and take off again.
I think you need more runway to land than to take off. I think the RAF operated off of grass air strips during WWII.
Yeah, but that was the Brits. Making ships out of wood for hundreds of years, with good results. The mosquito was a wooden airplane with good results. Why mess with a winning plan?
Did the British have glider troops on D Day?
They did. the men of the Ox and Bucks Light Infantry who captured Pegasus Bridge on D-Day were glider-borne troops.
Thanks!