# Converting C-47 into a glider, 1944 **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 1, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266 "2017-09-01T18:57:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/1 "2017-09-01T18:57:27Z")
[Intended](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XCG-17) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/2 "2017-09-01T21:25:37Z")
The first picture on that Wiki page shows this “glider” being towed. That must have taken one hungus of a strong tow rope! ---
**Author:** ![anomalous1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e56c9b/32.png) [@anomalous1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anomalous1)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/3 "2017-09-01T21:31:27Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/4 "2017-09-01T21:39:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/5 "2017-09-01T21:56:11Z")
The reason is [right in the article.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_XCG-17#Operational_history) [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. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/6 "2017-09-01T22:08:37Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Pork\_Rind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pork_rind/32/111_2.png) [@Pork\_Rind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pork_Rind)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/7 "2017-09-01T22:22:03Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/8 "2017-09-01T22:58:41Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > 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? > [@Pork\_Rind](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2017, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/9 "2017-09-01T23:13:58Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2017, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/10 "2017-09-02T00:18:18Z")
But [Airspeed Horsas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa) did! > [@](#): > > On 12 October 1940, Specification X.26/40 was issued, calling for a large assault glider. Amongst the requirements given on the specification was that the aircraft should make use of wood construction where possible in order to conserve critical supplies of metal. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2017, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/11 "2017-09-02T00:25:13Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2017, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/12 "2017-09-02T01:44:10Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2017, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/13 "2017-09-02T01:47:36Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > But [Airspeed Horsas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed_Horsa) did! 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? ---
**Author:** ![bryanmaguire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d07c76/32.png) [@bryanmaguire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bryanmaguire)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/14 "2017-09-02T16:37:19Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/converting-c-47-into-a-glider-1944/795266/15 "2017-09-02T16:48:55Z")
Thanks!