Jemiba

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
11 March 2006
Messages
8,607
Reaction score
3,054
During WW II the idea of the transport glider was "en vogue", so several countries
developed and built such types.
One of them was Sweden. The AB Flygindustri of Halmstad designed a glider with the
designation Fi 3 of wooden construction, intended for 11 troops plus pilot.
Much better known for this type of aircraft was Germany. The Gothaer Waggon Fabrik
began development of a small 10-seat assault glider in 1944. Much of the work was
sourced out to the french Bureau d'Études d'Avions Gourdou. Just one prototype of the
transport B-version was completed.
After the war, France itself became interested in transport gliders for a short time.
Does anybody know, if this design was proceeded with during that time?
 

Attachments

  • Fi-3.JPG
    Fi-3.JPG
    21.8 KB · Views: 1,187
  • Go-345B.JPG
    Go-345B.JPG
    24.1 KB · Views: 1,138
Hello
The only french transport glider I know is the Fouga CM 100 built in the late 40' ,motorised as CM 101
Who knoiw wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwother (s) ?
 
Yes, who knows ? ;)
Some years after the war, the concept of the assault glider was more or less dead.
But immediately in the early post-war time, some concepts still were developed,
although quite rarely realised. The Fouga CM.10 was designed for an official request,
so maybe other designs were tendered uninvited. And the Go 345 would have been
a good starting point ...
 
"e FMA I.Ae.25 was also transport glider."

Yes, it's mentioned in J.E. Mrazek "Kampfsegler im 2.Wk" and is described as
very similar to the US CG-4A.
 
I have discovered a color profile from french CM.10 "planeur" at Aviation Magazine 575 (Décembre 1971).

It is refered as Castel-Mauboussin CM.10 because it was built "chez" Fouga but designed by Pierre Mauboussin. First flight was 5-June -1947. Anybody know if it was series produced?

In the article I have drawings and info about the following types:

DFS230
DFS230V7
DFS331
Gotha Go242
Gotha Go345
Gotha-Kalkert KA430
Junkers Ju322 Mamut
Messerschmitt Me321 Gigant
De Havilland G2 (from Australia)
Castel-Mauboussin CM10
IAe.25 Manque
Airspeed Horsa
General Aircraft GAL 49 Hamilcar
General Aircraft GAL 48 Hotspur I
General Aircraft Hotspur II and III
General Aircraft Twin Hotspur
Slingsby Hengist
Waco CG-4A
Waco CG-13A
Mitsubishi Gander
Antonov A-7
Laister-Kauffman CG-10A
Kugisho MXY-5
 
"Anybody know if it was series produced?"

Depends on the definition for series production, I think .. ;)

6 examples were built, two of them were later modified to the powered
versions CM.100 and CM.101.
The listing of 3-views correspond quite well to the book I've mentioned.
Is J.E.Mrazek mentioned in the resources ?
 
AB Flygindustri at Halmstad, manufacturer of sailplanes, got the commission to design a glider - Fi-2 - with a capacity of six persons. But this project was cancelled. Instead a larger glider - Fi-3 - was designed by the company. Info of Fi-2?
 
Not much extra info but, FWIW, Sailplane and Glider 1951 had this to say about the Fi-2/Fi-3:

"The 'Fi-2' was a project for a 6-seat high-wing transport glider with a single-strut wing bracing. It was never built but developed into the larger 'Fi-3' with accommodation for two pilots and ten other troops or 1,000-1,100 kg. military load. The front fuselage is again [like the Fi-1 aerobatic glider] of welded steel tubes with moulded wooden covering, and the rear part of stress-skin wooden construction."

Presumably, construction detail applying to both the built Fi-1 and Fi-3 would be similar for the unbuilt Fi-2. The article continues with some details on the Fi-3:

"There is a knock-out panel with four portholes on each side of the fuselage. The wings and tail are of wooden construction and all control surfaces are fabric covered, the ailerons being aerodynamically balanced.

Dive brakes are fitted to upper and lower surfaces of the wings. Owing to its clean design the 'Fi-3' has a better performance than most cargo gliders, having a best gliding angle of 1:15. It was designed by J. Weibull with T. Lidmalm [the Fi-1 designer] as project engineer. Five were built to the the order of the Royal Swedish Air Force (Flygvapnet) in 1944 [as the Lg 105] but the contract was cancelled at the end of the war.

There was talk of adapting them to civilian use but nothing came of it. During a recent vistit to the works at Bulltokta, they could be seen in a hangar with wings removed. Beneath the dust, their Flygvapnet camouflage could be plainly seen."

And some specifications for the Fi-1 and Fi-3:

DATA: ' Fi-l.' Span 46 ft.; wing area 156 sq. ft.; aspect ratio 13.9; wing loading 3.68 Ibs./sq. ft.; wt. empty 397 Ibs.; wt. loaded 574 lbs.; min. rate of sink 2.33 ft./sec; best gliding angle 1:24; stalling speed 32.3 m.p.h.; dihedral 2.5° .

'Fi-3.' Span 16.5 m.; length 9.7 m.; height 3.3 m.; wing area 32 sq. m.; aspect ratio 8.5; wt. empty 790 kg.; AUW 1800 kg.; max. towing speed 250 km./h.; max. diving speed 350 km./h.; best gliding angle 1:15 @ 175 km./h.; landing speed 80 km./h. Gross wt. can be increased to 2100 kg. if towing speed is reduced to 200 km./h.

Sailplane and Glider Volume 19, No. 8, August 1951, pp 174-175
KOCKUMS FLYGINDUSTRI (SWEDEN) by R. A. G. STUART, M.A. (Cantab.)
 
I have this book in my stash, tho I can't put my hands on it. I bought it over 30 years ago and it's full of WWII glider info. "Fighting Gliders of World War II" James Mrazek - 1977
 
famvburg said:
I have this book in my stash, tho I can't put my hands on it. I bought it over 30 years ago and it's full of WWII glider info. "Fighting Gliders of World War II" James Mrazek - 1977

It gives data for the FI-3 (slightly different, than those posted by Apophenia, e.g. length as 9.4m) and a photo (see below),
but unfortunately nothing about the FI-2.
 

Attachments

  • FI-3.jpg
    FI-3.jpg
    131.2 KB · Views: 790
On a somewhat related note: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/9541566/Massive-Luftwaffe-plane-wreck-found-off-Sardinian-coast.html
 
Interesting news indeed ! Although to me, the report of the discovery sounds a little bit strange,
when they found "pieces of sheet metal..." and then ".. the plane appeared in all its beauty", because
the Me 323 was built from steel tubing covered by plywood and canvas, so I would expect just a
skeleton. But it really wood be great, to see it on the surface again, The German Airforce Museum
at Berlin Gatow still holds a mainspar of it, a part displayed in the open, without proper description
and mistaken by many for a part of a girder bridge.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    555.1 KB · Views: 312
  • 2.png
    2.png
    276.6 KB · Views: 326
Last edited:
Good find Hesham. Wikipedia has garbled things ... conflating descriptions of the 1940 FAL Teichfuss Borea BP (Borea Biposto) sailplane and the larger 1942 LT.35 Borea (the designation being for 'Luigi Teichfuss'). The LT.35 was conceived as an assault transport glider for attacks on the British base at Gibratar.

Two versions were initially envisioned. One was a torpedo bomber (the centre fuselage being fitted with bomb bay doors and the torpedo mounted to the wing spars). The second was a cargo/troop carrying assault glider. The latter would have 16 folding seats (although j2mcl-planeurs says only 12 fully-equipped troops would be carried ... suggesting 12 assault troops or 16 for the regular transport role).

Later a civilian version of the LT.35 Borea was conceived although it is not clear what exact role was envisioned in the civil sector. The LT.35 would have either a fixed- or a manually-retracted main undercarriage. Basic specs are given below (to contrast with those in the Wikipedia entry):

Wing span - 21.70 m
Length - 11.58 m
Total weight - 2,000 kg
Payload - 1,100 kg
 
From, Ed Heinemann Combat Aircraft Designer,

the Douglas CG-7 & CG-8.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    394.3 KB · Views: 154
  • 2.png
    2.png
    356.1 KB · Views: 151
I appreciate that it's stretching a point to call a three seater a 'transport' glider, but that is what was the British Taylorcraft H, supposedly based on the American Taylorcraft TG-6 glider. Some sources say that the British Taylorcraft H was constructed using the fuselage of an imported Taylorcraft B (G-AFKO) whereas others say that it was based on an Auster III fuselage. What I don't know is what was the seating arrangement in the Taylorcraft H, bearing in mind that it was based upon an airframe which had side-by-side (whether it employed a Taylorcraft B or an Auster III fuselage). My understanding is that the Taylorcraft TG-6 had three tandem seats. If so, if the Taylorcraft H was based on the Taylorcraft TG-6 then one assumes that the basis was the concept rather than the design.

Addendum: I've now found a photograph of the Taylorcraft H which appears to have its seating arranged in a triangle, i.e. the two original side-by-side seats and, ahead of those, a single seat where the engine would have been. Where the instructor and students respectively sat, in that arrangement, is not apparent to me.
 
Last edited:
I believe that the pictures hesham is showing here are not Douglas constructions, but come from Bowlus.
 
From 'Combat Aircraft Designer', pp. -89-94.

"In early I941 the army air corps was examining methods of delivering large numbers of paratroops behind enemy lines. The DC-3s were far and away the most suitable vehicle for this purpose. Demand for the transport exceeded supply, however, despite the collective production efforts of all Douglas divisions.
A proposal for gliders was developed and entailed towing them, two and three at a time, with a single DC-3. Army Air Corps officials at Wright Field went out to industry soliciting competition. Among those who went ahead and conceived glider configurations was Hawley Bowlus, an ardent glider enthusiast who also built streamlined aluminum house trailers before the war. He headed Bowlus Sailplanes, Inc. in San Fernando, received a contract, and drew up basic plans for two gliders, the XCG-7 and the XCG-8. Because his shop proved to be too small to handle the project properly, Bowlus asked Donald Douglas, through Dwight Whiting, a member of the board of directors, if his company could take on the job. Doug was plenty busy at Santa Monica but agreed anyway.
Can you build them?" he asked me one day, referring to the gliders and knowing that I had some experience with wood construction. I really couldn't say no, even though, deep down, I had serious reservations about the glider concept from the beginning. But I said El Segundo would do the job.
I got hold of Clinton Stevenson and briefed him on the situation. Steve headed the structures section and was an engineer of solid reputation. In addi tion to me he was also the only other guy in the 500-strong engineering group who had considerable experience with wood. Using the basic Bowlus design, we made detail drawings of the gliders, both of which featured spruce wood construction with a few steel parts, such as control cable hinges and the like. Another competitor, the Waco Company, got approval to stick with their concept of an economical, tubular-steel framework with fabric covering, but we were forced
to stick with wood which was thought to be more available. Laminated wood, blended in the semimonocoque structure called for, was quite foreign to most of our El Segundo engineers, but with Steve running the project, work began in August 1941.
It took a year and a half, long after the war started, to get the two gliders in the air. (There were also two static gliders located at Wright Field.) Although there were numerous problems associated with the XCG-7 and XCG-8 along the way, they did successfully fly in tow with DC-3s. I never flew in them myself but was told that, odd as it may seem, the gliders were extremely noisy. Apparently, the wind rushing over the windshield and other surfaces sounded like a gale-force storm as you rode along.
In the long run, this glider program proved unwieldy. Other companies built models for the services after receiving production contracts. Douglas, however, dropped out of the glider picture, an event which I considered fortunate."
(My bold.)

Basically, Bowlus designed the general shape of the aircraft, while Heineman's team at Douglas El Segundo Division did the detail design . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
Cher avion ancien,
The USAAF bought at least 5 distinct batches of training gliders during WW2. The first two batches were built by Schweitzer (TG-3A) along with Pratt-Read (TG-32). The Schweitzer had conventional tandem seats for two, while the Pratt-Read had rare (for a sport glider) side-by-side seats for 2. The first generation of TGs were conventional, wood, steel tube and fabric two-seater sport gliders designed during the late 1930s. Unfortunately they glided too flat, too efficiently to be relevant for training assault glider pilots.
Then Aeronca, Interstate and Piper built three similar training gliders, all based upon their two-seater, tandem, light liaison/artillery spotter airplanes. Engines were removed and a third seat installed in its place along with shorter main landing gear legs. Post-war, hundreds of TGs and L-birds were sold at military-surplus auctions, converted to powered sport planes and carried fun flyers for many more years. Since 80 percent of parts were identical to L-birds, TGs were easy to re-certify as civilian power planes.


 
Last edited:
Then Aeronca, Interstate and Piper built three similar training gliders, all based upon their two-seater, tandem, light liaison/artillery spotted airplanes. Engines were removed and a third seat installed in its place along with shorter main landing gear legs.
Presumably each of these three designs incorporated tandem - or should I say tridem - seating. Was the British Taylorcraft company alone in incorporating triangular seating in its design?
 
Oui, Cher avian ancien,
All of the American training gliders seated 2 (e.g. Schweitzer) or 3 Pilots in tandem/tri-dem.
The British Auster/Taylor is the only training glider with triangular seating. Just as the British Auster/Taylorcraft was one of the few L-class, artillery-spotting airplanes with side-by-side seating.

As an aside, some military helicopter basic trainers (e.g. US Navy) have three seats in a triangular configuration. Often the second student is purely an observer, but he/she does get to experience the sensations of flight, learn by observing the “hands on” student pilot’s maneuvers and maybe practice map-reading and navigation.
 
During WW2, Chase Aircraft Company (USA) started developing a series of cargo gliders. The first wooden CG-14A only flew in January 1945, so missed the (cancelled) invasion of Japan. But Chase continued developing all metal CG-18 and CG-20 prototypes. Chase never got a production contract, but eventually the line was enlarged to become the Chase/Fairchild C-123 transport that hauled “ash and trash” during the Vietnam War. C-123 also gained infamy for spraying Agent Orange defoliant.
C-123 is unique in being the only airframe to fly as a: glider, piston propeller, piston plus jet, pure jet and Taiwan even converted a C-123 to turboprop power!
 
The Ku-7 Manazuru which was later developed into the twin engine Ki-105 Ohtori (Phoenix).
 

Attachments

  • Ku-7 color 2 view.jpg
    Ku-7 color 2 view.jpg
    33.4 KB · Views: 120
  • Ki-105 2.jpg
    Ki-105 2.jpg
    34.9 KB · Views: 111
Here is the surviving fuselage section of a Gotha Go 242 at the Deutsches Technikmuseum in Berlin and an Airspeed Horsa reproduction at Pegasus Bridge in France. The Horsa is bigger than I thought it would be.
 

Attachments

  • Go 242.jpg
    Go 242.jpg
    368.5 KB · Views: 97
  • Horsa reproduction.jpg
    Horsa reproduction.jpg
    305.2 KB · Views: 105
Jos Heyman's book "United States Military Aircraft" lists all the gliders used by the US Armed Forces during WW2, including more than a dozen civilian gliders "impressed" at the start of the war. The book contains a photo or drawing of most types of gliders.
Unfortunately Mr. Heyman died in 2016, so the last update was 1 February 2015.
Heyman lists training gliders (TG) separate from cargo gliders (CG), separate from fuel gliders (FG), separate from bomb gliders, etc.

Only Cornelius designed FG and they only built two prototypes, but they never got beyond test flights.

www.usmilitaryaircraft.files.wordpress.com
 
Here is the surviving fuselage section of a Gotha Go 242 at the Deutsches Technikmuseum in Berlin and an Airspeed Horsa reproduction at Pegasus Bridge in France. The Horsa is bigger than I thought it would be.

Airspeed Horsa could carry up to 30 soldiers, but the fuselage cross section was barely wide enough to hold a Jeep. It hold hold a pair of Jeeps or a single Jeep towing a light-weight, 105 mm howitzer, M3. That made Horsa about twice as heavy (15,000 pounds gross weight) as Waco CG-4 (7,500 pounds gross weight) which only carried 13 soldiers.
 
Were there only the Horsa, Hotspur, Twin Hotspur, Hamilcar and Hengist in the UK? Or were there other projects?
 
Depends on your definition of UK.
At the time a lot of "secondary" projects were farmed out to the colonies.
For ex DHA G-1 and G-2, HAL G-1.
 
Further to the first post on this subject, along with a couple of later ones, I found a group in Sweden who are planning to build a replica of the Fi 3 Rediviva. Unlike all of the previous reproductions of the Horsa and CG-4 Hadrian, this is planned to be a flying replica. For more details see http://www.avrosys.nu/fi3rediviva/
In the meantime here's a few pics I have discovered on this and other related sites. The first few show the prototype which broke up in the air, when under tow from a B.5 bomber. Apparently nearly 30 examples of the B.5 were so modified as towing aircraft before the abandonment of the Fi 3 project and the use of gliders as well and the conversion of some of the Air Force Ju 86 to troop transports.
Fi-3 pic 3.jpg Fi-3 pic 5.jpg Fi-3 pic 7.jpg
This last pic shows the cockpit. The instruments on the main panel are from left to right: speedometer, turn indicator, variometer, altimeter and length tilt indicator. The compass is placed under the other instruments. The instrument on the far left is probably a g-meter, temporarily mounted during the test of the aircraft. Bengt Pålsson from Ljungbyhed's Aeronautiska Sällskap reasons like this - the meter indicates 0 g at the top and then counts it at 9 g. If the text below zero is the same as on any modern g-meter it says "ACCELERATION g-units".
 
More Fi 3 pictures with the first showing the type under construction. The second shows one of the B.5 (Northrop 8A-1) tow aircraft about to set off with its load.

Fi-3 pic 4.jpg Fi-3 pic 8.jpg
 
Finally is this article which explains the types rise and fall of the type first published in the magazine Contact's April 1991 edition
As the editorial staff often researches the history of Swedish aviation, you sometimes come across lesser-known projects that, in a more or less developed form, have written themselves into our aviation history. Numerous are the ideas and plans that have remained on the sketch table, to then not come any further, and at best are archived as a "project" among many others who did not reach further… ..
However, as is well known, there are also projects here in Sweden that have left the idea and sketch stage and come to practical execution, only to be closed down after a few produced copies for various reasons….
One such lesser-known project is the LG 105 cargo glider, which we tell the story of here:
The Air Force's transport capacity for personnel and equipment for its own maintenance was for a long time extremely limited. This posed a problem as the air forces regrouped between different emergency fields around the country during the years of unrest. The maintenance units had to follow, and a transport by land was many times cumbersome and took a long time. This was the background to an idea to deal with the transport problem long before the time of the helicopters and the major transport plans. The idea was to provide the Swedish Air Force with cargo gliders that were towed according to existing "tugs" and which could be included in the regroupings of the air forces. The idea is probably inspired by the Allies' aviation activities, where cargo gliders were in frequent use.
Based on the aviation administration's specified and high requirements, the design and manufacture of a cargo slider was started at AB Flygindustri in Halmstad. KFF's order included in a first series of six aircraft, including a prototype, and at the same time meant the first government order at the company.
Until now, AB Flygindustri and its predecessors had manufactured gliders of foreign construction such as Grunau, Weihe and Olympia. The first own project and also the only Swedish-designed glider so far was Fi-1, an unconventional creation that was first tested in the summer of 1943. Unfortunately, Fi-1 did not turn out to be the success one had hoped for and of a planned first production round of 15 planes only six came. to be built!
In parallel with Fi-1, construction began on the cargo slider, which was given the company designation Fi-3. The aircraft had room for two crew members and 10 passengers or 1250 kg of cargo, and was designed according to previous experience from the glider. This meant i.a. that the Fi-3 came to have completely different, and significantly better flight characteristics than the cargo gliders used by the RAF and USAAF at this time.

The construction​

The plane was equipped with double-command side-by-side. Behind the driver's seats, there was room for two passengers facing each other, to some extent separated from the actual passenger compartment by a pipe stay frame, which made accessibility somewhat limited. Behind the said frame there was the larger passenger (or cargo space) where eight people, four on each side facing each other, could fit. Loading and unloading took place through two large rectangular cargo doors under each main wing. Felling of paratroopers and / or materials could also take place during flight. The doors, which had a high entry threshold, were opened outwards and upwards, and were fitted with a small round window behind each passenger seat - thus four on each side.
The landing gear consisted of two main wheels, a resilient built-in nose ski and spur shock absorbers, all according to known gliding standards.
The front part of the fuselage consisted of a welded tubular steel structure clad with veneer panels on wooden frames and covered with canvas. The rear body was a shell construction of veneer on wooden frames. The wing was built in a conventional manner with a continuous main beam of compressed wood and attached to the body by welded bolt joints. The front edge of the wing was veneered to the height of the main beam and also equipped with air brakes.
The instrumentation was simple and contained only the most necessary instruments. However, the prototype was equipped with a radio for communication with the tugboat. A landing spotlight in the front left part of the nose complemented the equipment.
Despite its spacious interior, the Fi-3 gave the sleek and aerodynamically appealing exterior. A "large glider", were reviews that later during the test flights came to have their justification. Unladen, the plane came to "lie on its tail" on the ground, when the center of gravity came to lie behind the wheels.

Good performance​

The prototype for the Fi-3 was ready for test flight in March 1944, and after delivery tests with good results, the plane was transferred to the Experimental Center at Malmslätt for further tests and evaluation. At this stage, the Air Force's designation LG 105 had been reserved for the aircraft. As a towing machine, a towed B 5 from F 6 (Fvnr 7060) was used during the retrieval in Halmstad and the following experiments. During the following evaluation which took place on e.g. Malmslätt, Barkarby and Västerås, and included towing tests at different speeds, loading tests, take-off and landing tests, etc. It was found that the LG 105 was stable and very easy to fly, had excellent flight characteristics and could even easily perform advanced maneuvers such as. looping and roll! The tests also showed that the towing aircraft's take-off distance and cruising speed only slightly deteriorated despite the Lg 105 being pulled behind! The towing speed could also be allowed to be high; cruising speed around 200 km / h (compared to ordinary gliders 90-100 km / h) and maximum speed 250 km / h. If the maximum speed was reduced to 200 km / h, the maximum flight weight could instead be increased to 2100 kg! (For additional data; see separate table!). instead, the maximum flight weight could be increased to 2100 kg! (For additional data; see separate table!). instead, the maximum flight weight could be increased to 2100 kg! (For additional data; see separate table!).

A miserable end to a promising project​

On April 28 , 1944, the test aircraft crashed during towing during a maximum load test at an altitude of 1500 meters outside Skänninge south of Motala. The aircraft was in strong vibrations, whereby large parts of the fuselage and wings were torn off, after which the aircraft crashed in an uncontrollable position. The crew, two flight engineers from FC, carried out parachute jumps. Unfortunately, the carrying ropes for the driver's screen did not fully develop, but he hit the ground and died. The cause of the accident was stated to be an incorrect welding joint in the bolt fitting in the wing's attachment to the body. Later, a design error was also suspected regarding the bearing capacity of the bolts in the said fittings.
The accident meant the beginning to the end for the LG 105. The continued attempts were interrupted, and when the Swedish Air Force now reassessed the need for this type of aircraft, the order with AB Flygindustri was canceled.
An attempt was made to market the Fi-3 on the civilian market by AB T-Flyg and the newly formed Kockums Flygindustri in Malmö taking over the five remaining Fi-3s. The plane was towed over to Bulltofta, where tests and demonstrations continued, now with a Norseman as a towing aircraft. However, no civilian stakeholders were to be found, mainly due to the fact that the supply of transport aircraft of larger and smaller types increased drastically after the end of the war. The development had thus bypassed the Fi-3…
The result was that the Fi-3s were left standing at Bulltofta, to eventually be scrapped. Unfortunately, no Fi-3 aircraft is preserved for posterity.
When the Fi-3 was intended for military purposes (LG 105), the plane was also painted in the usual manner of air force; gray-green top and light blue-gray bottom. The paint was sprayed without masking. Nationality designations in four positions (not on the upper sides of the wings). Otherwise, there were no designations, registration numbers, etc. dyl. Only a small red cross mark (indication for first aid kit) on either side of the body immediately behind the cargo doors.
In parentheses it can be mentioned that when the future prospects looked the best for the LG 105, before the fatal crash, they sketched a two-engine variant of the Fi-3, called the Fi-8! When Fi-3 disappeared from the picture, Fi-8 was also discontinued, but returned as a project in the early 50's. The cargo capacity of the Fi-8 turned out to be too poor, so the Air Force was not interested, and the project was closed down again.



Specifications for the Fi 3
Span​
16.5 m​
Length​
9.7 m​
Height​
3.3 m​
Wing area​
32.0 m 2​
Empty weight​
780 kg​
Flight weight​
1800 kg​
Max. towing speed​
250 km / h​
Max. speed escape​
350 km / h​
Landing speed​
80 km / h​
Glide ratio​
1: 8.5​
Best gliding speed​
1:15​
 
Hi,

the Teichfuss Borea or LT.35 Borea was an Italian high performance glider transport designed by Luigi Teichfuss. It was completed by 1943 but never flew and the sole example was destroyed during the German occupation of Italy.


Further to Hesham's post, I found on https://www.j2mcl-planeurs.net/dbj2mcl/planeurs-machines/planeur-fiche_0int.php?code=1517 website a description of the Borea, with a more accurate GA and picture, and I can see that it was meant as a two seat high performance sailplane rather than a transport glider.

Teichfuss_Borea.jpg Teichfuss Borea GA.jpg
 
Just in case you wondered if there was more than one Fi 3, in fact a total of six were built, with the survivors being moved to Bulltofta, where they were towed by a Norseman to try and see if civilian operators were interested. Fi-3 pic 18.jpg
 
Depends on your definition of UK.
At the time a lot of "secondary" projects were farmed out to the colonies.
For ex DHA G-1 and G-2, HAL G-1.
No, I already meant other projects in the British motherland. The sailors of HAL and DHA have already been published very often and extensively.
 
Were there only the Horsa, Hotspur, Twin Hotspur, Hamilcar and Hengist in the UK? Or were there other projects?
Well, there was one that 'almost' made it. Baynes proposed transporting tanks by fitting them with wings, as in this patent. He got as far as flying a 1/3 scale model, the Baynes Bat

GB578043A10.jpg GB578043A13.jpg Bat_1.jpg Bat_3.jpg
 

Attachments

  • GB578043A8.jpg
    GB578043A8.jpg
    290.2 KB · Views: 78
During WW2, Chase Aircraft Company (USA) started developing a series of cargo gliders. The first wooden CG-14A only flew in January 1945, so missed the (cancelled) invasion of Japan. But Chase continued developing all metal CG-18 and CG-20 prototypes. Chase never got a production contract, but eventually the line was enlarged to become the Chase/Fairchild C-123 transport that hauled “ash and trash” during the Vietnam War. C-123 also gained infamy for spraying Agent Orange defoliant.
C-123 is unique in being the only airframe to fly as a: glider, piston propeller, piston plus jet, pure jet and Taiwan even converted a C-123 to turboprop power!
Two different, late war gliders were converted into powered versions:
  1. the XCG-18A with two engines added became the YC-122
  2. the XCG-20, as you mentioned, became the C-123

The US soured on gliders, deciding by 1946 that they should only be used for cargo and by 1952 that they shouldn't be used at all. Despite this, all the work / testing had been successfully completed on the XCG-18/20 and powered contemporaries (C-46, C-47) were designed as airliners, not military cargo planes, so the conversion of the cargo gliders to powered aircraft probably made a lot of sense.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom