USAAF 1946 Informal Design Competition, Glider, Assault, Light

Jos Heyman

ACCESS: Top Secret
15 February 2007
Reaction score
I am looking for a picture of the Douglas CG-19 glider project that was initiated in 1946. Anybody can help?

Jso Heyman
Re: Douglas XCG-19 cargo glider

The XCG-19-DO (Douglas Model 1028) was a proposed 30-troop light assault cargo glider of 1945 that was cancelled when the war ended.


  • Douglas XCG-19.gif
    Douglas XCG-19.gif
    36.2 KB · Views: 807
Re: Douglas XCG-19 cargo glider

Stargazer2006 said:
The XCG-19-DO (Douglas Model 1028) was a proposed 30-troop light assault cargo glider of 1945 that was cancelled when the war ended.

The design above does not look anywhere near the CG-19 project, as you can see from the attached picture. It is also much, much bigger.

It is also much more advanced than anything Douglas could have pulled off in 1945, but the quality and finish of the model is more compatible with something from the late 1950s or early 1960s.

Also Fairchild C-123 started its career as glider as XCG-20 in 1950.
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 !
Re: Douglas XCG-19 cargo glider

RG 342
Entry P-26
Sarah Clark Central Decimal Correspondence
Box 3684
NND 917647



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


Hughes Aircraft Corporation


Bell Aircraft Corporation


*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.


Brigadier General, U. S, A.,
Chief, Engineering Division.

1 Incl.(Dupl.)
Fig. of Merit Chart


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[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

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.


Colonel, Air Corps
Deputy Asst. Chief of Air Staff-4

1 Incl. – See TSESA-File
Great find Ryan,

and please can you display those Project drawings ?,anD thanks.
No project drawings are found in the P-26 Sarah Clark Correspondence files. :-(

I think they may be in the accompanying P-27 files.
RyanC said:
No project drawings are found in the P-26 Sarah Clark Correspondence files. :-(

I think they may be in the accompanying P-27 files.

Thank you my dear Ryan,and I hope to find them.
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)

Similar threads

Top Bottom