I do have a few more points about the XCG-16A. I thought it was only up against the CG-4A in competition and not the larger gliders you mentioned. Also, the crash of the MC-1 was not from lack of recovery ability. It was from a lack of flight preparation of an experimental plane.

A ballast load was placed into the MC-1 unsecured. The plane lurched from the prop-wash of the tow plane. This sent the unsecured ballast to a corner of the MC-1 interior. After that severe of a balance shift, no plane could recover. I can’t site where to find this statement right now but you may have alread seen it somewhere.

Yes, the XCG-16A had issues but most seemed easily overcome and wouldn’t being in competition with larger gliders call for a larger model to compete? If it could carry twice the load of the CG-4A, wouldn’t it out carry a larger glider if it were built to those height and width specs? I mean, you don’t ask a Jeep to compete with the load a 6X6 truck can carry.

I appreciate your input and knowledge of the subject.

In reading your comments it appears you are ignoring a few words of the report. The C-47 could tow the glider satisfactorily only up to around 17,000 lb gross weight. The C-46 could tow the glider satisfactorily at the glider gross weight. Thus, only the C-46 or larger tugs could take advantage of the aerodynamic cleanness of the design.

Transport of large equipment means 6×6 truck, 155 howitzer, not a Jeep or 57mm or 105mm, or trailer.

YES, there were other gliders with comparable or larger load capacity: CG-13A, Horsa, CG-10A. These gliders were tested at CCAAF before or at same time as the XCG-16. Criz and others involved with the MC-1 and XCG-16, like you, tried to always compare the XCG-16 only to the CG-4A and ignored the larger gliders that were also being built or tested.

“The CG-4A killed so many troops …” You have read too many novels or generalized, exaggerated statements about the CG-4A glider. Not including glider pilot casualties, 82 AB trooper KIA in the CG-4A for Normandy were .73 of one percent (that is, less than 3/4 of one percent) of 1,363 total men. For Market, the KIA was one tenth of one percent for 5,233 men.

The XCG-16 test reports do not state it provided better safety for the crew or the occupants, nor did it provide any better control than did the other gliders (and it did not). The crash of the MC-1 illustrated that control or recovery from a spin was not very good. The XCG-16 certainly did not meet or surpass every requirement for a military glider. Matter of fact, it did not begin to meet the requirements for the larger glider designs that generated the XCG-9, XCG-10, XCG-10A, XCG-11, XCG-12 and XCG-13 designs. There could have been some palm greasing to get the original 1,000 article XCG-16 contract, but more likely, it was purely the influence of certain men and their knowledge of how to bypass the AAF for contracting by using the Commerce Department for contracting.

The C-60 pilot who towed the MC-1 on most, if not all, of its flights including the fatal last flight told me the glider was fun to fly and flew well. Other pilots who flew the glider at CCAAF told me it was a nice glider to fly. That does not mean it surpassed every military requirement or met any military requirements.

Charles Day

It says, “The two small cargo compartments of the XCG-16 glider did not permit the transport of large equipment…” Yet, from the pictures, you can see that it could easily fit a jeep and a howitzer and still fit boxes of artilery rounds, extra fuel for the jeep and still some troops around the equipment.

The report says it took “approximately the same power for takeoff and climb as other gliders with comparable useful loads.” There was no other glider with comperable, useful loads. If it took as much power to get a CG-4A off the ground then it seems that using the same power to get more than twice the cargo or troops into the air was the best deal.

The XCG-16 carried 40 troops and two pilots. The Waco CG-4A carried only 14/15 troops ‘or’ a single jeep and 3 troops. The CG-4A killed so many troops that some called it “The Canvas Coffin.”

The XCG-16 surpassed every requirement for a military glider with the added bonus of better control and safety for the lives of the troops it would carry into battle. Seems to me that this is just more ‘military intellegence’ at work or, more than likely, greased palms to get the contract. Guess things never change for getting the large, military contracts.