‘Nay -sayers’ claim: "the CG-4A was flimsy because it was a cotton 'canvas'¹ covered, metal tube frame construction". They ignore the reality of that type of construction being the standard for airplanes almost since the beginning of powered flight. Also, the newer aluminum rib and skin construction materials were reserved for power plane production. The CG-4A steel tube framework actually was extremely rugged. When “pancaked” on landing it did not fold or collapse. The object in landing a GC-4A was to get on the ground as quickly as possible.

Would anyone call the P-47 flimsy? Because of engine weight, shape of the fuselage and the super charger behind the pilot, a P-47 fight, when pancaked, would lose the engine and break off the fuselage behind the cockpit. This was supposedly a big, sturdy fighter plane and its aluminum skin did little more than the glider's fabric airplane covering to deflect ground fire and flak.

By 1945, some CG-4A gliders had been flown more than twelve hundred hours.² So, was the CG-4A really flimsy? Flimsier than what, a tank?

-----------------
ENDNOTES:

¹The skin of the glider was a cotton fabric covered with dope.

²Captain Sauers' 17 April 1945 paper.

SOURCE:

Day, Charles L.Silent Ones: WWII Invasion Glider Test and Experiment, Clinton County Army Air Field, Wilmington, Ohio. Pg. 77