Ugly Airplanes, pt 3 - CaproniCA60.jpg (1/1)

[Mitchell Holman]

[J.F.]

This plane had over 9000sf of wing surface
"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
...

[Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF]

"J.F." > wrote in message
...
> This plane had over 9000sf of wing surface

And it was still BUTT UGLY!
--

Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF
Innisfail,
Queensland,
Australia

[[email protected]]

Surely there is an error here!

How can the BEAUTIFUL Caproni CA60 Transaero be placed in an "ugly"
catagory?

This is one of my fav designs and one of the all time classic forms
for an airplane.

Next you will be picking on the BV-141 and the S40.

I am attaching a few that you can say what you want about.


Henry Hillbrath

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:12:51 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> wrote:

[[email protected]]

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:07:54 +1000, "Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF"
> wrote:

>
>"J.F." > wrote in message
...
>> This plane had over 9000sf of wing surface
>
>And it was still BUTT UGLY!


I really have to wonder what the designers of this atrocity were
thinking, and also wonder about the sanity of whoever put up the
money to build it. Apparently it flew only once and then crashlanded
either a) killing both pilots or b) injuring them both.

Jimmy

[Mitchell Holman]

wrote in :

> Attachment decoded: Farman Jabiru.jpg
> `

I almost included the Jabiru in this series,
but it is already in the Trimotor series I post
regularly.

It certain qualifies to be here, tho.

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:07:03 -0800, wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:07:54 +1000, "Jeff Cochrane - VK4BOF"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J.F." > wrote in message
...
>>> This plane had over 9000sf of wing surface
>>
>>And it was still BUTT UGLY!
>
>
> I really have to wonder what the designers of this atrocity were
>thinking,

The designers had recently built a bunch of the most successful and
highly regarded bombers of WW I. (The U. S. was in the process
of building copies, but they didn't quite make the war.)

I suppose that they thought that if they took three of them
and flew them in close formation, they could lift a
cabin big enough for paying passengers.


> and also wonder about the sanity of whoever put up the
>money to build it.

I guess they were just like the designers. They had made a lot of
money and wanted more. And Caproni did a number of successful
airplanes after this, too.


> Apparently it flew only once and then crashlanded
>either a) killing both pilots or b) injuring them both.

Sadly, "a" is correct.

The CA60 was a wonderful idea, although it does look a bit odd

If it had worked, there might have been a lot of other nine wing,
eight engine airplanes, but I think this was the only one.

There were some small problems. NACA published a report that said
that the CA60 had an uncontrollable pitch instability and could not
have worked as designed. That was largely, I think, because it had
no tail. WIth 9 wings, there was hardly any place to put one. And
it didn't seem too important, I guess. Something could be worked out.

The other was that it had so much drag that it was not
too practical as a transoceanic aircraft. Unless very small
oceans could be found.

In concept, however, it was very similar to the DO-X (which didn't
work, eithe and was ten years laterr) and the Empire and Boeing 314.

They did work, twenty years later. As "monoplanes" and with REAL
engines.

The Caproni needed a bit more advanced technology, but
was a great idea. But, a bit soon.

Henry Hillbrath
>
> Jimmy