I think you'll find the aircraft was built in the US state of Missouri (MO). Montana much larger more remote in the upper central plains is abbreviated MT. Great story on an overlooked aircraft. Thanks. Narragansett Bay
Bold design decision by Mr. H.S. Campbell. The Ford flathead V-8 is noteworthy for its lack of durability owing to cooling issues that caused the engine block to crack.
@@pashakdescilly7517 An inherently poor design that worked tolerably well on earlier V-8,12,16 engines for reasons of their low specific output. When the fuel chemistry began to improve, compression ratios went up along with specific output and the weakness of the design was revealed.
@@trottermalone379 I have often wondered if a reverse port arrangement would work better - exhaust ports in the centre of the V and inlet tracts passing through the block to the sides. The valves are all the same size as standard on a Ford flat-head. It would require a special cam and new manifolds.
@@pashakdescilly7517 The land speed record guys at Bonneville have made the reverse-port arraignment work over the last few decades. But talk about making a silk purse out of a sou’s ear…
Oh yes I know why you picked this aircraft out of historical obscurity - it is an almost perfect example of the best design possible using known technology to achieve, for the first time, a universally-available, practical, affordable, safe "flying car" for the masses; that is, the Model T "Flivver" was for land transportation, the Campbell F is for air transportation. That's awesome and noteworthy alone, but with this practical example, inadvertently achieved so long ago, it is so simple, yet precisely correct on all the critical concerns of developing this special craft - the ultimate goal of general aviation itself. Producer has a good eye for what that perfect "flying car" will mostly look like, all things considered and remaining equivalent. As such it is one of the most beautiful aircraft I've ever seen, a delight to behold and would adore flying around the country with one of my own, at will, like a car, that would fit in a 2-car garage and be able to take off and land, with practice, in about a takeoff/landing roll of a city block, . . .
A fine and futuristic design for its time. Probably the reason why traditional pilots didn't take up ownership. I reckon potential owners would have upgraded to a Ranger or Walter inline as the flathead V8's weighed 525lb. But those engines probably cost more than the budget $1000 plane at the time.
That radiator inlet is enormous! One might guess that version 2 of this plane might have reduced that aspect. Thank you for the report on this plane. As I am sure you know pusher aircraft were some of the very first airplanes and were common at the beginning of WWI.
Thank you for taking the time to bring us this forward thinking design. Would love to learn of the final disposition of the airframe. Imagine dropping into Oshkosh in this! Well told.
@@talesfromthehutandhangar Yes, and the main gear looks like it’s designed after a DC-3 with the double strut. Also the tail booms resemble a P-38. And as he said it has the humpback of a Cirrus jet. Definitely ahead of its time.
Thank you for an interesting little video on an interesting little plane. I do wonder about it's practicality and safety. With the major weight placed right over the CoG and the pilot and passenger so far forward, I would expect that a ballast weight would be needed if flying with just the pilot. Having a great lump of an engine above and behind the cabin, I would hope that the engine mounts were designed to direct it away from the cabin in the event of an impact. In response to another comment, a major weakness in using automobile engines in aeroplanes is that the designers of the those engines have developed them to produce less than 50% of their rated power for extended period whereas in aviation, the engines are expected to run at 75% and greater for hours on end. (About the only car engine ever designed to run close to maximum power for extended periods was the original VW engine from F Porsche that was adapted for many small planes before such companies as Rotax produced the small flat fours.) If intending to use a car engine in an aeroplane, the cooling system will need to be much greater than that used in the donor car (even with the at altitude temperature being as much as 15 degrees below ground level). Even when using 100% power only at takeoff, that will be for a period of time much greater than any road user would generally subject their car engine to. Remember that in aviation with an oil change every 50 hours this is less than half the duty time that a car would go between recommended oil changes.
Modern auto engines undergo extremely strenuous testing. Super cold to full throttle cycles many times over, full throttle for hours, etc etc. That is the reason new cars are as reliable as they are with the limited maintenance they get. The L head (flat head) V engines mostly passed the exhaust thru the block which limited the duration of high power output. Trucks and even just cars on steep grades would overheat. One of the reasons for the OHV conversions of flat head V engines. The inline flatheads did not have this problem of overheating due to exhaust routing.
It reminds me of the Fokker F.25 Promotor. Of course, the Campbell came first. Perhaps the Campbell Model F even inspired Fokker, when they designed the Fokker G.1 ("cruiser"/heavy fighter) in the 1930s, as I don't know of many other similar twin-boom planes of that time-period.
At 0:40 we see it had a payload of 205 pounds. That means that if you weigh 205 pounds, you cannot take any fuel.... How's that going to work? And the picture CLEARLY shows that this engine is reverse rotation; Why the hell would you ever do something like that? An engine with reverse rotation is doable with a few minor changes, but normal rotation with a reverse propellor would be a hell of a lot cheaper!
o dear. not critical past. they like the "dark" seas, air, etc channels are the clickbaityist channels around. so as soon as I saw who it was I departed.
@@jeffwalther3935 Critical Past has bought up the libraries of film houses (Pathé, Gaumont and others) and copyrighted them. you have to pay them to use what used to be public domain. fortunately Pathé has their own channel. the "dark" channels are full of, not exactly, mis-information, perhaps misleading suggestions would be a better way to put it. they are also well known for using footage that is *not* either on the purported subject or historically from the period. it boils down, if I am honest, to me not trusting them after having watched a few of their offerings.
I think you'll find the aircraft was built in the US state of Missouri (MO). Montana much larger more remote in the upper central plains is abbreviated MT. Great story on an overlooked aircraft. Thanks. Narragansett Bay
Thanks glad you liked it
Bold design decision by Mr. H.S. Campbell. The Ford flathead V-8 is noteworthy for its lack of durability owing to cooling issues that caused the engine block to crack.
I thought it was brave using a car engine. Not today as they are so reliable.
Long exhaust passages passing right across the block
@@pashakdescilly7517 An inherently poor design that worked tolerably well on earlier V-8,12,16 engines for reasons of their low specific output. When the fuel chemistry began to improve, compression ratios went up along with specific output and the weakness of the design was revealed.
@@trottermalone379 I have often wondered if a reverse port arrangement would work better - exhaust ports in the centre of the V and inlet tracts passing through the block to the sides. The valves are all the same size as standard on a Ford flat-head. It would require a special cam and new manifolds.
@@pashakdescilly7517 The land speed record guys at Bonneville have made the reverse-port arraignment work over the last few decades. But talk about making a silk purse out of a sou’s ear…
Neat airplane !Kind of ancestor of P 38!Hi from France !
Hi !
What a fun little craft!
Oh yes I know why you picked this aircraft out of historical obscurity - it is an almost perfect example of the best design possible using known technology to achieve, for the first time, a universally-available, practical, affordable, safe "flying car" for the masses; that is, the Model T "Flivver" was for land transportation, the Campbell F is for air transportation. That's awesome and noteworthy alone, but with this practical example, inadvertently achieved so long ago, it is so simple, yet precisely correct on all the critical concerns of developing this special craft - the ultimate goal of general aviation itself. Producer has a good eye for what that perfect "flying car" will mostly look like, all things considered and remaining equivalent. As such it is one of the most beautiful aircraft I've ever seen, a delight to behold and would adore flying around the country with one of my own, at will, like a car, that would fit in a 2-car garage and be able to take off and land, with practice, in about a takeoff/landing roll of a city block, . . .
A fine and futuristic design for its time. Probably the reason why traditional pilots didn't take up ownership. I reckon potential owners would have upgraded to a Ranger or Walter inline as the flathead V8's weighed 525lb. But those engines probably cost more than the budget $1000 plane at the time.
A very interesting looking aircraft for its era. It looks like a fun thing to fly, probably has fairly short runway needs and a reasonable range too?
NEAT BIRD...LOVE THE EGG SHAPE DESIGN...😎👍
A funny looking little thing. But from what you said, I'm surprised they didn't pursue production.
I’ve always been a fan of auto engine conversions. I fly an RV-4 powered by a Mazda rotary.
That radiator inlet is enormous! One might guess that version 2 of this plane might have reduced that aspect. Thank you for the report on this plane. As I am sure you know pusher aircraft were some of the very first airplanes and were common at the beginning of WWI.
@@jiroyamamoto2878 Thanks!
Thank you for taking the time to bring us this forward thinking design. Would love to learn of the final disposition of the airframe.
Imagine dropping into Oshkosh in this!
Well told.
Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks!
The cabin resembles the front of a B-29 ! Really enjoyed this episode! Well told.
Thank you
@@talesfromthehutandhangar Yes, and the main gear looks like it’s designed after a DC-3 with the double strut. Also the tail booms resemble a P-38. And as he said it has the humpback of a Cirrus jet. Definitely ahead of its time.
Nice little aircraft.
Back ground likes more like Missouri than Montana. ThankX for the presentation, like pushier designs.
@kenrobba5831 Thanks. I'm glad you liked it. Yes, some have already mentioned my mix up with the locations. Duh!
Another great video, your obscure aircraft are fabulous.
Thank you!
$1500 airplane? I'd like one for each day of the week thank you every much.
Thank you for an interesting little video on an interesting little plane. I do wonder about it's practicality and safety. With the major weight placed right over the CoG and the pilot and passenger so far forward, I would expect that a ballast weight would be needed if flying with just the pilot. Having a great lump of an engine above and behind the cabin, I would hope that the engine mounts were designed to direct it away from the cabin in the event of an impact.
In response to another comment, a major weakness in using automobile engines in aeroplanes is that the designers of the those engines have developed them to produce less than 50% of their rated power for extended period whereas in aviation, the engines are expected to run at 75% and greater for hours on end. (About the only car engine ever designed to run close to maximum power for extended periods was the original VW engine from F Porsche that was adapted for many small planes before such companies as Rotax produced the small flat fours.)
If intending to use a car engine in an aeroplane, the cooling system will need to be much greater than that used in the donor car (even with the at altitude temperature being as much as 15 degrees below ground level).
Even when using 100% power only at takeoff, that will be for a period of time much greater than any road user would generally subject their car engine to. Remember that in aviation with an oil change every 50 hours this is less than half the duty time that a car would go between recommended oil changes.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Modern auto engines undergo extremely strenuous testing. Super cold to full throttle cycles many times over, full throttle for hours, etc etc. That is the reason new cars are as reliable as they are with the limited maintenance they get.
The L head (flat head) V engines mostly passed the exhaust thru the block which limited the duration of high power output. Trucks and even just cars on steep grades would overheat. One of the reasons for the OHV conversions of flat head V engines. The inline flatheads did not have this problem of overheating due to exhaust routing.
@@planesounds Thank you. l am glad you enjoyed it.
Good Video! I Love Learning About Aviation History. Thank You For Sharing. (Like #138)
@thewatcher5271 Thanks , that's appreciated
Coolest thing ever & with a flathead V8, awesome....
I think it was in Saint Joseph, Missouri. There isn't a Saint Joseph in Montana. Regardless of that, excellent video. Two thumbs up!!
I got my Ms mixed up! Thanks glad you enjoyed it.
Amazing plane looks like it was 20-30 years ahead of its time.
Agree
It reminds me of the Fokker F.25 Promotor. Of course, the Campbell came first. Perhaps the Campbell Model F even inspired Fokker, when they designed the Fokker G.1 ("cruiser"/heavy fighter) in the 1930s, as I don't know of many other similar twin-boom planes of that time-period.
Good point I guess Fokker may of got the basic ideas from Campbell?
It vaguely resembles the Edgley Optica.
An Edgley Optica before the war, well who knew eh 😉
I like that, it had a Vampire look before the Vampire. It seems it had potential pity the concept was a one off.
Interesting
@garyspencersalt9449 I am please you found it interesting.
I want one.
LOV IT.
This engine looks like a Ford flathead.
Really?
It would be interesting to see this design reproduced using carbon fiber and a modern engine. Might make a nice light sport aircraft.
@PerfectInterview Yes l think so.
It was missing aeronautical engineer at that time !
Interesting story. I suspect that the Ford engine was chosen due to lack of financing.
Thanks
22 mpg is better than my first car 😂
At 0:40 we see it had a payload of 205 pounds. That means that if you weigh 205 pounds, you cannot take any fuel....
How's that going to work?
And the picture CLEARLY shows that this engine is reverse rotation; Why the hell would you ever do something like that? An engine with reverse rotation is doable with a few minor changes, but normal rotation with a reverse propellor would be a hell of a lot cheaper!
@Flies2FLL I just reported the facts l are as l found them. Maybe that was Inc fuel?
@@talesfromthehutandhangar Perhaps. It was a great video in any case!
@@Flies2FLL Thanks!
o dear. not critical past.
they like the "dark" seas, air, etc channels are the
clickbaityist channels around.
so as soon as I saw who it was I departed.
@kidmohair8151 Yes, it's a rubbish channel, but the Model R clip is great.
You're entirely wrong about it and aviation, imho. What's your true intention? This is an actual, not a rhetorical question. Just curious.
@@jeffwalther3935 Critical Past has bought up the libraries of film houses (Pathé, Gaumont and others) and copyrighted them.
you have to pay them to use what used to be public domain.
fortunately Pathé has their own channel.
the "dark" channels are full of, not exactly, mis-information, perhaps misleading suggestions would be a better way to put it.
they are also well known for using footage that is *not* either on the purported subject or historically from the period.
it boils down, if I am honest, to me not trusting them after having watched a few of their offerings.