I've been an aviation enthusiast in the USA for years and I've never heard of the LDA-01 or it's designer. Thanks for sharing! This is a very interesting aircraft and shows the enormous optimism for aviation that existed at the time. For all of you RC scale model builders out there, I think this would be a great subject!
@@joesutherland225 there are three view drawings available online and a small, rubber powered 13" span model design can be found and purchased online too.
this seems like such a good idea that there is honnestly no way this guy wasnt sabotaged man super sad, this would have been a cool sight to see flying about
It seems that a working model of this concept plane was indeed sabotaged by arson in 1987. But the purpose of the sabotage could have been the 10 "edgely opticas" that were destroyed in the fire as well. The idea of this type of plane is however free for anyone to explore. I guess there is a good reason or two for why this design was not pursued further.
When i started flying RC planes a few yrs ago I was mostly just interested in Warbirds , The Icons we all grew up with like the Corsair and Spitfire . But since then I've come to appreciate all aviation . This aircraft is amazing and I've never seen it before . Great job on the presentation .
I remember seeing this as a kid... i imagined going camping in it... thanks for the vid... great planes never die as long as someone is there to remember them.
This smacks of another lost opportunity and such a sad fate too. Thanks for sharing, I found this post about an aircraft previously unknown to me truly fascinating.
This looks like an airplane a child would design. As for 'not airplane' shaped airplanes go, this one is really cute. Reminds me of building a space ship from Lego.
@@gort8203 We are talking about the design philosophy and modularity. That was the part that was ahead of its time. If they sold these as a kit, it would be at the top of my list. First thing I would do is convert it to electric. Might as well make it out of carbon fiber as well, It's just a box the layup is super easy. And the costs have come down so far carbon fiber is the new fiberglass. Have you seen that video of the robot dog taking a walk on top of a ball? I read the paper, the secret sauce is a really simple trick. And can be abstracted to just about anything. So fully autonomous autopilot would take a couple hundred bucks to train, either renting the CPUs or tasking a 3060 or better for a few weeks to generate the synthetic data. You don't even need a copy of X-Plane anymore to make your own software defined autopilot (like software defined radio, you can change the flight characteristics on the fly). Etc. Zipline's delivery drones share a very similar design and layout. So yes, ahead of its time. This was a plan for people who wanted to tinker. They should have sold it the size it was.
@@jtjames79 Lots of words there to convince yourself of . . . something. But the design philosophy has not been put into use, which it would have if worthwhile, so it was not really ahead of its time.
@@jtjames79 No we are not, you are talking about it, and you are just repeating yourself. Build anything you like, just don't say a "philosophy" that went nowhere is ahead of its time.
I'm really impressed by the thought that went into this design. Maybe someone can pick up from Mr Lockspeiser's excellent work. Definitely an airborne Land Rover.
Actually saw this aircraft in the flesh at the 1976 International Air Tattoo. I hadn't realised that Lockspeiser had worked with the Miles aircraft company. That would explain the configuration of the design, which has a resemblance to the World War 2 era Miles Libelula. Unfortunately, the LDA was never developed beyond this prototype.
I'm wondering if there were problems with ineffective yaw control. All the films showed the aircraft in straight and level flight apart from take off and landings. A properly coordinated turn might be an issue with all that slab side and those tiny rudders. This was clearly an issue, as attested by all the variations of yaw control in the video. Ta.
Always wondered why canards don't have a rudder in the form of a fairing on the steered nosewheel. Trying to shove the main mass sideways with those wing rudders is plain daft, so why not have an independently operating airbrake at each of the wingtips?
This is a great compilation of information on a fascinating aircraft that I was unfamiliar with until today. I agree with your assessment completely. This design had, and has, tremendous potential. Thanks for sharing!
I recall this from my regular magazine coverage but had missed the awful loss in the Old Sarum fire which also highlighted why the optica prospect were spoiled as well. Thanks for the video.
I knew a chap who worked for Edgeley Optica near Salisbury , he had been a production engineer with BAC Hurn. Told me each plane was different, no common plans and too many managers regularly changing their minds .. he was surprised that they had any planes flying at all.
There’s something endearing about vehicles designed with utility and ease of use in mind. This aircraft certainly had potential, it’s a shame it never progressed past the prototype stage.
That is what is now called a canard winged aircraft. Small wings up front, big wings in back. That type of wing configuration handles very well. They were all the rage back in the 70's and 80's. You do not see them much now days except for collectors buying them and making them air worthy again.
Have to wonder about the lack of uptake with this plane? It looks like a very practical bush plane and could almost be a home builder’s dream. Maybe the radical looks were a bit off putting? Very clever stuff! 👍🏻
Wonder how good it's landing skills at STOL. Gravel runways would be a concern with that rearward prop spinning in the rocks chucked up by the nose wheel(s)
This is a fantastic aircraft!! Hell, I wish it were sold as a kit. The "Optica" is another one that I cannot understand why it's not everywhere. Helicopter view with light airplane economy. Seems a "shoe-in" for border security & environmental monitoring.
Never heard of it before, although I have a sneaking suspicion others came up with an essentially similar layout later. Brilliant concept this LDA - 01 Setting the cannard wing with a more acute angle of attack is a crafty safe stall feature which traces back to the Bristol Boxkite of 1910 onward fame.
The music sounds like what they played during intermission at drive-in move theatres in the 60s. And this thing could have been in one of the pre-show cartoons for the kids.
I first saw photos of the LDA-01 in the 1970s and it has intrigued me all these years. I think it would be interested to design a homebuilt airplane based on it.
What an interesting little guy that plane is. I'm curious, if the wing design was so efficient and safe, why aren't more planes designed that way? It's so odd to see it appear to fly backwards.
Very well thought out as far as (light) cargo operations loading a pre-loaded "pannier" as he called it and a container above could reduce ground time up to maybe 30 minutes as opposed to bulk loading
Thanks. I always wondered what happened to that plane. Remember reading about it, saw it once as at a show, thought it brilliant, and would soon be seen in production, then nothing.
I remember seeing an Optica at Sarum and recall reading about the fire which destroyed not only two exceptional aircraft but, effectively, their manufacturers as well. I can’t recall if anyone was convicted for it. Anyone know?
this could be scaled up to any size for cargo planes, and probably passenger planes as well! The Canard design has both wings as lifting surfaces, increasing payload.
Wingspan was 26 ft plus the fuselage width. Yes, I recognise that each panel (foreplane and mainplane) was 13 ft span, but that is not how wingspan is calculated. Do we assume that the change of name from Boxer 1000 to Boxer 500 reflects a reevaluation of its load carrying capacity? The initial description said the belly pannier had a load capacity of 1000kg, but it seems to have been discarded for the production proposal and the doors were the full height of the fuselage. Load seems to have dropped from 1000kg to a quoted figure of 272kg. That is a LONG way from the initial expectation.
Yes, the span was an error on my part. The specs changed a lot during development. It looked different in almost every photo. I guess, just trying things out and showing options. l did wonder how they lifted the cargo pod up into the aircraft. Dropping cargo as he proposed would have been dodgy with the prop.
@@talesfromthehutandhangarwhen trying to sell a design you attempt to cover as many bases as possible, and a few that are not!, then reality whittles down the options, hopefully before things have gone too far, and you arrive at something that is close to practical, it's how the process works, best not shout too loudly at the start and get hopes up, just loud enough to get started😊.
@@CrusaderSports250 Thunderbird 2 was the GOAT for me! Secretly I liked Gordon as much as Virgil, although I think I'm more like John. Anywho, I am a volunteer firefighter, so I participate in the International Rescue mission.
A minor correction, the Lycoming engine is the O-320, pronounced 'Oh 320', not 'Zero 320'. The Lockspeiser LDA-01 is quite familiar to aeromodellers who build indoor scale models as it's relatively popular as a subject. Unlike many full sized aircraft, its configuration and areas scale down well and remain aerodynamically effective at the Reynolds numbers that very small model aircraft operate at.
Thanks for that correction, as minor it was. Be careful if you view my other videos. My pronunciation, can be my own English variation of the way I talk (I was born in Windsor, England). I screw up foreign words a lot (even checking on Google translate) & I say foot when I should be saying feet... Still very human & better than AI voice generated. Have you got this far yet? ua-cam.com/video/12WV5FhkXN0/v-deo.htmlsi=lUKQf3hadIaBiBjD Best regards Keith
@@talesfromthehutandhangarindeed, that hangar fire did so much damage to some potentially brilliant aircraft. I wonder if the culprit was ever caught and whether it was mere criminality that inspired the attack or there was something more financially nefarious behind it.
Lockspeiser was indeed way ahead of his time. A brilliant design born of a lot of experience. Tragic that the prototype was destroyed in such a way. Imagine what he could achieve given present-day design processes.
Poppycock. plenty of aircraft built to this design before Lockspeiser built this thing. Miles M39 for example. All of them failed to enter service because they had no major advantage over conventional designs.
@@richardvernon317the ability to load unload direct from a truck with a level platform is just one of the features that has yet to be delivered in light aviation as was the ease of the float conversion. Miles M39 fell foul of a procurement process structured for wartime production and a very conservative selection thinking. Had the LDA been made in the eastern bloc then we may have seen production due to its simple utility nature, similar to the Antonov Colt biplane, another big problem is the utility market is dominated by a small number of companies making sales penetration very difficult, a common problem for all small manufacturers, regardless of what they make, let alone someone right at the start of the process. The great shame is with the destruction of the prototype the aircrafts potential was never allowed to be reached, whatever that may have been.
Clearly "inspired" by the Miles libellula (also his training with them as mentioned in the video) seemed to be underpoweted but worthy of more development . Was he related to Ben lockspeiser ( involved in the Whittle jet devt.? )
A fantastic design! It could have been developed into a 10-20 seater aircraft - with ONE 1000 hp gas turbine engine - taking a similar role to the Cessna Caravan and de Havilland Twin Otter. Also as a version that could take euro pallets (or small containers with a similar "footprint"). With even more practical solutions, and with even safer flight characteristics than the Caravan and Twin Otter (which are themselves quite practical and safe). I have long been a fan of aircraft with canard design, and for tens of years thought that they would be the design of the future. But it looks like the future is coming very slowly… Is it just old traditions - within the big aircraft manufacturers - that lead to most newly developed aircraft still having "classic" (non-canard) designs?
1927 + 35 means you were born in 1962 and also your age is also 62? From your voice I would have thought you were much younger. Oh great video as well.
What an amazing aircraft! Great video also. My problem is that I don't understand all the funny imperial units, would suggest more modern metrics for today's viewers. Thanks for the video.
I'm glad you liked it. Thanks. Aircraft was made in imperial, so read as that. I simply can't be arsed reading both out as errors crop up in conversion. But in future l will just put on the screen. 😅
Downsides of canard pushers generally include a need for longer runways, but that seems to have been avoided here. However, pushers usually have issues with rough fields because of proper strikes when raising the nose on uneven terrain. At any rate, he was too late. The market for aircraft was dead due to American failures. The FAA, tort lawyers, airlines, and land developers were in an unorganized conspiracy to destroy General Aviation. This meant there was a huge glut of aircraft in the fleet, with little ability to make replacements that were marketable combined with falling demand. The FAA and lawyers made new designs impossibly expensive while the airlines and land developers were doing their best to push light aircraft out of landing near population centers.
@@talesfromthehutandhangar But a bigger version with a bigger engine would have the prop get longer than the plane got bigger. Perhaps taller gear could fix it, but I just don’t see a heavy plane not bouncing a pusher prop into the ground. Today it might be solved by advanced prop design they didn’t have then.
This scheme was used not only by the Wright brothers))) The Soviet MiG-8 "Duck" began to be developed in February 1945, on August 13, 1945, it made its first flight.
The only reference for a canard type that had any success was the Rutan long EZ. They were criticized for long and shallow TO performance, and their spindly nose gear wheel. Though the Rutan design was meant to be a little speed ship, I would imagine a heavy lifting canard design would have suffered similar issues. Not likely to be STOL capable with such a feature being an important advantage in all of the LDA-01's competitors. BTW loved the video, very thoroughly depicted, and a design yet again unbeknownst to many viewers.
Steven, I guess it depends on the definition of success. The Beechcraft 2000 Starship was a measured success even though it didn't meet the performance promised. Loved by a limited few by apart from a couple, bought back by textron to avoid having to support them until the last one retired. Coming as a hybrid when is a canard not a canard is the Piaggio Avanti which seems to still be active. The Cozy looks like a clone of the Long Ez and VariEz but is more practical.
@@planesounds Yes. I saw a Starship demonstrator at Avalon airshow 1995. Forgot about the Piaggio Avanti. They have always built sweet looking aircraft. The Curtiss XP-55 was also a successful canard design by your more open definition, but Curtiss couldn't cure some unique and violent stall/spin characteristics that ultimately killed a well known aviator of the time.
@@Deviation4360 Whether I am recalling it accurately or not, Burt Rutan told that once the canard was "sorted out" it was a very benign handling plane. There were some challenging vices along the way that made that "sorting out" difficult. For example morning dew on the foreplane destroyed the lift on at least one occasion where the plane stayed firmly on the ground. I'm not sure if the cure was a change in airfoil, angle of incidence or wiping down with a cloth. There are a number of advanced combat aircraft now with canard winglets, but these, I believe are essentially for extreme maneuvers and not primary or even secondary lift. There is a Beech Starship at the Queensland Air Museum at Caloundra. Col Pay bought it for the engines and donated the rest of the aircraft to a local technical school and then to QAM. The Permit to Fly in Australia was limited to one ferry flight apparently. Check the Eagle Aircraft Eagle XT from Western Australia that was produced both in Australia and Malaysia.
I'm guessing it wouldn't be good for short field operations, do to the canard çonfiguration and the propeller on the rear. This could be its greatest falt. Otherwise a very good design.
@@talesfromthehutandhangar lifting the nose up during takeoff and landing, will lower the propeller. This could be a problem. It will also limit the angleof attack or how much nose up pich the pilot can do before the propeller starts digging a trench. I'm pretty sure you have seen STOL. competitions before.
Its not the worst aircraft. It seems like it flies a little nose up. The nose didn’t seem to bob up and down like a lot of other canard aircraft do. It definitely has some aviator Burt Rutan vibes to it.
Kinda brick-ugly, but I love it. Obviously intelligently and carefully designed for real-world needs and serviceability. Maybe the arson attack on the hangar wasn't random?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I've been an aviation enthusiast in the USA for years and I've never heard of the LDA-01 or it's designer. Thanks for sharing! This is a very interesting aircraft and shows the enormous optimism for aviation that existed at the time. For all of you RC scale model builders out there, I think this would be a great subject!
Glad you liked it-Thanks
Do blueprints of this exist?
@@joesutherland225 there are three view drawings available online and a small, rubber powered 13" span model design can be found and purchased online too.
this seems like such a good idea that there is honnestly no way this guy wasnt sabotaged man super sad, this would have been a cool sight to see flying about
Unfortunately there was still a lot of DC3s around.
@jamesricker3997 to be fair he dis say his factory was burned down by arson that kinda seems to say alot
It seems that a working model of this concept plane was indeed sabotaged by arson in 1987. But the purpose of the sabotage could have been the 10 "edgely opticas" that were destroyed in the fire as well. The idea of this type of plane is however free for anyone to explore. I guess there is a good reason or two for why this design was not pursued further.
While not the prettiest aircraft around, it was certainly one of the most practical aircraft I've ever come across. Very well thought out.
Loving the footage of the test pilot climbing in the cockpit wearing a white office shirt and tie.
When i started flying RC planes a few yrs ago I was mostly just interested in Warbirds , The Icons we all grew up with like the Corsair and Spitfire .
But since then I've come to appreciate all aviation . This aircraft is amazing and I've never seen it before . Great job on the presentation .
Thank you 😊
It is a pity it never made it to production. It looks like it had real potential.
Yes, the idea & still is a good one.
I remember seeing this as a kid... i imagined going camping in it... thanks for the vid... great planes never die as long as someone is there to remember them.
Thanks 👍 Nice dream!
This smacks of another lost opportunity and such a sad fate too. Thanks for sharing, I found this post about an aircraft previously unknown to me truly fascinating.
Thanks.
Such potential. It's really sad that simple, innovative aircraft like this can't get attention or market support.
Genius! Thanks for sharing 👍😊💜
Such a shame that GB's aviation industry has been wilfully, treasonously, systematically destroyed.
Thanks. Yes such a shame
This looks like an airplane a child would design. As for 'not airplane' shaped airplanes go, this one is really cute. Reminds me of building a space ship from Lego.
Looks like something Rutan might have built. Surprising no one picked it up.
Way ahead of its time. Would have fun to build and fly.
Ahead of its time? How do you know its time will ever come? It has not met any worldwide demand or we would see these things flying.
Design was tested in the 1940's as the Miles M36 and M39. Didn't work that well so was dropped.
@@gort8203 We are talking about the design philosophy and modularity. That was the part that was ahead of its time.
If they sold these as a kit, it would be at the top of my list. First thing I would do is convert it to electric.
Might as well make it out of carbon fiber as well, It's just a box the layup is super easy. And the costs have come down so far carbon fiber is the new fiberglass.
Have you seen that video of the robot dog taking a walk on top of a ball?
I read the paper, the secret sauce is a really simple trick. And can be abstracted to just about anything. So fully autonomous autopilot would take a couple hundred bucks to train, either renting the CPUs or tasking a 3060 or better for a few weeks to generate the synthetic data. You don't even need a copy of X-Plane anymore to make your own software defined autopilot (like software defined radio, you can change the flight characteristics on the fly).
Etc.
Zipline's delivery drones share a very similar design and layout.
So yes, ahead of its time. This was a plan for people who wanted to tinker. They should have sold it the size it was.
@@jtjames79 Lots of words there to convince yourself of . . . something. But the design philosophy has not been put into use, which it would have if worthwhile, so it was not really ahead of its time.
@@jtjames79 No we are not, you are talking about it, and you are just repeating yourself. Build anything you like, just don't say a "philosophy" that went nowhere is ahead of its time.
I love how even in the thumbnail the pilot's looking at the camera going "Can you believe I'm flying this thing?"
I'm really impressed by the thought that went into this design. Maybe someone can pick up from Mr Lockspeiser's excellent work. Definitely an airborne Land Rover.
Actually saw this aircraft in the flesh at the 1976 International Air Tattoo. I hadn't realised that Lockspeiser had worked with the Miles aircraft company. That would explain the configuration of the design, which has a resemblance to the World War 2 era Miles Libelula. Unfortunately, the LDA was never developed beyond this prototype.
I'm wondering if there were problems with ineffective yaw control. All the films showed the aircraft in straight and level flight apart from take off and landings. A properly coordinated turn might be an issue with all that slab side and those tiny rudders.
This was clearly an issue, as attested by all the variations of yaw control in the video.
Ta.
Always wondered why canards don't have a rudder in the form of a fairing on the steered nosewheel. Trying to shove the main mass sideways with those wing rudders is plain daft, so why not have an independently operating airbrake at each of the wingtips?
A very interesting design, thank you for a great "show and tell". I have subscribed hoping to see more of this caliber.
Thanks! Appreciated. Please do check out the oĺder stuff as well.
This is a great compilation of information on a fascinating aircraft that I was unfamiliar with until today. I agree with your assessment completely. This design had, and has, tremendous potential. Thanks for sharing!
I'm glad you enjoyed it. Thanks.
It was great to hear the inventor explain his aircraft. Thank you for making the video.
Glad you enjoyed it!
David speaking here ua-cam.com/video/12WV5FhkXN0/v-deo.htmlsi=Fn7vkbuJTLx5DCdN
I recall this from my regular magazine coverage but had missed the awful loss in the Old Sarum fire which also highlighted why the optica prospect were spoiled as well. Thanks for the video.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I knew a chap who worked for Edgeley Optica near Salisbury , he had been a production engineer with BAC Hurn. Told me each plane was different, no common plans and too many managers regularly changing their minds .. he was surprised that they had any planes flying at all.
What a beautiful aeroplane!
Very modular. I love the development ethos and design philosophy. Even much larger aircraft would benefit from this simple commonality.
I was aware of this obscure plane, but never thought I would see a video about it. Thanks Rex.
You are welcome
There’s something endearing about vehicles designed with utility and ease of use in mind. This aircraft certainly had potential, it’s a shame it never progressed past the prototype stage.
Thanks for finding this, I’ve always been fascinated by a picture of this aircraft in Stinton’s Design of the Aeroplane.
Absolutely fascinating! Thanks for posting. I'll check out your other videos!
Thanks. Please do, l hope you enjoy them.
That is what is now called a canard winged aircraft. Small wings up front, big wings in back. That type of wing configuration handles very well. They were all the rage back in the 70's and 80's. You do not see them much now days except for collectors buying them and making them air worthy again.
Have to wonder about the lack of uptake with this plane? It looks like a very practical bush plane and could almost be a home builder’s dream. Maybe the radical looks were a bit off putting? Very clever stuff! 👍🏻
Wonder how good it's landing skills at STOL. Gravel runways would be a concern with that rearward prop spinning in the rocks chucked up by the nose wheel(s)
Prop spin no difference just the other way. Maybe a gravel type kit. Spats on the wheels etc.
There seems to be a story there of it's own that needs uncovering & retelling about the arson fire in 1987.....🤔
Some else can do that!
@@talesfromthehutandhangarcan of worms!!.
Cool looking plane, Seems like someone might take up the task of improving and producing it
Wow, how innovative! Truly sad of the destruction of prototypes. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks glad you liked it
Amazing❤! Greatings from Jonas Gothenburg Sweden. 😊
This is a fantastic aircraft!! Hell, I wish it were sold as a kit. The "Optica" is another one that I cannot understand why it's not everywhere. Helicopter view with light airplane economy. Seems a "shoe-in" for border security & environmental monitoring.
It seems suspect that 2 unique aircraft were destroyed by arson in one blow. Wonder who benefited.
Man Boeing has REALLY been busy… for longer than we knew. You think the current guy is like the son of the son of the first fellow?
Huh?
This statements validity would have bearing depending on If and how Quickly someone offered to buy up the patents!! 🤔
Cui bono indeed!
As usual a weird design but totally functional and should have been developed
some really well thought out ideas .
Excellent video thanks for uploading
Thanks!
Never heard of it before, although I have a sneaking suspicion others came up with an essentially similar layout later.
Brilliant concept this LDA - 01
Setting the cannard wing with a more acute angle of attack is a crafty safe stall feature which traces back to the Bristol Boxkite of 1910 onward fame.
The music sounds like what they played during intermission at drive-in move theatres in the 60s. And this thing could have been in one of the pre-show cartoons for the kids.
It was music of its time. I nearly wiped the sound and l was going to narrate over it.
@@talesfromthehutandhangar Yeah, I didn't think you chose that music. But it is an indication of how dated this aircraft concept is now.
I first saw photos of the LDA-01 in the 1970s and it has intrigued me all these years. I think it would be interested to design a homebuilt airplane based on it.
Decades later, I found a similar configuration allowed for minimal component stress and trim difficulties on heavy lift spaceplanes in Kerbal.
What an interesting little guy that plane is. I'm curious, if the wing design was so efficient and safe, why aren't more planes designed that way? It's so odd to see it appear to fly backwards.
Very well thought out as far as (light) cargo operations
loading a pre-loaded "pannier" as he called it and a container above could reduce ground time up to maybe 30 minutes as opposed to bulk loading
Thanks. I always wondered what happened to that plane. Remember reading about it, saw it once as at a show, thought it brilliant, and would soon be seen in production, then nothing.
Great concept!
I’m wondering why no one stepped in or restarted this 😮
very cool episode again! thanks!
Thanks 👍 Appreciated!
Very interesting idea
I remember seeing an Optica at Sarum and recall reading about the fire which destroyed not only two exceptional aircraft but, effectively, their manufacturers as well. I can’t recall if anyone was convicted for it. Anyone know?
Amazing that it can even fly. It looks as aerodynamic as a brick.
92 Kt cruise, ouch.
Very interesting indeed. Like others my first thought is. Tailstrike..apart from that, very novel.
this could be scaled up to any size for cargo planes, and probably passenger planes as well! The Canard design has both wings as lifting surfaces, increasing payload.
Wingspan was 26 ft plus the fuselage width. Yes, I recognise that each panel (foreplane and mainplane) was 13 ft span, but that is not how wingspan is calculated. Do we assume that the change of name from Boxer 1000 to Boxer 500 reflects a reevaluation of its load carrying capacity? The initial description said the belly pannier had a load capacity of 1000kg, but it seems to have been discarded for the production proposal and the doors were the full height of the fuselage. Load seems to have dropped from 1000kg to a quoted figure of 272kg. That is a LONG way from the initial expectation.
Yes, the span was an error on my part. The specs changed a lot during development. It looked different in almost every photo. I guess, just trying things out and showing options. l did wonder how they lifted the cargo pod up into the aircraft. Dropping cargo as he proposed would have been dodgy with the prop.
@@talesfromthehutandhangarwhen trying to sell a design you attempt to cover as many bases as possible, and a few that are not!, then reality whittles down the options, hopefully before things have gone too far, and you arrive at something that is close to practical, it's how the process works, best not shout too loudly at the start and get hopes up, just loud enough to get started😊.
When I was young I thought this the ultimate in cool designs
Great video, ty for uploading it
Thank you! Appreciated.
Looks like there is lots opportunities for reducing both induced drag and interference drag. Would have been a cool project to work on.
I wonder if plans can be found? Would
Make an interesting rc plane to build
Love that '60s bingo hall music.
Edit: I remember that fire being in the news - did they ever get to the bottom of it?
Better than a porno ?
@@talesfromthehutandhangar "Confessions of a Plane Spotter"
🤣
My favorite plane. Great design on great time👌👌👌
There it was, hanging in the air in exactly the way a brick doesn't. Love the "pod". Was this the inspiration for Thunderbird 2?
F.A.B!
Thunderbird Two came first, was an avid watcher of the Saturday documentary series 😊.
@@CrusaderSports250 Thunderbird 2 was the GOAT for me! Secretly I liked Gordon as much as Virgil, although I think I'm more like John. Anywho, I am a volunteer firefighter, so I participate in the International Rescue mission.
awesome
Thanks for the video!
Just a small note: sometimes the sound of the aircraft was too loud, making it difficult to hear you
That was not me but the designer from an original film. Nothing
l could do about that.
Great video. Unique airplane.
Thanks! Appreciated.
Very clever. I'd buy one if I had the money.
A minor correction, the Lycoming engine is the O-320, pronounced 'Oh 320', not 'Zero 320'. The Lockspeiser LDA-01 is quite familiar to aeromodellers who build indoor scale models as it's relatively popular as a subject. Unlike many full sized aircraft, its configuration and areas scale down well and remain aerodynamically effective at the Reynolds numbers that very small model aircraft operate at.
Thanks for that correction, as minor it was. Be careful if you view my other videos. My pronunciation, can be my own English variation of the way I talk (I was born in Windsor, England). I screw up foreign words a lot (even checking on Google translate) & I say foot when I should be saying feet... Still very human & better than AI voice generated. Have you got this far yet? ua-cam.com/video/12WV5FhkXN0/v-deo.htmlsi=lUKQf3hadIaBiBjD Best regards Keith
@, I have, Keith, thank you, I was familiar with the Lockspeiser LDA-01, I’ve seen indoor scale rubber powered models of it before.
@@Pete-tq6in A great idea. A shame.
@@talesfromthehutandhangarindeed, that hangar fire did so much damage to some potentially brilliant aircraft. I wonder if the culprit was ever caught and whether it was mere criminality that inspired the attack or there was something more financially nefarious behind it.
That looks like a winner. Imagine that about 50 percent larger with a 650 hp PT-6 engine....
A new one to me , sounds practical shame it never sold
Very cool .bert rutan owes him a bow id say
The same as the Rutan Very EZ that was big news in the experimental aircraft movement.❤❤ Which one came first ?
This design was started about 1967
You could take the wings off and have a real flying car with the 4 wheel landing gear. Drive you cargo to it's destination. I like it.
Lockspeiser was indeed way ahead of his time. A brilliant design born of a lot of experience. Tragic that the prototype was destroyed in such a way. Imagine what he could achieve given present-day design processes.
Poppycock. plenty of aircraft built to this design before Lockspeiser built this thing. Miles M39 for example. All of them failed to enter service because they had no major advantage over conventional designs.
He'd burn through his money even faster.
@@richardvernon317the ability to load unload direct from a truck with a level platform is just one of the features that has yet to be delivered in light aviation as was the ease of the float conversion.
Miles M39 fell foul of a procurement process structured for wartime production and a very conservative selection thinking. Had the LDA been made in the eastern bloc then we may have seen production due to its simple utility nature, similar to the Antonov Colt biplane, another big problem is the utility market is dominated by a small number of companies making sales penetration very difficult, a common problem for all small manufacturers, regardless of what they make, let alone someone right at the start of the process. The great shame is with the destruction of the prototype the aircrafts potential was never allowed to be reached, whatever that may have been.
Clearly "inspired" by the Miles libellula (also his training with them as mentioned in the video) seemed to be underpoweted but worthy of more development . Was he related to Ben lockspeiser ( involved in the Whittle jet devt.? )
The modular concept makes it multi purpose at lower expense .
But needing at least one support aircraft to bring in the spare pods to remote locations.
I remember seeing it on Tomorrows World
Burt Rutan seems to have noted this 'canard' setup.
That looks ingenious. Pity it was never brought into production.
A fantastic design!
It could have been developed into a 10-20 seater aircraft - with ONE 1000 hp gas turbine engine - taking a similar role to the Cessna Caravan and de Havilland Twin Otter.
Also as a version that could take euro pallets (or small containers with a similar "footprint").
With even more practical solutions, and with even safer flight characteristics than the Caravan and Twin Otter (which are themselves quite practical and safe).
I have long been a fan of aircraft with canard design, and for tens of years thought that they would be the design of the future. But it looks like the future is coming very slowly…
Is it just old traditions - within the big aircraft manufacturers - that lead to most newly developed aircraft still having "classic" (non-canard) designs?
Yes it could possibly but defeats the object. lt was not the same the rest & simple to operated low cost & repairable in the field.
1927 + 35 means you were born in 1962 and also your age is also 62? From your voice I would have thought you were much younger. Oh great video as well.
Now, that is a different type of comment. Yep with the knees of a 80 year old!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I wonder who did the arson.
Canard aircraft have been around for a long time. 😁
It a bloody minivan of the skys 😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
or Robin Reliant?
Would make an interesting RC model in foam.
Have a look on UA-cam. Somebody made one.
Oh my god, a plane only it's mother could love. Reminds me of the saying, if a plane looks right. Well?????
Well. THAT'S a little different!
What an amazing aircraft! Great video also. My problem is that I don't understand all the funny imperial units, would suggest more modern metrics for today's viewers. Thanks for the video.
I'm glad you liked it. Thanks. Aircraft was made in imperial, so read as that. I simply can't be arsed reading both out as errors crop up in conversion. But in future l will just put on the screen. 😅
Downsides of canard pushers generally include a need for longer runways, but that seems to have been avoided here. However, pushers usually have issues with rough fields because of proper strikes when raising the nose on uneven terrain.
At any rate, he was too late. The market for aircraft was dead due to American failures. The FAA, tort lawyers, airlines, and land developers were in an unorganized conspiracy to destroy General Aviation. This meant there was a huge glut of aircraft in the fleet, with little ability to make replacements that were marketable combined with falling demand. The FAA and lawyers made new designs impossibly expensive while the airlines and land developers were doing their best to push light aircraft out of landing near population centers.
But on this aircraft the prop is higher up from the ground I think? than say common Cessnas & Pipers.
@@talesfromthehutandhangar But a bigger version with a bigger engine would have the prop get longer than the plane got bigger. Perhaps taller gear could fix it, but I just don’t see a heavy plane not bouncing a pusher prop into the ground. Today it might be solved by advanced prop design they didn’t have then.
This scheme was used not only by the Wright brothers))) The Soviet MiG-8 "Duck" began to be developed in February 1945, on August 13, 1945, it made its first flight.
Looks like a rutan canard design , but years ahead of rutan . It would have been a great aircraft
The only reference for a canard type that had any success was the Rutan long EZ. They were criticized for long and shallow TO performance, and their spindly nose gear wheel. Though the Rutan design was meant to be a little speed ship, I would imagine a heavy lifting canard design would have suffered similar issues. Not likely to be STOL capable with such a feature being an important advantage in all of the LDA-01's competitors. BTW loved the video, very thoroughly depicted, and a design yet again unbeknownst to many viewers.
Steven, I guess it depends on the definition of success. The Beechcraft 2000 Starship was a measured success even though it didn't meet the performance promised. Loved by a limited few by apart from a couple, bought back by textron to avoid having to support them until the last one retired. Coming as a hybrid when is a canard not a canard is the Piaggio Avanti which seems to still be active.
The Cozy looks like a clone of the Long Ez and VariEz but is more practical.
Glad you liked it
@@planesounds Yes. I saw a Starship demonstrator at Avalon airshow 1995. Forgot about the Piaggio Avanti. They have always built sweet looking aircraft. The Curtiss XP-55 was also a successful canard design by your more open definition, but Curtiss couldn't cure some unique and violent stall/spin characteristics that ultimately killed a well known aviator of the time.
@@Deviation4360 Whether I am recalling it accurately or not, Burt Rutan told that once the canard was "sorted out" it was a very benign handling plane. There were some challenging vices along the way that made that "sorting out" difficult. For example morning dew on the foreplane destroyed the lift on at least one occasion where the plane stayed firmly on the ground. I'm not sure if the cure was a change in airfoil, angle of incidence or wiping down with a cloth.
There are a number of advanced combat aircraft now with canard winglets, but these, I believe are essentially for extreme maneuvers and not primary or even secondary lift.
There is a Beech Starship at the Queensland Air Museum at Caloundra. Col Pay bought it for the engines and donated the rest of the aircraft to a local technical school and then to QAM. The Permit to Fly in Australia was limited to one ferry flight apparently.
Check the Eagle Aircraft Eagle XT from Western Australia that was produced both in Australia and Malaysia.
I'm guessing it wouldn't be good for short field operations, do to the canard çonfiguration and the propeller on the rear. This could be its greatest falt. Otherwise a very good design.
I think a pusher prop at the back is good. Stones are not coming up hitting it or the airframe. Short field was very good.
@@talesfromthehutandhangar lifting the nose up during takeoff and landing, will lower the propeller. This could be a problem. It will also limit the angleof attack or how much nose up pich the pilot can do before the propeller starts digging a trench. I'm pretty sure you have seen STOL. competitions before.
I think it was a compromise, so it could function in its other multi roles
Its not the worst aircraft. It seems like it flies a little nose up. The nose didn’t seem to bob up and down like a lot of other canard aircraft do. It definitely has some aviator Burt Rutan vibes to it.
Rule N°1 : Don't tailstrike
What a brilliant aircraft, I wonder who burnt the factory down
As for the fire, umm. Rumours are about!
Worzel Gummidge
Cool bird
Now uploaded... ua-cam.com/video/12WV5FhkXN0/v-deo.htmlsi=1851ZEogxHYzBlDc David taking about the LDA-01.
I would love to see some model photos. Send to talesfromthehutandhangar@gmail.com if you want.?
this couldve been an insanely popular aircraft had it went into production
Agree
David Lockspeiser's dad was Ben Lockspeiser. The guy who killed the Miles M.52!!!!
Indeed!!
Grandfather of the Long Easy?!?
Kinda brick-ugly, but I love it. Obviously intelligently and carefully designed for real-world needs and serviceability. Maybe the arson attack on the hangar wasn't random?