Aircraft development proceeded incredibly rapidly. Orville Wright died in 1948. Neil Armstrong was born in 1930. The first man to fly could have met the first man to walk on the Moon (when he was 18).
@@Yeet42069 They were the first who could prove their claim, as they were consumate self-promoters, something that the other claimants were not.. None of the earlier attempts were witnessed, and it is all about the evidence. The usual cries that Brazilians raise about Alberto Santos Dumont are in error, as the Wright's had provably flown earlier.
So basically, Giovanni answered the question "what if dirigibles, only instead it's three triplanes and also a seaplane?" and promptly found out why nobody else was asking that question. Thanks for the history lesson!
As a pilot I'm familiar with "blanking" of control / lifting surfaces, and this plane seems like it was designed to create it. When a forward lifting surface (wing) creates turbulence (such as in pitching up) that disturbed air travels backwards causing control / lifting surfaces behind to become less effective, i.e. the trailing wings could have well stopped lifting, especially with the massive turbulence caused by the 6 forward wings. When the tail lost lift, it would drop, forcing the nose higher, causing more blanking, until the tail wings stopped lifting (stalled). That in turn would force the nose higher until all wings stalled and it fell.
So, the pilots KNOW that and avoid getting even near stall speeds. Many planes have fatal stall properties. Oops, why is that inverted flat spin more stable than the D-Mark? They call it a Sitting Canard...
@Voor Naam Blanking can happen well above stall speed, but creates a stall on following surfaces. Note that stalls can happen at any speed, there just needs to be a disruption of laminar air flow over the wing.
Having just watched a video about F1 cars and the "dirty air" taking away the downforce of the cars behind, I was wondering just this. Calculations were possibly assuming each of the 3 wing structures would have approximately equal lift, but that was probably far from the truth.
That was my first thought. My friends and I used to ridge soar in hang-gliders and you soon learnt not to get in close behind another glider. Their wind wash would cause buffeting and a stall. The design of the aircraft above had no chance of success.
Caproni was a Genius and mostly underrated by non-italian people. Tho very Little they know that during his period was praised and the designer of the a6m took inspiration by him and considered caproni as his mentor
Hmm... that made me wonder and surprisingly enough the term "aerodynamics" _(the SCIENCE of the motion of gasses)_ was coined in _1837_ which is about 75 years before _aerodynamic_ became an adjective and they truly started instituting "streamlined" designs on trains.
@@llYossarian That is pretty good compared to the difference between "science" and "scientist" which is around 10x longer if you only look at the actual English word "science" which comes from Middle English. But that is borrowed from Old French, so maybe a couple hundred more years and if you include the Latin _scientia_ now you are literally talking around 1900 years to at least the 1st century BCE with scientist only coming about in the 1820s initially and coming into use around the middle of the 1800s.
@@whyjnot420 ...and I know "naturalist" was the preferred term by many/most of the types of academics/researchers/experimenters/polymaths that were the closest to what we'd consider "scientists" today so how/when doe's that fit in, who wanted to be called "scientist" over "naturalist," and when did that shift happen?
@@llYossarian Here are actual quotes I will add a little context after them 1834, William Whewell, “On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences by Mrs. Somerville”, in John Gibson Lockhart, editor, Quarterly Review, volume 51, London: John Murray, retrieved November 2, 2017, page 59: There was no general term by which these gentlemen could describe themselves with reference to their pursuits. Philosophers was felt to be too wide and too lofty a term, and was very properly forbidden them by Mr. Coleridge, both in his capacity of philologer and metaphysician; savans was rather assuming, besides being French instead of English; some ingenious gentleman proposed that, by analogy with artist, they might form scientist, and added that there could be no scruple in making free with this termination when we have such words as sciolist, economist, and atheist - but this was not generally palatable […] ^ 1840, William Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences: Founded Upon Their History, Vol. 2, page 560: The terminations ize (rather than ise), ism, and ist, are applied to words of all origins: thus we have to pulverize, to colonize, Witticism, Heathenism, Journalist, Tobacconist. Hence we may make such words when they are wanted. As we cannot use physician for a cultivator of physics, I have called him a Physicist. We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist. Thus we might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist. First, correction to my initial statement, not 1820s but 1830s for its coining. As shown in the first quote. You can find those on google books pretty easily if you want the actual source material. William Whewell was essentially one of those barely ever rivaled polymaths that show up on occasion. Searching google for him will get you details on him. Essentially the terms "natural philosopher" and "man of science" were cumbersome in use and not exactly precise terms either. The latter of the two quotes explains the rationale behind that specific term and suffix. With that Latin term _scientia_ literally meaning "knowledge". The term "naturalist" has issues as well, as it can be the counterpart of spiritualist or other terms that describe and rely on the dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual world. So not the best choice of terms either. While "science" was established, so sticking -ist' onto the end as he says to denote someone who does science the way an artist does art, simply makes sense and fits into the existing naming convention that we still use. So the term "scientist" is pretty new, not even 2 centuries old yet. But the activities that it describes are easily applied retroactively and more or less objectively as well. Since the stuff it does not cover, like things of a metaphysical or spiritual nature are covered allready by established terms. I think the only time it ends up being part of confusion, are things that also are part of confusion with the term science itself. For instances, are archaeology and history, sciences? arts? social sciences? (I go with the last one) In the end it is simply a matter of refining that which had not yet been refined or if you prefer, refined enough.... which is the natural evolution of any given field of study when you think about it. Personally I find it an interesting bit of history. And in the context of anachronism, you can easily see that someone back even in the time of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who both actually died on the 4th of July 1826, would never have called themselves a "scientist". Which does have implications for things like historiography and the verification of sources (something from 1600 would while being in English, not contain the term for instance) As well as historical accuracy in storytelling and the history of science.
@@whyjnot420 Oh, wow! I sorta just meant them as open questions to be pondered/looked up individually and didn't expect a properly researched/full answer. Thanks! That's really cool.
The Ca60 and Count Giovanni Caproni play big roles in Hayao Miyazaki's "The Wind Rises", mostly in the hero's dreams. You'll also see the same Caproni bombers in the movie that Fiorello La Guardia flew in WWI; there would be more Caproni bombers in the next war.
It is so obvious that the first photograph you showed of Caproni was the inspiration for his appearance in Porco Rosso. That’s exactly how he appears in the film.
There is no inherent pitch stability with 3 sets of wings loaded equally, equally placed along the fuselage. The aircraft will tend to have neutral longitudinal stability. This is what happened, the aircraft had no tendency to level out as it pitched up, and with a preponderance of lift things got ugly quickly. 20/20 hindsight 100 years later is quite convenient for an armchair engineer to use here, but I think worse things would have eventuated had it have made longer and higher hops from the water, especially with engine masses either end of the aircraft making directional control interesting or non-existent. A safe evolution of this giant would have been a tri-decker canard design with a weight bias on the front wings to create a natural sequential stalling of the wings, and thus positive longitudinal stability. Trailing truss like directional fins on the rearward set of wings may have been sufficient for directional control. This aircraft has always given me a chuckle since I saw it in books as a kid 😋
Love the content, and production, well done. To me, this channel compliments Ed Nash's channel by adding the non military machines, thanks for your efforts.
Unbelievable how complicated they thought about and constructed aircrafts. Just few years later it looked so simple, one engine, just two wings and some rudders, ready to take off 🤷♂️
Amazing aircraft. If only it had had more engines and wings, that's where Caproni went wrong! I didn't realise their aircraft made one successful flight, I've also read that a lot of the aircraft was destroyed by a fire when it was in storage after it crashed, but perhaps that's incorrect. Anyway, very well presented and interesting video. You earn a sub :D
Want some real insanity, you need to look back even further than this. Look for a picture of the 1907 Multiplane built by Horatio Frederick Phillips. It literally has 200 airfoils on it. (200 "wings" wouldn't really be right, one glance at a photo of it will show why.) It also flew briefly at least once. (it looks like the bastard offspring between a prewar airplane, the Ca.60 and someone who only ever thought one thing in life" more wings is better) edit: make sure its the 1907 and not the 1904 one. the 1904 one has one set of airfoils, the 1907 has 4 sets
@@whyjnot420 Good god it looks like something my grandmother used to grow tomatos in! I've seen the 1904 one, there even a little bit of video footage of it, but didn't know the chap who built it came back for more. Thanks for that 😅
@@zxbzxbzxb1 You're welcome. I love the insanity of the pioneering days of flight. When people had barely any clue as to what would really work, so they just tried all sorts of things that sounded good at the time. Sharing that enjoyment is also something I love. Those days showcased human imagination when it came to flight in all of its glory, all of its insanity and all of its stupidity. Simply a marvelous time to learn about. Caproni's Ca.60 here is a perfect example of both looking forward and not yet knowing what was optimal. It is both far ahead of its time and a product of its time, at the same time. It has the insanity common to the "throw shit at the wall until something sticks" concept, combined with a true vision for and to a good extent of, the future. Hence why it is by far one of my favorite planes ever (with major bonus points for it being a flying boat, which are aircraft I simply adore as a whole).
@@MyLateralThawts No law saying "Thou must useth this many airfoils" :P edit: in otherwords, why use someone elses limits? In the end it is all about creating things. So how about a twin fuselage flying boat with 4 sets of quadruple airfoils left, right and center of the twin hulls? :D I'll let you figure out the power supply.
Been often amazed that the engine nacelles of the day had so much blocking the prop. I realize that props are supposed to be rotating airfoils, providing "lift" in a forward direction, however a lot of rearward movement of air being blocked by obstructions immediately behind said prop could contribute to a lot of turbulence and negate a good deal of the propulsion.
6:20 - Hydrofoils are underwater wings that _lift_ the vessel out of the water. If it skims the surface then it's a _hydroplane*._ If it's partly below the surface/held up by buoyancy then it's just floating/a boat. -- So a seaplane is a "hydroplane" when it's moving at speed along the water and it's a boat when it's floating in the water but unless it has blades/"wings" that extend below the surface and actually lift the belly/outriggers above the waterline by ONLY riding on the blades/"wings" _(thus virtually eliminating surface tension drag)_ then it's not a "hydrofoil".
thanks for that. Im having a news years party next week and I wish you to be there to sparkle up the conversation and impress people with you correcting their observations.
@@llYossarian . That does it. You're definitely on the invite list. You're a must as an ice breaker. They will be pee-ing themselves with laughter with that razor sharp wit!
Great to see more on this aircraft. I became aware as a kid in the early 1960s as Jello issued aircraft coins but have heard next to nothing else on it since then. This aircraft was featured as #101 in the set of 200 under the category of Airliners. Thanks!
I recently saw another video about this aircraft, and it said that the basic problem with this plane was too many wings. The wings at the front caused enough turbulence to rob the wings behind of sufficient lift.
When I first saw this plane my first thought was brilliant unfortunately my second thought was death trap. Caproni never thought small and wasn't afraid to think outside of the box. Like many great minds I wonder what he could do with access to todays tech and materials
It is true. Gen. Curis Lemay told my father in 1955 ..."you give me enough thrust and i can make a greyhound fly" ...he was referring to the bus line btw and they were standing at Castle AFB viewing the A model B52's. my father's remark was "I don't see how they fly being so big"
Great job. Love this channel alot. I'm always happy to see a small channel grow. Last night when I subscribed you were at 2.6k subs. Now your over 3.6k. Here's too 2022 being a amazing year for you. Merry Christmass
Many decades ago I actually had a conversation with a WW 1 vet who was a crew member on this bomber astonishing conversation that I bet my young son hopefully still remembers. He related much of his experience dropping bombs and harrowing flying events ….
The "try anything/try everything" era of aero technology was not only the 20's through the 30's. The 50's "gave us" fighter aircraft launched from rails, sitting on their tails awaiting vertical takeoff, flying with mixed jet/prop and jet/rocket power, and a whole bunch more. And multi-engine technology predates this, as does multiple wings (2/3/4).
In terms of large planes (large relative to the time they are from), this plane along with the XB-70 and B1-B make up my 3 favorite large aircraft. The Ca.4 is pretty high in the last too. Just something awesome about giant multiplane designs imo. Nice video btw.
Count Giovanni Caproni was an aviation pioneer with grand visions. Aeronautics was not well understood at this point in time. I think this plane is amazing, even though it was ultimately a failure.
@@joshstanton267 Wind tunnels were around back then. The Wright Brothers developed their first 20 years earlier in 1901. I think Caproni must have lost his marbles when he built this one.
Love the quality and style of the content on this channel! I can see this becoming as well known as Military Aviation History, or Ed Nash's Military matters, in time! Keep up the good work!
Very interesting! Now that we now flight forces and thinking of the ingenuity of those aviation pioneers I smile with respect for theire willing power to go ahead and explore, something that makes us cross the world today in a much faster and easy way!! You are excellent in reporting these facts! Congratulations
For anyone who might be interested: Here is the incredible piece of animation from the film The Wind Rises involving this plane. The scene is shown as a dream of Jiro Horikoshi, the designer of the Mitsubishi A6M (Zero). ua-cam.com/video/LGj1RheKITI/v-deo.html
Recognised this from Miyazaki’s “The Wind Rises”. The design is so ridiculous I honestly thought it was a work of fiction until now lol… the 1920’s and 30’s really were a bonkers era for aviation.
I have always loved this plane. As absurd of a design it was, designed in near complete ignorance of aerodynamics, it was also rather wild and ambitious.
I really enjoy your walk down history lane in terms of weird airplane designs. However, you gotta admit that the major problem of the DO-X and the K7 was a lack of sufficiant power to weight ratio. The DO-X even made it across the Atlantic to New York despite all of the power issues. In regards to the Italians, well, let's try to put it as respectfully as possible, they're awesome in terms of food, design and outstanding explanations of obvious failure. A friend of mine once told me, if you wanna take up a real challenge, open up a book store with English cooking books and Italian hero tales.
My father would have loved your channel. WWII pilot who grew up fascinated by the pre-war era of flying. His last 8 years were bed-ridden with only crappy History Channel as the best of bad choices. This was pre UA-cam.
The funny thing is during watching this video I thought to myself this looks like something Studio Ghibli would put in one of their movie & they should consider it then much to my surprised they did lol
Great review ! Noviplano - new plane, or nove piani - nine wings. Funny how this seaplane reminds more of a tall-ship than of an airplane. It is like a three-mast clipper, more of a boat trying to fly than a flying boat. Something of a Jules Verne dream for Robur the Conqueror.
The equal wing sizes and positioning look as though they produces a center of lift at the mid point. In reality the air is getting deenergised as it passes over the wings and past the rigging so the rear wings are producing less lift. The center of mass also appears to be at the mid point with the engines and other components seemingly symmetrical about its length. This, to me, would be why they introduced ballast at the front - to give the plane some stability as they didn't understand aerodynamic effects. However as the plane increases pitch the wings sap more energy out of the air. Usually this eventually results in a stall and the front drops. However as the rear wings get low energy air this stall would happen at the rear of the aircraft first and progressively move forwards, looking like the pilot tried to pitch up hard but without the pilot's input to do so. In short, the pilot didn't try to evade and the ballast didn't need to move. It was a faulty design, and such a risk would be obvious at a glance to modern aerodynamicists.
I imagine the maximum and minimum airspeed required for control, were about the same. And then,..Aargh!. O Dio mio, Santa Maria,... SPLOSH. Was the designer Venetian? It looks like Venetian blinds with a barge underneath! I love that Caproni was a little guy, he must have had a huge personality to get others to finance this fab folly of an aircraft. Note the moustache and slicked- back hair. You have to love such a flamboyant optimist. Nick.
It was almost certainly due to a reduction of lift at the back due to turbulence. They were still operating without knowing what turbulence was, I think.
@UCqFiIM9tomZI7t_UINgcA2w pusher and traction props can work together and tandem wings can work well, but a triple tri-wing is a bit much. Nothing but turbulence over the rear wings.
@@rong1924 Pretty sure you're right, but, as I've replied on other comments, they did have wind tunnels, back then, the Wright Bros developing their first in 1901! A quick 10 min test of a scale model of this "thing" would have revealed this design to be a lemon.
This channel is similar to the offerings of a paperbound book I spent hours with. It had detailed information on nearly every aircraft built by every country making aircraft from some earlier date to the start of WWII. Airships were included too. I would certainly like to remember the name of the book as im sure it is still available from collectors.
In my youth, I skillfully built and tested a large flying balsa model of this gloriously dangerous contraption. As expected, it was a total bomb, and a dozen subsequent modifications failed to correct its fundamentally insane aerodynamics. This led me to conclude that Caproni was suffering from a mental disorder brought on by late-stage Syphilis. The beast was unceremoniously burned, and I followed it up by building a large swept-wing pusher aircraft with canards from scratch.. that flew absolutely brilliantly. There’s some truth to the adage, “if it looks good, it flies good, and if it don’t, it won’t.”
The Dornier Do X did it around the world and was took of with 169 person aboard. Back then, seaplanes were the only way to cross the atlantic except from ship or zeppelin
The rear sets of wings would not be producing as much lift as the front set due to them being in the turbulence from the front wings. This would make the thing go nose up badly.
In the long history of aviation, there have been far more failures than successes. The Osprey prototypes failed like crazy, and many in aviation circles doubted that the design would ever work, but they finally ironed out the 'bugs' and the craft is in use all over the world today.
Kinda looked like an aerodynamic version of a clipper ship. I'm guessing they assumed that if adding more sails helped ships move more efficiently, also applied to planes as well.
@@edevans5991 He was. Pythagoras O'Malley. He worked for Icarus Aviation Ltd. He was chief designer in charge of ADHD (Aeronautical Development for Hellenic Defense). Also worked on the Daedalus Project, and the Harpie light attack model.
Often video creators will put exaggerated pic of the aircraft as click bait. Surprisingly, that is not the case here. While it's a very good video, the aircraft begs the question, "would you fly as a passenger on such a monstrosity?"
![Italy’s Bizarre Flying Barrel | The Stipa Caproni [Aircraft Overview #55]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X3K0QPfmznY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Italy’s Bizarre Flying Barrel | The Stipa Caproni [Aircraft Overview #55]](/img/tr.png)
![Italy's Weird & Wonderful Twin-Hull Flying Boats | Savoia-Marchetti S.55 [Aircraft Overview #39]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IWV0nJQf9eY/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Giant Airliner With Cabins In Its Wings | Junkers G38 [Aircraft Overview #19]](/img/n.gif)
Studio Ghibli did a great job animating this plane :)
Man don't dance
I loved that film.
I was about to write,"Myazaki is creaming his pants."
I did a trip to studio Ghibli a few years ago. Utterly amazing!.
Came here to say this
Aircraft development proceeded incredibly rapidly.
Orville Wright died in 1948.
Neil Armstrong was born in 1930.
The first man to fly could have met the first man to walk on the Moon (when he was 18).
Wright brothers weren't the first to fly, american fairy tail.
@@Yeet42069 you're right the first person to fly was the first person to accidentally light a match near gun powder
@@Yeet42069 They were the first who could prove their claim, as they were consumate self-promoters, something that the other claimants were not.. None of the earlier attempts were witnessed, and it is all about the evidence. The usual cries that Brazilians raise about Alberto Santos Dumont are in error, as the Wright's had provably flown earlier.
@@stephenn1056 You see, this would actually be funny if the case wasn't as controversial as it is but sadly it just proves your lack of knowledge.
It's very doubtful that a man has set foot on the moon.
So basically, Giovanni answered the question "what if dirigibles, only instead it's three triplanes and also a seaplane?" and promptly found out why nobody else was asking that question. Thanks for the history lesson!
Giovani: *Builds worlds largest box kite*
Also Giovani: *Shocked that it likes to pitch up*
As a pilot I'm familiar with "blanking" of control / lifting surfaces, and this plane seems like it was designed to create it. When a forward lifting surface (wing) creates turbulence (such as in pitching up) that disturbed air travels backwards causing control / lifting surfaces behind to become less effective, i.e. the trailing wings could have well stopped lifting, especially with the massive turbulence caused by the 6 forward wings. When the tail lost lift, it would drop, forcing the nose higher, causing more blanking, until the tail wings stopped lifting (stalled). That in turn would force the nose higher until all wings stalled and it fell.
So, the pilots KNOW that and avoid getting even near stall speeds. Many planes have fatal stall properties. Oops, why is that inverted flat spin more stable than the D-Mark? They call it a Sitting Canard...
@Voor Naam Blanking can happen well above stall speed, but creates a stall on following surfaces. Note that stalls can happen at any speed, there just needs to be a disruption of laminar air flow over the wing.
Having just watched a video about F1 cars and the "dirty air" taking away the downforce of the cars behind, I was wondering just this. Calculations were possibly assuming each of the 3 wing structures would have approximately equal lift, but that was probably far from the truth.
That was my first thought. My friends and I used to ridge soar in hang-gliders and you soon learnt not to get in close behind another glider. Their wind wash would cause buffeting and a stall. The design of the aircraft above had no chance of success.
My first thought was the turbulence would do something……….
A plane designer with a passion for preserving aviation history? A man after our own hearts lol
MAD RESPECT to this man for being the only UA-camr ever to pronounce Ghibli correctly
Caproni was a Genius and mostly underrated by non-italian people. Tho very Little they know that during his period was praised and the designer of the a6m took inspiration by him and considered caproni as his mentor
Apparently in 1919, there was no Italian word for "aerodynamic"
Love the content and humor, I look forward to watching this channel grow.
Hmm... that made me wonder and surprisingly enough the term "aerodynamics" _(the SCIENCE of the motion of gasses)_ was coined in _1837_ which is about 75 years before _aerodynamic_ became an adjective and they truly started instituting "streamlined" designs on trains.
@@llYossarian That is pretty good compared to the difference between "science" and "scientist" which is around 10x longer if you only look at the actual English word "science" which comes from Middle English. But that is borrowed from Old French, so maybe a couple hundred more years and if you include the Latin _scientia_ now you are literally talking around 1900 years to at least the 1st century BCE with scientist only coming about in the 1820s initially and coming into use around the middle of the 1800s.
@@whyjnot420 ...and I know "naturalist" was the preferred term by many/most of the types of academics/researchers/experimenters/polymaths that were the closest to what we'd consider "scientists" today so how/when doe's that fit in, who wanted to be called "scientist" over "naturalist," and when did that shift happen?
@@llYossarian Here are actual quotes I will add a little context after them
1834, William Whewell, “On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences by Mrs. Somerville”, in John Gibson Lockhart, editor, Quarterly Review, volume 51, London: John Murray, retrieved November 2, 2017, page 59:
There was no general term by which these gentlemen could describe themselves with reference to their pursuits. Philosophers was felt to be too wide and too lofty a term, and was very properly forbidden them by Mr. Coleridge, both in his capacity of philologer and metaphysician; savans was rather assuming, besides being French instead of English; some ingenious gentleman proposed that, by analogy with artist, they might form scientist, and added that there could be no scruple in making free with this termination when we have such words as sciolist, economist, and atheist - but this was not generally palatable […]
^
1840, William Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences: Founded Upon Their History, Vol. 2, page 560:
The terminations ize (rather than ise), ism, and ist, are applied to words of all origins: thus we have to pulverize, to colonize, Witticism, Heathenism, Journalist, Tobacconist. Hence we may make such words when they are wanted. As we cannot use physician for a cultivator of physics, I have called him a Physicist. We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist. Thus we might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist.
First, correction to my initial statement, not 1820s but 1830s for its coining. As shown in the first quote. You can find those on google books pretty easily if you want the actual source material.
William Whewell was essentially one of those barely ever rivaled polymaths that show up on occasion. Searching google for him will get you details on him. Essentially the terms "natural philosopher" and "man of science" were cumbersome in use and not exactly precise terms either. The latter of the two quotes explains the rationale behind that specific term and suffix. With that Latin term _scientia_ literally meaning "knowledge". The term "naturalist" has issues as well, as it can be the counterpart of spiritualist or other terms that describe and rely on the dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual world. So not the best choice of terms either. While "science" was established, so sticking -ist' onto the end as he says to denote someone who does science the way an artist does art, simply makes sense and fits into the existing naming convention that we still use.
So the term "scientist" is pretty new, not even 2 centuries old yet. But the activities that it describes are easily applied retroactively and more or less objectively as well. Since the stuff it does not cover, like things of a metaphysical or spiritual nature are covered allready by established terms.
I think the only time it ends up being part of confusion, are things that also are part of confusion with the term science itself. For instances, are archaeology and history, sciences? arts? social sciences? (I go with the last one)
In the end it is simply a matter of refining that which had not yet been refined or if you prefer, refined enough.... which is the natural evolution of any given field of study when you think about it.
Personally I find it an interesting bit of history. And in the context of anachronism, you can easily see that someone back even in the time of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who both actually died on the 4th of July 1826, would never have called themselves a "scientist". Which does have implications for things like historiography and the verification of sources (something from 1600 would while being in English, not contain the term for instance) As well as historical accuracy in storytelling and the history of science.
@@whyjnot420 Oh, wow! I sorta just meant them as open questions to be pondered/looked up individually and didn't expect a properly researched/full answer. Thanks! That's really cool.
The Ca60 and Count Giovanni Caproni play big roles in Hayao Miyazaki's "The Wind Rises", mostly in the hero's dreams. You'll also see the same Caproni bombers in the movie that Fiorello La Guardia flew in WWI; there would be more Caproni bombers in the next war.
They might have failed but today we can fly safely and fast thanks to those pioneers. God bless all those who could / can think outside the box.
This is the most detailed video I've seen on the CA.60 !
It is so obvious that the first photograph you showed of Caproni was the inspiration for his appearance in Porco Rosso. That’s exactly how he appears in the film.
There is no inherent pitch stability with 3 sets of wings loaded equally, equally placed along the fuselage. The aircraft will tend to have neutral longitudinal stability. This is what happened, the aircraft had no tendency to level out as it pitched up, and with a preponderance of lift things got ugly quickly. 20/20 hindsight 100 years later is quite convenient for an armchair engineer to use here, but I think worse things would have eventuated had it have made longer and higher hops from the water, especially with engine masses either end of the aircraft making directional control interesting or non-existent. A safe evolution of this giant would have been a tri-decker canard design with a weight bias on the front wings to create a natural sequential stalling of the wings, and thus positive longitudinal stability. Trailing truss like directional fins on the rearward set of wings may have been sufficient for directional control. This aircraft has always given me a chuckle since I saw it in books as a kid 😋
The most beautiful era of aircraft ever, huge windows and just elegant.
one can only imagine the howling sound all the struts and cables would make if this had flown at cruise speed .....
Love the content, and production, well done. To me, this channel compliments Ed Nash's channel by adding the non military machines, thanks for your efforts.
I found this channel thanks to Ed's, would love a collab on favourite weird and wonderful aircraft history has forgotten.
I first heard about this plane in 'The Book of Heroic Failures'. Nice to see a deeper examination of this aircraft.
Unbelievable how complicated they thought about and constructed aircrafts. Just few years later it looked so simple, one engine, just two wings and some rudders, ready to take off 🤷♂️
18 wings... Jesus. I want to see wind tunnel data for this so badly.
I think this would make the wind tunnel technicians weep
You could simulate it by dumping an attic full of antique furniture into the tunnel!
You should not use the name of Lord Jesus in vain.
Thanks!
Noviplano means both “ninewings” and “new plane” at the same time.
Amazing aircraft. If only it had had more engines and wings, that's where Caproni went wrong! I didn't realise their aircraft made one successful flight, I've also read that a lot of the aircraft was destroyed by a fire when it was in storage after it crashed, but perhaps that's incorrect. Anyway, very well presented and interesting video. You earn a sub :D
Want some real insanity, you need to look back even further than this. Look for a picture of the 1907 Multiplane built by Horatio Frederick Phillips. It literally has 200 airfoils on it. (200 "wings" wouldn't really be right, one glance at a photo of it will show why.) It also flew briefly at least once.
(it looks like the bastard offspring between a prewar airplane, the Ca.60 and someone who only ever thought one thing in life" more wings is better)
edit: make sure its the 1907 and not the 1904 one. the 1904 one has one set of airfoils, the 1907 has 4 sets
@@whyjnot420 Good god it looks like something my grandmother used to grow tomatos in! I've seen the 1904 one, there even a little bit of video footage of it, but didn't know the chap who built it came back for more. Thanks for that 😅
@@zxbzxbzxb1 You're welcome. I love the insanity of the pioneering days of flight. When people had barely any clue as to what would really work, so they just tried all sorts of things that sounded good at the time. Sharing that enjoyment is also something I love. Those days showcased human imagination when it came to flight in all of its glory, all of its insanity and all of its stupidity. Simply a marvelous time to learn about.
Caproni's Ca.60 here is a perfect example of both looking forward and not yet knowing what was optimal. It is both far ahead of its time and a product of its time, at the same time. It has the insanity common to the "throw shit at the wall until something sticks" concept, combined with a true vision for and to a good extent of, the future. Hence why it is by far one of my favorite planes ever (with major bonus points for it being a flying boat, which are aircraft I simply adore as a whole).
I think three more triple wings and a dozen more engines would have done the trick to make the thing airworthy.
@@MyLateralThawts No law saying "Thou must useth this many airfoils" :P
edit: in otherwords, why use someone elses limits? In the end it is all about creating things. So how about a twin fuselage flying boat with 4 sets of quadruple airfoils left, right and center of the twin hulls? :D I'll let you figure out the power supply.
Been often amazed that the engine nacelles of the day had so much blocking the prop. I realize that props are supposed to be rotating airfoils, providing "lift" in a forward direction, however a lot of rearward movement of air being blocked by obstructions immediately behind said prop could contribute to a lot of turbulence and negate a good deal of the propulsion.
Such an impossible looking design - it's hard not to fall in love with it.
6:20 - Hydrofoils are underwater wings that _lift_ the vessel out of the water. If it skims the surface then it's a _hydroplane*._ If it's partly below the surface/held up by buoyancy then it's just floating/a boat. -- So a seaplane is a "hydroplane" when it's moving at speed along the water and it's a boat when it's floating in the water but unless it has blades/"wings" that extend below the surface and actually lift the belly/outriggers above the waterline by ONLY riding on the blades/"wings" _(thus virtually eliminating surface tension drag)_ then it's not a "hydrofoil".
An important distinction I noticed as well. Thanks for the clarifying comment. Now I don't have to write it.
thanks for that. Im having a news years party next week and I wish you to be there to sparkle up the conversation and impress people with you correcting their observations.
@@standupstraight9691 Why'd you schedule a news years party the same week as New Years? Are you/your friends journalism historians or something?
@@llYossarian . That does it. You're definitely on the invite list. You're a must as an ice breaker.
They will be pee-ing themselves with laughter with that razor sharp wit!
@@standupstraight9691 Journalists? Whens iss thats News Years Partys? Corrects yours typos, pleases. Ands Is wishs yous as Happys News Years!
it really illustrates how much we have learned about aerodynamics on the last hundred years.
"Wait, what did you just say?"
"We had to add ballast to make the plane heavier so that it would be more stable. It was too light before."
Great to see more on this aircraft. I became aware as a kid in the early 1960s as Jello issued aircraft coins but have heard next to nothing else on it since then.
This aircraft was featured as #101 in the set of 200 under the category of Airliners.
Thanks!
I recently saw another video about this aircraft, and it said that the basic problem with this plane was too many wings. The wings at the front caused enough turbulence to rob the wings behind of sufficient lift.
When I first saw this plane my first thought was brilliant unfortunately my second thought was death trap. Caproni never thought small and wasn't afraid to think outside of the box. Like many great minds I wonder what he could do with access to todays tech and materials
It is true. Gen. Curis Lemay told my father in 1955 ..."you give me enough thrust and i can make a greyhound fly" ...he was referring to the bus line btw and they were standing at Castle AFB viewing the A model B52's. my father's remark was "I don't see how they fly being so big"
That would be a very neat model airplane kit
Imagination and innovation are important, but this is freakish! And it was actually built!
I'm impressed, you always do a good job. But, you also mentioned the movie "The Wind Rises" Keep up the good work.
Wildest thing I have ever seen!
Say what you will about Caproni’s triple-triplane, but that crazy bastard actually made it (kind of) work! It achieved powered flight.
Great job. Love this channel alot. I'm always happy to see a small channel grow. Last night when I subscribed you were at 2.6k subs. Now your over 3.6k. Here's too 2022 being a amazing year for you. Merry Christmass
Many decades ago I actually had a conversation with a WW 1 vet who was a crew member on this bomber astonishing conversation that I bet my young son hopefully still remembers. He related much of his experience dropping bombs and harrowing flying events ….
This aircraft only flew twice in tests and was never used as a bomber.
The "try anything/try everything" era of aero technology was not only the 20's through the 30's. The 50's "gave us" fighter aircraft launched from rails, sitting on their tails awaiting vertical takeoff, flying with mixed jet/prop and jet/rocket power, and a whole bunch more. And multi-engine technology predates this, as does multiple wings (2/3/4).
In terms of large planes (large relative to the time they are from), this plane along with the XB-70 and B1-B make up my 3 favorite large aircraft.
The Ca.4 is pretty high in the last too. Just something awesome about giant multiplane designs imo.
Nice video btw.
this channel is my new favorite! Merry Christmas From Washington DC
Straight out of a Miyazaki fantasy movie... I love this!
PS. Actually this aircraft and Mr. Caproni featured in one ("The wind rises") lol
Only anime type movie I've enjoyed,
Count Giovanni Caproni was an aviation pioneer with grand visions. Aeronautics was not well understood at this point in time. I think this plane is amazing, even though it was ultimately a failure.
Yeah like wind tunnels were a revelation, when they eventually were used
@@joshstanton267 Wind tunnels were around back then. The Wright Brothers developed their first 20 years earlier in 1901. I think Caproni must have lost his marbles when he built this one.
Thank you for your work. Jim Bell (Australia)
Love the quality and style of the content on this channel! I can see this becoming as well known as Military Aviation History, or Ed Nash's Military matters, in time! Keep up the good work!
Very interesting! Now that we now flight forces and thinking of the ingenuity of those aviation pioneers I smile with respect for theire willing power to go ahead and explore, something that makes us cross the world today in a much faster and easy way!! You are excellent in reporting these facts! Congratulations
For anyone who might be interested: Here is the incredible piece of animation from the film The Wind Rises involving this plane. The scene is shown as a dream of Jiro Horikoshi, the designer of the Mitsubishi A6M (Zero).
ua-cam.com/video/LGj1RheKITI/v-deo.html
Ah one of my Studio Ghibli films along with Porco Rosso
Thanks for the late notice. It was a nice little diversion.
Recognised this from Miyazaki’s “The Wind Rises”. The design is so ridiculous I honestly thought it was a work of fiction until now lol… the 1920’s and 30’s really were a bonkers era for aviation.
I have always loved this plane. As absurd of a design it was, designed in near complete ignorance of aerodynamics, it was also rather wild and ambitious.
I really enjoy your walk down history lane in terms of weird airplane designs.
However, you gotta admit that the major problem of the DO-X and the K7 was a lack of sufficiant power to weight ratio.
The DO-X even made it across the Atlantic to New York despite all of the power issues.
In regards to the Italians, well, let's try to put it as respectfully as possible, they're awesome in terms of food, design and outstanding explanations of obvious failure.
A friend of mine once told me, if you wanna take up a real challenge, open up a book store with English cooking books and Italian hero tales.
8 engines and 9 wings, nothing could go wrong.
Excellent stuff bro
When i saw "TRIPLE TRIPLANE" i instantly clicked, its just like my idea: boat on boat and the boat on top could fly, go far, and still be a boat
My god, the inefficiency is astounding
I can't believe it actually flew !!!!
thank You!
This is a case of being both ahead and behind your time in regards to aircraft design.
This plane had a total of 96 pistons with 216 liters of combined displacement. That's imcredible
My father would have loved your channel. WWII pilot who grew up fascinated by the pre-war era of flying. His last 8 years were bed-ridden with only crappy History Channel as the best of bad choices. This was pre UA-cam.
The funny thing is during watching this video I thought to myself this looks like something Studio Ghibli would put in one of their movie & they should consider it then much to my surprised they did lol
half way threw the video. God, I hope this thing flew. It's awesome.
You should not use God's name in vain.
This looks like something I would draw in class when I was bored....when I was 9.
Great review ! Noviplano - new plane, or nove piani - nine wings. Funny how this seaplane reminds more of a tall-ship than of an airplane. It is like a three-mast clipper, more of a boat trying to fly than a flying boat. Something of a Jules Verne dream for Robur the Conqueror.
Nose was definitely pitching because the three v12s were chucking air over those massive foils like no one's business.
The equal wing sizes and positioning look as though they produces a center of lift at the mid point. In reality the air is getting deenergised as it passes over the wings and past the rigging so the rear wings are producing less lift. The center of mass also appears to be at the mid point with the engines and other components seemingly symmetrical about its length. This, to me, would be why they introduced ballast at the front - to give the plane some stability as they didn't understand aerodynamic effects. However as the plane increases pitch the wings sap more energy out of the air. Usually this eventually results in a stall and the front drops. However as the rear wings get low energy air this stall would happen at the rear of the aircraft first and progressively move forwards, looking like the pilot tried to pitch up hard but without the pilot's input to do so.
In short, the pilot didn't try to evade and the ballast didn't need to move. It was a faulty design, and such a risk would be obvious at a glance to modern aerodynamicists.
I imagine the maximum and minimum airspeed required for control, were about the same. And then,..Aargh!. O Dio mio, Santa Maria,... SPLOSH.
Was the designer Venetian? It looks like Venetian blinds with a barge underneath!
I love that Caproni was a little guy, he must have had a huge personality to get others to finance this fab folly of an aircraft.
Note the moustache and slicked- back hair.
You have to love such a flamboyant optimist.
Nick.
What a beautiful dream
Being part-Italian, I can confirm that the inspiration for the wing design was indeed a lasagna.
It was almost certainly due to a reduction of lift at the back due to turbulence. They were still operating without knowing what turbulence was, I think.
I have no doubt that you are correct.
@UCqFiIM9tomZI7t_UINgcA2w pusher and traction props can work together and tandem wings can work well, but a triple tri-wing is a bit much. Nothing but turbulence over the rear wings.
@@rong1924 Pretty sure you're right, but, as I've replied on other comments, they did have wind tunnels, back then, the Wright Bros developing their first in 1901! A quick 10 min test of a scale model of this "thing" would have revealed this design to be a lemon.
@@MikeBracewell The Wrights only tested airfoil samples in their "wind tunnel" not complete aircraft. Not sure who started testing full models when.
Amazing, I thought this was just a vehicle thought up by studio Ghibli. No idea it was an actual vehicle
Man, you just know everyone who ever worked at Pinninfarina hoped and prayed no one ever saw this thing.
Very interesting history !!
Q: what is the font in the start titles? Really old Hollywoord style !
Wow! It reminds me of the Langly aerodrome..
The only way this thing could have possibly flown is in a Miyazaki anime.
Had that plane worked out the view for the passenger through those windows would have been amazing
This channel is similar to the offerings of a paperbound book I spent hours with. It had detailed information on nearly every aircraft built by every country making aircraft from some earlier date to the start of WWII. Airships were included too. I would certainly like to remember the name of the book as im sure it is still available from collectors.
Really enjoyable !!!
"Alright I'm back, and I got the camera gu-OH MY GOODNESS!"
In my youth, I skillfully built and tested a large flying balsa model of this gloriously dangerous contraption. As expected, it was a total bomb, and a dozen subsequent modifications failed to correct its fundamentally insane aerodynamics. This led me to conclude that Caproni was suffering from a mental disorder brought on by late-stage Syphilis. The beast was unceremoniously burned, and I followed it up by building a large swept-wing pusher aircraft with canards from scratch.. that flew absolutely brilliantly. There’s some truth to the adage, “if it looks good, it flies good, and if it don’t, it won’t.”
Would be really helpful to see (and/or hear) metric measurements of these planes as well 👍
The Dornier Do X did it around the world and was took of with 169 person aboard.
Back then, seaplanes were the only way to cross the atlantic except from ship or zeppelin
Is there a smaller RC version of this flying at an air show?
The rear sets of wings would not be producing as much lift as the front set due to them being in the turbulence from the front wings. This would make the thing go nose up badly.
In the long history of aviation, there have been far more failures than successes. The Osprey prototypes failed like crazy, and many in aviation circles doubted that the design would ever work, but they finally ironed out the 'bugs' and the craft is in use all over the world today.
Though I think it still has a reputation amongst the pilots ;)
Kinda looked like an aerodynamic version of a clipper ship. I'm guessing they assumed that if adding more sails helped ships move more efficiently, also applied to planes as well.
I figured it would fold up like a box kite. It did. Still, a grand attempt for the time.
Very interesting 👍👍
This thing is ridiculous. Obviously, it should have had 4 sets of 4 wings!
lol, it is SO obvious to those of us that know! :)
Hmmm, what if Pythagoras was an aircraft designer...
@@edevans5991
He was.
Pythagoras O'Malley.
He worked for Icarus Aviation Ltd.
He was chief designer in charge of ADHD (Aeronautical Development for Hellenic Defense). Also worked on the Daedalus Project, and the Harpie light attack model.
Interesting bit of aeronautical history.
You don't need to know much about physics to know that such a shape was not meant to fly far or long or well
Try to imagine the noise from 8 uncorked 27 liter V12s.
I can only imagine the noise and vibration lol...glorious.
Very interesting.. Thanks
Nice work!
it's nice to have hindsight
Now I know where JRPGs got their inspiration from regarding flying boats.
3:43
top left corner. Is that the cockpit from the Millennium Falcon?
Love the hanger,
Often video creators will put exaggerated pic of the aircraft as click bait. Surprisingly, that is not the case here. While it's a very good video, the aircraft begs the question, "would you fly as a passenger on such a monstrosity?"
Geez what a deathtrap. I bet those wooden benches provided ample cushioning for hard landings.