@@andrewcharles459 ... sort of a real pity the aircraft was not made with a single wing and a double Wasp. Lets just say the single wing FDB-1 had got the overseas sales instead of the Brewster Buffalo. The monoplane FDB-1 may have had performance closer to the FM-2 (XF4F-8) Wildcat - the FDB-1 in monoplane configuration & full combat gear would have tipped the scales at about 3500 - 4000 pounds empty (that's figuring in radio, gun sights, an armored seat, and self sealing fuel tanks). That is nearly 1,000 pounds lighter than the F4F-3. The F4F only climbed at a dismal 2300 FPM (the FM2 was better). The FDB-1 climbed at 2,800 FPM and if it had a double Wasp it may have climbed at better than 3000 FPM; a match for the superb Japanese Zero. Amazing the difference wing configuration and power plant choices make.
As a Canadian I see this sort thing throughout Canadian history. It is the unfortunate fate of this country when it comes to technology: it is either out of step and behind, or if it does get a leg up; it looks around, doesn't see anyone else and stops. Usually winding up out of step and behind again. It wasn't just with the Avro Arrow either.
TSR2? Lots of countries have had similar projects that fell over for...reasons. The USA is currently FORCING the F35 to work despite it being a bit shit. Just like they did with the Sherman. Sometimes the best thing is what you make plenty of (and can't afford to cancel production).
EXACT SAME thing happened with the swiss in the 70s and most of the remaining American brands. They didn't think quartz watches were going to take off, the Japanese did AND invested in production equipment for them EARLY so when they started selling fast they HAD all the gear to make them, and the swiss were left behind as everyone turned to the Japanese with the exception of the expensive swiss brands. The swiss brands making stuff for the average guy went bankrupt. They KNEW HOW to make quartz watches, but didn't expect it to gain ground. At the same time that people were talking about flying cars and robot maids in their house, most of the swiss watchmaking industry thought people would STICK with WIND UP watches....
@@OffGridInvestor Reminds me of digital camera's I believe it was Kodak or Nikon that bit the dust believing there would still be more than enough market for analogue photography
I’d propose the name ‘Drumstick.’ Looking at the four attach bolts at 3:07, it reminded me of a couple T-28 builds I’ve worked on. Envisioning the stresses the bolts must have been on always gave me a chill.
CCNF also contributed manufacturing of the Canadian designed and mfg'd RAM tank which ultimately ended up as the RAM Kangaroo APC. The Kangaroo provided sterling army service until the end of the war.
@bill hughes it used a Grant suspension but the hull, turret, and gun were all different. It's sort of like saying building an M10 Wolverine is just building a Sherman.
I'm thinking I may have worked with a distant relative of the designer back in the 1990s... an old-school C programmer who smugly told me that "the world wide web is just a fad, everyone will be coming back to applications written in C in another year or two." Oh, well... The plane is a cute lil' feller in any case.
That's so sad, you would think with drag being such a high priority in design why would he want to build a biplane. With just a few design changes he might have been on the path of building a contender
Conservatism in aircraft design was quite common in the 1930s. Also at that time there was still a belief in the biplane fighter with its highly maneuverable qualities and their was some support for that theory in the Spanish Civil war with the success of the Fiat CR-32 fighter. Also the speed differential between the monoplanes and the biplane was not that significant in the 30s as would be later in the late 30s and 40s. Finally, don't forget the other significant powers ie the US, Britain, Italy, Japan and even Germany employed Biplane fighters and bombers up to 1940. We have the US Navy Gruman F2F, the Gloster Gladiator, the CR-42 Falco, the Henschel Dive bomber and the larger Torpedo float planes.
It's a shame they never got around to making the version with the 1200 hp, simply because I would love to know what kind of speed they could get it of a bi-plane!
@@bernardwills9674 Less fuel efficient too, so it'd have hurt the range. That prediction of his may just have been the most deluded prediction of the entire war tbh.
To repeat what I have muttered in so many watching Ed’s videos…. “I had no idea….”… thanks for shedding some light on this forgotten gem of Canadian aviation history.
As a number of other commenters have pointed out, you used the wrong Canadian flag in your video. The red-and-white "Maple Leaf" flag we're all familiar with now was only adopted as Canda's national flag in 1965. It wasn't around as far back as the 1930s and '40s.
It is a slick little airplane. Would make an awesome modern build project today if you could get your hands on the drawings. All aluminum, round engine, I think I would add hydraulic power to the landing gear. But damn!!! She really looks sweet!!!
It looks so satisfyingly cool with the wheels , especially in the folded up position. It almost looks like a spare tire is on front of plane. 00:53 The plane is so cute. I just want to touch it. Imagine flying that with your scarf and goggles on. Also, right now, I'm as high as that plane ever flew.
Hi Ed, been looking for models of the aircraft you have been reviewing and finally found one its an older kit in 1/72 scale, its by Czech maker MPM. the Grumman FF-1 / G23 Goblin. I thought you might be interested. JDS in AZ usa
This was one of those "it looks good on paper" designs, if the paper came out 4 years earlier. So it was a flop as a fighter. To bad, with a little tweaking it might have had a second life as kit plane in later years.....
I made everything from scratch once and I'll never do it again. Going out and finding the lime and Sand and Gravel to make concrete, then going out after that to dig up all the materials to make steel aluminum, Plastics, paint, it all adds up and it's way too much work for one person with one bucket and a shovel. Besides that the shovel handle was broke and there was no bottom in the bucket. I also learned after a while, not to carry my lunch in the bucket. There were many a days that I went hungry because of that bucket. Even to this day after 40 years I still have a bucket phobia. I've tried to get a handle on it, but I forgot where I put that broken shovel handle. So it makes it a little hard to dig it up. Other than that, an airplane you say. Cool I'll have to keep my eye out for a video on one.
Love that multiple Canadian rail car companies starting building aircraft. When I worked at National Steel Car, I learned that they started victory aircraft (which became Avro Canada)
Good stuff. With some of the (many) TH-cam channels I enjoy it occurs to me that the content providers are in danger of exhausting the supply of worthwhile subjects - Mr Jago Hazard and his splendid monologues on the convoluted history of the London Underground network for example. But any true aviation enthusiast will surely know that the ranks of obscure 20th century aircraft are legion - indeed this particular "Rabbit Hole' is virtually bottomless. So I look forward to future videos on the Blackburn Botha and Vultee Vengeance with some sense of confidence!
As a longtime resident of Canada, I'd heard a lot about this particular exercise in "backwards thinking," and even picked up a few additional bits of information. Some of the work on this aircraft was performed in CC&F's facility in Ottawa. It was located at the intersection of what was then Wellington Street East (now Albert) and Preston Street, near the old Bayview trainyards (now an LRT station). After this fiasco, they built components for Hurricanes and Lancaster bombers, then became an O'Keefe's beer brewery after the war. It was finally demolished in the 1970's, after sitting empty for many years. By the way, our current flag was only adopted in 1965. Prior to that, we had no "official" national flag, but the Canadian Red Ensign was the most commonly used flag back then.😉
Nice video. For the odd & what-if's, have you run across the Vincent Burnelli designs? I'm not sure there's enough footage to make a video, but they are fairly unique.
Thank you for the clip. I enjoy your snippets of almost forgotten aviation history. The FDB-1 is the FF's twin brother by the looks of it. Yet when you describe the design proces, it looks as if it's all designed from the ground up. Is it a mix of the Polykarpov Chaika (airframe) and FF (undercarriage) with a decent engine we're looking at here?
R1535 wasn't a nine cylinder engine, it was a two row unit with 14 cylinders. Name was Twin Wasp Junior. A small batch of the Canadian built Bolingbrokes (Blenheim IVs) had those. Unlike many of the other Wasp series engines, the R1535 is very rare today.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters When Canadian Warplane Heritage (operators of the "other" flyable Lancaster) commenced a restoration of a Bolingbroke IV to flight years ago, they set out initially to recreate a IVW, for reasons of ease of maintenance of the engines. They then found that the R1535 was rarer even than the Bristol Mercury. The project is still ongoing, but with Mercury engines and now intended to be a ground runner only.
Glad I'm not the only one that noticed this. Nice view overhead, but the view down and below is practically nil, which makes me question its usefulness as a dive bomber too.
The Italians made the same mistake with the CR42, the difference being that it was MASS produced (most produced italian fighter!), it's incredible how a lot of designers were fixated on designs that were more apt to WWI than WWII. Possible that didn't know Nothing of the works of Seversky, Mitchell or Messerschmitt??
The Italians supplied the Spanish Fascists with the CR32. It performed well against the Republicans' Polikarpov I15 and I16. So the Italians learned the lesson that maneuverable biplane fighters were still the way to go. The Battle of Britain did not change the minds of the Regio Aernautico. The Italians lost lots of bombers, but it may come as a surprise that they lost no CR42s to enemy action and lost only one G50.
It's totally out of it's time frame but it does look good and right. The front windscreen could be a little nicer than that, but still. I like the look.
As someone who has been involved in designing and building new things, I can sympathize with what they were thinking. Too often people judge things with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Making new things is HARD and what is "obvious" with 20/20 hindsight absolutely was not, absent that hindsight. Many times, the designs I've helped come up with had features we thought important. Instead, those features sometimes ended up either NOT being important or actually an active hindrance to what we were trying to do. Sometimes, those mistakes are easy to fix. Other times, they require a complete redesign.
CC&F technically, still exists today. They were baught out by A.V. Roe, aka Avro, merged into Hawker Siddeley Canada, then acquired by... Bombardier. Their factories still produce, Trains, planes, and snowmobiles.
I wouldn't pin all this on the designer without more information. The CC&F had only built biplanes under license, and if management were risk-averse (find me a career manager who isn't), they may have preferred a "safer" biplane design with incremental improvements over what they were making at the time. Did they give the designer free rein? Might he have been chosen because he preferred biplanes? Were there any other aero designers on the payroll, or was it just one guy making all the decisions?
To be fair to the Gladiator, it may have entered service in 1937, but there were possibly fewer differences between it and the Gauntlet than the Spitfire I and XIV, so you could make an argument about how much of a new aircraft it was. You could view it as an improved Gauntlet as a stopgap.
Take the top wing off. Extend the bottom wing slightly. Looks like the J2M, don't it? Also vastly increases visibility over the nose and frontal arc on both sides.
....But, it's kinda cool lookin'. F3F meets I-153. Def. too late. 60 years of interest in this stuff, have NEVER heard of this one, anywhere. Thanks for the reveal.
It's really incredible they made this plane years after PZL P7 and P11 were constructed. They look like they could be a development of this plane, not something made years before.
Pronounciation of Gregor's name could go like: Gree-goh-rah-SHVEE-lee (meaning 'Gregor's son' in Georgian) Didn't know him for such a prodigy of Russian pre-WW1 aviation
I think that's one of the best looking biplanes I've ever seen
Has a weird combination of I-153s upper gull wing,F3Fs landing gear, rather tiny tail and Buffalo's prop nose.
If he had converted to a single wing with a double Wasp engine the result would have been a Canadian version of the F4F Wildcat.
I'm assuming that very Grumman-looking undercart was built under license.
@@andrewcharles459 ... sort of a real pity the aircraft was not made with a single wing and a double Wasp. Lets just say the single wing FDB-1 had got the overseas sales instead of the Brewster Buffalo. The monoplane FDB-1 may have had performance closer to the FM-2 (XF4F-8) Wildcat - the FDB-1 in monoplane configuration & full combat gear would have tipped the scales at about 3500 - 4000 pounds empty (that's figuring in radio, gun sights, an armored seat, and self sealing fuel tanks). That is nearly 1,000 pounds lighter than the F4F-3. The F4F only climbed at a dismal 2300 FPM (the FM2 was better). The FDB-1 climbed at 2,800 FPM and if it had a double Wasp it may have climbed at better than 3000 FPM; a match for the superb Japanese Zero. Amazing the difference wing configuration and power plant choices make.
@@Easy-Eight In addition to that, with relatively little modification it looks like it would have been a useful addition to the Fleet Air Arm.
@@Easy-Eight That's a lot of assumptions you're making old chap 😂
@@JohnyG29 screw off, troll
As much as I thought I knew about aviation history, Ed schools me hard.
You are in really good company.. there's MANY of us,,😂🤣
Preach. I’m right there with you.
Every freakin time bro
I've just had my wrist slapped again m8
Ditto
As a Canadian I see this sort thing throughout Canadian history. It is the unfortunate fate of this country when it comes to technology: it is either out of step and behind, or if it does get a leg up; it looks around, doesn't see anyone else and stops. Usually winding up out of step and behind again.
It wasn't just with the Avro Arrow either.
Well as a frontgrunt-Dane with 3 times "abroard" in the 00s. I REALLY do like your Diemaco..now Colt Canada C7+s!
As an Australian, I see this in my country too... must be a Commonwealth thing.
TSR2?
Lots of countries have had similar projects that fell over for...reasons.
The USA is currently FORCING the F35 to work despite it being a bit shit.
Just like they did with the Sherman. Sometimes the best thing is what you make plenty of (and can't afford to cancel production).
@@pd4165 HTF can *anyone* conflate the TSR 2 with either this obsolete_before_ built bi-plane or the 'Ronson', sorry Sherman, tank?
@@babboon5764 "the 'Ronson', sorry Sherman, tank?" WoT player perhaps?
It is a good looking aircraft though. Thanks Ed have a great day everyone.
Not so good looking out of the canopy apparently ... !!!
Nice looking bird except for the blind as a bleedin' bat thing. How could that Russian have screwed up that bad on the basics?
Loved the record scratch in his episode. I was just starting to wonder "hey didn't this plane have two sets of wings in the thumbnail?"
I loved it too!
Sometime the best guys in their field of expertise can be blind to the most striking manifestation of what's gonna happening. Its amaze me each time.
Like many armies holding on to halberds and plate armor when the musket was already proving that this time had passed
EXACT SAME thing happened with the swiss in the 70s and most of the remaining American brands. They didn't think quartz watches were going to take off, the Japanese did AND invested in production equipment for them EARLY so when they started selling fast they HAD all the gear to make them, and the swiss were left behind as everyone turned to the Japanese with the exception of the expensive swiss brands. The swiss brands making stuff for the average guy went bankrupt. They KNEW HOW to make quartz watches, but didn't expect it to gain ground. At the same time that people were talking about flying cars and robot maids in their house, most of the swiss watchmaking industry thought people would STICK with WIND UP watches....
@@OffGridInvestor
Reminds me of digital camera's
I believe it was Kodak or Nikon that bit the dust believing there would still be more than enough market for analogue photography
‘Might’ is possibility, ‘may’ is permission. 5:50 M
I’d propose the name ‘Drumstick.’
Looking at the four attach bolts at 3:07, it reminded me of a couple T-28 builds I’ve worked on. Envisioning the stresses the bolts must have been on always gave me a chill.
CCNF also contributed manufacturing of the Canadian designed and mfg'd RAM tank which ultimately ended up as the RAM Kangaroo APC. The Kangaroo provided sterling army service until the end of the war.
The Ram tank was a solid enough design, other than the obsolete bow MG mini-turret. It certainly deserved a better look, but, well... Things happen.
They also made 894 Curtiss SBW Helldivers during WWII.
Sorry the ram tanks was a grant tanks with a different turret, it was never use In combat, in other works, they modified an old tank.
@bill hughes it used a Grant suspension but the hull, turret, and gun were all different. It's sort of like saying building an M10 Wolverine is just building a Sherman.
I live how everything not Australia tries to call itself kangaroo or koala.... blasphemous.....
Timing is everything!
Ed’s videos always gets a tump up before been watched, you just know you won’t get disappointed!
You shouldn't, though!
@@dallesamllhals9161 Have a little faith, brother!
@@Hiznogood "Woof! woof" = 1. or 2. dog impression? ;-D
@@dallesamllhals9161 Yeah … you lost me there. Care to explain what you’re trying to tell me? One stomp for yes, two for no.
What's a "tump"?
I'm thinking I may have worked with a distant relative of the designer back in the 1990s... an old-school C programmer who smugly told me that "the world wide web is just a fad, everyone will be coming back to applications written in C in another year or two." Oh, well... The plane is a cute lil' feller in any case.
I thought you were going to say he believed quickbasic would be back and windows programs were just a fad 😂
Ppl thought tv was just gonna be a fad too
That's so sad, you would think with drag being such a high priority in design why would he want to build a biplane. With just a few design changes he might have been on the path of building a contender
Conservatism in aircraft design was quite common in the 1930s. Also at that time there was still a belief in the biplane fighter with its highly maneuverable qualities and their was some support for that theory in the Spanish Civil war with the success of the Fiat CR-32 fighter. Also the speed differential between the monoplanes and the biplane was not that significant in the 30s as would be later in the late 30s and 40s. Finally, don't forget the other significant powers ie the US, Britain, Italy, Japan and even Germany employed Biplane fighters and bombers up to 1940. We have the US Navy Gruman F2F, the Gloster Gladiator, the CR-42 Falco, the Henschel Dive bomber and the larger Torpedo float planes.
They built an amazing ww1 aircraft just in time for ww2!
B.F. ...............It would have Quited the Western Front !!!!!!!!!!!!
Sounds about right. Even today the same goes for a lot of military kit i.e. designed for the last war.
Cr .42 wants to know its location.
Haha. Best comment
BS. Way more advanced than any WW1 aircraft. Read a book
It's a shame they never got around to making the version with the 1200 hp, simply because I would love to know what kind of speed they could get it of a bi-plane!
Wouldn't have changed that much tbh, at least not enough for it to be seriously considered for service.
It would be a nice stuntplane, but I'll bet the drag would have made it no match for (then) modern fighters
about as much as a CR42...maybe a bit faster but you are not breaking 300 mph. Remember the bigger engine is also heavier....
@@bernardwills9674 Less fuel efficient too, so it'd have hurt the range.
That prediction of his may just have been the most deluded prediction of the entire war tbh.
The Italians put a DB-601 in a CR.42. It went over 300 mph despite being a heavier motor and adding a radiator.
LoL, Ed that was best summation of an "to late to the party" aircraft type I've heard you say so far
"Out of touch"!! Great job.
To repeat what I have muttered in so many watching Ed’s videos…. “I had no idea….”… thanks for shedding some light on this forgotten gem of Canadian aviation history.
Keep 'em comlng Mr. Nash! Loving every one of these truly great videos!
As a number of other commenters have pointed out, you used the wrong Canadian flag in your video. The red-and-white "Maple Leaf" flag we're all familiar with now was only adopted as Canda's national flag in 1965. It wasn't around as far back as the 1930s and '40s.
Nice job, Ed. You dig up obscure little planes even the most ardent, seasoned aviation geeks have never heard of!
Story well-told! I got a kick from how you built up to the revelation that Gregor had designed it as a biplane.
Cool little biplane looks a little a like stretched I-15 with that gull top wing.
It is a slick little airplane. Would make an awesome modern build project today if you could get your hands on the drawings. All aluminum, round engine, I think I would add hydraulic power to the landing gear. But damn!!! She really looks sweet!!!
Quite similar to an I-153. I remember reading about this in a copy of Legion magazine. Had never heard of it prior or since.
Another great -- and well-researched -- video. Thank you.
Always excited when I see a new Ed Nash video has come out.
It looks so satisfyingly cool with the wheels , especially in the folded up position. It almost looks like a spare tire is on front of plane. 00:53 The plane is so cute. I just want to touch it. Imagine flying that with your scarf and goggles on. Also, right now, I'm as high as that plane ever flew.
It's said that Gregor's crack pipe is in the Canadian Aviation Museum.
Great work Nash.
Hi Ed, been looking for models of the aircraft you have been reviewing and finally found one its an older kit in 1/72 scale, its by Czech maker MPM. the Grumman FF-1 / G23 Goblin. I thought you might be interested. JDS in AZ usa
One of the most beautiful biplane fighters.
You did it again!
Never heard of this...thing.
Thank you.
☮
This was one of those "it looks good on paper" designs, if the paper came out 4 years earlier.
So it was a flop as a fighter. To bad, with a little tweaking it might have had a second life as kit plane in later years.....
Who knows? It still might. I've seen a lot of airplanes from that time resurrected in later years, so never say never.
Perhaps so, but there's still that niggling problem of rotten forward visibility.
Only the most daring (and experienced) pilots need apply.
@@ironwolfF1 People have built, and fly replica Percival Mew Gull's, and they've got crap visibility
Link, th-cam.com/video/yH5NkDRi1fk/w-d-xo.html
I made everything from scratch once and I'll never do it again.
Going out and finding the lime and Sand and Gravel to make concrete, then going out after that to dig up all the materials to make steel aluminum, Plastics, paint, it all adds up and it's way too much work for one person with one bucket and a shovel. Besides that the shovel handle was broke and there was no bottom in the bucket. I also learned after a while, not to carry my lunch in the bucket. There were many a days that I went hungry because of that bucket. Even to this day after 40 years I still have a bucket phobia. I've tried to get a handle on it, but I forgot where I put that broken shovel handle. So it makes it a little hard to dig it up.
Other than that, an airplane you say. Cool I'll have to keep my eye out for a video on one.
Another wonderfully informative video of an aircraft and designer I had no knowledge of. Terrific stuff!
Very good piece of aviation history
Love that multiple Canadian rail car companies starting building aircraft. When I worked at National Steel Car, I learned that they started victory aircraft (which became Avro Canada)
"Michael Gregor" wasn't ethnically Russian, he was a Georgian (Mikhail Leontyevich Grigorashvili) born in southern Russia (Derbent in Dagestan).
Thanks again for your great work from JDS in AZ usa
It reminds me, in layout, of a Polikarpov I15/153.
Like I-153 and F3F had weird child.
I think its a beautiful little biplane, despite its shortcomings
Good stuff.
With some of the (many) TH-cam channels I enjoy it occurs to me that the content providers are in danger of exhausting the supply of worthwhile subjects - Mr Jago Hazard and his splendid monologues on the convoluted history of the London Underground network for example. But any true aviation enthusiast will surely know that the ranks of obscure 20th century aircraft are legion - indeed this particular "Rabbit Hole' is virtually bottomless.
So I look forward to future videos on the Blackburn Botha and Vultee Vengeance with some sense of confidence!
Both on the list.
Being it's London, I suspect Jago is not in immediate danger of running out of subjects.
One of the few times I’m happy that the plane in the video wasn’t put into production
It has a quaint "Flash Gordon" styling. I like it as an objet d'art.
Lovely stuff Ed. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about aircraft of this vintage but had never tripped over this one!
The engine cowling looks like a very clean at least .
I wonder how it would do as an aerobatic performer? I wonder if it’s fun to fly?
Interesting story. Thanks for sharing.
Great presentation as always, exemplary, entertaining ,and informational. Kudos, sir !
Love your videos Ed, always some new and interesting tidbit of history to discover in your work!
As a longtime resident of Canada, I'd heard a lot about this particular exercise in "backwards thinking," and even picked up a few additional bits of information.
Some of the work on this aircraft was performed in CC&F's facility in Ottawa. It was located at the intersection of what was then Wellington Street East (now Albert) and Preston Street, near the old Bayview trainyards (now an LRT station). After this fiasco, they built components for Hurricanes and Lancaster bombers, then became an O'Keefe's beer brewery after the war. It was finally demolished in the 1970's, after sitting empty for many years.
By the way, our current flag was only adopted in 1965. Prior to that, we had no "official" national flag, but the Canadian Red Ensign was the most commonly used flag back then.😉
Cute little thing. Reminds me of a sleek version of the Polikarpov I.15? Would have been a nice little sports/private aircraft 😊👍
Yup, a kind of cleaned up Polikarpov I-153. It somehow resembles the Laird Speedwing and Super Solution racer as well.
Love your work on the orphan aircraft. Do you think you will wade into the morass that is the history and speculation on the Bugatti 100p?
It was a beautiful aircraft.
Loving your work fella, another good one Ed, thanks!
When narrator said it needs to be a biplane, I said "WHAT...?". But I already saw the plane in the thumbnail. Force of hand...
Nice video. For the odd & what-if's, have you run across the Vincent Burnelli designs? I'm not sure there's enough footage to make a video, but they are fairly unique.
Ohhh..I'll check it out
Thank you for the clip. I enjoy your snippets of almost forgotten aviation history. The FDB-1 is the FF's twin brother by the looks of it. Yet when you describe the design proces, it looks as if it's all designed from the ground up. Is it a mix of the Polykarpov Chaika (airframe) and FF (undercarriage) with a decent engine we're looking at here?
I think that's a pretty good description. Certainly seems to be a blend.
Looks like something that could be built today in life-sized, flying kit form for the aircraft hobbyist.
"FDB-1 unveiled, immediately become obsolete"
Canadians: *Sorry, eh?*
03:20 Many younger viewers may not know what that sound effect is but many older viewers know it all too well.
It is just an I-153 with a bubble canopy...
Ah yes...sharing a basic configuration = being the same design. /s
My mother and grandmother worked for CC&F building tanks during WWII. My grandmother worked in a munitions factory in the U.K. during WWI.
R1535 wasn't a nine cylinder engine, it was a two row unit with 14 cylinders. Name was Twin Wasp Junior. A small batch of the Canadian built Bolingbrokes (Blenheim IVs) had those. Unlike many of the other Wasp series engines, the R1535 is very rare today.
You're quite right! What a silly mistake to make!
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters When Canadian Warplane Heritage (operators of the "other" flyable Lancaster) commenced a restoration of a Bolingbroke IV to flight years ago, they set out initially to recreate a IVW, for reasons of ease of maintenance of the engines. They then found that the R1535 was rarer even than the Bristol Mercury. The project is still ongoing, but with Mercury engines and now intended to be a ground runner only.
Love how you hid the biplane concept on purpose as long as possible in the presentation beginning at 2:25 xD
Shame. Pretty aircraft, but a fighter in which the pilot is "blind as hell" is a non-starter.
Glad I'm not the only one that noticed this. Nice view overhead, but the view down and below is practically nil, which makes me question its usefulness as a dive bomber too.
It looks good.
Sounds like he had the private market more than mine vs the military market.
I-153 was also developed as late as 1938 due to uncertainty about how much mono-planes were feasable.
An aircraft so obscure, Wikipedia doesn't have an entry...
The Italians made the same mistake with the CR42, the difference being that it was MASS produced (most produced italian fighter!), it's incredible how a lot of designers were fixated on designs that were more apt to WWI than WWII.
Possible that didn't know Nothing of the works of Seversky, Mitchell or Messerschmitt??
The Italians supplied the Spanish Fascists with the CR32. It performed well against the Republicans' Polikarpov I15 and I16. So the Italians learned the lesson that maneuverable biplane fighters were still the way to go.
The Battle of Britain did not change the minds of the Regio Aernautico. The Italians lost lots of bombers, but it may come as a surprise that they lost no CR42s to enemy action and lost only one G50.
It's totally out of it's time frame but it does look good and right. The front windscreen could be a little nicer than that, but still. I like the look.
It is truly sad that one of these planes doesn't exist. Hopefully someone will build a modernized replica one day.
As someone who has been involved in designing and building new things, I can sympathize with what they were thinking. Too often people judge things with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Making new things is HARD and what is "obvious" with 20/20 hindsight absolutely was not, absent that hindsight.
Many times, the designs I've helped come up with had features we thought important. Instead, those features sometimes ended up either NOT being important or actually an active hindrance to what we were trying to do. Sometimes, those mistakes are easy to fix. Other times, they require a complete redesign.
CC&F technically, still exists today. They were baught out by A.V. Roe, aka Avro, merged into Hawker Siddeley Canada, then acquired by... Bombardier. Their factories still produce, Trains, planes, and snowmobiles.
But always late and with plenty of defects. Lol
@@mikeholland1031 its the CC&F legacy.
My only suggestion is that you should have used the old version of the Canadian flag rather than the 1960s one.
It triggered my OCD.
You could imagine the fuselage being fitted out as a low wing monoplane and it really being something.
Nice 1 again, another I missed
I think Mister Polikarpov's planes may have had some influence in that design, I can see the similarity, even beyond the upper "gull wing"
I wouldn't pin all this on the designer without more information. The CC&F had only built biplanes under license, and if management were risk-averse (find me a career manager who isn't), they may have preferred a "safer" biplane design with incremental improvements over what they were making at the time. Did they give the designer free rein? Might he have been chosen because he preferred biplanes? Were there any other aero designers on the payroll, or was it just one guy making all the decisions?
It'd make a good stunt plane lol. Fascinating stuff.
To be fair to the Gladiator, it may have entered service in 1937, but there were possibly fewer differences between it and the Gauntlet than the Spitfire I and XIV, so you could make an argument about how much of a new aircraft it was. You could view it as an improved Gauntlet as a stopgap.
Take the top wing off. Extend the bottom wing slightly. Looks like the J2M, don't it? Also vastly increases visibility over the nose and frontal arc on both sides.
Test pilot said it was hard to see where he was going! Just making turns on a circuit might have been really annoying with wings blocking the view.
Wasn't Ernst Udet (chief of the Luftwaffe technical development) insistent on bi-planes right up to the eave of WW2?
What other aircraft Michael Gregor built after this one? Did he stick with biplane?
I’ve often thought this thing would have rocked if it were navalized and flown off small escort carriers in WWII
....But, it's kinda cool lookin'. F3F meets I-153. Def. too late. 60 years of interest in this stuff, have NEVER heard of this one, anywhere. Thanks for the reveal.
Maybe he should have tried the Italians, though no doubt they would have fallen out over the enclosed cockpit!
It's really incredible they made this plane years after PZL P7 and P11 were constructed. They look like they could be a development of this plane, not something made years before.
It's even more incredible that they tried to market this plane while the Polish aircraft were getting flamed by German monoplanes...
It also somewhat resembles the Polikarpov I-153.
@@1timcat Weird love child of I-153 and F3F
@@kaletovhangar Rag and tube days it would have been a world beater.
Pronounciation of Gregor's name could go like: Gree-goh-rah-SHVEE-lee (meaning 'Gregor's son' in Georgian)
Didn't know him for such a prodigy of Russian pre-WW1 aviation
Another aircraft I've never heard of and it looks like the test tube baby of a Grumman F3F, Brewster F2A and Polikarpov I-153.
that's why we love history ! ! !
The record scratch was epic.
A fine aircraft for the mid 30's
It is a real beauty, but, and I am not an expert, judging from the position of the wings the center of gravity must be in an odd place so far forward?
I love the look of this fighter. Even if it was a bit late to the party.
Thank you for that.
ALSO, why the engine cowling, propeller and spinner looks eerily similar...
*Coughs in zero*
👍you have to admit its one bad ass little biplane.
Cool looking plane, anyway.
Quite the visionary 🤔
I can imagine an SR 71 as a biplane