My father was a test pilot with the program. He likes to tell the story about part of the sales campaign, when one landed on the helipad of the Whitehouse. (pre arranged of course). He is now working at the National Aviation Museum as a volunteer. He made sure that he pointed out number four to me.
I know him very well. A photo of all of us is online, from LtCmdr Zbitnew archives. I have the same one at home; every one of us got an 8x10 of the group shot.
Every time I watch this, I get more and more pissed off that the Canadian aviation industry got screwed * so many times * ...what a cool aircraft this was/is!
Not quite as heartbreaking a story as the Avro Arrow, this seems to be another case of hard work and brilliant ideas tragically losing out to politics. Great presentation. I wonder what the costs compared to an equivalent helicopter would have been? Just the fact that you did not need to be a helicopter pilot to fly it seems like it would have made it a success.
@@dartmaster501 Sales were needed to the Americans, but as has been shown in many cases, the Americans will much prefer to buy American, and even attempt underhand actions against the companies they see as competition. The reason why the P1127 / Harrier was successful was because it became the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II instead of the Hawker Sidley Harrier. In contrast, here in the UK, TSR2 was cancelled in favour of the General Dynamics F111 through politics influenced by the Americans, and Canada had a similar thing with their Avro Arrow.
It wasn’t’t a total loss. The basic design was incorporated into the V-22 Osprey airvraft (a real gem by US military standards) as a “flying truck” and aerial machine gun platform in Vietnam). The difference is thst, the engine nacelle rotate on the V-22, and not the entire wing. When I was on the CL 84 project (we called it CC-84 - and never “Dynavert”, the main shaft had to be replaced at least 4 times to my knowledge on 8401, due to minor cracks which developed in flight during the transition from Wing 90 (Helo mode) to Wing 0 (standard aircraft). If you find the group picture, I’m in there. Massey is a borrowed name for privacy.
It must have been an amazing time to be an aerospace engineer in Canada when you could be working at Canadair making just about anything anyone could dream up.
I love the sad undertones of the music in these vids. A time when the Canadian aerospace industry had great potential and is now sadly mostly forgotten.
Very nice video. Both my dad and I worked for Canadair. My dad introduced me to one of the CL-84 test pilots - Bill Longhurst. I believe he was involved in one of the airframe losses. Your documentary has some great shots on operations at Cartierville which is now a housing development. Thanks for bringing back some great memories.
Polyus Studios I really enjoy your videos. The technical content is excellent. If you are looking to do more videos regarding Canadian aerospace history, the Pratt & Whitney Canada flight test operation would make an interesting research project. I worked there for 18 years and was very involved with the 720B flying test bed, C-FETB. I was involved in the modification design and flew a couple of thousand hours as Flight engineer. I’d be more than happy to provide history and technical info. Regards.
sc1338 The Dynavert was not an engineering failure . It had its teething problems but nothing compared to the Osprey. It was not a commercial success partly because as usual as gutless Canadians we wouldn’t take a leap of faith and stand behind are own product just like the acronym aero . We turned our back on our innovative engineering and our armed forces as usual. We as Canadians must take the blame for not insisting on supporting home grown projects and supporting our military and aero engineering sector . We have produced such planes as the beaver, otter , caribou that more than beat the standards of the time. The Dynavert and Aero would have joined those other aircraft as cutting edge world beaters if we only had taken that leap of faith.
I've known about this thing for years and I'm still amazed by how _well_ it worked. I've nothing against the UH-1 but the CL-84 just seemed to do the same, but better. It's a real shame it wasn't picked up by anyone, even if just to do the same job as a helicopter. [imagines later production variants of the design, including a narrow-bodied 'strike' version like the AH-1, set to wistful music] Oh well, there's always the alt-history forums! Great video, TH-cam's random recommendations strike gold once again!
Stupid thing is, the world is still desperate for affordable tilt rotor, at least militaries are for _Carrier onboard delivery_ _AWACS_ _Inflight refueling_ _Anti submarine warfare_ from conventional STOVL aircraft carriers But does Canada even have aerospace capability anymore?
I never really got why these tilt wings aren't more popular. they are superior over helos in almost every way. but sadly politics doesn't care if its better or not
I guess its money and efficence based on it, Helis got 1 engine (not counting the tail one tbh) cheaper and easier to maintain, probably also less fuel needed per pound lifted, while probably a design like this one (based on couples) had inherent problems related to calibration, asymetry problems, etc... twice the base twice the trouble. * I still love this more than helicopters, I think the maneuverability could be way better, however I think the military left too much love into other air vehicles like jet fighters or bombers, making this "middle point" (between air and land) less exploited.
If this went into production imagine what this machine could do today. I am fortunate to be able to see this aircraft at its home in Ottawa , It is one of my favorite aircraft at the museum. Thanks for all your great content.
great content and narration! please turn down the back ground noise a few more notches A foreign country isn't going to buy an unoperational aircraft if the Canadian government doesn't buy any
So much has been made of the engineering of the Osprey that it makes this achievement from the 60s seem so much more impressive. Add to that fact that it was easy enough to fly that a pilot could plop it down on an aircraft carrier. A pilot not trained in ACC landings! A ground crew needed no advanced training!?! These things are unheard of and offer huge benefits to government and military from a logistics and training point of wiew and combine to make this aircraft a 'one of a kind' in missed opportunities for the Canadian Air Force and public. Such a shame. No wonder a lot of aviation engineers said 'screw it' and went south. At least they would find a government who would appreciate their skills.
The son of one of the lead designers ran a classic music review show on CBC radio (Rick Philips and Sound Advice). Perhaps this inspired the soundtrack.
And today I see the US ARMY has announced that the Bell V-280 tiltrotor is to become its new utility aircraft replacing the UH-60 Blackhawk. The engineers of Canadair were just a few years too far in the future but were right all along. Still, it is the manufacturer of the UH-1 that won the contract with a twin-rotor design! As a matter of fact, I believe all of the modern tilt-rotor designs are twins. Nods to Canadair?
Thank You for another great documentary. Very interesting to see the aircraft designed and flown 40+ years ago, capable of fulfilling numerous roles so coveted today by those looking for a COIN airplane. Practical, multirole capable, low pilot load, easy to transition to,made in Canada, and it didn’t get far at all. Hard to accept.
yea, the arrow if upgraded could perform as well as the fifth generation fighters of today and it was almost brought back instead of the f-35, and the cl-84 if made larger and used the bigger engines they initialy were going to use could easily outperform the osprey, and both would cost a fraction of what they f-35 and v-22 do.
This aircraft seems like it would have been a great candidate for Arctic support operations where runways aren't always available. It could have been used to resupply submarines.
Very nice documentary for the aviation people. The soundtrack is also very well chosen, congrats. Gotta love unconventional aircraft. Such a big lesson, what IS success, in the end?
Great quality video! Strange that this one didn’t go further as it seemed to fulfill the stated capabilities very well. Most other vtol concepts seems to have floundered on technical difficulties, this one seemed to have been cancelled purely on lack of commercial interest.
It's typical Canadian government way. Canada should be a leader in military aircraft production, but when big brother down south says no that's it. And it don't help that canadian politicians can't see past their own current in house squabbles. Canada will never measure up to it's great potential.
@@jb76489 Britain has the same problem. Any failure of their own projects is blamed entirely on the US regardless of the actual reason for failure. Go look at any video of the TSR-2 or concorde and you'll see them.
The reason why these aircraft didn't succeed back than was because of the inability to transport a reasonable cargo, a reasonable distance. The technology, engines, computers just wasn't there at the time.
Canada should have exported this to the USA, instead of them wasting all those years and money developing the V-22 Osprey for their Marine Corps. CL-84 looks like a truly rugged and versatile aircraft.
Why in the hell does Canada design so much awesome stuff, beautifully thought-out, designed and well built and then no one wants to buy it or use it? It's heart breaking.
its because america has the power to persuade other countries not to buy from us and then they end up making very similar aircraft years later, just like in this video, they signed on to make the cl84 a joint program then cancelled it probably after they had enough info or access to the blueprints and then they tried to make an almost exact copy as their own, unfortunately they tried to make the 4 engine version which canada knew didnt work so the US gave up for a couple of decades and made the v-22 osprey which still isnt as good as the cl-84 and they cost 72 million each, the only advantage over the cl-84 it has is payload capacity and a slight range advantage and if the cl-84 were scaled up and used the large size airframe and much more powerful engines they intialing were looking to use it would easily outperfom the osprey at probably half the cost, the US also made a jet strikingly similar to the avro arrow year after they helped pressured diefenbaker into cancelling the program, and the arrow built in 1959 was almost ressurected and used instead of the f-35 because it could compete or outperform it even though it was 40 years older and the arrow would cost a fraction of what the f-35 cost.
Germany had a wood stealth bomber and were ahead in many things as well. The US stopped going to the moon since black leaders complained about the cost when they needed the help, and that drag on humanity continues to this day.
As an American, I must say I wish we had swallowed our pride and bought the darn thing. It was amazing. Hope you get back to building military aircraft soon.
The Osprey went back into service in 2007. It has been pulled from it because of safety concerns and had been pulled and was an active aircraft well before its reinstatement.
This seems like a concept that could be revived and employed in the current setting. Lots of upgrades obviously. And still relevant in domestic military and civilian applications.
I just want to say thank you. I don't know what happened to documentary after the 90's . But they just don't have the same depth. The really on cgi and special effects and not that engineering. To me anyway
Some people would say this aircraft was ahead of it's time, because of flyby wire and computer controlled digital technology, I'd say this, ok believe everything ever invented is invented exactly when they should be, it's the technology needed to complete and to bring such inventions to fruition that lags behind, and only when we invent something like this, it shows what technology is needed to improve to make such aircraft work as good as they should, same with the B2 Spirit stealth bomber, the Early Flying wings were supposedly ahead of time but both turbo prop and jet versions needed fly-by-wire and better computer technology to make them a success, forcing further research and development in to technology to make such an aircraft a success, so again, I believe things are invented exactly when they are meant to be invented, pushing further the march for more advancements. Very good video, a short documentary really, I enjoyed it.
Under my real name (this one for convenient purposes), I was attached to the CX84 project at Canadair for 2 years. Can’t reveal more, but very closely involved daily with the aircraft, which was purposely built square, to fit inside a DDH (destroyer) hangar
I am staggered that no one saw the potential for this aircraft. It would have revolutionised the civil aviation industry and from an economic perspective enabled VTOL transport right to major cities.
Thank you for taking the time to do this so well. I'm having trouble retrieving your reference data from the the websites. Do you have any suggestions?
wow how was this never put into production? and why has it not been looked at again? tilting the wing not just the props is the way to go... and the tail prop...
Wow! Astonishing remarkable aircraft, and remarkably good video. Compliments and Big TY's!! And y'know, all I can think of is...? Where are my tools? Where's my design software? I WANNA BUILD ONE OF THOSE SUCKERS!!! :- ) And with today's aviation tech? Think a cut above passenger-drone-type/ultralight aircraft. How sweet can we make it? TYs again.
If you look at the aerospace industries of many countries you are likely to find similar stories of aircraft that showed great promise but never found a market due to a plethora of factors--though often (sadly) factors that were largely political in nature. Most of the major industrialized countries are loath to buy military hardware from foreign sources unless there is a domestic benefit (beyond the obvious military need). We do this ourselves in Canada by often requiring manufacturing offsets and domestic subcontracting when we purchase such things as fighter jets. The idea behind this is to not only provide jobs for Canadians, but also to provide a capability to produce (to some extent) military materiel in situ--a capability that can be critical in the event of a war wherein domestic production prevents the sort of bottlenecks to availability that we saw with PPE during the early days of the pandemic. Timing, too, can be essential in bringing an aircraft to market, and many an aircraft has fallen victim to appearing too soon or too late to cash in. But while we may lament the failure to achieve a place in the world market by this aircraft and others in Canadian aviation history, we should take note that on the flip side there have been many successes. It is no different in other industries, and often it is not the best technology that wins out but the one with the best marketing and/or backing (particularly financial and political). Great video, by the way. Very professional and informative. I look forward to seeing more.
I have written about my father in one of Polyus videos on the CL28. He moved on to Hawker Siddeley from Canadair to work on the development of the P1127 / Harrier jump jet. In the late 60's he had to return to Canada to exchange Hawker's VTOL experience for that of Canadair's (I think), presumably to help with the developments of both the Harrier and the CL84 . My mum told me he was shitting bricks (not her exact terminology) as he went through Canadian customs because he had not paid his taxes upon leaving Canada for Britain! Got away with it, and all very much in the past now!
This was like the predecessor of the Osprey. Now that our oil industry is dead more than ever it would have been nice to have a world leading aerospace industry
Wow I never saw the Dynavert in this way before. It actually was a serious contender to the UH-1D. Considering how the popularity for convertiplanes are increasing, a rebirth could be possible.
You are doing the work the History channel should be doing, very professional and well researched. One recommendation if you decide to record it again, avoid works like "our" or a shared collective as a Canadian. The subject stands equal to things outside Canada and I think as a documentary it would benefit from a more neutral tone. One example would be "our country had to offer" at the very end, "Canada had to offer" would be more neutral. This is positive criticism for an otherwise fantastic job, I could see it being shown in classrooms, especially virtual like we are stuck with for now.
As you said, sales were needed in particular to the large market of the Americans, but as has been shown in many cases, the Americans will much prefer to buy American, and even attempt underhand actions against the companies they see as competition. The reason why the P1127 / Harrier was successful was because it became the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II instead of the Hawker Sidley Harrier. In contrast, here in the UK, TSR2 was cancelled in favour of the General Dynamics F111 through politics influenced by the Americans, and Canada had a similar thing with their Avro Arrow.
This may be the best informative/educational video about aircraft I have seen. Well done! You seem quite knowledgeable about the topic, can you tell me why the cross shafts on the XC-142 had excessive vibrations? If it's because the wing bending/flexing, could it be fixed with torque tubes or more rigid wing? And why the CL-84 didn't have the same problem, is it because the shorter/sturdier wing? Could the turbulence from downwash in VTOL partly be the cause of the vibrations, because the rigid props couldn't absorb it? (The V-22 may have a similar problem: www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm) It's unbelievable that you have only 300 subscribers, you should do a video on more popular topic (F-35B or V-22 for instance) so more people would find your channel.
@@polyus_studios After seeing the depth and quality of this video, I was a little surprised to see the sub count of your channel. I look forward to seeing your channel grow in popularity in the coming months and years!
My father was a test pilot with the program. He likes to tell the story about part of the sales campaign, when one landed on the helipad of the Whitehouse. (pre arranged of course). He is now working at the National Aviation Museum as a volunteer. He made sure that he pointed out number four to me.
I know him very well.
A photo of all of us is online, from LtCmdr Zbitnew archives. I have the same one at home; every one of us got an 8x10 of the group shot.
Every time I watch this, I get more and more pissed off that the Canadian aviation industry got screwed * so many times * ...what a cool aircraft this was/is!
Great video. I remain amazed by what the engineers from back in the day were able to produce without hardly any computer/simulation tools.
Did you miss all the wind tunnel testing? Static testing, 16bit computer to control low speed and transitions?
A most proper, brilliant and well informed presentation a shear delight. Thank you.
Seconded. Every country should have a channel like this!
Not quite as heartbreaking a story as the Avro Arrow, this seems to be another case of hard work and brilliant ideas tragically losing out to politics. Great presentation. I wonder what the costs compared to an equivalent helicopter would have been? Just the fact that you did not need to be a helicopter pilot to fly it seems like it would have made it a success.
Dude, did you not listen? Not so much politics as none of the potential costumers placed any orders. And here's why: 19:52
The avro arrow was canned because it wasn’t a good plane built for a role that wasn’t needed
and yet the CF-101 Voodoo was adopted a big interceptor in a role which ICBMs supposedly "didnt exist".
@@dartmaster501 Sales were needed to the Americans, but as has been shown in many cases, the Americans will much prefer to buy American, and even attempt underhand actions against the companies they see as competition. The reason why the P1127 / Harrier was successful was because it became the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II instead of the Hawker Sidley Harrier.
In contrast, here in the UK, TSR2 was cancelled in favour of the General Dynamics F111 through politics influenced by the Americans, and Canada had a similar thing with their Avro Arrow.
It wasn’t’t a total loss.
The basic design was incorporated into the V-22 Osprey airvraft (a real gem by US military standards) as a “flying truck” and aerial machine gun platform in Vietnam).
The difference is thst, the engine nacelle rotate on the V-22, and not the entire wing.
When I was on the CL 84 project (we called it CC-84 - and never “Dynavert”, the main shaft had to be replaced at least 4 times to my knowledge on 8401, due to minor cracks which developed in flight during the transition from Wing 90 (Helo mode) to Wing 0 (standard aircraft).
If you find the group picture, I’m in there. Massey is a borrowed name for privacy.
It must have been an amazing time to be an aerospace engineer in Canada when you could be working at Canadair making just about anything anyone could dream up.
…And today all innovation is crushed!
I love the sad undertones of the music in these vids. A time when the Canadian aerospace industry had great potential and is now sadly mostly forgotten.
Made me suprisingly proud of Canada - I'm English :)
👍🇨🇦 lolol
I am an American and I am proud of Canadian tech.
Don’t have anything of your own to be proud of?
Nice of Canadair to show Bell-Boeing how to do it!
Agree looks more robust than the osprey. Probably much cheaper. Definitely did not kill so many folks in accidents.
Typical that the USAF XC 142 was a direct rip-off of the CL-84 that ultimately led directly to the Osprey
That is one ugly craft. Osprey is way better
I worked on the V-22. Nobody was looking to this design for anything. This Canadair plane was a failure
@@brownj2 what was your task that gives you this insight?
What a shame. Another one bites the dust in the aviation industry.
Thank you for the upload.
Very nice video. Both my dad and I worked for Canadair. My dad introduced me to one of the CL-84 test pilots - Bill Longhurst. I believe he was involved in one of the airframe losses. Your documentary has some great shots on operations at Cartierville which is now a housing development. Thanks for bringing back some great memories.
Polyus Studios I really enjoy your videos. The technical content is excellent. If you are looking to do more videos regarding Canadian aerospace history, the Pratt & Whitney Canada flight test operation would make an interesting research project. I worked there for 18 years and was very involved with the 720B flying test bed, C-FETB. I was involved in the modification design and flew a couple of thousand hours as Flight engineer. I’d be more than happy to provide history and technical info. Regards.
Well Done. Watching the 84 from the second floor classrooms at Holy Cross High School is something I have never forgotten.
Could have, should have, would have... rocked the program if folks simply ordered them. Makes me proud to watch this. Thank you.
The music is “Denmark” from the Portland Cello Project.
thank you
Built for far less and far earlier than the osprey.
@@polyus_studios YEp Canadian aerospace was ingenious in that time. Canadair did explore early drones designs way before the drone name was coined.
The Germans were even earlier, but just like this was a failure.
sc1338 The Dynavert was not an engineering failure . It had its teething problems but nothing compared to the Osprey. It was not a commercial success partly because as usual as gutless Canadians we wouldn’t take a leap of faith and stand behind are own product just like the acronym aero . We turned our back on our innovative engineering and our armed forces as usual. We as Canadians must take the blame for not insisting on supporting home grown projects and supporting our military and aero engineering sector . We have produced such planes as the beaver, otter , caribou that more than beat the standards of the time. The Dynavert and Aero would have joined those other aircraft as cutting edge world beaters if we only had taken that leap of faith.
I've known about this thing for years and I'm still amazed by how _well_ it worked. I've nothing against the UH-1 but the CL-84 just seemed to do the same, but better. It's a real shame it wasn't picked up by anyone, even if just to do the same job as a helicopter.
[imagines later production variants of the design, including a narrow-bodied 'strike' version like the AH-1, set to wistful music]
Oh well, there's always the alt-history forums!
Great video, TH-cam's random recommendations strike gold once again!
Stupid thing is, the world is still desperate for affordable tilt rotor, at least militaries are for
_Carrier onboard delivery_
_AWACS_
_Inflight refueling_
_Anti submarine warfare_
from conventional STOVL aircraft carriers
But does Canada even have aerospace capability anymore?
Excellent video. And on a personal note, you have given me an insight into some of my father's work.
Thank you for these well produced and informative videos!
I am soooo glad I found this channel. It’s hard to find Canada’s important and underrated aerospace contributions in a sea of American media.
Very impressed with that low level transition !
I never really got why these tilt wings aren't more popular. they are superior over helos in almost every way. but sadly politics doesn't care if its better or not
Agree. And you could potentially land it like an airplane if needed.
Because they are insanely more complicated and crash A LOT. They're also MASSIVE. sitting next to an M1A1 the osprey dwarfs it.
@@richardmoore609 It's maybe because the Osprey is designed to carry more than 6 people?
I guess its money and efficence based on it, Helis got 1 engine (not counting the tail one tbh) cheaper and easier to maintain, probably also less fuel needed per pound lifted, while probably a design like this one (based on couples) had inherent problems related to calibration, asymetry problems, etc... twice the base twice the trouble.
* I still love this more than helicopters, I think the maneuverability could be way better, however I think the military left too much love into other air vehicles like jet fighters or bombers, making this "middle point" (between air and land) less exploited.
@@BioClone Helo have their tail rotor linked to the engines that drive the main rotor, there's no small engine in the back :)
If this went into production imagine what this machine could do today. I am fortunate to be able to see this aircraft at its home in Ottawa , It is one of my favorite aircraft at the museum. Thanks for all your great content.
Very informative.
Thank you very much!
Very good accumulation of facts on the CL-84, plus: I actually like the music. Thanks.
great content and narration!
please turn down the back ground noise a few more notches
A foreign country isn't going to buy an unoperational aircraft if the Canadian government doesn't buy any
Very impressive!!!
Thank you for sharing... An amazing project and engineering effort. Bravo for Canadians.
So much has been made of the engineering of the Osprey that it makes this achievement from the 60s seem so much more impressive.
Add to that fact that it was easy enough to fly that a pilot could plop it down on an aircraft carrier. A pilot not trained in ACC landings! A ground crew needed no advanced training!?!
These things are unheard of and offer huge benefits to government and military from a logistics and training point of wiew and combine to make this aircraft a 'one of a kind' in missed opportunities for the Canadian Air Force and public. Such a shame.
No wonder a lot of aviation engineers said 'screw it' and went south. At least they would find a government who would appreciate their skills.
Man this was a perfect blend of commentary and spot on music track. I reckon i'll have to sub.
The son of one of the lead designers ran a classic music review show on CBC radio (Rick Philips and Sound Advice). Perhaps this inspired the soundtrack.
Outstanding video!
Really really really really cool video.
Absolutely love this channel! Thank you so much for sharing Canada's history. I will be watching all your videos.
I just discovered your channel and I absolutely love it. Keep up that fantastic work bud!
Bravo! Excellent and informative storytelling on a project before it’s time.
And today I see the US ARMY has announced that the Bell V-280 tiltrotor is to become its new utility aircraft replacing the UH-60 Blackhawk. The engineers of Canadair were just a few years too far in the future but were right all along. Still, it is the manufacturer of the UH-1 that won the contract with a twin-rotor design! As a matter of fact, I believe all of the modern tilt-rotor designs are twins. Nods to Canadair?
Amazing what we accomplished under a culturally cohesive society with a vision for technological progress
Thank You for another great documentary. Very interesting to see the aircraft designed and flown 40+ years ago, capable of fulfilling numerous roles so coveted today by those looking for a COIN airplane. Practical, multirole capable, low pilot load, easy to transition to,made in Canada, and it didn’t get far at all. Hard to accept.
yea, the arrow if upgraded could perform as well as the fifth generation fighters of today and it was almost brought back instead of the f-35, and the cl-84 if made larger and used the bigger engines they initialy were going to use could easily outperform the osprey, and both would cost a fraction of what they f-35 and v-22 do.
This aircraft seems like it would have been a great candidate for Arctic support operations where runways aren't always available. It could have been used to resupply submarines.
I wish they still made these, looks like it'd be great for bush flying
Very nice documentary for the aviation people. The soundtrack is also very well chosen, congrats.
Gotta love unconventional aircraft. Such a big lesson, what IS success, in the end?
That thing is fantastic, and, ahead of it's time.
Your sound track is amazing. Keep up the good work great video
This is a most excellent documentary!
😎🇺🇸
Great quality video! Strange that this one didn’t go further as it seemed to fulfill the stated capabilities very well. Most other vtol concepts seems to have floundered on technical difficulties, this one seemed to have been cancelled purely on lack of commercial interest.
Amazing aircraft and great video 👍
Excellent and accurate. #3 is in the Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Another great video. I never realized how successful this aircraft actually was! It's a shame we didn't take advantage of that innovation.
It's typical Canadian government way. Canada should be a leader in military aircraft production, but when big brother down south says no that's it. And it don't help that canadian politicians can't see past their own current in house squabbles. Canada will never measure up to it's great potential.
It's not the American's fault, it's the politician's fault. No matter what country, politicians always ruin everything. Same here in the US.
Also, was there a mention of the unit cost?
@@anonymousperson2110 Politicians with R beside their name.. Fixed it for you
@@jb76489 Britain has the same problem. Any failure of their own projects is blamed entirely on the US regardless of the actual reason for failure. Go look at any video of the TSR-2 or concorde and you'll see them.
Australia has also had some ground braking developments but stalled by Politics ....... FACEPALM.... Fantastic Video PS.
an impressive aircraft to say the least and the transition speed from vertical to horizontal flight is amazing...
Great video! Man I really wish Canadair was still around...
This is an amazing video!
Your VO is GREAT - the music is loud and distracting
JR
James Ryzlot yes I agree too. I wish I can hear his nice VO clearly but the music is too intrusive. Thanks for the nice video and info research.
its a bit loud i agree, but i like it, just wish it was a bit quieter. lol
Awesome video! Never heard of it before! Thank you.
Really interesting mini documentary!
Shades of the Arrow !
@@polyus_studios Our Government
Very good history lesson. Especially in these times of electric VTOL flying cars. Learn from the past!
The reason why these aircraft didn't succeed back than was because of the inability to transport a reasonable cargo, a reasonable distance. The technology, engines, computers just wasn't there at the time.
Exactly. Carbon fiber (lots of it) and digital flight computers are what (finally) enabled the V-22.
Great doc and such a shame the aircraft never got recognized
Excellent informative video, nicely done. Subscribed!
Canada should have exported this to the USA, instead of them wasting all those years and money developing the V-22 Osprey for their Marine Corps. CL-84 looks like a truly rugged and versatile aircraft.
Why in the hell does Canada design so much awesome stuff, beautifully thought-out, designed and well built and then no one wants to buy it or use it? It's heart breaking.
its because america has the power to persuade other countries not to buy from us and then they end up making very similar aircraft years later, just like in this video, they signed on to make the cl84 a joint program then cancelled it probably after they had enough info or access to the blueprints and then they tried to make an almost exact copy as their own, unfortunately they tried to make the 4 engine version which canada knew didnt work so the US gave up for a couple of decades and made the v-22 osprey which still isnt as good as the cl-84 and they cost 72 million each, the only advantage over the cl-84 it has is payload capacity and a slight range advantage and if the cl-84 were scaled up and used the large size airframe and much more powerful engines they intialing were looking to use it would easily outperfom the osprey at probably half the cost, the US also made a jet strikingly similar to the avro arrow year after they helped pressured diefenbaker into cancelling the program, and the arrow built in 1959 was almost ressurected and used instead of the f-35 because it could compete or outperform it even though it was 40 years older and the arrow would cost a fraction of what the f-35 cost.
the rejection of projects like these sets humanity back decades at a time
Germany had a wood stealth bomber and were ahead in many things as well. The US stopped going to the moon since black leaders complained about the cost when they needed the help, and that drag on humanity continues to this day.
You Sir are doing God's work here
Thank You 😁
btw i live 15 minutes from where Karlis Irbitis was born and grew up. ive riden motorcycle through that town a few times.
beautiful music, shame i could still hear commentator above it!
Another interesting plane of similar design is the Vought XC-142, which had 4 engines and could carry more cargo. It flew before the Dynavert, IIRC.
At some parts of the video the music makes it impossible to hear what is being said
That was really good Polyus
Awesome video. Thanks.
As an American, I must say I wish we had swallowed our pride and bought the darn thing. It was amazing. Hope you get back to building military aircraft soon.
The Osprey went back into service in 2007. It has been pulled from it because of safety concerns and had been pulled and was an active aircraft well before its reinstatement.
This seems like a concept that could be revived and employed in the current setting. Lots of upgrades obviously. And still relevant in domestic military and civilian applications.
This is how empires roll. We can't have our neighbours producing better tech than we do.
No no no, they have to buy our product.
that's impressive!
I just want to say thank you. I don't know what happened to documentary after the 90's . But they just don't have the same depth. The really on cgi and special effects and not that engineering. To me anyway
A Swiss company, Dufour, has bought the rights to the CL-84 and is planning to start production in Quebec.
Some people would say this aircraft was ahead of it's time, because of flyby wire and computer controlled digital technology, I'd say this, ok believe everything ever invented is invented exactly when they should be, it's the technology needed to complete and to bring such inventions to fruition that lags behind, and only when we invent something like this, it shows what technology is needed to improve to make such aircraft work as good as they should, same with the B2 Spirit stealth bomber, the Early Flying wings were supposedly ahead of time but both turbo prop and jet versions needed fly-by-wire and better computer technology to make them a success, forcing further research and development in to technology to make such an aircraft a success, so again, I believe things are invented exactly when they are meant to be invented, pushing further the march for more advancements.
Very good video, a short documentary really, I enjoyed it.
Very good. You forgot to mention two things however. General Dynamics' involvement and how the name "DynaVert" came into being.
I wish we (the US) would have got on board with this. I can only imagine what it would be like with decades of improvement
I am also reminded of the British Fairey Rotodyne.
Under my real name (this one for convenient purposes), I was attached to the CX84 project at Canadair for 2 years.
Can’t reveal more, but very closely involved daily with the aircraft, which was purposely built square, to fit inside a DDH (destroyer) hangar
oh cool! Did I get most of it right?
I am staggered that no one saw the potential for this aircraft. It would have revolutionised the civil aviation industry and from an economic perspective enabled VTOL transport right to major cities.
Thank you for taking the time to do this so well. I'm having trouble retrieving your reference data from the the websites. Do you have any suggestions?
wow how was this never put into production? and why has it not been looked at again? tilting the wing not just the props is the way to go... and the tail prop...
Nothing like giving your enemy a massive target to shoot at. One that if hit will bring the acft down. So no not the way to go.
Wow! Astonishing remarkable aircraft, and remarkably good video. Compliments and Big TY's!! And y'know, all I can think of is...?
Where are my tools? Where's my design software? I WANNA BUILD ONE OF THOSE SUCKERS!!! :- )
And with today's aviation tech? Think a cut above passenger-drone-type/ultralight aircraft. How sweet can we make it? TYs again.
If you look at the aerospace industries of many countries you are likely to find similar stories of aircraft that showed great promise but never found a market due to a plethora of factors--though often (sadly) factors that were largely political in nature. Most of the major industrialized countries are loath to buy military hardware from foreign sources unless there is a domestic benefit (beyond the obvious military need). We do this ourselves in Canada by often requiring manufacturing offsets and domestic subcontracting when we purchase such things as fighter jets. The idea behind this is to not only provide jobs for Canadians, but also to provide a capability to produce (to some extent) military materiel in situ--a capability that can be critical in the event of a war wherein domestic production prevents the sort of bottlenecks to availability that we saw with PPE during the early days of the pandemic.
Timing, too, can be essential in bringing an aircraft to market, and many an aircraft has fallen victim to appearing too soon or too late to cash in. But while we may lament the failure to achieve a place in the world market by this aircraft and others in Canadian aviation history, we should take note that on the flip side there have been many successes. It is no different in other industries, and often it is not the best technology that wins out but the one with the best marketing and/or backing (particularly financial and political).
Great video, by the way. Very professional and informative. I look forward to seeing more.
I have written about my father in one of Polyus videos on the CL28. He moved on to Hawker Siddeley from Canadair to work on the development of the P1127 / Harrier jump jet. In the late 60's he had to return to Canada to exchange Hawker's VTOL experience for that of Canadair's (I think), presumably to help with the developments of both the Harrier and the CL84 . My mum told me he was shitting bricks (not her exact terminology) as he went through Canadian customs because he had not paid his taxes upon leaving Canada for Britain! Got away with it, and all very much in the past now!
This was like the predecessor of the Osprey. Now that our oil industry is dead more than ever it would have been nice to have a world leading aerospace industry
THE MUSIC IS A BIT LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(other than that, nice video and cool aircraft)
So reminded me of the Tracker
I think this is cool- from US
One of the CL-84’s is here in the museum in Winnipeg. To my knowledge it never flew. The program was canceled before it was ever tested.
simply amazing but sadly not used, simply amazing videos thank you so much, yet here Canada keeps purchasing other countries equipment damn really
That's the trouble of being first to do something. People are scared of new and different.
Wow I never saw the Dynavert in this way before. It actually was a serious contender to the UH-1D. Considering how the popularity for convertiplanes are increasing, a rebirth could be possible.
You are doing the work the History channel should be doing, very professional and well researched. One recommendation if you decide to record it again, avoid works like "our" or a shared collective as a Canadian. The subject stands equal to things outside Canada and I think as a documentary it would benefit from a more neutral tone.
One example would be "our country had to offer" at the very end, "Canada had to offer" would be more neutral.
This is positive criticism for an otherwise fantastic job, I could see it being shown in classrooms, especially virtual like we are stuck with for now.
As you said, sales were needed in particular to the large market of the Americans, but as has been shown in many cases, the Americans will much prefer to buy American, and even attempt underhand actions against the companies they see as competition. The reason why the P1127 / Harrier was successful was because it became the McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) AV-8B Harrier II instead of the Hawker Sidley Harrier.
In contrast, here in the UK, TSR2 was cancelled in favour of the General Dynamics F111 through politics influenced by the Americans, and Canada had a similar thing with their Avro Arrow.
Vary interesting. I see your channel is aero space specific any plans to do any other Canadian designed equipment?
This may be the best informative/educational video about aircraft I have seen. Well done!
You seem quite knowledgeable about the topic, can you tell me why the cross shafts on the XC-142 had excessive vibrations?
If it's because the wing bending/flexing, could it be fixed with torque tubes or more rigid wing?
And why the CL-84 didn't have the same problem, is it because the shorter/sturdier wing?
Could the turbulence from downwash in VTOL partly be the cause of the vibrations, because the rigid props couldn't absorb it?
(The V-22 may have a similar problem: www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm)
It's unbelievable that you have only 300 subscribers, you should do a video on more popular topic (F-35B or V-22 for instance) so more people would find your channel.
@@polyus_studios After seeing the depth and quality of this video, I was a little surprised to see the sub count of your channel. I look forward to seeing your channel grow in popularity in the coming months and years!
Always bummed me out this never went into production. :(
Title really should be "The VTOL Transport that *should* have changed everything" !