Before Howard Hughes and the Spruce Goose there was Caproni and this monster. Caproni had designed and built bombers in WW1 so he did know what he was doing-and he was right that the future was large sea planes that could connect continents. It just wouldn't be his large seaplanes. The Ca 60 did fly a little, but had trouble with nose high pitch on takeoff, causing Carponi to use sandbag ballast aft to improve the take off attitude. Oddly, despite the obvious complexity of this aircraft and the meticulous attention to detail needed to make it all work, the sandbags weren't secured, and on the second flight they shifted aft causing the plane to pitch up uncontrollably and slam into the water and break in half. It was jokingly called 'the flying balcony.' Though it reportedly responded well to the controls and handled adequately one cannot imagine what a simple headwind or cross wind would do to a craft with so much parasitic drag and frontal area. Its as well it failed when it did, the incident likely spared the lives of many passengers who would have inevitably perished when the Ca.60 or its progeny met an untimely end.
The tow back to its hangar damaged the flying boat further, and the cost to re-built it was 1/3 its original build cost. Caproni only intended the Ca 60 as a test, his goal was to built a flying boat that could carry 150 passengers.
Caproni's plan was to use it for transatlantic crossings, carrying 100 passenger per flight. He did have a thing for large airplanes - just try googling Caproni C.90....
Before Howard Hughes and the Spruce Goose there was Caproni and this monster. Caproni had designed and built bombers in WW1 so he did know what he was doing-and he was right that the future was large sea planes that could connect continents. It just wouldn't be his large seaplanes. The Ca 60 did fly a little, but had trouble with nose high pitch on takeoff, causing Carponi to use sandbag ballast aft to improve the take off attitude. Oddly, despite the obvious complexity of this aircraft and the meticulous attention to detail needed to make it all work, the sandbags weren't secured, and on the second flight they shifted aft causing the plane to pitch up uncontrollably and slam into the water and break in half. It was jokingly called 'the flying balcony.' Though it reportedly responded well to the controls and handled adequately one cannot imagine what a simple headwind or cross wind would do to a craft with so much parasitic drag and frontal area. Its as well it failed when it did, the incident likely spared the lives of many passengers who would have inevitably perished when the Ca.60 or its progeny met an untimely end.
ReplyDeleteSo THAT's what heppened! Thanks! I was wondering what caused it to be so short lived
DeleteThe tow back to its hangar damaged the flying boat further, and the cost to re-built it was 1/3 its original build cost. Caproni only intended the Ca 60 as a test, his goal was to built a flying boat that could carry 150 passengers.
DeleteCaproni's plan was to use it for transatlantic crossings, carrying 100 passenger per flight. He did have a thing for large airplanes - just try googling Caproni C.90....
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe that even with six engines you could break that free from the water...amazing
ReplyDeleteEight engines, actually. Great story here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60
Delete