Michael Gregor born Mikhail Grigorashvili

Jan den Das

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
27 December 2008
Messages
290
Reaction score
64
Hai
Michael Gregor is lesser known as Seversky or Kartvelli, but came from Russia during the same period.
He worked for Dayton-Wright 1921, Curtiss-Wright 1923, Brunner-Winkle 1928, Seversky 1932, his own Gregor 1934, 1936 CCF and during the fourties Chase.
At Brunner-Winkle he designed the Bird biplanes.
At Gregor he designed the GR-1 and Gr-2, bot biplanes, (source: Vintagewings.ca), at least the Gr-1 was build, source pictures.
Concerning the GR-2 is only the following information that this aeroplane or project had Gregor designed ailerons? (there should be a patent of this aileron, who can help me?
1936 he get to Canada to CCF for who he designed the FDB-1, mentioned in the forum.
On the site of Vintage.ca the FDB-1 was mentioned as model 10.
This model 10 was this number 10 of the list of Gregor designs and if so which types were number 1 until with 9?
Concerning the Birds types, who can help me with drawings of the versions?
Jan
 

Attachments

  • gr1-3.jpg
    gr1-3.jpg
    55.3 KB · Views: 128
  • CCF-F-D-B-2.png
    CCF-F-D-B-2.png
    412.5 KB · Views: 93
A common story for the Gregor GR-1 Continental and GR-2 is that these trainers were designed for his Gregor Aircraft Company. However, there is a problem of dating. Most sources say that design of the GR-1 was begun in the late '20s - so, just before Michael Gregor becomes Chief Designer for the the Brenner-Winkle Aircraft Company.

The prototype X864Y first flew in 1930. The problem is that the Gregor Aircraft Company doesn't seem to have been established until 1934 (in rented facitlites at Roosevelt Field on Long Island). It is possible that the GR-2 was simply an updated (or simply 'productionized'?) GR-1 intended to be series built at Roosevelt Field. [1]

BTW: There is an online photo purporting to be the GR-2. I see no reason not to assume that this photograph actually shows GR-1 X864Y. -- https://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/NY/Airfields_NY_LongIs_Nassau.htm (scroll down)

I don't think that Model 10 was a Canadian Car & Foundry designation - the generic FDB-1 was. That suggests that the Model 10 designation likely came from Gregor's personal design list. Prior to this, rather than designations, CanCar seems to have just used names.

_________________________________________________________

[1] An intriguing possibility is that Gregor intended to apply his patented wingtip ailerons to the GR-2. These came under US Patent 1,747,001 issued 11 February 1930.
 

Attachments

  • gregor-ailerons.jpg
    gregor-ailerons.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 111
  • gregor-long-island-early-fliers.jpg
    gregor-long-island-early-fliers.jpg
    71.2 KB · Views: 131
Last edited:
Thank you for the information.
Checking the ailerons on the pictures and the one on the Patent, is my opinion that all the pictures are the GR-1.
I will contact Canada concerning the model 10, CCF number or Gregor.
Were can I find or who can help me with more information, then mentioned on the internet, concerning Brunner-Winkle en Bird Airplane corp. concerning the Bird types, because the Bird was a Gregor design.
Who can tell me if there were more designs by Gregor, besides the Bird's, GR-1 and the FDB-1?
Interrested would be technical details/dimensions/drawings etc. concerning all the different types.
Were can I find or who can help me with the details concerning the serial X864Y ?
 
Michael Gregor was born in Georgia during 1888, but fled when annexed the country. In the USA, he joined Dayton-Wright in 1921, then Curtiss-Wright in 1923. He worked for Seversky in 1932, but left to found his own Gregor Co. and design the GR-1 biplane.
He then moved to Canada during the late 1930s where he worked for Canadian Car and Foundry in what is now Thunder Bay, Ontario and designed his master opus: the sleek FDB-1 biplane which never entered production.
During the 1940s, he moved to Chase and later Stroukoff and worked on variations of the C-123 Provider transport used by the USAF. He continued working for Stroukoff until his death in Trenton NJ, during 1953.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, but I understand that the Maple Leaf was designed by Wallace from the USA, I cannot find anything about this aeroplane, and not by Gregor.
 
Thanks, but I understand that the Maple Leaf was designed by Wallace from the USA, I cannot find anything about this aeroplane, and not by Gregor.
In 1937, CCF acquired the rights to produce the "Wallace Trainer biplane, designed by Lanford Stamford Wallace. CCF renamed it eh Maple Leaf 1. It was a conventional, open-cockpit biplane constructed around a welded steel tube fuselage and wings made of spruce, all covered in fabric. Only the forward fuselage and engine cowling were aluminum. It was powered by a Kinner B5 radial engine. Testing during 1938 was unspectacular. A hoped for Nicaraguan contract never materialized.

In 1938, new Chief Engineer Elsie May MacDonald began designing the Maple Leaf 2 trainer which only used the vertical tail of the Maple Leaf 1. She substituted aluminum ribs, but otherwise used similar materials and construction methods. Sales Manager O.C.S. Wallace flew the first test flight on 31 October with MacDonald onboard. Tests indicated excellent results with stable and docile flight characteristics, however RCAF test pilots felt that a basic trainer needed to be more challenging.
In 1940 the Maple Leaf 2 was exported to Mexico along with two incomplete airframes, tools and drawings. Mexicans built ten more Maple Leaf 2s.

From www.aviastar.ca/air/canada/ccf_mapleleaf.php

Michael Gregor was not involved with Maple Leaf trainers.
 
Last edited:
Hi Guys, all very interresting, but I started this concerning Michael Gregor aeroplanes/projects.
I have some question posted and that had nothing to do with Maple Leaf II and/or Elsie MacDonald.
Please help me with my questions?
 
Hi I have contact with Canada, with the writer of the article of Vintagewings.
He send me the following message: I wrote that article maybe 8 years ago and my knowledge was not as refined as you might think. THere is a book written by Jonathan Kirton that may be of help for you.
 
Hi don't know if these plans of the Brunner-Winkle Bird may help Jan.

Bird plans 1.gif

Bird plans 2.gif
 
Hi Guys, all very interresting, but I started this concerning Michael Gregor aeroplanes/projects.
I have some question posted and that had nothing to do with Maple Leaf II and/or Elsie MacDonald.
Please help me with my questions?

Sorry about that guys.
I wrote about the Maple Leaf Trainer to correct my earlier - incorrect - statements linking Gregor to that light-weight biplane.,
 
Riggerrob ok accepted.:)

Victor these drawings are a good start, now I try to get more information about the other versions

Jan
 
Hai, I have the following information from Aerophile Volume 2 Number 1, concerning the serial NX-864Y.

July 15, 1931, NX-864Y Continental GR-1 s/n 1; 1930; 2 POLB; American Cirrus; owner Herbcon Corp., 57 Williams Street, New York, New York, license issued 4-11-31.

Also listed under I.P, January 1, 1932 p.2 and January 1, 1935 p.38; NX-864Y; Continental GR-1, s/n 1; same information; owner, Michael Gregor, 5 Prospect Place, New York, New York; license expires 3-1-35.

Also listed January 1, 1936 p.59; license expires 9.1.35.


Who can tell me more about this Continental?
 
Who can tell me more about this Continental?

As noted in reply #3, Continental was one of the names applied to X864Y, the sole Gregor GR-1 (c/n 1). The other named applied to the GR-1 was the more generic Sportplane.
 
Who started with the name Sportplane, did this come from Gregor or a journalist. Sportplane is also a kind of plane.
Continental and Sportplane are two different names.
What I have written came from some one who found this in official documents, Continental could not be the name of the GR-1, it has something to do with were it was build or who build it.
Regarding these document it was the Continental GR-1 and if youre information is correct it could be Continental GR-1 Sportplane.

The problem is if some one in the past have written something, what was not correct and no one checked it, it can lives its own live.
 
Forgotten to mention:

I think there was someone else involved, because the first license of the aeroplane was Herbcon Corp. and later Michael Gregor.

What was this Herbcon Corp. ????
 
Who started with the name Sportplane, did this come from Gregor or a journalist. Sportplane is also a kind of plane.
Continental and Sportplane are two different names.
What I have written came from some one who found this in official documents, Continental could not be the name of the GR-1, it has something to do with were it was build or who build it.
Regarding these document it was the Continental GR-1 and if youre information is correct it could be Continental GR-1 Sportplane.

The problem is if some one in the past have written something, what was not correct and no one checked it, it can lives its own live.

Okay. I suspect that, here, we are talking about the earlier Continental Aircraft Corporation of Amityville, NY.

There is a Continental GR-1 in the National Air and Space Museum Archives lists as the "Burnelli (Continental) GR-1 (1916)" (as well as a "Burnelli (Continental) KB-3T" of the same year). The KB-3T was Burnelli's 1916 pusher. However, I find nothing about a 'GR-1' outside of that SIRIS list. So, this GR-1 was an unbuilt and now largely forgotten project? Or was it just a typo?

Anyway, in 1916, Mikheil Grigorashvili was still in Petrograd. Obviously, Continental products have nothing to do with Gregor.
 
I may have found another source of the "Continental GR-1". In the letters to the editor section of Vintage Aircraft, EAA, Vol 10, No 4, (April 1982, page 19) two writers respond to the previous month's 'Mystery Plane'. Both writers 'identify' the sole Gregor GR-1 (X864Y) as the "Continental GR-1".

In the quiz, the EAA magazine uses this photo of the Gregor GR-1:
 
my information comes from an article from Aerophile 1978.

what you mention Gregor had nothing to do with the Continentel you mention.

What was this Continental and Herbcon Corp., 57 Williams Street, New York, New York.
Is there a member from New York who will try to find something over there?
I think we could not find the answer on the internet.
 
Some forum members may be interested in the early assistant design work of Mikheil Grigorashvili prior to his leaving Russia.

Nikolai Vasilyevich Rebikov's Rossiya Series

The earliest of Grigorashvili's assistant works are on the Rossiya series with design lead by NV Rebikov. Russian sources on Rossiya 'A' do not mention Grigorashvili but some modern Georgian sources do. (The latter sources can be a bit garbled and tend towards being overly nationalistic.) If Grigorashvili was directly involved in the design of Rossiya 'A', it would have been in a support role - as on Rossiya 'B'.

BTW, Grigorashvili also acted as test pilot for the Rossiya 'B'. When that prototype 'turned turtle' on landing, Rebikov held Grigorashvili responsible for this accident - souring that relationship. [1]

Rebikov Rossiya 'A': 1910 Farman III biplane
- Rossiya 'A': Orig. 1 x 40 hp Renault pusher
- Rossiya 'A': Mod., 1 50 hp Gnome, span 10.50

Rebikov Rossiya 'B': 1910 Bleriot XI monoplane copies, x 5
- : 1 x 25 hp Anzani 3-cylinder fan tractor engine, span 7.50 m
-- Built by First Russian Aeronautics Company - S.S. Shchetinin and Co.
- Rossiya 'B': aka Bi-Kok [2]

Pervoye Rossiyskoye Tovarishchestvo Vozdukhoplavaniya S.S. Shchetinin i Ko

After the outbreak of WWI, Grigorashvili was employed at the First Russian Aeronautical Company - S.S. Shchetinin and Co. in Petrograd. There, he worked under chief designer Dmitry Pavlovich Grigorovich. However, it is not clear whether Grigorashvili played any direct role in the design of that firm's series of 'M' model flying boats.

F.F. Melzer i Ko, Petrograd

From assistant to D.P. Grigorovich, Mikheil Grigorashvili took a position as chief engineer for an new aviation section of F.F. Melzer i Ko. Before the war, F.F. Melzer was famous as a bespoke furniture factory serving the nobility and the Imperial family. After 1914, the F.F. Melzer furniture factory was turned over to war work. [3] At Melzer, Grigorashvili developed his 'G' system of wooden propellers. In Autumn 1916, the Voyennoye ministerstvo [4] issued an order for 3,000 Grigorashvili propellers from Melzer. How many 'G' type propellers were delivered to the IVVF (Imperial Air Service) prior to the 1917 Revolution is unknown.

During Mikheil Grigorashvili's tenure at F.F. Melzer i Ko, examples were produced of a flying boat fighter to the design of Ye.R. Engel. [5] This aircraft was a parasol monoplane pusher which was also to be capable of operating on skis during the Winter. In July 1916, the prototype Engels I boat was completed and tested at Petrograd. The second aircraft - the Le Rhône-powered Engels M.II - was, by most accounts, modified from the original prototype. This Engels M.II was dispatched to the Caspian Sea for trials from the Baku Naval Aviation School. On 05 Dec 1916, the aircraft suffered a structural failure (possibly the result of sabotage). The right rear box spar collapsed in flight with Shtabs-kapitan Engels being killed.

Despite the death of the inventor, F.F. Melzer i Ko persisted with development. Two prototypes of the M.III production version were built - the first flying in August 1917. [6] The Russian Ministry of the Navy was informed that Melzer was capable of building 300 x production versions of this flying boat fighter (an estimate which was later scaled back to x 200). On 27 April 1917, an order for 60 M.IIIs was placed but, by September or October 1917, all work on these flying boat fighters seems to have been halted. The question is: With Yevgeni Engels dead, who at F.F. Melzer i Ko was capable of continuing this project?

With no genuine evidence to back the claim, I would suggest that chief engineer, Mikheil Grigorashvili, was the person most likely to have pursued the Engels design. Through his exposure to DP Grigorovich at S.S. Shchetinin i Ko, Mikheil Grigorashvili would have been very familiar with the design of small, pusher flying boats. I'm not suggesting that there is any connection between the Grigorovich boats and the Engels types. [7] Rather that Grigorashvili would be fully aware of the issues of preparing and water-proofing flying boat hulls. I realize that this is completely speculative (and bereft of any direct evidence) but I wanted to throw the suggestion of a Grigorashvili connection out there.

Engels M.I - 1916 single-seat fighter hydroplane, x 1
- M.I : Strut-mounted pusher above parasol, near T-tail
- M.I : 1 x 100 hp Gnome Monosoupape 9B-2, span 9.00 m

Engels M.II - 1916 single-seat fighter hydroplane, x 1
- M.II : Modified and re-engined pusher M.I prototype
- M.II : 1 x 120 hp Le Rhône 9Jb rotary, span 9.00 m
-- M.II development funded by the Ministry of the Navy

Engels M.III - 1917 single-seat fighter hydroplane, x 2
- M.III: Modified and re-engined pusher M.I prototype
- M.III: 1 x 120 hp Le Rhône 9Jb rotary, span 9.00 m
- M.III: Orders for x 60 aircraft* on 27 April 1917

If Mikheil Grigorashvili was connected with the Engels M.III flying boat, that was his last direct connection to aviation in Russia. In the wake of the October Revolution, Grigorashvili 'returned' to Georgia. Although of Georgian parentage, Grigorashvili had been born in Derbent, Dagestan. While he was still young, his mother moved her children to St. Petersburg where Mikheil - or Mikhail to his Russian friends - went to engineering school. When he moved to Tbilisi in early 1918, it was his first time living in Georgia. Grigorashvili found employment as an engineer with the Ministry of Railways of the new Democratic Republic of Georgia in early 1918. But these were unsettled times.

The Georgian economy was stagnant. Worse, in May 1920, Bolsheviks staged a coup d'état in Tblisi. That attempted coup failed but, in February of 1921, the Red Army invaded and easily crushed the People's Guard of Georgia. On the 25 February, the Red Army occupied Tblisi. Mikheil Grigorashvili fled abroad. He would re-emerge later in 1921 as Michael Gregor working as an engineer for the Gallaudet Aircraft Corporation on Chepiwanoxet Island, Rhode Island. [8]

___________________________________________________

[1] See: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/other1/bikok.html

[2] The Bi-Kok was designed in hope of military contracts. It was intended to be armed and armoured (the name Bi-Kok being derived from the medieval bicoque helmet).

[3] The Vintage Wings article mentions "the aviation factory of R.F. Meltzer". Roman Meltzer ('Architect of the Imperial Court') was actually the son of the furniture maker, Fyador Meltzer.

[4] Literally the 'War Ministry', generally known as the Ministry of War of the Russian Empire.

[5] Staff Captain Engels name get routinely garbled because of his first name. His full name was Yevgeni Robertovich Engels. Because of the Russian letter 'yeh', that first name can also be transliterated as Evgeny. So, E.R. Engels is also correct. In the same article, Wikipedia has him as both 'Y.R. Engels' and 'Y.E. Engels'. Elsewhere, the even less explicable 'R.E. Engels' is seen.

[6] The test flight was made by naval pilot Poruchik NA Yakovitsky who was then an instructor at the Petrograd Aviation School. During the Civil War, Lt. Yakovitsky would fly a Nieuport 17 with the 1st Naval IAO on the Severodvinsk front.

[7] Although, in 1921, the second M.III did fly at Samara fitted with stabilizer floats taken from a Grigorovich M-5.

[8] This firm had been noted for its complex and advanced Gallaudet Drive propeller system. It may have been that engineering challenge which drew Gregor to Edson Gallaudet.[/B]
 
Hai,
The GR-1.
After studing materials concerning the Brunnel-Winkle Bird's a came to the following conclusion.
The GR-1 was smaller than the Bird's, it had an engine of only 90hp.
The top wing of the Bird's were 34' and the GR-1 28'.
But the shape and everething looks the same, interresting is that the top wing of the Bird has a thick profile that was also done at the GR-1.
I think, the fuselage looks something different, the GR-1 construction was almost the same..
Gregor used the experience of the Bird in the GR-1.

There is still my request for help, information/all kind of materials concerning the experimental Bird's and the last the so called Speed Bird model A.
 
Good assessment/comparison of Gregor's Brunner Winkle Bird and GR-1. A visual difference was the GR-1's single interplane strut. I'm guessing that Gregor incorporated that strut on his GR-1 to 'modernize' its looks but, perhaps, also to reduce drag a bit?

Praise for the Bird's handling was widespread but other complained of a very low top speed (resulting in the Model A being eliminated from the Guggenheim Safety Plane competition). The Brunner Winkle and Bird models all had fuselages wide enough for the optional seating of four (pilot + 3 passenger). The seriously limiting factor was engine power.

In reality, 2- and 3-seats was the norm for Birds. GR-1 drag would also have been reduced compared to theBird simply by having adopted a narrower fuselage. Of course, having a lighter, air-cooled inline engine will also have helped (especially when compared with the water-cooled Model A Bird).

When Bird Aircraft went into receivership, Perth Amboy Title Company inherited Bird's spares, components, and semi-completed airframes. As far as I can tell, the entire purpose of Perth Amboy establishing the Speed Bird Corporation at Key Port was to use up those inherited components. As a result, the Speed Bird A would have been a bit of a 'Frankenstein' of parts.

The notion of the Speed Bird A being a modified Bird Model F springs from the two types sharing the same X790N registration. They were also both side-by-side 2-seaters which makes the Model F conversion plausible. But, I think, not all that likely.

One source - the Civil Aeronautics Administration's Statistical Study of U.S. Civil Aircraft as of January 1, 1958 page 36 - claims that the Bird Model F was later fitted with a 450 hp Pratt & Whitney Wasp Junior. That would make sense - spares for the Packard DR-980 would have begun dwindling. The P&W weighs 90 lbs more than the original Packard but the Wasp Junior put out 120-to-125 hp more than the diesel. [1]

Contrast with what we know about the Speed Bird A. Why would anyone remove the 225 hp engine from an already underpowered airplane and replace it with an anemic 90 hp powerplant? True the Speed Bird A's Lambert R-266 weighed half as much (250 lb, based on the related LeBlond 90-7) but, as the hot-rodders said, "there's no substitute for horsepower".

My guess is that the Bird Model F and the Speed Bird A shared a superficial resemblance of being Bird-based sesquiplane side-by-side 2-seaters (achieved by blanking off the usual forward cockpit). For the Model F, payload was probably being reduced to cope with the quirks of contemporary diesel engines. For Speed Bird Corporation, the (re)design consideration was more likely to have been how to make an economical aircraft out of remaining components with minimal changes. And that approach must have held some promise ... or Fred J. Anderson wouldn't have bought X790N, the production rights, and tried to restart Speed Bird in San Jose.

_________________________________

[1] Beyond its extra power, the Wasp Junior would also have eliminated the Packard DR-980's excessive vibration along with complaints about its more noxious exhaust fumes.
 
Good assessment/comparison of Gregor's Brunner Winkle Bird and GR-1. A visual difference was the GR-1's single interplane strut. I'm guessing that Gregor incorporated that strut on his GR-1 to 'modernize' its looks but, perhaps, also to reduce drag a bit?

Praise for the Bird's handling was widespread but other complained of a very low top speed (resulting in the Model A being eliminated from the Guggenheim Safety Plane competition). The Brunner Winkle and Bird models all had fuselages wide enough for the optional seating of four (pilot + 3 passenger). The seriously limiting factor was engine power.

In reality, 2- and 3-seats was the norm for Birds. GR-1 drag would also have been reduced compared to theBird simply by having adopted a narrower fuselage. Of course, having a lighter, air-cooled inline engine will also have helped (especially when compared with the water-cooled Model A Bird).

When Bird Aircraft went into receivership, Perth Amboy Title Company inherited Bird's spares, components, and semi-completed airframes. As far as I can tell, the entire purpose of Perth Amboy establishing the Speed Bird Corporation at Key Port was to use up those inherited components. As a result, the Speed Bird A would have been a bit of a 'Frankenstein' of parts.

The notion of the Speed Bird A being a modified Bird Model F springs from the two types sharing the same X790N registration. They were also both side-by-side 2-seaters which makes the Model F conversion plausible. But, I think, not all that likely.

One source - the Civil Aeronautics Administration's Statistical Study of U.S. Civil Aircraft as of January 1, 1958 page 36 - claims that the Bird Model F was later fitted with a 450 hp Pratt & Whitney Wasp Junior. That would make sense - spares for the Packard DR-980 would have begun dwindling. The P&W weighs 90 lbs more than the original Packard but the Wasp Junior put out 120-to-125 hp more than the diesel. [1]

Contrast with what we know about the Speed Bird A. Why would anyone remove the 225 hp engine from an already underpowered airplane and replace it with an anemic 90 hp powerplant? True the Speed Bird A's Lambert R-266 weighed half as much (250 lb, based on the related LeBlond 90-7) but, as the hot-rodders said, "there's no substitute for horsepower".

My guess is that the Bird Model F and the Speed Bird A shared a superficial resemblance of being Bird-based sesquiplane side-by-side 2-seaters (achieved by blanking off the usual forward cockpit). For the Model F, payload was probably being reduced to cope with the quirks of contemporary diesel engines. For Speed Bird Corporation, the (re)design consideration was more likely to have been how to make an economical aircraft out of remaining components with minimal changes. And that approach must have held some promise ... or Fred J. Anderson wouldn't have bought X790N X15641, the production rights, and tried to restart Speed Bird in San Jose.

_________________________________

[1] Beyond its extra power, the Wasp Junior would also have eliminated the Packard DR-980's excessive vibration along with complaints about its more noxious exhaust fumes.
 
Last edited:
In an article EAA May 1993, last bird, mentioned that the speed bird was build at the Aeromarine Airplane and Motor factory building Keyport, NJ.
They told that the aeroplane received a modified rudder, see picture, where it also showed its original serial X15641 and not X790N!

Something very strange on a site concerning auctions, were the speed bird was offered.
On the site I found a picture with a shield in the cockpit, which I find very strange:
Bird Aircraft Corp.
Speed Bird
Bird Model A serial no. 1000

Shield is original, strange Bird Aircraft Corp. Brooklyn, but is this part with the name Speed Bird original???
Model A and serial 1000 (is this original?) if so, it looks to my the shield of the prototype A, which had serial no. 1000 and tail serial
X7878

The construction of the fuselage is not like the original Bird.

Dit you find any dimesions of both the Model F and/or Speed Bird A and other details/materials?
 

Attachments

  • b.jpg
    b.jpg
    90.8 KB · Views: 69
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    204.5 KB · Views: 43
  • a.jpg
    a.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 57
My mistake on X790N. Aerofiles seemed to imply that X15641 was a post restoration registration. However, in his actual registration lists, he did have '15641 as "Speed Bird Model A, 1000". So, I was just plain wrong (indeed, Air History has the Speed Bird A listed as NC15641).

I found no dimensions or any real details on either the Model F or Speed Bird A.

The Keyport Historical Society has a whole page on Aeromarine Plane and Motor (and its plant) but nothing at all on Speed Bird. The factory buildings had been empty since Aeromarine-Klemm Corporation closed its doors in 1930. It is possible that the Perth Amboy Title Company had liens or other claims on that property. Or maybe Perth Amboy were just really good at nosing around for bargains? (BTW, I used 'Key Port' as that was commonest in period aviation publications. Locals, it seems, used both at one time but 'Keyport' is now standard.)

That serial plate is odd. I suppose it is possible that Perth Amboy/Speed Bird inherited old Bird Aircraft serial plates but, as you say, why is 'SPEED BIRD' engraved on it?
 
Hi Apophenia
You mentioned at "Brunner Winkle and Bird Designations",
Model A prototype 80 hp Anzani, c/n 1000 X7878
What is the source and/or is there any proof, because I only found pictures of this aeroplane with the OX-5.

In U.S. Civil Aircraft Series, Vol.2, on page 10 is mentioned:
In it's earlier prototype stage the "Bird" was also offered with th 80 h.p. Anzani (French) engine for $ 3500,--, but no examples of this combination were ever reported built.
 

Attachments

  • 50800699236_f96668acbf_b A.jpg
    50800699236_f96668acbf_b A.jpg
    172.6 KB · Views: 59
Hi Apophenia
You mentioned at "Brunner Winkle and Bird Designations",
Model A prototype 80 hp Anzani, c/n 1000 X7878
What is the source and/or is there any proof, because I only found pictures of this aeroplane with the OX-5.

In U.S. Civil Aircraft Series, Vol.2, on page 10 is mentioned:
In it's earlier prototype stage the "Bird" was also offered with th 80 h.p. Anzani (French) engine for $ 3500,--, but no examples of this combination were ever reported built.

That mention of Anzani-powered X7878 came from my notes (my interest in Bird related to Gregor so I did not pursue this at the time). As noted in my admittedly long-winded introduction to Brunner Winkle/Bird designations, I have never fully accepted this powerplant claim.

While photos of X7878 show a 90 hp Curtiss OX-5 installed, the prototype is said to have first been fitted with a 80 hp Anzani radial (unless that is further confusion with the mysterious Royal Bird?).

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...bird-aircraft-designations.37334/#post-461685

Until we uncover some details about the Royal Bird, we cannot be sure that it wasn't that early incarnation which was actually Anzani-powered. Alas, Juptner's statement in US Civil Aircraft Series Vol.2 about an "earlier prototype stage" still fails to make a clear distinction between the Royal Bird and later X7878 (c/n 1000).
 
The following might be of interest.

Michael Gregor was born Mikheil Grigorashvili (Mikhail Leontyevich Grigorashvili in Russian) on February 6th, 1888. His parents were Georgian. They lived in Derbent, Russian Empire, on the shores of the Caspian Sea. In 1906, after graduating from the local gymnasium / college, Grigorashvili went to Saint Petersburg to enroll in the Institute of Railway Engineers of Emperor Alexander I, today's Petersburg State Transport University. The following year, already fascinated by aeronautics, he and a few others convinced the institute’s leadership to offer an optional course on that topic. Grigorashvili might have been one of the founding members of the Imperial All Russian Aero-Club. He was not yet twenty years old.

Later in 1908, Grigorashvili became the chief editor of the magazine Aeromobile. He occupied that position until 1910. In 1909 or 1910, Grigorashvili joined the First Russian Association of Aeronautics / First Russian Aerostatics Company as a mechanic and helped to build the Rossiya B airplane, more or less a Bleriot XI clone. Still in 1909, in the early fall, he helped to found the first student aero club in the Russian Empire. In July 1911, during a stay in Paris, the young engineer received a French pilot’s licence (No. 577?), thus becoming one of the first certified pilots in the Russian Empire. In 1911-12, Grigorashvili worked as an instructor for the Imperial All-Russian Aero Club and flew over several cities in the western regions of the Russian Empire. The young engineer defended his aeronautics thesis in April 1913, a first for a student at the Institute of Railway Engineers of Emperor Alexander I. Indeed, Grigorashvili was one of the first residents of the Russian Empire to do so.

Unable to find a position in his preferred field, Grigorashvili worked as a railway engineer in the Railways Office. In his spare time, he worked with airplane designer Alexander Porokhovshchikov and began to design propellers. In August 1914, the young engineer tested the one off prototype of an easily disassembled twin-boom military airplane Porokhovshchikov had built in the fifth floor apartment he was living in. Toward the end of 1914, Grigorashvili became the head of a technical office work at a Saint Petersburg airplane factory operated by S.S. Shchetinin. The famous aeronautical division of the Russo-Baltic Railway Car Factory was the place where Igor Sikorsky the first really big airplanes in the world. By 1915, Grigorashvili was the chief aeronautical designer at a company owned by R.F. Meltzer. While there, the young engineer designed and produced propellers of his own design. If truth be told, he may have been one of the go to persons in that field for the whole of the Russian Empire. Grigorashvili became an officer in the Imperial Russian Army in 1916, working in the Aviation and Automotive squad and the Office of the Imperial Russian Air Fleet.

In March 1918, Grigorashvili moved to the newly formed Republic of Georgia and worked for the ministry of Communications. When the Bolsheviks invaded Georgia, in 1921, he immigrated to the United States. He briefly worked for Gallaudet Aircraft, then joined Dayton-Wright. He became a senior designer at Curtiss Aeroplane & Motor in 1923. Grigorashvili became an American citizen in 1926. Exactly when he changed his name to Michael Gregor is unclear.

If I may, the female chief engineer at Canadian Car & Foundry mentioned above was Elizabeth Muriel Gregory "Elsie" MacGill.
 
Hi
 

Attachments

  • 002.jpg
    002.jpg
    1.6 MB · Views: 30
  • 003.jpg
    003.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 29
  • 004.jpg
    004.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 29
  • 005.jpg
    005.jpg
    546.2 KB · Views: 36
  • 006.jpg
    006.jpg
    738.4 KB · Views: 36
  • 007.jpg
    007.jpg
    605.2 KB · Views: 38
  • 017.jpg
    017.jpg
    729.9 KB · Views: 37
  • 018.jpg
    018.jpg
    331.3 KB · Views: 36
  • 019.jpg
    019.jpg
    421.7 KB · Views: 38

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom