Retracting landing gear biplanes projects

royabulgaf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
29 December 2008
Messages
673
Reaction score
333
It seems to me that only the US Navy and the USSR gave the retractable landing biplane any interest. I know Canada had one project, but that was about it. Does anyone know of other projects that reached the prototype stage?

Why the above situation? My guess is that the USSR came out of the Spanish Civil War overly sold on maneuverability, and the USN was concerned about landing speed and deck and hangar footprint.
 
One!
 

Attachments

  • ñ.jpg
    ñ.jpg
    155.7 KB · Views: 701
  • ñ 001.jpg
    ñ 001.jpg
    136.1 KB · Views: 673
  • ñ 002.jpg
    ñ 002.jpg
    101.2 KB · Views: 621
  • ñ 003.jpg
    ñ 003.jpg
    118.2 KB · Views: 595
  • ñ 004.jpg
    ñ 004.jpg
    77.6 KB · Views: 577
  • ñ 005.jpg
    ñ 005.jpg
    71.3 KB · Views: 184
Cancelled: The Gregor FDB-1
One pilot called the Canadian biplane “chubby in a vicious way.”

By Graham Chandler, Air & Space Magazine, September 2014

Read more:
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/cancelled-gregor-fdb-1-180952402/
 
And the Republic XP-44 as a biplane project,with detachable wing;


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,10703.msg144827.html#msg144827
 

Attachments

  • P-44.JPG
    P-44.JPG
    24.6 KB · Views: 209
Might the following be of interest?

In 1936, Canadian Car & Foundry (CCF), the largest manufacturer of railway equipment in Canada, entered a new and promising field of activity, aircraft manufacturing. Having noted that American and British aircraft manufacturers were increasingly signing military contracts with their respective governments, its management believed it could take advantage of the fear in foreign countries of not being able to obtain combat aircraft within a reasonable timeframe.

CCF hired Redford Henry "Red" Mulock for his knowledge of the field. However, the firm's management seemed not have heeded the advice and suggestions of this First World War pilot and former manager of Montreal, Quebec, based Canadian Vickers and Canadian Airways.

CCF's aeronautical division occupied part of the Fort William, now Thunder Bay, Ontario, plant.

Keen to carve out a place for itself on the aeronautical scene, CCF multiplied its projects: assembly of an export version of the Grumman FF-1 two-seat fighter plane, purchase of the manufacturing rights of the elementary training plane of American engineer Leland Stamford Wallace, purchase of the Canadian production rights of aircraft designed by Burnelli Aircraft, purchase of the production rights of a small radial engine, possibly known as the Silberman engine. Although admirable, these efforts were quite scattered. The company also worked in a vacuum, without trying to find out what the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) actually needed.

Another private project initiated by CCF was even more ambitious. Even before the end of 1937, the company hired a respected Georgian American engineer, Michael Gregor, born Mikheil Grigorashvili / Mikhail Leontyevich Grigorashvili. The latter managed to convince CCF's management to design a fighter plane - a Canadian first.

From that on, many people have sought to understand the reasons which explained this project. In all likelihood, CCF wanted to prove to the RCAF and the Royal Air Force that it could manufacture high performance aircraft, in the hope of securing Canadian and / or British military orders.

In any event, Gregor got to work at the beginning of 1938. The prototype of the FDB-1 (Fighter Dive Bomber-one) , initially known as Gregor Model 10 and nicknamed Gregor in honor of its designer, took to the sky in December 1938 - seemingly on 17 December, 35 years to the day after the Wright brothers' first flights. Its appearance was surprising. It was a biplane, a configuration completely outdated at the time. As a result, no air force was interested in the FDB-1.

It should be noted that Gregor strongly believed that biplane fighters still had much to offer to air forces of the world. He designed the FDB with that in mind. Its structure was strong enough to absorb the power of a 1,200 hp engine - presumably a Pratt and Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp, for example.

In May 1939, an RCAF pilot carried out test flights so that the FDB-1 could obtain a certificate of airworthiness. He seemed satisfied but still did not see why the RCAF might want to order this machine. CCF tried to export the aircraft to Mexico in 1940 but the Canadian government refused to let it go. The prototype was then stored in a hangar. The one and only FDB-1 was destroyed in 1945 in a fire.

It should be noted that, before the Second World War, CCF had seriously looked into the possibility of setting an assembly and / or manufacturing plant in Mexico. The project had raised some concern in Washington and Ottawa, as Mexico was one of the few countries to openly support the elected government of Spain, then embroiled in a vicious civil war launched by right wing military officers. Indeed, most examples of the export version of the Grumman FF-1 mentioned above were shipped to Spain, in 1938, under false pretense, before Washington and Ottawa twigged to what was happening. CCF's management claimed it did not know the aircraft would end up in Spain. Not everyone had believed them. The Spanish civil war eventually won by the rebels.
 
Cutaway Gregor FDB-1 original image
 

Attachments

  • Cutaway Gregor FDB-1 original image.jpg
    Cutaway Gregor FDB-1 original image.jpg
    222.6 KB · Views: 94
Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-4

Both the Italians and Russians drew the wrong conclusions from the air combats fought during the Spanish Civil War.

The two countries invested abundant resources in building the next generation of biplane fighters that would go into service in 1940.

The Polikarpov I-15, I-152 and I-153 were defeated by the Nakajima Ki.27 and the Mitsubishi A5M in the Far East and by the Bf 109 in the West Front.

Why then the devotion of the Soviet designers to the biplanes?

Basically, a biplane fighter has a higher ceiling and climbing speed and better manoeuvrability than a monoplane equipped with an engine of similar power. It also needs a shorter landing strip for take-off.

All these advantages were counterbalanced by the higher speed of the monoplane but, for the Russian designers, it was not clear if the new French engines with more than 1,000 hp. could be manufactured under licence by the Soviet industry of 1940.

Thus, a compromise was achieved giving way to a variable geometry fighter able to take off as a biplane and change into a monoplane when in flight.

The IS-1, created by the OKB-30 design team, looked very much alike the Polikarpov I-153 in the outside and used for testing the folding mechanism of the lower wing in June 1940.

The IS-2 was driven by a more powerful engine and was more streamlined but its performances were inferior to the Polikarpov I-16 ones.

The IS-4 had been the final version for production, with sliding canopy and retractable nose wheel undercarriage, powered by one 1,650 hp. M-120 engine of 16 cylinders in “X” driving a three bladed variable-pitch 3SMV-1 propeller.

When the failure of the M-120 production was known, an AM-37 of 12 cylinders ‘Vee’ was installed in the prototype for the first flights that took place during the summer of 1941.



As a consequence of the German attack, the airplane was dismantled and transported to the inner country.

The need to produce a massive quantity of conventional fighters prevented the manufacturing of additional units of IS-4

Another two designs are known. The IS-14 of 1941, that was equipped with one M-105 engine and the landing gear of a Curtiss P-40, and the IS-18 of 1942, with an M-71F of 2,000 hp. including the novelty of a landing gear that was independent from the wings folding system. A jet variant with variable swept wing was designed in 1947.

IS-4 (Technical data)​



Type: Variable geometry interceptor fighter. Phase: Flight tests. Wings: Gull type in the upper wing with aluminium structure and cladding, foldable lower wing with wood structure and cladding. Tail surfaces: aluminium structure and fabric cladding. Fuselage: Steel tubes structure and cladding of aluminium in the front and of wood in the rear. Landing gear: Retractable tricycle type in the central section of the fuselage with fixed tail wheel. Engine: One Mikulin AM-37 of 12 cylinders in “V”, liquid cooled and with 1,400 hp. driving a 3SMV.1 three-bladed propeller of 3.10 m of diameter. Fuel tank: between the housing of the landing gear and the pilot cockpit and another under the pilot seat. Armament: Two Beresin BS machine guns of 12.7 mm (outboard) and two ShKAS of 7.62 mm in the upper wing. Wingspan: Upper wing 8.6 m, lower wing 7.1 m. Length: 8.64 m. Height: 3.8 m. Wing area: 20.83 sq. m. Maximum weight: (with the M-120 engine) 2,900 kg. Maximum speed: (with the M-120 engine and a monoplane configuration) 720 km/h. Ceiling: (with the M-120 engine and biplane configuration) 12,500 m.
 

Attachments

  • 232.jpg
    232.jpg
    513.3 KB · Views: 98
  • 233.jpg
    233.jpg
    488.1 KB · Views: 94
  • 234.jpg
    234.jpg
    338.6 KB · Views: 93
Might the following be of interest?

In 1936, Canadian Car & Foundry (CCF), the largest manufacturer of railway equipment in Canada, entered a new and promising field of activity, aircraft manufacturing. Having noted that American and British aircraft manufacturers were increasingly signing military contracts with their respective governments, its management believed it could take advantage of the fear in foreign countries of not being able to obtain combat aircraft within a reasonable timeframe.

CCF hired Redford Henry "Red" Mulock for his knowledge of the field. However, the firm's management seemed not have heeded the advice and suggestions of this First World War pilot and former manager of Montreal, Quebec, based Canadian Vickers and Canadian Airways.

CCF's aeronautical division occupied part of the Fort William, now Thunder Bay, Ontario, plant.

Keen to carve out a place for itself on the aeronautical scene, CCF multiplied its projects: assembly of an export version of the Grumman FF-1 two-seat fighter plane, purchase of the manufacturing rights of the elementary training plane of American engineer Leland Stamford Wallace, purchase of the Canadian production rights of aircraft designed by Burnelli Aircraft, purchase of the production rights of a small radial engine, possibly known as the Silberman engine. Although admirable, these efforts were quite scattered. The company also worked in a vacuum, without trying to find out what the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) actually needed.

Another private project initiated by CCF was even more ambitious. Even before the end of 1937, the company hired a respected Georgian American engineer, Michael Gregor, born Mikheil Grigorashvili / Mikhail Leontyevich Grigorashvili. The latter managed to convince CCF's management to design a fighter plane - a Canadian first.

From that on, many people have sought to understand the reasons which explained this project. In all likelihood, CCF wanted to prove to the RCAF and the Royal Air Force that it could manufacture high performance aircraft, in the hope of securing Canadian and / or British military orders.

In any event, Gregor got to work at the beginning of 1938. The prototype of the FDB-1 (Fighter Dive Bomber-one) , initially known as Gregor Model 10 and nicknamed Gregor in honor of its designer, took to the sky in December 1938 - seemingly on 17 December, 35 years to the day after the Wright brothers' first flights. Its appearance was surprising. It was a biplane, a configuration completely outdated at the time. As a result, no air force was interested in the FDB-1.

It should be noted that Gregor strongly believed that biplane fighters still had much to offer to air forces of the world. He designed the FDB with that in mind. Its structure was strong enough to absorb the power of a 1,200 hp engine - presumably a Pratt and Whitney R-1830 Twin Wasp, for example.

In May 1939, an RCAF pilot carried out test flights so that the FDB-1 could obtain a certificate of airworthiness. He seemed satisfied but still did not see why the RCAF might want to order this machine. CCF tried to export the aircraft to Mexico in 1940 but the Canadian government refused to let it go. The prototype was then stored in a hangar. The one and only FDB-1 was destroyed in 1945 in a fire.

It should be noted that, before the Second World War, CCF had seriously looked into the possibility of setting an assembly and / or manufacturing plant in Mexico. The project had raised some concern in Washington and Ottawa, as Mexico was one of the few countries to openly support the elected government of Spain, then embroiled in a vicious civil war launched by right wing military officers. Indeed, most examples of the export version of the Grumman FF-1 mentioned above were shipped to Spain, in 1938, under false pretense, before Washington and Ottawa twigged to what was happening. CCF's management claimed it did not know the aircraft would end up in Spain. Not everyone had believed them. The Spanish civil war eventually won by the rebels.
Adding to your post, the Gregor FDB-1 prototype was powered by a 700 hp. Pratt & Whitney R-1535-27, double-row, radial engine with 14 air-cooled cylinders. I suspect that the engine was left over from the batch of Grumman FF Goblins/Delfins that CCF had recently built. It had a top speed of 261 mph. and was armed with a pair of .50 caliber machineguns and could carry a pair of 116 pound bombs. Range was estimated at 985 miles. Clearly obsolete by 1940 standards.

CCF's engineer Wallace designed and built a single prototype of the Maple Leaf I a two-seater, open cockpit, fixed gear, biplane trainer called the Maple Leaf I. His successor Elizabeth Muriel Gregory MacGill (1905-1980) designed the Maple Leaf II trainer. After the Maple Leaf II was deemed too "tame" for the RCAF, CCF sold the Maple Leaf II prototype, tooling and a license to build more to Mexico.
 
Last edited:
Adding to your post, the Gregor FDB-1 prototype was powered by a 700 hp. Pratt & Whitney R-1535-27 radial engine with 9 air-cooled cylinders. It had a top speed of 261 mph. and was armed with a pair of .50 calibre machineguns and could carry a pair of 116 pound bombs. Range was estimated at 985 miles. Clearly obsolete by 1940 standards.

CCF's chief engineer Wallace designed and built a single prototype of the Maple Leaf I a two-seater, open cockpit, fixed gear, biplane trainer called the Maple Leaf I. His successor Elsie May MacDonald designed the Maple Leaf II trainer. After the Maple Leaf II was deemed too "tame" for the RCAF, CCF sold the Maple Leaf II prototype, tooling and a license to build more to Mexico.
A nit: the R1535 had 14 cylinders; see https://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/P&W/R-1535/r-1535.shtml
 
Nikitin-Shevchenko Series
 

Attachments

  • 410.jpg
    410.jpg
    234 KB · Views: 63
  • 411.jpg
    411.jpg
    283.6 KB · Views: 64
  • 412.jpg
    412.jpg
    725.8 KB · Views: 61
  • 413.jpg
    413.jpg
    258.7 KB · Views: 57
  • 414.jpg
    414.jpg
    416.8 KB · Views: 52
  • 415.jpg
    415.jpg
    614.8 KB · Views: 50
  • 417.jpg
    417.jpg
    287.9 KB · Views: 45
  • 418.jpg
    418.jpg
    461 KB · Views: 44
  • 419.jpg
    419.jpg
    470 KB · Views: 40
  • 416.jpg
    416.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 42
Post-2
 

Attachments

  • 420.jpg
    420.jpg
    663.9 KB · Views: 41
  • 421.jpg
    421.jpg
    747.4 KB · Views: 43
  • 428.jpg
    428.jpg
    519.6 KB · Views: 42
  • 429.jpg
    429.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 44
  • 431.jpg
    431.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 32
  • 432.jpg
    432.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 31
  • 433.jpg
    433.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 33
  • 434.jpg
    434.jpg
    984.2 KB · Views: 37
  • Varios 001.jpg
    Varios 001.jpg
    100.7 KB · Views: 35
  • Varios.jpg
    Varios.jpg
    281.8 KB · Views: 36
Post-3
 

Attachments

  • Varios 002.jpg
    Varios 002.jpg
    125.3 KB · Views: 35
  • Varios 003.jpg
    Varios 003.jpg
    140.8 KB · Views: 38
  • Varios 004.jpg
    Varios 004.jpg
    117.1 KB · Views: 42
  • 437.jpg
    437.jpg
    940.2 KB · Views: 43
  • 438.jpg
    438.jpg
    909.9 KB · Views: 46
  • 436.jpg
    436.jpg
    885.9 KB · Views: 42
  • 439.jpg
    439.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 52
My dear Justo,

please,can you make a speculative drawing to IS-3 ?,from its description
and thanks.
 
OK6-30 has the fewest moving parts. Extending the wing span would help with lift-to-drag ratio when it is needed the most: shortly after take-off.
Too bad its monoplane configuration excludes it from this thread.

p.s. sorry but my computer does not understand the Cyrillic alphabet.
 
I don't have enough information to try, no one knows what it might look like or what kind of engine, so it's impossible to speculate.:oops:

All I know, with AM-37 engine, tricycle landing gear and enclosed cabin ?.
 
Tricycle landing gear?. For example, the chassis is drawn incorrectly on the IS-16. And can the engine be an M-120?
 
Cutaway Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-4, whose image I slightly retouched to join both, replace missing areas and clean up details
 

Attachments

  • Cutaway Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-4.jpg
    Cutaway Nikitin-Shevchenko IS-4.jpg
    855.4 KB · Views: 50
Adding to your post, the Gregor FDB-1 prototype was powered by a 700 hp. Pratt & Whitney R-1535-27, double-row, radial engine with 14 air-cooled cylinders. I suspect that the engine was left over from the batch of Grumman FF Goblins/Delfins that CCF had recently built. It had a top speed of 261 mph. and was armed with a pair of .50 caliber machineguns and could carry a pair of 116 pound bombs. Range was estimated at 985 miles. Clearly obsolete by 1940 standards.

CCF's engineer Wallace designed and built a single prototype of the Maple Leaf I a two-seater, open cockpit, fixed gear, biplane trainer called the Maple Leaf I. His successor Elizabeth Muriel Gregory MacGill (1905-1980) designed the Maple Leaf II trainer. After the Maple Leaf II was deemed too "tame" for the RCAF, CCF sold the Maple Leaf II prototype, tooling and a license to build more to Mexico.

Sorry, I missed this the first time around ...

No connections between the powerplants of Gregor's FDB-1 and those CC&F- assembled GE-23 Goblins - the latter having single-row Wright R-1820-F52 Cyclone engines.

Nor was Leland Stamford Wallace ever "CCF's engineer". AFAIK, Wallace never left Iowa. He simply sold the design (and rights) to his 'Wallace Biplane' trainer design to CC&F. When that aircraft proved a complete mediocrity, it had to be entirely redesigned by a competant engineer, Elsie MacGill.

A few other notes on the Canadian Car and Foundry story (as fortrena said, their efforts were quite scattered). So, back to retractable-gear biplanes ...

FDB-1: Michael Gregor didn't have "to convince CCF's management to design a fighter plane", rather, Gregor presented CC&F with a virtually complete design for the FDB-1. Michael Gregor had plenty of prior experience in design work on fighter aircraft - at both at Curtiss (1929) and Seversky Aircraft (1931).

Gregor had been hired as chief engineer by de Seversky but design work on the SEV-3 was divided up - with Gregor overseeing the fuselage and Alexander Kartveli designing the wings. Unfortunately for Gregor, he didn't get along with his fellow Georgian engineer ... and de Seversky supported Kartveli. That said, I struggle to see much SEV-3 'DNA' in Gregor's later FDB-1 design.

AFAIK, Gregor was taken on at CanCar as a Consulting Aeronautical Engineer solely to oversee construction of his fighter aircraft (to that point, CC&F had only assembled aircraft from imported components and had no experience actually building airframes). Gregor may also have been Shanghai'ed into overseeing construction of the Maple Leaf I prototype. But, as already noted, it was Elsie MacGill who had to try to rescue that pig's ear. Rather than being a "replacement" for Wallace, MacGill had been recommended by contacts at the NRC who had been impressed by her skill and diligence while working at their wind tunnel on behalf of Fairchild Aircraft of Longueuil.

The problems at Canadian Car and Foundry originated almost entirely at the top. But that is well and truly drifting off topic ...
 
Another biplane retracted landing gear, the French Blériot-Spad s71 or Blériot S710. Many designations for only one prototype lost in a crash because flutter of the butterfly tail (15 june 1937, pilot killed ...). Sources : Aviation Magazine and Aviastar.org.
 

Attachments

  • bleriot-spad S710.jpg
    bleriot-spad S710.jpg
    372.5 KB · Views: 27
  • bleriot_s-710 carac.JPG
    bleriot_s-710 carac.JPG
    33.6 KB · Views: 20
  • bleriot_s-710.gif
    bleriot_s-710.gif
    32 KB · Views: 24
Plenty of biplane flying boats were built with retractable landing gear, but retracting wheels makes little difference to the cruise speed of seaplanes because of their huge STOL wings and heavy hulls. Retracting wheels serve more as beaching gear or allowing them to land on grass runways.
Off hand, the only biplane flying boat still in production is the French/Brazilian line of Petrel kitplanes. I visited the Canadian distrbutor in Squamish, British Columbia a decade or two ago and was impressed. A Petrel would be ideal for puttering up and down the West Coast of Canada.
 
There is, of course, the most beautiful biplane: the Beech Model 17
View attachment 753172
Yes, Beechcraft's first effort was a real beauty!
After visiting a Staggerwing restoration shop in Rockford, Illinois ... or was it Sandwich, Illinois? I conclude that the thing of beauty was a frightfully complex assemblage of steel tubes, wood and fabric.
Several homebuilt and kitplanes based upon the Beechcraft Staggerwing. The biggest was the all-compoiste Griffon Lionheart kitplane which first flew in 1997. Lionheart has 6 seats and is powered by a massive, 450 hp. P&W R-985 radial engine.
 
Yes, Beechcraft's first effort was a real beauty!
After visiting a Staggerwing restoration shop in Rockford, Illinois ... or was it Sandwich, Illinois? I conclude that the thing of beauty was a frightfully complex assemblage of steel tubes, wood and fabric.
Several homebuilt and kitplanes based upon the Beechcraft Staggerwing. The biggest was the all-compoiste Griffon Lionheart kitplane which first flew in 1997. Lionheart has 6 seats and is powered by a massive, 450 hp. P&W R-985 radial engine.
Griffon Lionheart ... a superb machine with very pure lines !
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom