Posts: 75
Joined: 10/25/2002 From: Puyallup,
WA, USA Status: offline
Maybe more towards the front. I can't imagine that the rear sets of wings are operating anywhere near their optimum with all the turbulence and vortexes being caused by the leading wings...
Posts: 1527
Joined: 3/4/2002 From: Cookeville,
TN, USA Status: offline
If it worked well, all airplanes would look like that now. I imagine it was pretty efficient at converting pertoleum products into noise. Other airplanes are better at converting petroleum products into seat-miles. This thing had a built-in headwind.
The CG would be at about the second window in front of the middle set of wings.
_____________________________
Jim Casey/Seaplane Nerd http://www.smilesandwags.com/Floats.html
Posts: 494
Joined: 10/31/2002 From: Opelousas,
LA, USA Status: offline
It's been 5 months since that "thing" was Posted and this is the first time I've seen it, ever! Did it ever fly? Bet it didn't. I know some guys who turn blue with the thought of buiding a plain ole bipe!
Posts: 2855
Joined: 1/20/2002 From: San Bernardino Calif Status: offline
Back in late 1950's some one built a controlline version of the Itallian job. He stood in knee height water to fly it.
Then in middle 1960's found a picture and caption of it. The plane was then again replicated (but by another guy) from original plan, and flown in radio. No mention in article as to other specifics, but the builder used a ten channel. Only other mention was it flew slow, and was difficult getting all engines running at one time.
Wm.
_____________________________
www.mybloo.com/coosbay/laser/laser.html Thousands of Laser Cut parts, thousands
Posts: 4978
Joined: 7/3/2003 From: newton,
NC, USA Status: online
quote:
ORIGINAL: JohnBuckner
Caproni Ca 60 Transaereo
Have often daydreamed about doing one of these using nine sets of Kaydet Senior wings.
John
Let's see......if a Kadet Sr. will fly on a .40, and this thing has 9 of those wings (9x the lift), does that mean this model would fly on a .049 (1/9 the displacement of a .40) Not accounting for drag, of course. In that case, would probably need a 100cc gas engine....or two.
This thing looks like if you took the wings off and stacked them along the sides on each side, and added a paddle wheel to the back, you'd have a Mississippi river boat
< Message edited by khodges -- 9/24/2006 4:50:27 PM >
_____________________________
Club Saito #2, WACO Brotherhood #20. What other trouble can I get into?
I can't believe it didn't blow over and sink before they could fire the motors up..... I guess the builders of this thing prove you can't stop someone with a dream. Its hard to imagine the mind set of the early pioneers of flight when the amount of aviation knowledge was so small.
Posts: 96
Joined: 7/19/2004 From: Dundas,
ON, CANADA Status: online
This year I built the Caproni Ca-60. I wanted to fine out if this monstrosity could fly. My model has 56” wingspan and the total wing area is 17.5 sq. ft. The model is powered by eight SPEED 400 motors. I placed 30 – 2400mA batteries all the way into the nose to balance the model. The flying weight is 13 Lbs. When I placed the model on the water surface, I found that scale sponsons are way too small. They would not support the weight and the model would lean to one or other side until it rested on the wing tips. I made new soponsons three times wider then the original. Other change I had to make was place the step between first and the second sets of the wings. At the same time I deepened the fuselage in front of the step. Now the model was sitting level on the water surface. When full power was applied, I could see that the model needs lot more power to come up on the step. I feel that all these wings and the struts create too much drag. Even when I placed the model on the buggy and tried to fly it from paved runway, the model could not reach flying speed. Next year I am planning to have it towed behind big model as if it was the glider. I have to fine out if it can fly. Laddie.
Posts: 96
Joined: 7/19/2004 From: Dundas,
ON, CANADA Status: online
Last saturday I took the CAPRONI Ca-60 model to a gilder’s club Fun Fly and had a few very short flights with it. Since I was unsuccessful in trying to have the model takeoff from water or from a dolly, I installed a release mechanism in the nose of the plane in order to have it towed into the air. I asked the tow plane pilot to tow my model but after he had a close look at the CAPRONI Ca-60 he came to the conclusion that it would be very unsafe to try to tow the model using his relatively fast plane. I agreed with his decision. I was disappointed that I would not have the opportunity to see the CAPRONI Ca-60 in the air that day. I had my BKB-1 flying wing with me and so I had three good flights with it. Then someone suggested that I could try to launch the CAPRONI using a bungee cord. I jumped on this idea instantaneously. One of the members had a bungee cord with him and with the help of a few of the members we proceeded with the setup. We placed the model on a dolly and attached the release mechanism to the model. I checked all the controls and then powered up all eight motors full power. The model was released and to my surprise and to the surprise of everyone present, the model took off from the dolly and started to climb. It was a shallow climb but the model was very stable. It climbed to approximately 15 to 20 ft. when all of sudden we heard a noise and the model began to descend. The model landed safely and what we found was that the tow line got wrapped around the two front props. It was my error. With the excitement of the first take off, I forgot to release the line before it became slack. After I un-tangled the line we made a second attempt to fly it. Again, I forgot to release the line while it was still under tension. On the third attempt the line was released but the wire hook did not come out completely. Again, the plane landed with the tow line dragging it down. With the hard landings, the bottom of the fuselage was damaged. Originally this plane was never designed to land on a hard surface.
Here are my observations from the first few short flights; The model is flyable. The center of gravity is correct. It appears to be very stable. In fact, it might be too stable. I’m not sure if the ailerons will be effective at a relatively slow speed. My differential control on rear motors might help. I’m definitely going to repair the bottom of the fuselage. The next time I’m going to have the bungee cord attached to the dolly instead of to the model. One of the members of the glider club, Dick Colley took a several pictures where one of the pictures shows the model climbing under its own power. Over all, I’m very pleased with the three short flights. It tells me that the full size CAPRONI could have flown if it wasn’t for that un-explainable crash on its first takeoff.
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> Seaplanes >> Seaplane from hell Or rigger's nightmare 
Seaplane from hell Or rigger's nightmare - 
RE: Seaplane from hell Or rigger's nightmare - 
Not accounting for drag, of course. In that case, would probably need a 100cc gas engine....or two. 
