Italy’s Massive Triple Triplane - Caproni CA.60 Noviplano [Aircraft Overview #13] 

Man don't dance

I loved that film.

I was about to write,"Myazaki is creaming his pants."

I did a trip to studio Ghibli a few years ago. Utterly amazing!.

Came here to say this

Wright brothers weren't the first to fly, american fairy tail.

@@Yeet42069 you're right the first person to fly was the first person to accidentally light a match near gun powder

@@Yeet42069 They were the first who could prove their claim, as they were consumate self-promoters, something that the other claimants were not.. None of the earlier attempts were witnessed, and it is all about the evidence. The usual cries that Brazilians raise about Alberto Santos Dumont are in error, as the Wright's had provably flown earlier.

@@stephenn1056 You see, this would actually be funny if the case wasn't as controversial as it is but sadly it just proves your lack of knowledge.

It's very doubtful that a man has set foot on the moon.

So, the pilots KNOW that and avoid getting even near stall speeds. Many planes have fatal stall properties. Oops, why is that inverted flat spin more stable than the D-Mark? They call it a Sitting Canard...

@Voor Naam Blanking can happen well above stall speed, but creates a stall on following surfaces. Note that stalls can happen at any speed, there just needs to be a disruption of laminar air flow over the wing.

Having just watched a video about F1 cars and the "dirty air" taking away the downforce of the cars behind, I was wondering just this. Calculations were possibly assuming each of the 3 wing structures would have approximately equal lift, but that was probably far from the truth.

That was my first thought. My friends and I used to ridge soar in hang-gliders and you soon learnt not to get in close behind another glider. Their wind wash would cause buffeting and a stall. The design of the aircraft above had no chance of success.

My first thought was the turbulence would do something……….

Hmm... that made me wonder and surprisingly enough the term "aerodynamics" _(the SCIENCE of the motion of gasses)_ was coined in _1837_ which is about 75 years before _aerodynamic_ became an adjective and they truly started instituting "streamlined" designs on trains.

@@llYossarian That is pretty good compared to the difference between "science" and "scientist" which is around 10x longer if you only look at the actual English word "science" which comes from Middle English. But that is borrowed from Old French, so maybe a couple hundred more years and if you include the Latin _scientia_ now you are literally talking around 1900 years to at least the 1st century BCE with scientist only coming about in the 1820s initially and coming into use around the middle of the 1800s.

@@whyjnot420 ...and I know "naturalist" was the preferred term by many/most of the types of academics/researchers/experimenters/polymaths that were the closest to what we'd consider "scientists" today so how/when doe's that fit in, who wanted to be called "scientist" over "naturalist," and when did that shift happen?

@@llYossarian Here are actual quotes I will add a little context after them 1834, William Whewell, “On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences by Mrs. Somerville”, in John Gibson Lockhart, editor, Quarterly Review, volume 51, London: John Murray, retrieved November 2, 2017, page 59: There was no general term by which these gentlemen could describe themselves with reference to their pursuits. Philosophers was felt to be too wide and too lofty a term, and was very properly forbidden them by Mr. Coleridge, both in his capacity of philologer and metaphysician; savans was rather assuming, besides being French instead of English; some ingenious gentleman proposed that, by analogy with artist, they might form scientist, and added that there could be no scruple in making free with this termination when we have such words as sciolist, economist, and atheist - but this was not generally palatable […] ^ 1840, William Whewell, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences: Founded Upon Their History, Vol. 2, page 560: The terminations ize (rather than ise), ism, and ist, are applied to words of all origins: thus we have to pulverize, to colonize, Witticism, Heathenism, Journalist, Tobacconist. Hence we may make such words when they are wanted. As we cannot use physician for a cultivator of physics, I have called him a Physicist. We need very much a name to describe a cultivator of science in general. I should incline to call him a Scientist. Thus we might say, that as an Artist is a Musician, Painter, or Poet, a Scientist is a Mathematician, Physicist, or Naturalist. First, correction to my initial statement, not 1820s but 1830s for its coining. As shown in the first quote. You can find those on google books pretty easily if you want the actual source material. William Whewell was essentially one of those barely ever rivaled polymaths that show up on occasion. Searching google for him will get you details on him. Essentially the terms "natural philosopher" and "man of science" were cumbersome in use and not exactly precise terms either. The latter of the two quotes explains the rationale behind that specific term and suffix. With that Latin term _scientia_ literally meaning "knowledge". The term "naturalist" has issues as well, as it can be the counterpart of spiritualist or other terms that describe and rely on the dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual world. So not the best choice of terms either. While "science" was established, so sticking -ist' onto the end as he says to denote someone who does science the way an artist does art, simply makes sense and fits into the existing naming convention that we still use. So the term "scientist" is pretty new, not even 2 centuries old yet. But the activities that it describes are easily applied retroactively and more or less objectively as well. Since the stuff it does not cover, like things of a metaphysical or spiritual nature are covered allready by established terms. I think the only time it ends up being part of confusion, are things that also are part of confusion with the term science itself. For instances, are archaeology and history, sciences? arts? social sciences? (I go with the last one) In the end it is simply a matter of refining that which had not yet been refined or if you prefer, refined enough.... which is the natural evolution of any given field of study when you think about it. Personally I find it an interesting bit of history. And in the context of anachronism, you can easily see that someone back even in the time of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, who both actually died on the 4th of July 1826, would never have called themselves a "scientist". Which does have implications for things like historiography and the verification of sources (something from 1600 would while being in English, not contain the term for instance) As well as historical accuracy in storytelling and the history of science.

@@whyjnot420 Oh, wow! I sorta just meant them as open questions to be pondered/looked up individually and didn't expect a properly researched/full answer. Thanks! That's really cool.

I think this would make the wind tunnel technicians weep

You could simulate it by dumping an attic full of antique furniture into the tunnel!

I found this channel thanks to Ed's, would love a collab on favourite weird and wonderful aircraft history has forgotten.

Want some real insanity, you need to look back even further than this. Look for a picture of the 1907 Multiplane built by Horatio Frederick Phillips. It literally has 200 airfoils on it. (200 "wings" wouldn't really be right, one glance at a photo of it will show why.) It also flew briefly at least once. (it looks like the bastard offspring between a prewar airplane, the Ca.60 and someone who only ever thought one thing in life" more wings is better) edit: make sure its the 1907 and not the 1904 one. the 1904 one has one set of airfoils, the 1907 has 4 sets

@@whyjnot420 Good god it looks like something my grandmother used to grow tomatos in! I've seen the 1904 one, there even a little bit of video footage of it, but didn't know the chap who built it came back for more. Thanks for that 😅

@@zxbzxbzxb1 You're welcome. I love the insanity of the pioneering days of flight. When people had barely any clue as to what would really work, so they just tried all sorts of things that sounded good at the time. Sharing that enjoyment is also something I love. Those days showcased human imagination when it came to flight in all of its glory, all of its insanity and all of its stupidity. Simply a marvelous time to learn about. Caproni's Ca.60 here is a perfect example of both looking forward and not yet knowing what was optimal. It is both far ahead of its time and a product of its time, at the same time. It has the insanity common to the "throw shit at the wall until something sticks" concept, combined with a true vision for and to a good extent of, the future. Hence why it is by far one of my favorite planes ever (with major bonus points for it being a flying boat, which are aircraft I simply adore as a whole).

I think three more triple wings and a dozen more engines would have done the trick to make the thing airworthy.

@@MyLateralThawts No law saying "Thou must useth this many airfoils" :P edit: in otherwords, why use someone elses limits? In the end it is all about creating things. So how about a twin fuselage flying boat with 4 sets of quadruple airfoils left, right and center of the twin hulls? :D I'll let you figure out the power supply.

Only anime type movie I've enjoyed,

An important distinction I noticed as well. Thanks for the clarifying comment. Now I don't have to write it.

thanks for that. Im having a news years party next week and I wish you to be there to sparkle up the conversation and impress people with you correcting their observations.

@@standupstraight9691 Why'd you schedule a news years party the same week as New Years? Are you/your friends journalism historians or something?

@@llYossarian . That does it. You're definitely on the invite list. You're a must as an ice breaker. They will be pee-ing themselves with laughter with that razor sharp wit!

@@standupstraight9691 Journalists? Whens iss thats News Years Partys? Corrects yours typos, pleases. Ands Is wishs yous as Happys News Years!

This aircraft only flew twice in tests and was never used as a bomber.

Yeah like wind tunnels were a revelation, when they eventually were used

@@joshstanton267 Wind tunnels were around back then. The Wright Brothers developed their first 20 years earlier in 1901. I think Caproni must have lost his marbles when he built this one.

Ah one of my Studio Ghibli films along with Porco Rosso

Thanks for the late notice. It was a nice little diversion.

lol, it is SO obvious to those of us that know! :)

Hmmm, what if Pythagoras was an aircraft designer...

@@edevans5991 He was. Pythagoras O'Malley. He worked for Icarus Aviation Ltd. He was chief designer in charge of ADHD (Aeronautical Development for Hellenic Defense). Also worked on the Daedalus Project, and the Harpie light attack model.

I have no doubt that you are correct.

@UCqFiIM9tomZI7t_UINgcA2w pusher and traction props can work together and tandem wings can work well, but a triple tri-wing is a bit much. Nothing but turbulence over the rear wings.

@@rong1924 Pretty sure you're right, but, as I've replied on other comments, they did have wind tunnels, back then, the Wright Bros developing their first in 1901! A quick 10 min test of a scale model of this "thing" would have revealed this design to be a lemon.

@@MikeBracewell The Wrights only tested airfoil samples in their "wind tunnel" not complete aircraft. Not sure who started testing full models when.

Though I think it still has a reputation amongst the pilots ;)