**If you have a comment or additional info to share on the history of this aircraft, please send it to [email protected]
I came across the story of this historic Canadian aircraft while trying to find a Helldiver airplane ashtray for the Canadian Museum of Civilization. It turns out the same Canadian Car and Foundry in Montreal which built the Helldiver, Grumman Goblin and Hawker Hurricane under contract, dabbled in some new aircraft designs of their own, including one of the first successful flying lifting bodies in the world by an American designer Vincent Burnelli. If it were not for some powerful political influences, and the Second World War, there's a good chance that you would fly in an airplane that looks more like this than today's Airbus 380s. The CCF built two examples of Mr.Burnelli's cutting edge design (a design which is now 70 years later getting some serious attention by the likes of Boeing) called the Loadmaster, whereby the fuselage of the aircraft formed part of the lifting surface of the aircraft for a number of aerodynamic advantages, not to mention greatly enhanced passenger safety. After flying all over North and South America for many years, the only existing example, the model CBY-3, retired to a museum in New England where it is currently being restored to it's former glory (now complete). The project manager is Harry Newman for this historic aircraft and significant piece of Canadian aviation history, and was kind enough to provide me with some of the photos of the restoration and a note regarding the plans for restoration:
"Our CBY-3 restoration began last October and is making good progress. While the aircraft remains outside for the time being we have removed the flight control surfaces (ailerons, rudders, elevators) and the 27 foot long horizontal stabilizer to our restoration building and a lot of work is being done on them by our volunteer staff. This Spring we plan to remove the wings and begin the interior cleanup of the fuselage. The aircraft is structurally okay but will need a tremendous amount of work to bring it back to display condition. As such, it will be a multi-year project. We are also in the process of compiling related artifacts to the CBY-3's history, including pilot reports, photographs and memorabilia.
I am attaching two photos; one of the CBY-3 in Canadian registration, circa 1945, and the other as it appears today. There are also many other photos on various websites on the Internet.
Thank you for your interest in this historic aircraft."
Harry Newman, Project Leader, Burnelli CBY-3 Restoration
Update January 2014 (courtesy of Harry Newman)
"Work is proceeding on the CBY-3. An all-volunteer crew of 8 people is involved. We are still in search of funding for the restoration in order to purchase missing and unusable parts such as tires, propellers, engine mounts and cowlings, as well as some smaller (but expensive) bits of hardware - bearings, latches, etc.
The weather socked us in before we could remove the wings and get them inside so we've been focusing on restoring the twin tail booms, horizontal stabilizer, flight control surfaces, engines and cockpit instrument panels, all of which require extensive refurbishment. Over the last month we have built a tail section assembly rig and have mounted the booms, horizontal stabilizer and vertical fins. We are now in the process of test fitting the three elevators and two rudders. Once they have been fitted properly we will remove them again and begin the process of applying the fabric to these surfaces. This is all proceeding quite well.
As soon as the weather breaks we are prepared to remove the wings and move them and the fuselage into our restoration building. These main components will require many months of major work."
The story of the Loadmaster is a fascinating one of political intrigue and what-might-have-been scenarios which are described in good detail at the following website; http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Canada/Canada_Car/ccf_part_3_CBY3.htm
I had the pleasure of helping restoration efforts after reaching out to Harry to see if there was anything they needed. When he mentioned the need for some replacement tires, (that were coincidentally the same as those used on a CL-215 waterbomber), I recalled that a number of these flew out of Sault Ste Marie with the MNR when I lived there.
UPDATE JANUARY 2014: After contacting numerous owners of CL-215 aircraft, the four tires have been graciously donated by the MNR in Sault Ste Marie so as soon as their CL-215's come in for winter maintenance and the tires are replaced with new ones, we'll have a decent set of four tires to be used on the CBY-3 restoration. Anyone with connections in the transport industry who might be able to provide some donated space in a trailer and transport costs to either Kitchener, ON or to the museum in New England, can contact me at [email protected]. We still require two tires for the tail end which are the same size as those used on the DC-3. donations of gently spent tires are most welcome.
Update February 4 2014
In a really great example of the spirit of friendship and camaraderie that exists between my two favourite countries, Canadian-owned Manitoulin Transport (owned by brothers Gord and Jeff Smith) graciously organized free transport, along with Customs broker assistance of the MNR tires all the way to their American counterparts at New England Motor Freight in Buffalo, who have similarly agreed to handle the freight the rest of the way to the New England Aviation Museum. Thanks to these two companies who have made a big contribution in helping maintain this historic aircraft !
update September 9/2014 all four tires arrived at the museum.
The restoration....
Early versions of the CBY-3 prototype, showing the progression of design from biplane to monoplane.
Wooden models used at the Candian Research Council. images courtesy of Archives Canada
,WHY DID IT FAIL?
Ultimately, no additional CBY-3's or a planned CBY-4 were ever built and it is a topic of heated debate as to why not; Vincent Burnelli, and even more so, his subsequent business partner, Chalmers Goodlin (yes, the famous astronaut) believed that they were victims of a conspiracy to prevent their aircraft from being built by the major US manufacturers. Vincent Burnelli was a respected designer of aircraft and held numerous innovative patents, so it cannot be said that he did not have the attention of the shakers and movers within the aerospace industry at the time. Some have posited that the glut of DC-3's after the war scuttled any chance of developing his flying body, but a declassified memo in May of 1943, to General Hap Arnold (who controlled all the decisions about aircraft production in North America at the time) reveals that the Airforce knew of CC&F's plans to sell at least ten of the aircraft to South America, but the General was advised this might not be a good idea. It is a little surprising that the US Airforce would have concern (about a civilain aircraft built by an independent Canadian company) that such a sale might set a "precedent" of allowing aircraft sales to a South American country! The memo certainly supports Goodlin's later contention that the American government didn't want the CBY-3 built in quantity. If there was a "glut" of DC-3s after the war, why would the USSR have continued to build another 5000 of them under licence from Douglas? Presumably they could have picked them up on the cheap as well, since most surplus DC-3's (aka C-47s) at war's end were already in Europe.
Ultimately, no additional CBY-3's or a planned CBY-4 were ever built and it is a topic of heated debate as to why not; Vincent Burnelli, and even more so, his subsequent business partner, Chalmers Goodlin (yes, the famous astronaut) believed that they were victims of a conspiracy to prevent their aircraft from being built by the major US manufacturers. Vincent Burnelli was a respected designer of aircraft and held numerous innovative patents, so it cannot be said that he did not have the attention of the shakers and movers within the aerospace industry at the time. Some have posited that the glut of DC-3's after the war scuttled any chance of developing his flying body, but a declassified memo in May of 1943, to General Hap Arnold (who controlled all the decisions about aircraft production in North America at the time) reveals that the Airforce knew of CC&F's plans to sell at least ten of the aircraft to South America, but the General was advised this might not be a good idea. It is a little surprising that the US Airforce would have concern (about a civilain aircraft built by an independent Canadian company) that such a sale might set a "precedent" of allowing aircraft sales to a South American country! The memo certainly supports Goodlin's later contention that the American government didn't want the CBY-3 built in quantity. If there was a "glut" of DC-3s after the war, why would the USSR have continued to build another 5000 of them under licence from Douglas? Presumably they could have picked them up on the cheap as well, since most surplus DC-3's (aka C-47s) at war's end were already in Europe.
2The General's chief assistant sums up by concluding that Burnelli's aircraft were being promoted as a "flying wing" and that really only the Northrop prototype could be considered a true flying wing- as though to dismiss Burnelli's aircraft of being something less than Northrop's aircraft then under development. As it turned out, the Northrop flying wing was a huge dog (not surpisingly, it suffered from yaw instability, something which the CBY-3's design addressed effectively with it's tailboom), and Northrop would not revisit the design seriously again for decades with the B-2 bomber. Before the technology could catch up, it seems that a lifting body aircraft with a tail, was the best way to make a lifting body fly well in 1943.
Harold Evans Hartney was a WW1 flying ace from Ontario who would later be enlisted by the American Air service to help train pilots as part of an agreement between the Canadian and uS governments. He would go on to win the Distinguished Flying Cross and also become the first president of the National Aeronautics Association. By the time that the US was getting ready for WW2, Hartney, now a US citizen, had become one of the most respected aviation safety consultants in North America in the years after his military service and had even led the investigation of the crash of the Hindenburg. As someone known to rub shoulders with the famous Billy Mitchell, it is no surprise that the commanding officer, General Hap Arnold of the US Air Force would seek Hartney's opinions on aviation-related matters as a technical advisor. In what became known as the Hartney report, Colonel Evans was approached by General Arnold to brief himself in the summer of 1943 (Report to HH Arnold, July 3rd 1943) on the CC&F's lifting body design. In the report, Hartney outlined the numerous advantages of the aircraft and strongly encouraged Arnold to remove wartime obstacles that had prevented examples from being built. He goes on to explain why the aircraft had not yet been built in numbers in countries where Burnelli had a presence:
- In Britain, a sole aircraft, the UB-14 (similar to the CBY-3) had been built by Cunliffe Owens company, but because it was manufactured at a "fringe" plant, it's production had been prevented with the outbreak of war there when these plants were ordered by the government to provide repair parts for military aircraft instead of their own projects. The sole example would provide transport to the French president reliably throughout the war as his personal presidential aircraft.
- In Canada, an illegal contract between the Railroad Express Agency and 21 commercial air carriers prohibited them from offering express air delivery in areas serviced by the railroad and in any case, for no less than twice the price of rail! CC&F identified a demand for northerly routes not serviced by rail but the Minister of Transport was not supportive of the aircraft, believing it to be too large. Hartney also observes that CC&F was stopped by the Joint Board (a wartime committee overseeing production of essential items) because it "couldn't find a military category" for the new design. (editor's note: it was pretty obvious that it would have qualified as a capable air transport carrier which even Arnold lamented not having enough of). Perhaps the Joint War Production Board was more intent on seeing their own American C-76 wooden transport win a contract than give it to the British or Canadians who already had more experience with laminated wood construction than their American counterparts. The C-76 was ultimately a massive 400 million dollar failure, largely as a result of the heavy, dense mahogany it was built from.
- In the US, Burnelli was prevented from develo[ping the aircraft when a federal loan was cancelled after he approached the Army Air Corps to gain permission to build his planes overseas. Fortunately CC&F stepped in and bailed him out, thereby gaining control of his patents. In addition, the Air Corps had decided that the aircraft design did not meet any of their specific needs, despite the fact that it had been shown to be at least equal to the DC-3, if not superior in terms of it's lower landing speeds and more flexible carrying capacity.
In June of 1942, the US Air Force had a significant shortage of air transport aircraft with which to support overseas operations despite efforts to rapidly increase transport production. In a memo to General Nichols, General Arnold asked what was being done to address the problem. In his words, "Everywhere I turn this is a demand for more transport airplanes-the British, Dutch, Australians, Navy, and everybody. What steps have you taken to ensure a larger production than we are getting in 1942? Nichols response mentions current and projected numbers and also advises that Curtiss and Waco aircraft companies were working on a wooden plane whose production would reach 250 per month by 1943. This was the C-76 Curtiss Wright had the greenlight to develop as an airframe to match or exceed the capabilities of the C-47 (aka DC-3) starting in 1941 and which led ultimately to the construction of 25 prototypes, the first of which flew May 3 1943. Needless to say, it seems pretty clear that the US aircraft industry was intent on ensuring any transport aircraft made of alternative materials were also of American design and manufacture despite the fact that Britain and by extension, their sister Canadian companies were already proven builders of wooden composites with the Mosquito and Anson trainers.. Hartney would also observe in his report the following year that the Burnelli design was superior for wood construction than the tradtional airframe that the C-76 employed, but to no avail.
Any telling of the history of the CBY-3's development has to include Clyde Pangborn. Clyde was born in the US at the dawn of the Golden Years of aviation (he held licence number 240) and his flying exploits as a pioneering barnstormer earned him nationwide recognition as a capable early aviator. He would gain fame as Roscoe Turner's copilot in the famous MacRobertson Air Race (placing third in a Boeing 247) and for being the first pilot to cross the Pacific Ocean by plane. He was instrumental in establishing the RAF's Ferry command, serving as it's Senior Captain from 1941 to 1945, making 170 cross ocean flights including bringing the first Lancaster bomber to the US for evaluation. He flew every Allied model of wartime aircraft during this period and was test pilot for numerous aircraft companies including Burnelli's CBY-3. His skillset also included making design contributions for new aircraft such as Lear Aviation's jet, the Learstar. Pangborn had by all accounts, the experience and knowledge of current aircraft designs, to understand what was good and what was not. And in his mind, as test pilot of the CBY-3, the lifting body aircraft was a winning design. As early as 1941 (see letter below from Pangborn to Arnold), Pangborn had the ear of General Hap Arnold, and was extolling the virtues of an early version of the CBY-3 called the UB-14 which had been built by Burnelli's company in the US. Coming from the guy who was leading up the largest effort of delivering aircraft to the war effort, his observation that it was a "practical and important" design advancement must have carried some weight. But even when the US needed all the air transport capability they could get, CC&F could not get an order from the US government.
Hello Ed,
I'm Larry Pope. I live in the Austin, Texas area. I've been working on Burnelli designs since 2006 and have been involved in the restoration project with NEAM. You can see some of my work at http://www.burnelliaircraft.com/wp/blog/ . The picture shows the only known RC model of Burnelli's last design before his death in 1964, the GB-888A, a 400 to 500 passenger airliner.
Here is some of the family of Vincent Burnelli visiting NEAM last year. https://www.neam.org/restoration-burnelli-2016-06.php . They're very excited that this plane is finally going to be featured to show the visionary ideas of Vincent Justus Burnelli and the belief of the Canadian Car and Foundry that this could have been the future of flight.
Harry Newman says that they may paint the CBY-3 this summer. That would be awesome.
Story of the CB-34
A colourful magazine cover on a 1939 edition of Model Airplane News excitedly depicted a futuristic looking bomber speeding over a sinking ship, an artist’s rendition of what he perceived a new anticipated Burnelli aircraft would look like, and which was identified as the CB-34 bomber. As it turned out, the artist’s description and rendering of the aircraft was close, but a little off the mark, since it’s Canadian manufacturer had other plans for the design.
The CC&F had for years specialized in railroad car manufacture, but sometime in the mid 30’s, management had astutely decided that there was good business to be had by expanding into the aircraft manufacturing business, as the promise of air transport’s advantages over rail service became more apparent especially across Canada’s vast borders. One candidate that caught their attention was one of Burnellis radical “lifting body” aircraft, the UB-14. Burnelli had had some success with his UB-14, displaying it in Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK where aircraft manufacturer Cunliffe-Owens had even built one under licence with the intent to build more. The original was later sold to Nicaraguan airline, TACA, and when Burnelli’s company subsequently went bankrupt, CC&F came to his rescue, and in the process, acquired his patents and rights to build the UB-14. It seems the purchase was a godsend for Burnelli, and soon he was working closely with CC&F designing new aircraft that incorporated his lifting body design.
At their Fort Williams plant, management announced plans to soon begin production of the UB-14 while back in Montreal, ambitious efforts were underway to develop an even larger, more ambitious version, twice as wide as the UB-14, called the CB-34 which would be built in Fort Williams as well. The mock-up included the full fuselage and right wing built of wood at the company’s Cartierville factory, but photos and correspondence reveal that the CB-34 was intended to be a commercial transport if built by its Canadian financiers, rather than a bomber (although other plans for a future bomber were also investigated). It is likely the “B” in the classification stood for “Burnelli” rather than “bomber” and it’s builders more intent on capturing the burgeoning air transport opportunity across Canada than competing against larger American manufacturers already engaged in bomber construction.
Unfortunately for CC&F and Burnelli, the Department of Transport was both skeptical about the viability of a transport plane to be made in Canada and resistant to accepting a radical new design despite already having been proven and accepted by the UK civil aviation authorities. In fact, when CC&F’s general manager and vice president, L.A. Peto, wrote to the Minister of Transport to ask for his assistance in approving technical drawings as they were finished, the controller of Civil Aviation (who reported to the Minister) noted “Let sleeping dogs lie” on a copy of the letter shared internally as though to suggest administration staff should provide as little assistance as possible . Another civil aviation inspector (who’d visited the factory to inspect a full-scale mock-up), noted that while the company’s claims of performance seemed legitimate and not exaggerated, the “problem of placing it in commercial operation was something else again”. Below the comment, the Civil Aviation Controller initialed his name with the comment “I agree” effectively signalling that the Department of Transport had no intention of supporting CC&F’s ambitious endeavour.
What followed, was a series of roadblocks and endless requests for additional information from the Department of Transport, essentially delaying any progress on the construction of a flying aircraft. Ultimately, Canada’s entry into the war would bring a number of contracts to CC&F to build American-designed aircraft such as the Hawker Hurricane, and further development of the CB-34 was shelved as these new priorities occupied most of the company’s resources. Nonetheless. as the war later drew to a close, a scaled down, twin-engine version of the CB-34, called the CBY-3 would finally result in a finished aircraft which the determined CC&F staff believed to be a sound overall design and that offered numerous advantages over conventional aircraft.
These photos of the CB-34 mock-up taken by the Department of Transport inspector may be the only existing images of the CB-34, tucked away in the National Archives for over 80 years and only revealed recently after declassification and a Freedom of Information request.
.
According to Larry Pope,
"There were plans for a 100 plus passenger airliner after the war too, the B-1000 http://www.burnelliaircraft.com/wp/pics/ that was also to be built by the CC&F. What a loss to the future of flight because of one man's arrogance and petty grudge.
Just wanted to share a little more of the history of the Canadian Aerospace vision and hope from the 1930's and '40's.
Thank you for the original post of the CBY-3 on your site.
Larry Pope
Attached are some pictures of the CC&F Tri-motor transport that showed up on ebay a few years back. This was a large plane. With its large fuel capacity and extended range, it's quite possible it could have transformed air transport in Canada. It was planned to be powered by 3 Wright GR-1820-G100 Cyclone engines with a loaded weight of 33,000 pounds but was likely cancelled because of CC&F's need to produce Hurricane fighters.
One more reference to the vision of Vincent Burnelli from a NASA Sr Engineer... http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Aeronautics/Burnelli_AIAA.pdf
Epilogue to the CBY-3
The CBY-3 was not the only missed opportunity by the Canadian Car and Foundry after they took on Burnelli's designs and produced this last rendition of his work. They actually built a full scale, 3 engine transport mockup, called the CB-34 in 1937,which was also a promising design but the Canadian Minister of Transport thought it too big. Yet nother plan was to build bombers for WWII but that plan was scuttled by Roosevelt. Another four engine bomber, the B2000B was proposed in a 1942 competition for the US Airforce against the B-36 bomber. The aircraft was to have been powered by Allison 3422's (eight in all, 5000hp each for a total of 20,000hp). Total weight would have been 220,000lbs with a range of 4000 miles and bombload of 40,000lbs.
Images of the CB-34 mockup at Cartierville, Quebec
Read more about Vincent Burnelli here: Vincent J. Burnelli, His Flying Fuselage, and the Conspiracy Theories – April 10, 2014 | Robert Novell
A variety of CBY-3 iterations ( at least a dozen pictured below) as investigated by Canadian Car and Foundry and drawn by their engineer, V.R. Wallingford, including some which incorporated the cockpit into the engine nacelle,. It seems that while Burnelli provided the main "lifting body" design idea, he largely left the details to CC&F to work out what would consitute an airworthy aircraft. photos courtesty of Canadian Air and Space Museum, Ingenium, Fred Short Fonds CCF CBY-3 file
The Loadmaster 4
.Even while the CBY-3 was under development, it seems that the CC&F may have already recognized some of the design issues which would need to be addressed at some point in order to better respond to the changing nature of commercial air transport. This drawing, done in 1948, by the subsidiary company, CanCargo, takes the original CBY-3 design and transforms it into a tricycle gear aircraft- an aircraft design that was quickly replacing taildraggers at the war's end. Also, note how the crew cabin has been extended beyond the propellors for better vision, contrary to Burnelli's practice of keeping it behind the propellors. This design would not likely have met with Burnelli's approval had it proceeded but most certainly addressed any of the concerns potential buyers would have had with the earlier models.