Very weird unidentified flying boat... Can anyone help?

After attentive studying of concise book about Russian/Soviet hydroplanes, written by Gennady Petrov, I didn't find the aircraft, depicted on the photo.
Of course, it's always possible to find the completely unknown prototype or to find image of the aircraft, that has previously has been only described in text.
"German connection" of the copyright owner hints to me the German' origins of these boat (not the one in the foreground! :)) - but, as far as I understand, there have been quite few civil flying boats in this country. For me, this boat is not intended to military usage in anyway: due to relatively small size, weak engines and complex structure.
 
Consider the 5-cylinder radials and the hp that would be required. The two most readily available in the 1930s, and it does look like 1930s, would be the Kinner series and the Armstrong Siddeley Mongoose. The Shvestov and Siemens would probably have lacked the required power.
If the aircraft were British I am sure it would have appeared in Flight, Aeroplane or Janes, and as far as I can see it does not. I would focus the search on US or Canada
 
Whatever the period or whereabouts, I'm still not convinced that thing could actually fly...
 
Stargazer said:
Whatever the period or whereabouts, I'm still not convinced that thing could actually fly...
Click to expand...
Perhaps, this is "father" of all Wing-In-Ground vessels? :)

With the wing of large chord, placed so close to water, it could emit additional lift effect?
Just a speculation from my side, as there were quite few hydroplanes have wings located so close to water.
Yes, there were some of them: some sporting gliders, Beriev Be-103, XF2Y Dart.
But that we are trying to identify looks quite "amateur" and not following the general trends of hydroplane' designs.
 
I don't think the Picture is AI or Photoshop

now we had French, Russian, German, British and Italy ruled out
who else was building flying boats in 1920-1930s ?
USA, japan and ?
 
They're not Shvetsov M-11s - the engines in the picture have two valve heads with a wide V arrangement - Shvetsov M-11s that come up on google don't have that, they're much more aligned on the middle of the cylinder.
 
Michel Van said:
I don't think the Picture is AI or Photoshop

now we had French, Russian, German, British and Italy ruled out
who else was building flying boats in 1920-1930s ?
USA, japan and ?
Click to expand...
I showed two photos of Canadian built small run (<10) flying boats that have some similar characteristics like the chines in the hull sides, engine position, and such. That's why I'm leaning that way on this. It could be a one-off or obscure small production Canadian product. It is definitely not Japanese, that leaves US, Canada, Russia and I doubt it's Russian. Most Russian photos of that period (pre-WW 2) are not fine grained and detailed as their access to such film and cameras seems to have been limited at best.
 
If this aircraft was Canadian, it managed to completely escape the attention of Kenneth Molson and the CAHS.

BTW, both the Boeing A-213 Totem and the Canadian Vickers Vista were one-offs. As far as I can see, the only similarities between those known flying boats and this 'mystery aircraft' are the raised-bead skin stiffeners.

I'm not sure where W.T. Reid got his inspiration from for the Vista but, in the case of the Totem, Capt. Elderton brought this construction technique with him directly from Saunders-Roe.
 
Apophenia said:
If this aircraft was Canadian, it managed to completely escape the attention of Kenneth Molson and the CAHS.

BTW, both the Boeing A-213 Totem and the Canadian Vickers Vista were one-offs. As far as I can see, the only similarities between those known flying boats and this 'mystery aircraft' are the raised-bead skin stiffeners.

I'm not sure where W.T. Reid got his inspiration from for the Vista but, in the case of the Totem, Capt. Elderton brought this construction technique with him directly from Saunders-Roe.
Click to expand...
I'm also considering the background. The plane is clearly on a lake. In the background you can see scattered buildings on the hills and the shoreline is completely forested. That all has a Canadian vibe to it.
 
Apophenia said:
If this aircraft was Canadian, it managed to completely escape the attention of Kenneth Molson and the CAHS.

BTW, both the Boeing A-213 Totem and the Canadian Vickers Vista were one-offs. As far as I can see, the only similarities between those known flying boats and this 'mystery aircraft' are the raised-bead skin stiffeners.

I'm not sure where W.T. Reid got his inspiration from for the Vista but, in the case of the Totem, Capt. Elderton brought this construction technique with him directly from Saunders-Roe.
Click to expand...
Plus the Totem and the Vista were WELL DESIGNED! Not like the horror in the picture!

Silencer1 said:
Perhaps, this is "father" of all Wing-In-Ground vessels?
Click to expand...
At some point I thought that this might actually have been an experimental hydroglider, using recycled aircraft elements to provide horizontal propulsion with no intention of taking off... But then, why leave the twin-fin configuration?

Also, no-one seems to be especially puzzled by what's underneath the wings... However, it doesn't look anywhere like floats, more like wheel spats... (another element that purports the theory that it could be using parts from an existing aircraft).

T. A. Gardner said:
I'm still leaning towards it being something Canadian, a one-off or something. The background gives off a Canada vibe, not a Russia one.
Click to expand...
Sorry for raining on your parade, but a lake is a lake IS A LAKE!
Without a precise view of the houses' architecture, the vegetation, etc. it could be just about ANYWHERE!
 
Last edited:
It seems like a job done by amateurs who do not know very well what they are doing: first they install a wing (possibly obtained from another plane) on the hull of a torpedo boat, then they add a horizontal tailfin bolted on the rectangular stern (too wide for a flying boat hull), then they install an engine on the cockpit and as they see that the plane does not take off, they decide to add another one to see what happens.

Perhaps they were planning to add a third mid-engine to participate in the Schneider Cup when they were arrested for damaging state property.:)
 
Justo Miranda said:
It seems like a job done by amateurs who do not know very well what they are doing: first they install a wing (possibly obtained from another plane) on the hull of a torpedo boat, then they add a horizontal tailfin bolted on the rectangular stern (too wide for a flying boat hull), then they install an engine on the cockpit and as they see that the plane does not take off, they decide to add another one to see what happens.

Perhaps they were planning to add a third mid-engine to participate in the Schneider Cup when they were arrested for damaging state property.:)
Click to expand...
It's more likely just a "pilot" boat... :D
 
Stargazer said:
Also, no-one seems to be especially puzzled by what's underneath the wings... However, it doesn't look anywhere like floats, more like wheel spats... (another element that purports the theory that it could be using parts from an existing aircraft).
Click to expand...
Well, amphibious aicraft (which have both floats and wheels) were pretty common in 1920-1930s, so nothing particularly puzzling there.
 
Justo Miranda said:
It seems like a job done by amateurs who do not know very well what they are doing: first they install a wing (possibly obtained from another plane) on the hull of a torpedo boat, then they add a horizontal tailfin bolted on the rectangular stern (too wide for a flying boat hull), then they install an engine on the cockpit and as they see that the plane does not take off, they decide to add another one to see what happens.
Click to expand...
My IMHO, this is some kind of experimental modification of existing design - likely to test the inverted gull wing scheme.
 
Well, while looking for a clue on that plane, I came across this monstrosity of nature...

0efe64f55af2a042c8124bd38e899051.jpg


4382L-1.jpg


It's a custom built WTF by a guy named Charles Rocheville who used wings from a Lockheed Sirius, the tail of a Lockheed Vega, and used the plane in Alaska for oil exploration for the Shell Corp. The engine is a 300 hp Wasp Jr. It was dubbed the Arctic Tern. And, yes, those are passenger compartments on the floats. It crashed during testing... I wonder why?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It's a custom built WTF by a guy named Charles Rocheville who used wings from a Lockheed Sirius, the tail of a Lockheed Vega, and used the plane in Alaska for oil exploration for the Shell Corp. The engine is a 300 hp Wasp Jr. It was dubbed the Arctic Tern.
Click to expand...
Looks like something from "Tom Swift" novels. This Rocheville abused aerodynamic to the point that it starts to fight back.

T. A. Gardner said:
It crashed during testing
Click to expand...
Fortunately for potential passngers...
 
The wing spar could be right under the seat, not an impossible position at all.

I tend to believe,that it is authentic. Note, a company like Towle which build just four planes might have done some experimenting and a lot changes on the prototype. It's no wonder, if the same plane would look different on two photos, especially with the little refined appearance.
 
Nicknick said:
I tend to believe,that it is authentic. Note, a company like Towle which build just four planes might have done some experimenting and a lot changes on the prototype.
Click to expand...
But NOT replacing a mid cranked wing with a high straight one. That's way too much of a modification, it's the kind of decision that is made from the start on the drawing board, not something you can merrily change along the way as an afterthought, because it impacts the entire aerodynamics, offsets the center of gravity, etc.
 
Those engines are not Armstrong Siddeley Mongoose, the fifth cylinder points vertically downwards, on these engines it appears the fifth cylinder is vertically upwards.
So that leaves the Kinner K-5 or B-5 (or possibly the later R-5), Wright R-540 Whirlwind or Shevetsov M-11.

My money is on this being a US design. I still think its circa 1930-35 - the Savoia-Marchetti S.55 Balbo to the Century of Progress International Exposition in Chicago in July 1933 may well have inspired the designer of this wing - assuming it hasn't been taken from another type. The Kinners would also suggest a 'homebuilt' design given those engines were supplied for light aircraft and relatively easy to get hold of.
 
Stargazer said:
But NOT replacing a mid cranked wing with a high straight one. That's way too much of a modification, it's the kind of decision that is made from the start on the drawing board, not something you can merrily change along the way as an afterthought, because it impacts the entire aerodynamics, offsets the center of gravity, etc.
Click to expand...

Why not, might have been the case that it didn't work and e.g. had a crash landing. After that, everything reusable (could be less than 50 %) could have been collected and put together for the next plane. There would have been good reasons, not to mention a crash and call it a new airplane.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, while looking for a clue on that plane, I came across this monstrosity of nature...

0efe64f55af2a042c8124bd38e899051.jpg


4382L-1.jpg


It's a custom built WTF by a guy named Charles Rocheville who used wings from a Lockheed Sirius, the tail of a Lockheed Vega, and used the plane in Alaska for oil exploration for the Shell Corp. The engine is a 300 hp Wasp Jr. It was dubbed the Arctic Tern. And, yes, those are passenger compartments on the floats. It crashed during testing... I wonder why?
Click to expand...
And EDO floats

https://www.ebay.com/itm/364944021476

Rocheville​

(Charles & Harry) Rocheville Aircraft Corp Ltd/Rocheville Ltd, 3510 Percy St, Los Angeles CA.

1923 = 1pOhwM. Attractive variable-camber design with a Fokker D.7 top wing by then-Machinist Mate 1c Rocheville while stationed at San Diego.

193? = Type unknown. Appears in registers as "Rochivell" [5922] with a Hisso engine. Consensus is that it's Charlie Rocheville and his Rocheville Special.

A 1931 = 2pOM; Axelson. One source states that this was the aircraft specially built for tests with the Deeble Double-Action motor. [12270]. Claimed to be a rebuilt Emsco B-4, previously registered as [X846N].

Rocheville Arctic Tern Long Beach 1933 [NR221Y] (Elwood W Mason)
Rocheville Arctic Tern 1/72 model (Claudio Luchina)

Arctic Tern aka EMSCO Arctic Tern 1932 = 3pO/CmwMF; 300hp Wasp Junior (or 420hp Wasp). Charles Rocheville. Wing from a Lockheed Sirius, tail from a Lockheed Vega. Special-purpose plane for Shell Oil Co in Alaskan photographic explorations. Pilot in open cockpit in small nacelle, crew in enclosed pods atop pontoons. Crashed in June 1933 during testing [NR221Y].

 

Attachments

  • rocheville-tern.jpg
    rocheville-tern.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 28
  • rocheville-model.jpg
    rocheville-model.jpg
    150.9 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
To me, that mid wing position seems like an attempt to have shorter retractable LGs in these side floats.
Doesn't look that amateurish for me, if one looks at all 30's weird flying or not flying things.
I would lean to it being Soviet, just for the fact that it is unknown. A lone (failed ?) Soviet design of the 30's would have had more chance to have been completely forgotten purposefully or not. Also if the German source of the picture is to be taken into account, we know to German - Soviet aeronautical connections in the 20 - 30's.
 
Silencer1 said:
Well, it's time to put my "secret weapon" into this discussion!
And this is secret weapon in the the primary meaning.
Click to expand...
These "PSN-1" (Special Purpose Gliders) have been mentioned in the comprehensive book about Soviet aircraft, written by V. Shavrov, at the end of 1970s. And only in the the beginning of 1990s their images and story became available for public, by efforts of G. Petrov. So, this is a good example, that some aircraft formally are known as existed, although without any significant details and visual confirmation and representation.
 
Stargazer said:
Allow me to disagree here. It is a very clean and sound design, and it proved very successful operationally as well.
Well, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder, right?
Click to expand...
And here comes the Great Lakes XSG-1, amphibian biplane.
Loening's and Grumman's design decisions and features, that comes to their extreme.
It looks more flying boat (close to "Walrus"), than a floatplane
XSG.png
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
I'm also considering the background. The plane is clearly on a lake. In the background you can see scattered buildings on the hills and the shoreline is completely forested. That all has a Canadian vibe to it.
Click to expand...
That could be equally be a bay, or estuary, while hills and forests don't really rule out anywhere bar deserts and plains. I'd easily believe UK or Ireland, most of Europe, Russia. The rowboat looks generic European, not sure if that style fits the US and Canada as well.
 
Silencer1 said:
Well, it's time to put my "secret weapon" into this discussion!
And this is secret weapon in the the primary meaning.
Click to expand...
It's an experimental torpedo-carrying glider PSN-1 - a standoff weapon for heavy bombers. The idea was, that bomber would launch the gliders toward enemy fleet or harbor, gliders would silently approach and make attack run. The test gliders were piloted, the production version was supposed to be remote-controlled (an original infrared beam-riding system was developed - the glider was supposed to follow the intersection of three infrared beams of different modulation). Also the idea of piloted glider - equipped with a small motor, so it could retreat after attack - was experimented with.
 
Stargazer said:
This topic is turning to an all-and-sundry mishmash of subjects... Please strive to stick to the subject, folks... or start new discussions ELSEWHERE!
Click to expand...
Dear Stargazer!
I'm apologize, if some of my answers and posts are not directly connected to the analysis of the photo, that you kindly share.
I could either delete them (regarding combat gliders or Great Lakes amphibian or any other), or start the new threads - to made this thread cleaner and structured. My main point is that this aircraft not belongs to USSR.
And, of course, thanks for sharing the photo and starting the search!
 
I can add a tiny bit of information regarding the photo of that unknown aircraft.

This photo was originally posted in 2023 over at the German Flugzeugforum, where Bernd Heller asked if anybody could identify this aircraft. I think this photo was bought by him.
Since Bernd Heller is a regular poster there, I‘m quite sure, that this photo is not a fake or photoshop or something else.
The only clue that was given is, that on the back of the photo was written „No 3“ which might suggest, that this was the third attempt of whosoever and which could be a hint that this is of French origin.

I agree that the engines are probably Kinners, however, at the Flugzeugforum no one was able to identify this kite.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom