Popular Mechanics Magazine in the 1950's or '60's had plans for a flying model airplane named "Hoop Skirt", which used the same principles & looked like a flying barrel.

@@sparky6086 1:20 I fist thought, this was the logo of the aircraft manufacturer. A barrel with a propeller in it.

😃🙃

Recursive AF.

You could put a plane inside this plane, test two at once, that's efficiency.

@@Robocopnik You have just proven why we need to show more respect for Italian engineering. 👨‍🍳😘😆

@@Robocopnik No, that’s completely compromising the design and effectiveness of the first plane. I knew you were joking. I just thought i’d be the bigger idiot 😆😳😬😆

So, Italian Kirby then?

Om nom nom

William Windom flew a starship into its mouth to destroy it.

@@HarborLockRoad I get that reference.

how do you think it got so fat?

More a ducted fan, which is used in jet engines but more large bypass ones as used on airliners. There has recently been some interest in ducted propeller design for modern electric propulsion. Definitely vectored thrust though.

Lol no

@@billinghamscuba How come

@@seriousthree6071 I think it qualifies as a jet powered aircraft. The forward thrust is indeed provided by a "jet" of air coming out of the fuselage.

A shame that the guy didn't know what he had. And where it would go.

G'day, Hmmmn. Clearly you have yet to meet the Hadley Optica, intended to compete with Heligoflopters. And perhaps ye ha'e yet to hear o' Elon Musk's Roquet Park, with all his dud Skyrockets lined up in a row, to reming him of what does not wurrrk...(?) ! To say nothin' about his "HyperLoopy" reinvention of the Tunnel. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

Unless you have the resources to fund it yourself.

It was like Christmas bullet

"Today anything too radical or crazy would never get funding" - well the F35 . . . .

@@emjackson2289 Not that radical more like an evolution of existing designs. It's airframe is conservative. Even its vertical take off has been done before. Truly radical would become something like the F117 nighthawk. Now that was worthy of bieng called radical. Things that are so outside the box that they shock the world are very rare these days

Bartini Beriev VVA-14: hold my beer. ....yes, a Soviet built aircraft.... ...designed by an Italian.

Again, this time frame was the golden age of aviation. Everything one could think of was tried, some worked and others failed...miserably. It follows the principle of the high bypass turbine engines we employ, today. "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

It was the Tommy wiseau of airplanes

He was an experienced engineer, he was experimentating plausible solutions, it wasn't unintentional, it's not like he casually tried something out of a dream.

@@carta8399 his idea was sound and is basically used today in RC planes. Ducted fans work best with electric motors. The technology at the time wasn't really up to it.

@@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24 No of course, the idea was there but everything else wasn't.

@@carta8399 in the history of aviation this is actually common. The ones we regard as the 1st to create a new ground breaking design or idea usually weren't the 1st to think it up. Instead they were usually the 1st who could actually build it with the technology they had access to.

Making it out at a young age is quite difficult. I started a side hustle at 17, saved up and made some good investments. l'm 28,live on my own and having a good life for myself. Big ups to you and everyone out there trying

@@cryptocasey1083 Sounds like plan, how do you put money to work?

@@kathyfrugalsen3047 Yes it sure is. I put in money in investments and get profits. That 's how I make more money without working. This does not sound new to you right ?

@@cryptocasey1083 Thanks for replying me, I've heard so many people talk about investment but none had said how to do it right.

Am hoping on you can explain more on how you make extra income from investments

Grande

Hey that was very informative

Pepsi Man’s own version of the Batmobile!

Wait, did you work at Dunder Mifflin?

Now, if Red Bull built a fleet of these for their races . . . 'Caproni gives you cans!'

Not by chance Stipa designed it for large aircrafts, where the barrels, buried into the thickness of the wings, would have generated near to none additional drag.

Ducted fans are actually quite inefficient for most applications. Its not just a matter of the drag. Here is one way to conceptualize it: The duct benefits the efficiency of propeller by eliminating tip drag and directing the airflow more. When the aircraft is moving, the relative speed difference between the air moved by the propeller and the surrounding air is lower, reducing the benefit of airflow being more directed because it has less energy pushing it to being misdirected. So for high speed airplanes, ducted fans just produce more drag. The popularity of ducted fans for RC aircraft are actually more to do with the fact that you are limited to fixed pitch propellers at those scales. If you put a more powerful motor in an RC plane and want to put that power into the air, you need to either spin the propeller faster, or use a bigger propeller. You reach the practical limit for propeller size pretty quickly, and after that there is no way to go but higher rpm. The higher the rpm of the propeller, the higher the tip drag is, so pretty quickly tip drag just eats up any extra power you put into it and you just end up sucking down the batteries faster and making more noise to go the same speed. Ducted fans eliminate tip drag, allowing for higher propeller rpm, and therefore higher thrust for the size. The reason why real aircraft don't use ducted fans is because if you are using that much power, the only practical way to be generating that power is with a turbine engine. So its easiest to just make it a jet engine and not deal with the middleman of a power turbine and gearbox and propeller. RC planes that use that much power can only fly for minutes at a time while actually using that power, so the don't bother building electric planes that powerful. They barely bother to build electric planes at all.

@@lobsterbark You do realize that most commercial planes today use turbine driven ducted fans (aka: turbofan engines)? That type is the most efficient at high subsonic speeds, with turboprops better at low speeds and turbojets taking over at supersonic speeds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan#Efficiency

@@svennoren9047 Yeah, those are technically ducted fans but nobody calls them that. I basically explained why with my long-winded comment. They could technically make them turboprops and it would be more efficient, but the prop size would have to be absolutely insane and the crazy stuff you would have to do with the design to make that possible would probably steal away any efficiency gains anyways.

um this idea but with 2 mods 1 2-big bypass turbofan's and 2 at altitude fly side ways to get into SS-sonic speed as the design of the wing tips looks like it might be good at cutting air as a nose and it looks like a flying wing so theoretically forward's and sideways flying is possible if not more efficient in different mode's

And I think she's still around, too, in a museum in Italy. Could be wrong though.

Pretty sure he was just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. He made a lot of strange and impractical aircraft. I'm surprised that this thing doesn't have like 8 engines.

​​@@rubiconnn Well, that's the entire history of aviation basically Though I guess Caproni was one who tried out many very different ideas, compared to your average engineer of the time

I love his piston engined (?!) jet!

Just plane neat

I need to get him a new of this toy/desk thing.

I need it

Super Guppy do take flight tho but retired now

R/c inflatable, ducted-fan, 5' basking shark . . slowly cruising past someone's office window? . . This idea has legs : )

There are electric ducted fans in rc models

thinkin about one myself-foam board & balsa to start.....hmmm where goes the batt.....cg be a bitch...

It's very hard to pilot a plane when you have shortness of breath, tears in your eyes and quite possibly wet pants. Quite the genius move by the Italians, they could have saved a fortune on not having to arm the planes.

"kills"? It never pretended to be a fighter.

It would be very safe. As mentioned it had incredible lift and stability along with a low stall and takeoff speed. Those are great attributes for a safe aircraft

@@nathanchildress5596 As the single prototype it looks daunting , but in a larger 2/3 engine fig it would fair better and look amazing.

I doubt it wouldve made much sense in a fighter plane, or a bomber for that matter, for the same reason as the He 100 that used the entire wing surface as a radiator. Essentially youre running around with a way larger engine nacelle than you need to, which gets hit by bullets far more easily and I think holes in the duct would cause some problems, especially drag. Compare that with a conventional aircraft, and its fairly easy to realize why this idea didnt take off, even if the principle could have been integrated into a larger design more elegantly.

@@builder396 everything starts crude, and gets improved. Nothing pressurizes R&D like war. Already, we can see that there were multiple much more compact ducted fan designs on the drawing boards - what might have come if development had continued? One of the things that occurs to me is that you can do the same thing as the V-22 Osprey with ducted fans in place of the wingtip nacelles. Might we have seen, for instance, VSTOL transport aircraft? How would that have affected the shape of the Battlespace?

True, some aircrafts were asymmetric to my surprise. Was it the C202? It's so subtle too

I feel your over simplifying a wing as just a Bernoulli device. Nearly all wings are curved upper and lower surface structures, some are even symmetrical and only make lift when essentially tilted up into the airflow. An F-104 wing only fly's as a stalled slab at slower speeds and has a very flat diamond cross section. One can best visualize the Stipa's fuselage as a super open blown wing or a zero stagger biplane pinched into a tube. A blown wing in the sense that the funneled thrust at the rear prevents any flow reversal on the outer tube surface allowing all airflow to remain lamina and flow across very varying thicknesses of relative airfoil sections around the tube making as many areas of lift as possible. All this would only be generated in some degree of pitch up or angle of attack. This is a normal flight regime in most aircraft and is often trimmed into the aircraft deliberately. Some lift is created inside the lower tube half, the rest is generated over the outer upper half of the tube. As you stated however I agree that the lift would be cancelled out in a zero angle of attack regime, this however I doubt is ever a regime of flight for most aircraft until the lift is greater than needed at higher speeds in which a nose down trim is needed. This can be seen in WWII fighter aircraft used in pylon racing, and is very pronounced when formating alongside a modern jet fighter just hanging onto lift at it's lower speed envelope while the prop fighter is way nosed over just to get the speed for level flight in that unusual formation.

To see my last point in vivid detail do an image search of "Spitfire and Eurofighter formation". I doubt you will also find any image of the Stipa Caproni flying at zero angle of attack which validates your original point in principle, however in practice not many wings fly as you inferred by your opening statement.

@@stevenborham1584 I can float a pin on water due to "surface tension" but its not why ships float.

@@stevenborham1584 Its not a "Bernoulli device" that's my point and the opinion of aerodynamic experts. What you a describing is the redirect of airflow not low-high pressure differential.

@@bob19611000 I guess one can ague their point ad nauseam, and it will only be the situation of the 3 blind men describing an elephant situation with all descriptions being valid. Your point about the pin is a good one.