Petlyakov VI-100

In the summer of 1938 was Petlyakov able to return to work in the Special Technical Department (STO for Spetsialni Texnicheski Otdiel). These types of institutions were conceived with the aim of organizing the scientific and constructive work of specialists convicted of different causes and emerged in the USSR since the late 1920s when those accused of being part of the “Prompartia” conspiracy were concentrated in the Factory No.39, giving rise to the infamous TsKB-39, where famous aircraft builders such as DP Grigorovich and NN Polikarpov worked.

Under the direct supervision of LP Beria, the TsKB-29 NKVD was organized, a large joint construction bureau located in the TsAGI KOSOS building, on Radio Street No. 24.

Three main brigades were created: AN Tupolev ‘s working on a dive bomber, Petlyakov ‘s working on a high-altitude fighter, and Myasichev ‘s working on a long-range bomber. Later another brigade would be created under the leadership of Tomashevich . As the acronym STO corresponds in Russian to the number 100, the aircraft of this institution were known as “100” ( Petlyakov ), “102” ( Myasichev ) and “103” ( Túpolev). The STO would soon be renamed the Special Technical Bureau (OTB according to the acronym of Osoboye Texnicheskoye Byuro) and its direction was entrusted to the highest of the state security organs V. Kravchenko.

The brigade led by Petlyakov numbered about 50 specialists. Notable among them are AI Putilov, EI Pogosski, NS Nekrasov, KV Minknier, the pilot and engineer Ye. K. Stoman, also a pilot and creator of the well-known “Zvenó” NS Vaxmistrov compound aircraft , the hydraulic engineer GM Bashta, the electric AA Yengibaryan and IM Sklyanski, among others. As the first reserve of him was selected AM Izakson.

The task was to create a high-altitude fighter with a long range and powerful weaponry capable of complementing the ANT-42 bombers in their missions. In order to operate at high altitudes, a hermetic cabin was proposed. In the literature, this aircraft is referred to as “100” or VI-100, where the initials VI correspond to its conception as a high-altitude fighter (transliterated as Vysotny Istrebitel), although the official name of the prototype was: “100 with two M engines. -105, two TK-2 turbochargers and two sealed cabins”.(Russian: Петляков ВИ-100)

It is interesting to note that all the documents that left the OTB building, even those related to purely technical issues, had to be reviewed and signed by the head of the institution. The names of the builders were nowhere to be found. The internal documentation could be signed by the builders, but not with their name. Each specialist was assigned a numbered stamp with which they had to sign the documents.

The task assigned to Petlyakov’s brigade was complex. According to the technical specifications received from the military, the flight ceiling had to reach 12,500 meters and at a height of 10,000 meters the “100” had to reach a speed of 630 km/h. The deadline for the execution was also quite tense: the new high-altitude fighter had to be ready for 1939.

In May 1939 the life-size model was finished, which was approved by a commission chaired by A.I. Filin.

The fuselage of the new fighter was developed by AI Putilov and in its structure it was close to the monocoque composition. Of totally metallic construction, it presented three sections of circular section with an elongated cover in which the two hermetic cabins were located.

The fuselage skin averaged between 1.5 and 2 mm, with ribs implanted every 30 or 50 cm. No stringers were used to support the covering.

The structure was calculated to withstand overloads of 10, which allowed the fighter to execute all manoeuvres.

The wing had a trapezoidal shape in plan, with a double spar structure and practically no sagging on the leading edge. Its structure was made up of the center plane to which the motor nacelles were fixed and two consoles with a 0.6 – 0.8 mm coating. The wing mechanization included split ailerons and shrenk-type flaps. All control surfaces were made of metal and covered in fabric.

The tail unit presented horizontal planes with a positive dihedral. Almost at the end of each demiplane the double empennages with the rudders were inserted.

The landing gear, of the conventional type with a tailwheel, was designed by TP Saprykin. The main units had a single wheel and were collected by turning 90 degrees backwards, inside the motor nacelles. The tail unit was also retractable.

The selected powerplant was the Klimov M-105 engine, a 12-cylinder V-shaped linear engine, with two TK-2 turbochargers connected to the power scheme of the engine nacelles and moving two VISh-42 three-blade variable-pitch propellers, the latter a truly advanced quality. The compressor turbines were located on the sides of the engines, just below the wing leading edge. The engines were neatly shrouded, and like other contemporary Soviet twins, the radiators were inboard of the wing between the spars, fed through ducts from the leading edge and vented through adjustable louvers in the nose. wing extrados and planned to provide a certain increase in thrust. The fuel tanks were located in the fuselage, between the two cabins.

The “100” included two airtight cabins for the crew. The forward cockpit was dedicated to the pilot. There is divergence in the literature about the second cabin. Some well-known historians such as BV Shavrovd efine the VI-100 as a three-seater aircraft, placing the navigator and gunner in the rear cabin. In other literature it is suggested that the VI-100 was a two-seater and the second hermetic cabin was occupied by the radio gunner. This version seems to be more accurate in that an interceptor fighter did not need a navigator at all. Both cabins had independent access in the form of hatches located in the lower part of the fuselage, with emergency opening systems. These cabins worked with compressed air obtained from the turbochargers in order to maintain a constant pressure from a height of 3,700 meters and up to the operational ceiling of the plane.

The control system included remote electrical controls developed by electrical engineers AA Yengibaryan and IM Sklyanski. A 28-volt electrical system operated about 50 direct current actuators, which operated the landing gear, flaps, radiator grilles, fuel pumps, compensators and other equipment.

The aircraft featured powerful armament including two 20mm ShVAK cannons with 300 rounds each and two 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns with 900 rounds each, all located in the nose. To defend against the attack of the fighters in the rear hemisphere, the provision of a ShKAS machine gun with 700 shots was proposed, which in practice was never installed.

The “100” was conceived with a certain ground attack capacity. For this purpose it could carry two 250 kg or 500 kg bombs on external mounts. On the other hand, the “100” could carry a new type of weapon: the K-76 cassette with 40 unguided artillery projectiles with pre-adjustable explosion time. This weaponry had been conceived as a resource against enemy bomber formations, but could also be used against ground targets. Later the K-100 cassette with 96 2.5 kg bombs would also be developed.

The prototype was completed at Factory No.156 by the end of 1939. The entire skin of the plane had a layer of varnish and kept the original silver color. The ailerons and rudders were painted bright red. Red stars bordered in black were painted on the edges of the fuselage and on the wing intrados.

On 22 December 1939, the first flight was made, beginning the factory tests, which were carried out by test pilot PM Stefanovski. The main engineer was IV Markov. Since the beginning of these tests, a certain number of defects and problems appeared, something logical for a new and complex aircraft, but very dangerous for the situation of its creators in their condition as detainees.

During the first landing, a construction error was found in the calculation of the shock absorbers in the main landing gear, which caused the aircraft to bounce during touchdown. Incredibly, according to Stefanovski himself, this mistake saved his life, because during the flight one of the engines had stopped and the plane was descending. Without having height coverage for maneuvers, he was forced to land in an area of the aerodrome where various support structures were located. The collision was unavoidable, but during touchdown the plane made a big jump when it touched down, flying over the obstacle. This problem was soon fixed. Far more difficult was solving the problems with the engines. The oil cooling system was ineffective at altitudes above 5,000 meters. The water temperature was also rising to intolerable levels.

Despite the replacement of the engines, oil pumps and other elements of the aircraft on two occasions, it was not possible to obtain the required height and speed characteristics. Nor were the requested values achieved in relation to the rate of ascent at great heights. The maximum speed obtained at 6600 meters only reached 538 km/h. The height of 1,000 meters with a normal flight weight of 7,265 kg was reached in 6.8 minutes.

During the factory tests between December 22, 1939 and April 10, 1940, the plane only managed to fly 11 days, making 23 flights. For 122 days it was in the workshops for different reasons, including serious repairs after landing on its belly due to not being able to extend the ski gear.

From April 11, 1940, state tests began at the NII VVS. The first prototype was again flown by PM Stefanovski and Major Nikitin served as navigator.

On May 1, 1940, the “100” was presented over Red Square on International Workers’ Day, piloted by PM Stefanovski, while the group of designers and builders watched the flight, not from the grandstand, but from the roof of the distant KOSOS building. As a curious detail, it should be noted that this flight was carried out with the landing gear extended, since Stefanovski simply forgot to pick them up.

The second prototype, known as the “dublior”, was flown by Captain AM Khrinkov and navigator PI Perievalov. This prototype differed in details from the first. In addition to the bomb cassettes, it had the capacity to carry bombs from 25 to 110 kg in an internal hold. This aircraft proved unsuccessful. During the eleventh test flight a spark from an electrical contact caused a fire in the cockpit. AM Khrinkov was forced, with practically no visibility due to smoke, to urgently land the plane, which, due to the large landing angle, capsized. The crew members were hospitalized with serious traumas and the machine was practically destroyed and several people died who were at the landing site for different reasons. The tests were continued with the first prototype.

In order to increase the directional stability of the model, the area of the vertical surfaces of the tail was increased by about a third (from 0.77 to 1 m²). The transverse stability of the plane was also considered insufficient and to increase it, it was considered to increase the sagging of the leading edge of the wing consoles (this would already be introduced in the serial Pe-2). With the flaps fully extended, landing was difficult, since there was not enough rudder travel to achieve the necessary angle. For this reason it was recommended not to fully extend the flaps and in the series models to modify the angle of incidence of the stabilizers.

The most dangerous problem registered during the tests was the behavior of the airfoil at speeds close to the landing speed. In order to develop high speeds at great heights, a TsAGI V profile was selected at the root and a TsAGI VS profile at the ends. This composition actually presented less aerodynamic resistance at small angles of attack, but when this angle increased (typical of landing operations) an asymmetric behavior of the airflow appeared.

The state tests comprised a total of 34 flights with a total time of 13 hours and 25 minutes culminating on May 10. In general, the results fully corresponded to the technical requirements, with the exception of the maximum speed. Despite the problems encountered, the assessment of the aircraft was generally positive.

flaps extended

The conclusive report reflected:
*1 – “The “100” aircraft represents the best achieved solution to the problem of creating an armed aircraft with a sealed cabin. It is necessary to build an experimental series…”
• 3 – “In order to use the successful aerodynamics of the “100” aircraft, it is advisable to create a dive bomber without a sealed cabin on its basis. It is necessary to build an experimental series. The model of this aircraft must be submitted for approval by 1 June 1940…”

This third point of the report would radically change the fate of the “100”. Before the direction of the aeronautical industry was the unresolved need to replace the obsolete Tupolev SB bomber. The Winter War with Finland, despite the fact that this country’s aviation could not be considered among the advanced in Europe, had demonstrated the obsolescence of the 1934 model and the need to have specific bombers capable of attacking specific targets.

As a result, together with the summary of the tests of the “100”, the resolution of the head of the VVS of the Red Army, commander of the second rank Smushkevich, appeared: “The act is approved with the introduction of a correction in the conclusions: the aircraft “100” in dive bomber version consider recommendable for serial construction”.

With the appearance of the PB-100 and the beginning of its delivery, already under the name Pe-2, to operational units, the high-altitude fighter VI-100 was consigned to oblivion. The pre-series of 10 copies, which had been approved in 1940, was never produced. Attempts by Petlyakov (1941) and later by Putilov (1943) to launch a high-altitude fighter version known as the Pe-2VI were unsuccessful.

VI-100 / 100
Powerplant: 2 × 1050 hp Klimov M-105 with TC-2 turbochargers
Wingspan: 17.15m
Wing área: 40.50 m²
Length: 12.69m
Height: 3.95m
Empty weight: 5172 kg
Takeoff weight: 7260 kg
Wing loading: 179 kg/m²
Power load: 3.3kg/hp
Maximum speed at sea level: 455 km/h
Top speed at 6000m: 535km/h
ROC: 588 m/min
Practical range: 1400 km
Practical ceiling: 12200 m
Accommodation: 2
Armament: 2 x 20mm ShVAK cannons / 3 x 7.62mm ShKAS machine guns.
Bomb load: 1000 kg

Petrolje Macchi M-5

Jason Petroelje’s first project, an Emeraude RG, was a 1979 Oshkosh award winner and a feature in the May 1980 EAA Sport Aviation magazine. Other airplane projects included two World War I reproductions for a museum.

“I was building a SPAD replica for them, and they mentioned the Macchi,” Petroelje said. “I didn’t know anything about the type, but when I looked into it I decided I really liked it.”

Jason Petroelje built his beautiful Macchi M.5 flying boat using only his left hand – the one hand he had to use after a stroke 10 years earlier. “I built this thing after I had the stroke,” Petroelje said about his three-quarter scale Macchi M.5 flying boat. He added, “I built it with my left hand.” It didn’t stop him, however, worked about 5,000 hours, day and night, in the cramped workshop next to his home on Hazel Avenue, turning out everything from the wing struts to the tiniest of fittings.

Petroelje’s Macchi, a type used as a fighter by the Italian forces in World War I, has the appearance of a fine, classic watercraft with a natural Honduran mahogany skin and a solid Brazilian rosewood instrument panel. The woods are both adorned with a deep, high gloss marine finish.

The control stick has a hand-carved Madagascan ebony handle, and thrust comes from a hand-laminated, hand carved cherry-and-birch propeller.

His little flying boat is three-quarter scale for a good reason. The reason for building the airplane in 7/8 scale is unique to seaplanes. Hangers next to the water with easy access are very rare. Jason had a friend who used to have a Volmer Sportsman. He had sold the airplane, but the hanger remained. Jason had to scale down the airplane to fit in this existing hanger.

No original drawings of the Macchi existed, so Petroelje had to create his own designs from a set of dimensions and from photographs. “I just went more by the dimensions,” Petroelje said of the plans, which he secured years ago for $40 from “WWI Aero” magazine.

A variation drawn from experience was a decision to scale the tail to 80 percent instead of 75 percent. Petroelje said the 75-percent version was just too small.

The hull of the seaplane varies from the original as well. Petroelje layered the bottom first with plywood, then foam, and finished it off with fiberglass. The modern bottom is more durable than the likely single-plywood layer of the original and should better tolerate the rigors of normal water operations. As for the mahogany finish, no color photos exist of the type, so that choice may well be artistic license on Petroelje’s part.

The wings of the plane fold back, a feature certainly not part of the original. But at three-quarter scale, the collapsed craft is only 8 feet wide, well within legal trailering limits. This has a more modern airfoil, a 4412 like on a Luscombe.

A modern air-cooled Lycoming powerplant provides the motive force. The radiator on Petroelje’s plane, necessary for the liquid-cooled powerplant on the original, is purely decorative.

The Macchi M.5 Italian fighter is mostly authentic, except for not sporting machine guns like those used during the plane’s heyday.

Registered as N216JP, to Jason Petroelje of Michigan, Eric Presten did the first three flights on the Macchi M-5.

The airplane performed well, but due to limited aileron travel, Presten was only able to do flights down the lake in ground effect on the first day. It has since been flown to altitude. It gets out of the water easily on only 125 hp. The missing outer struts are now installed. The landing gear shown is only a beaching gear, as the airplane is a true seaplane. Cruise speed for the craft is around 75 miles per hour.

The replica appeared at Oshkosh 2009.

Gallery

Engine: Lycoming 125-horsepower
Fuselage length: 24 feet
Wing span: 31 feet
Weight: 940 pounds
Cruising speed: Up to 70 mph
Fuel capacity: 12 gallons
Hours to build: About 5,000
Size of workshop: 18 by 24 feet

Petróczy-Kármán-Žurovec PKZ 1 / PKZ 2

After the PKZ 2 was modified in May 1918 and the 120 hp (89 kW) La Rhône engines installed

In 1916, Major Stephan Petróczy von Petrócz of the Austro-Hungarian Army envisioned replacing hydrogen-filled observation balloons with tethered helicopters. These helicopters would have been used as static observation platforms. Compared to hydrogen balloons, the helicopters’ were much less likely to catch fire, presented a smaller target for the enemy, increased operational readiness, required fewer ground and support crew, and eliminated the need for hydrogen generating equipment.

To achieve his goal, Petróczy, along with Oberleutnant Dr. Theodor von Kármán and Ingenieurleutnant Wilhelm Žurovec, conceived the Schraubenfesselflieger (S.F.F) mit Elektromotor (captive helicopter with electric motor). This machine is now commonly referred to as the Petróczy-Kármán-Žurovec 1 (PKZ 1) helicopter. Built in 1917 and primarily designed by von Kármán and Žurovec, the PKZ 1 consisted of a rectangular frame with an observation basket in the middle. On each side of the basket were two lift rotors. All four rotors were powered by a single 190 hp (142 kW) Austro-Daimler electric motor.

PKZ-1

The PKZ 1 was flight tested and was able to lift three men to a tethered height of 20 in (50 cm). However, the electric motor generated 50 hp (37 kW) less than anticipated, and on the fourth flight, the straining motor gave out. Because of the scarcity of high-grade electrical copper and quality insulation, Daimler was not able to repair the motor. In addition, the PKZ 2, which was originally known as the S.F.F. mit Benzinmotor (captive helicopter with petrol engine), was nearing completion. No further work was done on the PKZ 1.

PKZ 2 rotary engine arrangement with the 100 hp (75 kW) Gnomes installed

The PKZ 2 helicopter (for which he received German patent 347,578) was designed solely by Wilhelm Žurovec. The PKZ 2 was privately funded by the Hungarian Bank and the iron foundry / steel fabrication firm of Dr. Lipták & Co AG, who built the machine. The PKZ 2 utilized two two-blade contra-rotating rotors to cancel out torque and provide lift. The rotors, made of high-quality mahogany, were 19 ft 8 in (6.0 m) in diameter and were rotated at 600 rpm by three 100 hp (75 kW) Gnome rotary engines. A removable observation basket sat atop the rotors.

120 hp Oberusel powered

The craft had three outrigger legs; each supported one engine. All engines were connected to the rotors via a common gearbox. The PKZ 2 was supported by a central air cushion and three additional air cushions; one on each outrigger leg. These air cushions were filled by an air pump driven from the rotor drive. Attached to each outrigger was a tethering cable that was connected to the ground and controlled by an electric winch. With one hour of fuel, The PKZ 2 weighed 2,645 lb (1,200 kg).

PKZ 2 shown just off the ground and without the observation basket on 5 April 1918, powered by the 100 hp (75 kW) Gnome engines.

Tethered and unmanned, the PKZ 2 was test flown on 2 April 1918. After several flights, including one that lasted about an hour, tests were suspended on 5 April because of insufficient power from the Gnome engines. The engines were replaced by 120 hp (89 kW) La Rhône engine (that were captured and rebuilt) and, with a few additional modifications, tethered and unmanned flight tests resumed on May 17th. With the new engines and calm winds, an altitude of 165 ft (50 m) was achieved, and the PKZ 2 could lift 330–440 lb (150–200 kg). The craft would lose lift at higher altitudes, but the PKZ 2 was kept under control as long as tension remained on the tethering cables.

PKZ 2 in a tethered high hover with power provided by the 120 hp (89 kW) La Rhône engines on 10 June 1918

On 10 June 1918 the PKZ 2 was demonstrated for high ranking members of the military. A flight was made with the observation basket in place, but the engines were not running well and the craft became unstable. The basket was removed and another flight attempted. The wind had picked up, and as the PKZ 2 hovered at 40 ft (12 m) tethered to the ground, the craft began to rock. The overheating engines lost power, and the tether winch crew could no longer maintain control. The PKZ 2 crashed from a height of 6.5 ft (2.0 m), severely damaging the airframe and completely destroying the rotors.

Realizing the technical problems could not be overcome quickly, the government cancelled the project on 21 June 1918. However, Žurovec pressed on and began to design an individual cylinder water jacket to water-cool the rotary engines. The craft was being rebuilt to resume flight tests in November 1918 when the end of the war and revolution caused all development to cease. The PKZ 2 made over 15 tests flights, but it is doubtful any were manned.

Remains of the PKZ 2 after it crashed on 10 June 1918.

Petit Breezy

The Breezy is a high-wing monoplane with a standard tail. The Breezy takes 30 hp and has a tricycle type undercarriage. Sold as plans only.

Wingspan 30 ft
Wing area 150 sq.ft
Chord 5 ft
Aspect ratio 6:1
Length 15 ft
Empty weight 246 lbs
Pilot max weight 230 lbs
Cruise speed 38-40 mph
Stall speed 26 mph
Vmax 50 mph
Takeoff roll 175 ft
Climb rate 400 fpm

Peterson & Campbell

Lloyd H Peterson and Mark M Campbell
Los Angeles CA.
USA

In 1932 it was reported that Peterson & Campbell built a two-place, open cockpit, high-wing monoplane, powered by a 100hp Kinner K-5 engine.

Registered NX12273 c/n 1, Campbell had, on 2 January 1933, requested its Experimental license be cancelled as being “not fit to be flown.”

Owner Peterson later wrote CAA that he had no idea why the registration was cancelled. The two entered into a lawsuit, with the plane finally being sold 14 May 1935 to a R L McCreery with conditions that it would never again be sold, would never have a stress analysis or plans made, would never be licensed, and the wing and fuselage would be destroyed and junked.

McCleery notified CAA on 7 November 1935 that it had, indeed, been salvaged. He had ostensibly bought only an engine. CAA cancelled the registration on 7 November 1935.

It crashed on altitude record attempt and Peterson was killed.

Peterson 260SE/STOL

In the early 1980s Todd Peterson, having built numerous Cessna 182-based Wren 460s, decided to certify a new aircraft to replace the Wren. The new improved machine is known as the 260SE/Stol and came on stream during 1988.

This model retains the high lift canard wing and is powered by the TCM IO-470F engine. Special attention has been given to reducing drag from the undercarriage, forward fuselage, cowl and engine baffles and the canard. The canard wing consists of a fixed horizontal stabiliser and a movable elevator, just like a conventional tailplane, but mounted on the side of the engine cowling just behind the propel¬ler. It is push rod actuated and works in conjunction with the normal tail elevator but in the opposite sense. As the rear elevator moves up to raise the aircraft nose, the canard elevator moves down. The end result is a marked handling improvement especially in the low speed range and short field performance.

Base price: US$80,000 (conversion only); US$200,000 (conversion and aircraft)

Engine: TCM IO-470-F, 260 hp@2700@SL
TBO: 1500 hr
Fuel type: 100LL
Propeller: McCauley CS
Landing gear type: Tri/Fixed
Max ramp weight: 2950 lb
Gross weight: 2950 lb
Landing weight: 2950 lb
Empty weight, std: 1800 lb
Useful load, std: 1150 lb
Payload, full std. fuel: 622 lb
Usable fuel, std: 88 USG
Oil capacity: 12 qts
Wingspan: 36 ft. 0 in
Overall length: 28 ft. 1.5 in
Height: 9 ft. 2 in
Wing area: 174 sq. ft
Wing loading: 16.9 lbs./sq. ft
Power loading: 10.6 lbs./hp
Wheel base: 9 ft. 1 in
Wheel track: 9 ft. 1 in
Wheel size: 6.00 x 6 in
Seating capacity: 4
Cabin doors: 2
Cabin width: 42 in
Cabin height: 48.5 in
Baggage capacity: 200 lb
Max level speed: 153 kt
Cruise speed 75% power @ 6,500 ft: 150 kt
Cruise speed 65% power @ 6,500 ft: 145 kt
Cruise speed 55% power @ 6,500 ft: 138 kt
Max range (w/ reserve) 75% power: 849 nm
Max range (w/ reserve) 65% power: 918 nm
Max range (w/ reserve) 55% power: 1018 nm
Fuel consumption 75% power: 13.2 USgph
Fuel consumption 65% power: 12.0 USgph
Fuel consumption 55% power: 10.5 USgph
Stall speed (flaps up): 42 kt IAS
Stall speed (flaps down): 35 kt IAS
Best rate of climb (fpm): 1380
Service ceiling: 19,500 ft
Takeoff ground roll: 390 ft
Takeoff over 50-ft. obstacle: 705 ft
Landing ground roll: 390 ft
Landing over 50-ft. obstacle: 600 ft

Peterson Bijou

Roger F. Peterson built the Bijou in 1974 merely as a research vehicle to check out his theories. The all-wood single-seater has ground-adjustable stabilisers and variable-control elevons on the trailing edges of the lower wing, and ground-adjustable stabilisers on the upper wing.

The side wing panels are to keep the air from washing out due to the short, 8 ft 9 in, wingspan, as well as to help directional stability.

Bijou is towable on its gear and is powered by a 40 hp German JLO snowmobile engine.

Peterson Hi-Hopes

Peter Peterson of Davenport, Iowa, built this single-seater in one year at the cost of $1,800.

The Peterson Hi-Hopes N5960V was powered by an 85 hp Continental C-85 four-cylinder horizontal-opposed air-cooled engine, it was flown in September 1960. It had a wingspan of 20 ft. and was 17 ft. long.

Engine: 85 hp Continental C-85
Wingspan: 20’0″
Length: 17’0″
Useful load: 350 lb
Max speed: 135 mph
Cruise: 120 mph
Stall: 80 mph
Range: 360 mi
Seats: 1

Peterson 1910 Monoplane

Canadian Edward C. Peterson piloting his own modified Blériot XI type copy across Kelly’s race track at Fort William, Thunder Bay, Ontario, near the corner of Edward and Arthur streets. Reportedly the first monoplane built in Canada, unfortunately on this occasion the plane failed to leave the ground. A later report in 1911 stated Peterson did make a successful flight over the fields at Mission Island.