An historic take off. Oxnard, California, July 17, 1953 and the CCW-5, Custer Channel Wing (5th model) its basic fuselage and empennage, modified from a Bauman Brigadier pusher, lifts off after a mere 100 ft. roll. Unfortunately for Custer and the future of Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) aircraft, the CCW-5's amazing capabilities were not fully exploited at the time. Yet, no matter how his channel wing concept fares, Willard Custer has made a significant contribution both to American aviation and folklore.

Caption 1: Almost 40 years ago, his fedora tightly clamped on his head, Willard Custer shows off an early model of his invention. Two Herkimer gasoline engines powered the craft, which was used to demonstrate his lifting principle to prospective stockholders.
Caption 2&3: Square channels are evident here; wings are also tilted, an idea dropped on subsequent models. Note that 1/4 horsepower engines are mounted in tractor position. The model is still in existence.
Caption 4&5: Plan view of Custer's first flying Channel Wing, the CCW-1. Built in 1943, it reflects aerodynamic styling of time. A master woodworking craftsman, as well as inventor and engineer, Custer built the CCW-1 himself.

Top: Side view of the CCW-1, rolled out behind Custer's combination laboratory/office/workshop. Fuselage was a wooden monocoque type. Noteworthy is unusual empennage, one of several versions tested.

Middle: Head on view shows unusual channels, large amount of dihedral in the wings, ultra simple landing gear, streamlined cockpit area.

Bottom Left: Rear view shows placement of engine/propeller combination at the mid point of the channel, and the fact that wing is nonexistent over channel section, despite appearance from front.

Bottom Right: This in-flight photo was taken at Beltsville, Maryland, in 1943. CCW-1 has new empennage. Aircraft logged some 300 hours of flight time, mostly in straight forward, low level hops. Wartime restrictions prevented more extensive testing.

Caption 1&2: Information derived from tests of the CCW-1 and related government experiments on the channel wing led to the CCW-2, which was intended purely as an engineering test bed. A Taylorcraft fuselage was fitted with two large channels, shorter, and with the propeller just shaving the rear of the channel. Custer designed his own propellers. Taylorcraft, incidentally, later planned to manufacture channel wing aircraft, but the deal, like so many others, fell through.

Caption 3: The National Aircraft Company was formed to handle Custer's patents and market the aircraft. Here the firm's president, Frank D. Kelley poses at controls of CCW-1. Custer is at right; note that no wings at all are mounted, but that aircraft has gone from tri-gear to conventional arrangement. Tail down attitude helped in that propellers gave a vector of vertical as well as horizontal thrust. In its simplest terms, movement of air, or as Custer phrases it, "the speed of the air" moving through large channels, drastically reduces air pressure there, while the atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the channels creates lift.

Caption 4: Under pressure from C.A.A., Custer added short stub wings to CCW-2. Harold R. Custer, who has over 1000 hours of channel wing time, is shown flying the aircraft.

Somewhat cleaned up, the CCW-2 demonstrated vertical lift while tethered in a no wind condition.

Caption 6: This helicopter-like flight took place on December 7, 1951; but demonstration of hovering flight may actually have hurt rather than helped, for the aircraft was not designed to hover, and did not have control surfaces which would have permitted control in a hover. Yet test evaluations were often couched in terms of criticism of the fact that the CCW-2 could not be "controlled in hovering flight", missing the point that it was its remarkable STOL capability that was really being offered.

Caption 7: The CCW-2, further refined, in the Langley wind tunnel. The NACA Research Memorandum RM 153A09 by Jerome Pasamanick has been widely criticized for the conclusions drawn from the recorded test evidence, which missed real potential of Custer's concept.

The Custer legend was probably helped promotionally, but hurt in terms of engineering credibility by a host of designs which had rather optimistic performance figures quoted for them.

Top two photos show a small light plane design with and without wings.

Bottom Right: a twin boomed "family car" machine with single channel installed behind cockpit.

Bottom Left: A successful control line model was made using the concept illustrated in photo to its right.

Caption 1: Custer persisted, and in a clever move utilized the Baumann Aircraft Company's "Brigadier" as a basis for a five passenger full sized prototype. The Brigadier was a pusher, and lent itself well to the channel wing configuration. It is shown, aloft, approaching the Potomac River at Williamsport, Md.

Caption 2: Basic fuselage and empennage of Brigadier were retained. Note how propellers are shrouded by channels; it would be difficult to walk into the propellers, especially with the cabin door placed well forward. Photo was taken February 12, 1953, at Oxnard, California.

Caption 3: In head on view, the additional drag inherent in channel wing design is apparent. Custer claims that induced drag is not as great as would appear, because of effect of slipstream drawn through channel, but most disagree with this.

Caption 4: Prototype went through typical test regime, with changes made as problems developed. Note change in nacelle here; it has been extended forward, and its cooling inlet size reduced.

Upper view shows how channel structure was attached at a bulge in the fuselage side; this was reduced in follow on aircraft which was built from ground up.

Rear view of aircraft is not often seen. Note placement of propeller next to channel, inboard aileron, pronounced bulge at each edge of channels.

Caption 1&2: Flight testing was conducted at Hagerstown, Maryland, primarily because it was closer to Custer's home and to the principal investors. Aircraft has been criticized for excessively nose-high attitude on takeoff and landing, but that is not noticeable here. Harold R. Custer does demonstrate some unusually short take-offs and landings, but in normal operation, these would not be required.

Caption 3: The prototype CCW-1 at left, and the first production CCW-5 at right. Aircraft appear outwardly to be identical, but there are numerous differences. Principle difference is prototype was a conversion, while production aircraft was built from ground up. Note reduced drag of more slender channels on production aircraft.

Caption 4: In this photo it is obvious how closely tailored propeller is to rear of channel. This is an absolutely critical factor in CCW designs.

Top: Aircraft was built from ground up in Hagerstown, using employees temporarily furloughed from nearby Fairchild plant. Workmanship is excellent.

Bottom: Custer, through the years, always with a smile and a hat. Fairings still need to be applied to engine nacelle struts but, by any measure, this is a good looking airplane.

Two views of the exquisitely worked CCW-5. Engines are Continental 10 470s with Hartzell propellers.

Caption 9: Three views of first production CCW-5.

Caption 1&2: Interior of Prototype CCW-5 (Photo 1). Compare with Spartan production version (Photo 2).

Caption 3: After flight testing, FAA required that the horizontal surface be moved up to location shown here. Custer complied, but with reservations, for it actually helped the take-off performance to have the elevators placed low, so that slipstream would not so readily bounce off the runway against it, tending to force nose down. FAA certification tests were undertaken at Linden, New Jersey.

Caption 4: The prototype CCW-5 was dismantled. This aircraft is currently awaiting refurbishment for another series of tests.

Caption 5: Here is a proposed CCW, an artist's conception of a transport STOL, the CCW-12 by Tom Boardman.

Top: Runway view of a CCW-5 take-off, after a 300 foot roll.

Bottom: A jet taxi CCW-8 -- a very nice looking proposal. At present, with a great deal of competition surrounding the choice of a new STOL transport for the Air Force (either the Douglas YC-15 or the Boeing YC-14) it is obvious that Custer's concepts have been taken seriously in many quarters.