Design
The BTC-1 was conceived by the aviation entrepreneur F. C. "Bub" Merrill. He sensed there was a need for an airplane with competitive performance; an appealing price; smaller, less expensive engines; and made of low cost wooden construction, with little need for expensive tooling. Unfortunately, Merrill did not have the financial resources to turn his concept into reality.Skyways p. 14 In late 1935, he turned to Frank C. Bennett, then President of Bennett Oil Corporation, President of Federal Oil of Houston, Texas, and Vice-President of Bennett Oil and Gas of Lake Charles, Louisiana. Merrill's choice of Bennett as an investor was no accident or stroke of luck, as he knew that it was common for oil companies to invest in the development of airplanes, and frequently sponsored flights and other events to highlight the performance of their products. After Merrill's convincing presentation, Bennett joined Merrill in forming the Bennett Aircraft Corporation of Wilmington, Delaware. The aircraft was to be a twin-engine (called bimotored in the 1930s), eight-place mid-wing monoplane with a conventional tail unit and retractable landing gear. It was powered by two wing-mountedConstruction
The BTC-1 followed the basic design criteria of the 1930s for light transport aircraft. The American design philosophy of the time evolved around twin-engine, six to eight passenger, monocoque monoplanes. Airframe construction of the time was typically all-metal duraluminum with flight control surfaces covered with fabric. Favored engines were Jacobs, Wright and Pratt-Whitney in the 230 to 450 Horsepower range, per side. The one constant in the aviation industry at the time was escalating cost, which has continued to today.Skyways p. 21 The Bennett was built using two low cost methods, horsepower versus weight and materials advancement. The principal structural material was Duraloid, a plywood impregnated with resin and processed under a patented process. If the design criteria proved successful the BTC-1 could fly at competitive speeds with less power and at lower manufacturing costs.Fuselage
The internal fuselage structure of the BTC-1 was of built-up frames with alignment and load transfer through routed stringers. The Duraloid outer skin was bonded to this internal structure. It is not possible to determine the number and disposition of parting lines of the fuselage skin. However, if William Hawley Bowlus followed his own standard practice, entire sides from upper to lower center lines would have been molded as one piece. The average thickness of the skin would have been one quarter inch with additional laminations providing attaching points for the internal structure. Given the overall use of Duraloid throughout the airframe components it is reasonable to believe the bonding was accomplished using the Bakelite-based resin. When the two fuselage halves were mated and fully skinned, they were covered with a lightweight fabric covering material. In 1936 it would have been either cotton or linen doped over the Duraloid skin. Clear nitrate was used to bond and fill the fabric covering. The filling of the fabric weave would have been accomplished by mixing extra fine sawdust with the clear dope sanded smooth to the desired finish. This same process was followed throughout the aircraft. Many comments were made on the outstanding finish of the product. The interior layout of the fuselage suffered from the same obstruction as some of the earlier Lockheeds. The main spar and its related hump virtually separated the cockpit from the main cabin. This required two different entry doors, both requiring over-wing access.Skyways p. 22Wings
Given Bowlus's penchant for consistency, all-Duraloid construction is the most likely as there is no photographic or descriptive text indicating the wing to have been other than a fully monocoque cantilever structure. The main spar of the wing was fabricated as a full span tapered box. To this box spar was attached a formed leading edge forming a full span D-cell. The ribs were bonded to the aft face of the spar and to the upper and lower wing skins. This method of assembly would have resulted in a strong, light structure. The flap structure followed the same format as the wing and the aileron structure varied only in being fabric covered.Empennage
The vertical fin and horizontal stabilizers were fixed cantilever structures. The design followed the same practices as the wing structure, with additional thickness at the leading edge of the stabilizers as protection from ground damage. The rudder and elevators were of the same construction as the ailerons. Trim tabs were adjustable from the cockpit. Vance Breese was primarily referred to as the test pilot, but he was also acknowledged as a contributing designer of the Executive. The empennage of the BTC-1 was almost certainly a Breese design. When compared with the configurations of the Breese-Dallas, the Vultee model V-1, and the Vultee model 51, which became the BT-13 and 15, the planforms and ratios are virtually the same. Breese engineering skills contributed to all of those designs.Powerplant
The Executive was equipped with two 285 horsepower Jacobs seven cylinder L-5 radial engines. However, the performance figures quoted by the Bennett group were based upon anticipated performance of the aircraft using Jacobs 300 horsepower L-6 engines. Sales information provided also mentions anticipated use of the Wright R-760-E Whirlwind of 350 horsepower. There is no record of installation of either of the larger engine choices. The propellers were two-bladed Hamilton-Standard controllable pitch or constant speed units as an option. The engines used welded steel tube engine mount of 4130 Chrome-Molybdenum tubing and flat stock. It is reasonable to assume that load bearing members of the mount system extended far enough to transfer the torsion and tension loads into the main wing 3structure.Skyways p. 23Landing gear
The fully retractable main landing gear were welded steel and flat stock structures with single fork mounted Goodyear low pressure tires. The majority of the landing loads were absorbed through air-oil struts providing eight inches of travel. Landing gear retraction was hydraulically powered by an engine driven pump, or with emergency extension by gravity and a manually operated hand pump in the cockpit. The aircraft was equipped with a full swiveling tail wheel. There is no mention of the auxiliary wheel being retractable.Accommodations
The cockpit and passenger cabin were separated by the main wing spar. The cockpit had seating and controls for two; however, the right hand controls were noted as being easily removable, allowing a seventh passenger in lieu of the additional pilot. The passenger cabin provided seating for six in various configurations. There were provisions for luggage stowage in the aft cabin and in a smaller compartment in the nose of the aircraft.Doors
Entry into the cockpit and passenger cabin were from the upper surface of the wing center section. Access was through bi-fold doors latched at the bottom. Both doors were equipped with a center hinge allowing the doors, when opened, to lay folded onto the upper surface of the fuselage.Finish and appearance
The aircraft was painted in overall cream with trim lines and number in red. The outstanding appearance was of its smooth skin and excellent finish, a virtual trademark of William Hawley Bowlus.Specifications (BTC-1)
See also
References
Notes
Bibliography
* ''The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft'' (Part Work 1982–1985), 1985, Orbis Publishing, Page 1954External links
* The Bennett Aircraft Corporation Model BTC-1 Executive, ''Skyways''. January 2005 {{Globe Aircraft BTC-1 1930s United States civil utility aircraft Low-wing aircraft Aircraft first flown in 1937 Twin piston-engined tractor aircraft Aircraft with fixed conventional landing gear