Direzione Costruzioni Aircraft and Projects ?

Hi,


that's Italian designer or this company,created many aircraft and projects,DC.6 was a light aircraft, DC.10 was a observation seaplane project,who know more about his series ?.

I remember something called Direzione delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (DCA), a governative organization with many head offices located in main italian cities.

visvirtusvoluntas said:

I remember something called Direzione delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (DCA), a governative organization with many head offices located in main italian cities.

Click to expand...

Me too

Yes my dears,I remember that,


but I heard also the DC.4 and DC.5,both were powered by 80 hp Le Rhone engine,
but I am not sure about this ?.

hesham said:

Yes my dears,I remember that,


but I heard also the DC.4 and DC.5,both were powered by 80 hp Le Rhone engine,
but I am not sure about this ?.

Click to expand...

It means that both aircrafts were very old designs, probably at the end of 10's and start of 20's of XX century.

No my dear Archippepe,


the DC.5 and DC.6 were from 1930s as I expected,and for DC.10,it was intended
to compete Piaggio P.124;


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12439.msg172894.html#msg172894

Hi,

also the same thing for this company,we know only DC.4,DC.5,DC.6 & DC.10,does
anyone hear about its other aircraft and Projects or know its designer ?.

Dear Hesham,

thank you for the update, I really miss those data.

Ciao
Giuseppe

hesham said:

No my dear Archippepe,


the DC.5 and DC.6 were from 1930s as I expected,and for DC.10,it was intended
to compete Piaggio P.124;


http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12439.msg172894.html#msg172894

Click to expand...

My dear Archippepe,

the Info from Internet about them is gone,we must make anther good search.

Hi,

is there anything about it in JAWA ?.

The DC.6 should be the same of C.6 falchetto - if despite my age I remember well there was a general arrangement drawing on Aerofan.

ermeio said:

The DC.6 should be the same of C.6 falchetto - if despite my age I remember well there was a general arrangement drawing on Aerofan.

Click to expand...

Thank you my dear Ermeio,

and it was in Aerofan issue # 48.

ermeio said:

The DC.6 should be the same of C.6 falchetto - if despite my age I remember well there was a general arrangement drawing on Aerofan.

Click to expand...

My dear Ermeio,

it's not,the C.6 falchetto was for CANSA and DC-6 is different ?.

AFAIK they could and should be the same...
but my knowledge on these subjects is limited to info that I have at hand and that could be retrieved on the net.
The arcane is that DGA is the General Aeronautical Department (a technical office at the ministry, more or less) and they issued a specification for a light aircraft (a call for proposal). The Cansa factories designed the C.6 so they could be the same aircraft. C.6 is of the late thirties

A picture of the Falchetto http://www.aviastore.it/?p=4802

From Wiki Pedia: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANSA_C.6_Falchetto#:~:text=Il CANSA C.,anni quaranta del XX secolo.

On November 24, 1940, the Directorate General for Aeronautical Construction (DGCA) issued a requirement relating to a biplane, single-seat, fixed-gear training aircraft, equipped with full aerobatic characteristics, even in inverted flight, and which could also have a version two-seater. The single-seat aircraft had to have the following characteristics: maximum speed of 250 km/h, stall speed of 80 km/h, climb to 3 000 m in 10', range of 500 km, and landing on an 8 m obstacle in 300- 350 m. Furthermore, the two-seater version had to have a range of 200-300 km to allow navigation training. On January 23, 1941, the DGCA communicated to the Projects Committee that five proposals for acrobatic aircraft had arrived from as many companies, all equipped with an Isotta-Fraschini Beta engine. These were the Caproni-Predappio Ca.605 (single-seater) and Ca.606 (two-seater), Breda Ba.205, Saiman 207B and CANSA C.6 Falchetto.

Designed by the engineer Giacomo Mosso, the mockup of the C.6 Falchetto was presented to the DGCA on 11 December 1940. It was an aircraft derived from the previous C.5, equipped with modern construction techniques such as the transfer of the horizontal tail planes, and the interchangeability between wings and upper and lower ailerons, built entirely with national timber . On 23 January 1941 the DGCA gave a favorable opinion on the C.6, attributing a safety coefficient of 12, and observing that the wings of equal span gave safety during inverted flight. An increase of 2 m2 in the wing surface was requested, which reduced the wing load to 50 kg/m2 for the single-seater version and 55 kg/m2 for the two-seater version, an increase in the surfaces of the ailerons, a lowering of the height of the fuselage to in order to improve the visibility of the pilot, with a consequent increase in the length of the fuselage. Furthermore, a single fuel tank placed in a barycentral position was adopted, and a small supplementary tank placed in the central plane of the upper wing, increased the distance of the tail planes from the airframe to improve its aerodynamic efficiency, some tweaks to the design, and for reasons of economy a tail skid was adopted instead of the wheel. The flight characteristics developed by the Superior Direction for Studies and Experiences were better than those expected by the company, and in this situation CANSA was invited to design the two-seater version.
During the 58th meeting of the Projects Committee it was agreed to equip the Regia Aeronautica with an advanced aerobatic training aircraft.On March 24, 1941, General Francesco Pricolo authorized the construction of two prototypes each of the Breda 205, CANSA C.6, and SAIMAN 207.
Technical description:
Biplane, single-engine, two-seat trainer aircraft.[1] The wings were of equal span, both fitted with ailerons, and both wings and ailerons were interchangeable. The fuselage was entirely made of wood and covered with canvas.[4] The tail was of the classic single stem type, with unbraced horizontal planes.[4] The landing gear was of the classic tricycle type, with the main wheels covered by a hood, and integrated at the rear by a tail skid.[4]

Two-seater, equipped with two open cockpits in tandem, the front one for the pilot and the rear one for the student, equipped with a windscreen.[4]

Propulsion was entrusted to an in-line Isotta-Fraschini Beta RC.10 6-cylinder air-cooled engine, delivering a power of 280 HP and driving a two-blade wooden propeller.[1] The weight of the engine was equal to 285 kg. [2]

Operational use
The prototype of the C.6B (Biposto), serial number MM.464, flew for the first time in Cameri, in the province of Novara, on 30 June 1941, in the hands of test pilot Fausto Moroni.Problems immediately emerged with the Isotta Fraschini Beta R.C.10 engine, which proved difficult to set up.In August, the test driver Moroni attempted to transfer the first prototype to the Experimental Center of Guidonia. During the flight there was an engine failure above the Cisa pass, in an area where bad weather was raging. Unable to make an emergency landing, the pilot jumped with a parachute, abandoning the plane. However, Moroni had flown many hours on the C.6, reporting a good impression of it, and considering it successful for the task to which it had been assigned.The second prototype (MM.475) was transferred to Guidonia on 6 May 1942, but was lost during a subsequent test flight carried out by marshal pilot Bertolini, seconded to t he Technical Surveillance Office of Cameri, with a lieutenant engineer of the G.A.r.i. Due to an engine failure, the aircraft, which was making an approach to the runway, ended up against trees on the edge of the airport, suffering irreparable damage. None of those on board were injured.

Thank you my dear Ermeio,

but that's confusing me,the Direzione delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (DCA) was not related to the Directorate General for Aeronautical Construction (DGCA),and if they are he same,what was DC series,specially DC-10 ?!.

hesham said:

...the Direzione delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (DCA) was not related to the Directorate General for Aeronautical Construction (DGCA ...

Click to expand...

But, actually, the D.C.A. and D.G.C.A. are connected.

I think what ermeio is suggesting is that any 'designs' emanating from the D.C.A. were simply notions aimed at industry to depict roughly what the Regia Aeronautica had in mind. (More on that later.) That said, a D.G. and a Direzione are not the same thing. Perhaps part of the terminology confusion here is over rankings of bureaucratic institutions?

If I have it right, during the era of the Regia Aeronautica, that ministerial ranking would be:

- Direzioni Generale (D.G., or General Directorates);
-- Along with a Direzioni Superiore (D.S. or Ispettorati/Inspectorates)
- Sezioni (Sections);
- Direzioni (Directorates);
- Uffici Generale (General Offices); and
- Sezioni Territoriali (Territorial Sections); etc.

So, our ranking of interest would be something like:

- Ministero della Difesa (1920-23) or Ministero dell'Aeronautica (1923-47) ->
- Direzione Generale delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (D.G.C.A.) ->
- Direzione delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (D.C.A.) ->
- Ufficio Generale Coordinamento Tecnico ->
- Sezioni Territoriali

Of course, the above doesn't account for all the bureaucratic shuffling/evolution during that period. This gets most complex when dealing with what becomes the Direzione delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche. And, here, it is critical to understand that the D.C.A. had at least four branches. Below is a rough timeline:

1923 - D.S. del Genio e Costruzioni Aeronautische (Senior Directorate of Aeronautical Engineering and Construction) - inherited by the RA from the Corpo Aeronautico.

1923 - Sub-units Sezioni Territoriali del Genio e delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (Territorial Sections of the Genio and Aeronautical Constructions). These were:
-- Sezione Territoriali del Genio e delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche di Milano; and
-- Sezione Territoriali del Genio e delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche di Torino

1923 - 13 July; corpo di Genio Aereonautico (G.A.) formed

1925* - Rebranding of the Sezioni Territoriali del Genio e delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche
- Now Sezioni el Genio Aeronautico (so, Aeronautical Engineering Sections);
-- Sezione el G.A. di Milano and Sezione el G.A. di Torino
-- * Dates conflict; Difensa lists both 1925 and 1927 as dates for this change.

192? - Sezione el G.A. di Napoli created.
-- NB: Also Padova and Roma sections (but these aren't relevant to the then still-future D.C.A.)

1931 - Ministero dell'Aeronautica Sezioni become Direzioni (Directorates)

1937 - Direzione formally named Direzione delle Costruzioni Aeronautiche (D.C.A.)
-- D.C.A. di di Milano; D.C.A. di Torino; D.C.A. di Napoli; D.C.A. di Bologna

I'm not sure how useful the above is but I hope that it makes clear that the D.C.A. was a ministerial directorate rather than an incorporated company. That said, it is also worth noting that a predecessor - the Servizio Aeronautico-era Direzione tecnica dell'aviazione militare had included the Stabilimento costruzioni aeronautiche (S.C.A.). Make of that what you will.

Ok sister Apophenia,

but clearly mentioned DC-10,I can put it under what ?.

hesham said:

Ok sister Apophenia,

but clearly mentioned DC-10,I can put it under what ?.

Click to expand...

At a guess, I would say that D.C.A. concepts were akin to studies done by the USAAC's Material Division at Wright Field. Material Division's object was to investigate potential layouts and concepts for industry to further develop - possibly into prototypes which industry could then build to meet future Air Corps' requirements.

Of course, that analogy will not be an exact model for the D.C.A. For example, corporatism - la terza via fascista - must also be allowed for. (Although, corporativismo was probably satisfied by the concentrated arrangement of the Italian aircraft industry.)

The real challenge for you is to determine which of the four active D.C.A. branches devised these numbered D.C. concepts. And, secondarily, were any such concepts ever taken up by industry for development?

BTW: Il mio pronome personale è lui

Nice answer,but can we say the DC-10 was from CANSA,as C 4,5 & 6 ?.

hesham said:

Nice answer,but can we say the DC-10 was from CANSA,as C 4,5 & 6 ?.

Click to expand...

Sorry, no clue.

Hi,

by the way,there was another firm,called; Direzione delle Costruzioni Navale

hesham said:

by the way,there was another firm,called; Direzione delle Costruzioni Navale

Click to expand...

Not a "firm" in any sense.

As covered in reply #17, the Direzioni were ministerial directorates ... in other words, governmental offices. That reply was an attempt to flesh-out statements by visvirtusvoluntas, archipeppe, and ermeio.

So, Direzione delle Costruzioni Navale would be akin to a 'Naval Construction Directorate' in English.