IMAM Prototypes and Projects

[hesham]

Hi,


the IMAM Ro.25 was a single seat acrobatic trainer biplane,powered by
one 200 hp Lunx engine.


A very rare picture to Ro.25 is here;

 

[Jan den Das]

Re: IMAM Ro.25 acrobatic aircraft

Interresting.
Who knows/has more information/material concerning this aeroplane?
Jan

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the IMAM Ro.26 acrobatic trainer aircraft,with a floatplane version.


http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/libri/PDF_Libri_By_AVIA/Annuario%20dell'Aeronautica%20italiana%201934.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,


and a small info about Ro.6;


http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/libri/PDF_Libri_By_AVIA/Annuario%20dell'Aeronautica%20italiana%201934.pdf

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
IMAM Ro.51. Vertical tail stabilizer was radically small.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAM_Ro.51
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/ro51.html
https://www.modelimex.com/1-72-imam-romeo-ro-51-floats-italy

 

[rlucas]

You learn new thing shere every day, the IMAM Ro.25 is very interesting, a three view would be even better..

 

[hesham]

My dear Blackkite,

the IMAM Ro.58,Ro.43 & Ro.44 were not a Prototypes only,they entered a productions,so please follow the
title,we want IMAM only prototypes and projects.

 

[blackkite]

My dear Blackkite,

the IMAM Ro.58,Ro.43 & Ro.44 were not a Prototypes only,they entered a productions,so please follow the
title,we want IMAM only prototypes and projects.

Ok my dear hesham.

 

[hesham]

The Ro.26;

http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/periodici/PDF%20Riviste/Ala%20d'Italia/L'ALA%20D'ITALIA%201932%2007.pdf

 

[javierarg]

Dear, Hesham (and to all the friends of the forum, too), sorry I know it's been a long time, more than 6 years, and I still can't find the three views of the IMAM Ro.45, just a photo of a colleague who gave me the Aerofan magazines and the IARB. Any information on where to find them or get them will be appreciated!

 

[hesham]

Dear Javierarg,

here is all Info about IMAM Ro.45;

Ro 45 : A revised Ro.37, powered by a 611 kW (820 hp) Isotta-Fraschini Asso XI R.C.40 engine. Maximum speed was boosted to 325 km/h (202 mph; 175 kn), ceiling to 000 m (0 ft) and range to 2,250 km (1,398 mi; 1,215 nmi). Designed for long-range reconnaissance and light bombing, the single prototype was 10.37 m (34 ft) long, with a 12.32 m (40 ft) span and first flew on 10 December 1935.

 

[javierarg]

Thanks for your opinion. I wanted to ask you... what do you think? If I only change the engine with respect to the Ro37...this photo allows us to suppose from the cut of the nose...where the pilot is at the height of the first upright...modify the 3 views that we all know and with a good profile picture get proportions to make a 3V attempt of the Ro.45.
will it be stupid? be free to comment!

 

[Apophenia]

Thanks for your opinion. I wanted to ask you... what do you think? If I only change the engine with respect to the Ro37...this photo allows us to suppose from the cut of the nose...where the pilot is at the height of the first upright...modify the 3 views that we all know and with a good profile picture get proportions to make a 3V attempt of the Ro.45.
will it be stupid? be free to comment!

Javierarg: Going by hesham's dimensions, the Ro.45 had both a longer fuselage (10.37 m versus 8.62 m for the Fiat A.30-powered Ro.37) and greater span (12.32 m vs 11.08 m). The longer fuselage makes sense - both accounting for the greater length of the Asso XI R.C.40 (2.128 m vs 1.75 m for the A.30) and weight (dry 594 kg vs 480 kg).

Based on your photo of the Ro.45, the fuselage extension appears to be between the cabane struts (note the gap, whereas the Ro.37 had simple 'N' cabanes). The span increase is harder to gauge by that photo. My guess would be added ribs and spar length inboard of the bracing struts.

 

[javierarg]

it's very frustrating!!There is no documentation on IMAM Romeo... I think it is due to how these types of companies ended up being absorbed by others from another type of field. thanks for commenting.

 

[iverson]

Thanks for your opinion. I wanted to ask you... what do you think? If I only change the engine with respect to the Ro37...this photo allows us to suppose from the cut of the nose...where the pilot is at the height of the first upright...modify the 3 views that we all know and with a good profile picture get proportions to make a 3V attempt of the Ro.45.
will it be stupid? be free to comment!

I just took a look at the photos that I have of both the Ro.37 and Ro.37bis. I do not see much resemblance other than general arrangement: everything on the Ro.45 looks larger. Note the way that the upper landing-gear strut meets the fuselage, for example.

 

[hesham]

Thanks for your opinion. I wanted to ask you... what do you think? If I only change the engine with respect to the Ro37...this photo allows us to suppose from the cut of the nose...where the pilot is at the height of the first upright...modify the 3 views that we all know and with a good profile picture get proportions to make a 3V attempt of the Ro.45.
will it be stupid? be free to comment!

That's a good idea Javierarge,

and here is a profile to it.

 

[javierarg]

Thanks for your opinion. I wanted to ask you... what do you think? If I only change the engine with respect to the Ro37...this photo allows us to suppose from the cut of the nose...where the pilot is at the height of the first upright...modify the 3 views that we all know and with a good profile picture get proportions to make a 3V attempt of the Ro.45.
will it be stupid? be free to comment!

That's a good idea Javierarge,

and here is a profile to it.

thanks hesham, from Thomson, is the photo? ..did you see how weird the upper plane is? looks like a "gull simile" or a curved arch..

 

[hesham]

thanks hesham, from Thomson, is the photo? ..did you see how weird the upper plane is? looks like a "gull simile" or a curved arch..

That's right Javierarg.

 

[Apophenia]

... did you see how weird the upper plane is? looks like a "gull simile" or a curved arch..

I don't think the Ro.45 upper wing was gulled. Your photo in reply #10 shows that the wing centre-section is 'flat' (compared with dihedralled outer panels).

Perhaps the rather bulbous generator housing confuses matters? The scalloped trailing edge over the cockpit could add to the illusion of a gulled surface.

On a minor point, note that the Ro.45's generator housing was centrally-mounted ... whereas, on the Ro.37, the generator was mounted just outboard of the forward strut of the starboard cabanes.