• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Ing. Campini projects

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
14
Campini CS3. 3 Isotta Fraschini L121 inline engines driving propellors. Outer engines drive burners like CC2. Central engine provides supercharging for others above 5000m. Project from 1939.

Picture No.1 GA of CS.3
Picture No.2 section view of CS.3 and CS.4

Source: Aerofan



 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Ah, ah, you're threading my territory.... ;D

Campini designed two aircraft in late 1941-early 1942 using his "jet" engine (really a compressed air ducted fan, sometime with an afterburner, "motoreattore" in Italian). The two presented by famous Commander De Bernardi in March 1942 to Air Ministry. They were "freezed" on April 2nd until September waiting for the extensive test done on the Caproni-Campini. In October the official report on the tests was quite positive... Later the Projects Commitee was convened and, nothing happened... :(. It seems that Campini proceeded on its own, reaching an agreement with Caproni to build two prototype of two new bomber designs (this happened in March 1943). He tryed to contact Filippo Zappata (former CANT, now Breda) to re-engine the BZ-303 with two motoreattori withiout afterburners. BZ-303 never flew, so again nothing came.aternatively, the BZ-303 would received turboprops... (Germans???)
Data of the projects: Bomber: span 19,4m, wing area 50 sqm, structural weight 4950 kg, fuel-armament-pilots-lubricants,etc 3420 kg, crew 3, defensive weapons six machine guns 12,7 mm (2400 rounds), bombs 1000 kg, max speed 750 km/h, range 1500 km. Fighter (beware, the front view is at a different scale!!) span 12,3 m, wing area 19,78 sqm, structuiral weight 2140 kg, crew-etc 1110 kg, weapons 4 machne guns 12,7 mm (2000 rounds) 2 guns 20 mm (150 rounds), max speed 850 km/h (mmmmm... seems improbable), range 600 km, crew 1.

The motoreattori were driven by a DB-605 (fighter) or two (bomber). Both the planes used afterburners.


Source Rivista Italiana di Difesa (italian edition of Military Technology, with a more "historical" twist at times) October 1993.
 

Attachments

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
7
Gentlemen,

This is great...

Thanks.
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
14
Excellent Skybolt, never heard of those two before.

The correct description for Campini's engine would be turboramjet I think. At low speeds the air is compressed by the 3stage axial compressor driven by the L121 or other engine. The air then passes over the hot engine, expanding just like a normal "jet" before flowing rearwards down a nozzle. The afterburners come after the engine to give more thrust. At higher speeds, Campini intended the engine to be turned off and dynamic compression and the burners to take over, yielding a higher efficiency.

Do you happen to have reliable performance figures for the CC.2?
Most sources give a speed of 330km/h@3000m with a service ceiling of 4000m or so. However Storia Militaire states that Mario De Bernardi with CC.2 "easily touched 500 km/h at 5800 mts during trials in 1942" Which would lead me to believe that the first flights in 1940 were to prove that it could fly, not how well.

Maybe Czech turboprops for the BZ303
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
The official report by the Centro Sperimentale in Guidonia was numbered 72 and dated October 8 1942. I think is easier to find it in the American archives than in Italian ones. An earlier report by Capt. Prof. Luigi Crocco, date 22 September 1942 stated that the C.C-2 gave a 20 per cent improvement in speed for a given installed power but with higher fuel consumption. I'll try to find absolute figures (on Friday probably I'll have some hard data)
 

raravia

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
90
Reaction score
2
Amazing....such a fantastic projects...i mean, very advanced for this time.

Raravia
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Yes, what Italian aero desgner lacked was engines, then engines, and finally engines...And the companies lacked experince in large-scale all-metaòl structures and complex program management. for series production . The record-setting times of the 20's and 30's, until circa 1936, made us believe that we were ahead in aeronautics, so we sort of set on a cruise speed, while the others were accelerating. Already in 1938 Italian airlines were trying to buy airliners from a US company (and Air Ministry seriously considered the B-17 as a front-line bomber). Even in seaplanes, there was almost an agreement with Convair for the transatlantic line... And in Italy there were some real geniiouses in seaplane design...
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
14
The max speed of the fighter at 850km/h doesn't seem too improbable. By my calculations it'll need about 1000kgf to reach that speed. The CC.2 gave 750kgf from 900hp, so scaling this up to the DB605 and you've got 1000kgf easily. Having two sets of burners, one in each nacelle makes this easier to achieve. Now how they managed an empty weight of 2140kg I have no idea, unless the 730kg DB605 isn't included in this figure.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
I think IS included. Little more than a ton accounting for fuel, lubricants, hydraulics, pilot and ammunition is too low. Probbaly they devised an all aluminium construction... or Campini was simply bluffing... The weight of the bomber is equally too low (1500 KGs for the two DBs...)
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
mmm, postwar? Only project of jet fighters in Italy during wartime was a composite propulsion Re2005 and an idea of Reggiane using a Jumo. And both are disputed.
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
14
Schematic of Re 2005R with Campini turbine - not a proper jet engine. A prototype was meant to have been nearly complete by 1943 iirc

Schematic of Ca 183 propulsion system and cutaway of Re 2007

The image I posted before was from Illustrated London News 1940. I'm guessing that they heard of the first flight of a jet propelled aircraft (the CC.1) and had their artist put something together for print. There are a number of features prominent from Campini's patent in that drawing.

Reggiane 2007? I'm really not sure. Caproni defnitely ordered 2xJumo engines from Germany. Theres no issue with the swept wings, Italy having the world's only supersonic wind tunnels at Guidonia. It fits in well with the ideas proposed at the Aero conference at Volta in 1936.

Joe, for artists impressions of the Re 2007 have a search on google.
 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Yep. The Re 2007 (THIS Re 2007) is a notorious fake. It was put up by an Italian aviation writer with complicity of former chief-designer of Reggiane in late '60s... If you are interested I have full explanation... The purpose on the two Jumos has not been explained. Caproni archives are in superb condition (the old Countess Caproni owns them...) but no hint has ever been found there. Probably Reggiane THOUGHT of some jet project, but surelly wasn't this Re2007.

The Italian secret service wa very active planting "news" in foreign press. They even had published the "plans" for a strike against Manhattan...
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Campini fighter design prev illustrated, do you have a confirmation of any of its dimensions?
Sorry, only "hard" dimension I have is the span (12,3 m)...
 

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Skybolt, I would be interested in the Re2007 explanation, please. What do you need? e-mail address?
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
7
The illustration shown us by Red Admiral was also published in an
article by 'Flight' of October 9th of 1941 and mentioned
as a pure hypothetical jet propelled aircraft based on the available info.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Tracked down performance data from the 1942 tests. Here they are:

Max speed without burners: at 3000 m and 1740 RPM --- 325 km/h
at 4050 m and 2300 RPM ---316,5 km/h
Max sped with burners at 3000 m and 2020 RPM ------------ 359,5 km/h

Max practical altitude 4000 m

fuel consumption by buirners only ---- 25,5 liters/minute (fuel was 500 liters)

Range 475 KM

Take-off distance 800 m

Rise-speed at take-off 0,70 m/sec
Rise speed from 0 to 1000 m with burners 1,84 m/sec
Rse speed from 1000 to 4000 m without burners 1,15 m/sec

As for the Re 2007 story (not history), since there is a lot on interest, I'll start a topic tomorrow.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
7
already looking forward... :)
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
14
Thanks for the performance data. Got to wonder where that 500km/h figure in Storia Militaire comes from...
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Not from the test report... Could be that De Bernanrdi tried a dive. Today I found a 1948 article by Ing. Campini himself confirming that the max calculated speed of CC.2 was about 400 KM/h at 4000 m. There were two basic problem with the design, both coming from the reciprocating engine used to drive the turbine: first, the engine used was notoriously prone to fluctuations in performance at maximum power; second, there was no system for compensating of reduced air pressure in altitude, so over 4000 m the engine rapidly losed power.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
In the already mentioned Ing.Campini 1948 article (first after 10 years...) I found this 1940 project for a twin-engine motoreattore plane. Data are: wingspan 18,8 m; wing surface 48 sqm; wing loading 175 Kg/sqm; take-off run 500 m; range at 10000 m 3000 km, cruise speed at 10000 m 750 KM/h; max speed at 10000 m 1050 KM. The last two are most improbable, expecially the max speed (aerodinamically the plane is very conservative and I don't think possible for itto reach transonic speeds...). The motoreattori were to be driven by 1350 HP engines (a couple of Piaggio ?). Campini said he was thinking of developing (he said: I started developing, um, um, um, Ing., don't even try to make us believe it...) a 3000 HP-equivalent gas-turbine fror this aircraft, hoping to reach 950 KM/h cruise speed and 1250 (supersonic....) at 10000 m. Well, forget about it.
 

Attachments

smurf

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
I found this 1940 project for a twin-engine motoreattore plane.
Not knowing too much about compressibility effects, designers in 1940 could be very optimistic about the speeds extra power might bring. Miles Aircraft had some projects for 500 mph+ with horribly thick wings. Don't be too hard on Campini
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Campini was a genius But in 1948 he could well have known... ;) He epxressely cites the X-1 flight of late 1947...
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,363
Reaction score
40
He tryed to contact Filippo Zappata (former CANT, now Breda) to re-engine the BZ-303 with two motoreattori withiout afterburners. BZ-303 never flew, so again nothing came.aternatively, the BZ-303 would received turboprops...
I found a Breda B.Z.303 3-view drawing at Flaps magazine Number 188. Mr. Salvador Rello, the magazine director and founder, wrote a comprehensive series about Regia Aeronautica aircraft.
 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Yes, this was the piston driven one, a derivative of the 301 (in turn a derivative of the CANT Z-1018). The Breda Zappata's projects from 301 to 304 included (and the 401, which was a floatplane) were all derivatives of the same basic design, customized for specific roles (for example, type 304 was a tank buster). From 305 on starts the real fun, (big aircrafts), but only specs survives... Only the 308 was built, a derivative of the 305.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,857
Reaction score
893
Hi,

what was that Campini project ?.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1941/1941%20-%201949.html?search=jet%20propelled%20aircraft
 

Attachments

Justo Miranda

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,449
Reaction score
83
Skybolt said:
The Re 2007 (THIS Re 2007) is a notorious fake.
Hi,

I have a theory that could explain part of the puzzle on the Re 2007.
Skybolt, my apologies for getting into your turf. Please remember that it is just a theory.


Reggiane Re 2006 R, Re 2007 & Re 2008

Doubtless this is one of the most elusive subjects I have ever encountered in our research. In spite of all the existing publications on the Re 2007 issued in the last 58 years (please see attached biography if you feel up to the task) the problem remains unsolved.
There are two schools of thinking on the matter, both defended by serious authors who undeniably act on good faith.

Two points of view

• The “conservative” version says that the Re 2007 never existed. It was just a project of postal airplane with radial engine derived from the Re 2006 and which original designation had been Re 2006 PP.
Logical reasoning if we consider that this is the only type of airplane derived from the Re 2006 that could have been successful in post war Italy.
There is also significant evidence. The chef test pilot at Reggiane, Maggiore Tullio de Prato who, in declarations made in October 1977 denied his knowledge on the existence of a project known as Re 2007.

• The “liberal” version states that a swept wing jet fighter was built in Italy during the war. It never reached flying stage as it was impossible to obtain the Jumo 004B turbojet that Germans have promised to deliver to the Reggiane firm.
The main argument used to defend that option is a letter dated January 7th 1944 in which Ing. Roberto Longhi, former chief-designer of Reggiane, requested the help of Count Doct. Ing. Gianni Caproni. He wished to obtain information on measurements and performances of the Jumo 004 with the objective of initiating the assembly of the Re 2007.

There are two controvert drawings of the Re 2007, a cutaway and a three view, dated January 7th 1944.
The author G. Cometti has been accused of chronological fraud by some experts. Apparently, the paper on which the drawings were made was of the type used by the Reggiane firm in the post war years.
According to certain opinions they might have been made as late as 1960, under the direction of Ing. Longhi.

Known by certain

In 1942 the Regia Aeronautica decided to acquire the production license of the German engine DB 603 of 1750 hp to drive their new fighters of the “6 series”: the Fiat G.56, the Macchi C.206/207 and the Reggiane Re 2006.
The manufacturing of two prototypes of the latest model was ordered on 9 May 1943, being assigned the registration numbers MM 540 and MM 541.
According to official history, German authorities cancelled the two orders on 8 September 1943. However the Reggiane workers decided to secretly continue the construction of the MM 540 in Reggio Emilia, using a standard Re 2005 with an enlarged fuselage to compensate the bigger size and power of the DB 603.
The airplane was shipped to Corregio in January 1944 in separate parts to keep it safe from the Allies bombing while being finished at a gymnasium of the town.
After the war it was moved to the Instituto Politecnico di Taliedo where it was scrapped by the end of 1946, following orders from the Allied authorities.

Discrepancies

As per the “liberal” version the MM 541 was completed in a 70% as a Re 2007. The rear fuselage, wing spars, ribs, undercarriage and cockpit were just finished. Apparently just the engine was missing.

- Considering that the Re 2006 was essentially a Re 2005 with an elongated fuselage, how could it be converted into a swept wing jet fighter with the scarce technical means available at the beginning of 1944?

- There are different versions on the origin of the Jumo 004 that existed in Italy. Some believe that they were spares for the Arado Ar 234 recce planes of the Kommando Sommer based in Campoformido and Udine since February 1944. Others think that the engines intended to be sent to Reggio Emilia came from Germany and were stolen en route by German defectors trying to sell them at 2 millions lire.
Whatever the truth one of these engines survived the war and can be found today at the Vigna di Valle Italian Air Force Museum.

- It seems odd that no original documentation has survived. Such a complex project requires multitude of calculations, scale drawings, wind tunnel models and aerodynamic testing of which no evidence could be found.

- Finally there is the engine represented in the Cometti drawings. Evidently it was not a Jumo 004. With its length of 3.86 m could have never be installed behind the wing spar in such a small airplane without perilously altering its center of mass.
Our best estimation is that it is a Metropolitan-Vickers F-2 manufactured in Great Britain in 1942.
Although the engine was technically superior to its Power Jets counterparts, it was estimated that its excessive complexity would make mass production difficult and the project was cancelled in 1944.
If the engine would have been British, would have the Italians acquired the manufacturing licence of the Metrovick during the immediate post war? Were the Cometti drawings part of an Anglo-Italian project that did not turn out well?

A possible solution

Apparently the problems would considerably simplify if every group of opinion were talking of two different airplanes which each one tend to identify with the mythical Re 2007.
On one side we have the MM541 that, if finally built, would have been a standard Re 2005 slightly modified to fit it with a turbojet, but……how?

There are several contemporary examples of fighters originally designed with a conventional piston engine that were modified by adding a bent down turbojet to its nose, so that the gases expelled by the nozzle would not damage the structure of the fuselage.

In 1945 the Soviets transformed an all-metal second generation Yak-3 airframe installing a Jumo 004 B in the nose. The new airplane, named Yak-15, was mass manufactured entering into service without any problems. The success of the formula was such that a second model was built, specifically designed with the nose engine and under the name Yak-17.
Another Soviet manufacturer, Lavockin, also used the same system in his designs La-152, La-154, La-156 and La-174 Tk.

In Italy, the designer Sergio Stefanutti, who in 1946 have had access to the Jumo 004 engines to study them, used the same solution than the Soviets but transforming the SAI Ambrosini S.7 “Freccia” in the “Sagittario I”. He achieved that by replacing its Alfa Romeo 115 ter piston engine by a Turboméca Marboré II jet engine installed in the nose with 3º 30' rotation tilting, compared to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
Tests of the "Sagittario I" performed in December 1952 were successful, except by some heating problems in the lower section of the fuselage during the ground wheeling. They were partially resolved modifying the tail wheel (the Soviets also replaced it by a metallic one in the Yak-15) and recommending the adoption of tricycle undercarriage in future designs.

In 1953 it was decided the construction of 45º swept jet fighter, based on the same formula. The new airplane, named "Sagittario II", flew for the first time in May 1956, powered by a R.R. Derwent 9 turbojet installed in the nose with a 20º slope.
The “Sagittario II” was the first Italian airplane in overcoming Mach 1 during a flight made on 4 December 1953.

From these examples could be concluded that the Reggiane technicians planned to install the Jumo 004 in the MM 541 using the same system. Would that have been the case, the MM 541 might have looked similar to that shown in the attached drawing, where the tail wheel and anti-torque angled tailfin have been modified.

In our opinion its correct denomination should be Re 2006 R (Reazione) to be consistent with another jet project by the same firm, the Re 2005 R, powered by a Caproni thermojet (please see UNKNOWN! No 2)

Following this hypothesis the derived versions from the Re 2006 would be:

- Re 2006 C “Corsa” (Racing) designed to compete in the USA Bendix Trophy with a DB 603 engine.

- Re 2006 P “Postale” (Postal) designed to transport mail with a 1500 hp Pratt & Whitney radial engine

- Re 2006 PP “Postale- Passegeri” (Postal-Passengers) designed to transport either mail or six passengers with a 1500 hp Pratt & Whitney radial engine

- Re 2006 R “Reazione” (Jet propulsion) designed as jet fighter with a Jumo 004 B turbojet

Regarding the swept wing design, it seems to be inspired in the American and Soviet jet fighters of the last 40s.
If the Cometti drawings were made under the supervision of Longhi, why are they not including a Jumo engine to be consistent with the alleged design date of 1944?

It is obvious for us that this airplane was designed for an engine smaller than the Jumo, which would not be available for the Italians until much later than 1944.
Our opinion is that the design originated at 1949-1950 and, due to some obscure legal marketing issue, it was necessary to redraw it with a very earlier date on it.

The reason might be named Re 2008. This project of swept wing fighter was designed by Longhi in USA between 1947 and 1948 with the technical support of Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, which counted with a high speed wind tunnel, impossible to find in Italy at that time.
Apparently Longhi tried to manufacture the Re 2008 in Europe when the Reggiane firm took up its activities again, something which did not happen due to political reasons.

The fact is that Americans did not like this covered transfer of technology. Actually, they suspected that the Re 2000 designed by Longhi was a copy of their Seversky P.35 fighter.
The Re 2008 also looked very much alike the F-86 Sabre and, given that such wing type could not have been designed in Italy for lack of technical means, there was a legal problem of copyright as Americans considered German swept wing technology as prize of war.
It is perhaps for that reason that a phantom project named Re 2007 was “created in 1944”, possibly alleging that the swept wing was a wartime Germany originated technology transfer.

The Re 2008 (Caproni-Reggiane Ca.2008 according to other authors) was a swept wing jet fighter propelled by an axial-flow turbojet of an unspecified type with 5000 lb of thrust.

The wing had 36º swept in the leading edge and -5º dihedral angle. It had four slots in the leading edge and mid-wing transonic fences. The airfoil was a high speed NACA 66.
The fuselage had airbrakes and could be divided in three sections to facilitate the change of engine.
The cockpit, of an archaic design, was pressurized.
The armament was to be four Mauser MG 151 guns of 20 mm, located around the air-intake duct.
It could also transport 12 HVAR rockets under the wings.


Estimated technical data for the swept wing Re 2007 (Re 2008 between brackets)

Span 9.5 m (9 m)
Length 9 m (12 m)
Height 3 m (2.75 m)
Wing area 17 m2 (16 m2)
Empty weight 2500 kg (2400 kg)
Loaded weight 3540 kg (3900 kg)
Max speed Mach 0.85 (Mach 0.95)
Service ceiling 15000 m (20000 m)

Bibliography

• “L’Ala” No. 2, 3 and 4. 1948
• “Dal Re 2002 al Re 2005”, by Sergio Govi, Giorgio Apostolo Ed 1984
• “I Reggiane dall’A alla Z”, by Sergio Govi, Giorgio Apostolo Ed 1985
• “I Caccia Caproni Reggiane 1938-1945” Intyrama 1968
• “Gente dell’Aria No. 4” by Giorgio Evangelisti, Editorialle Olimpia 1997
• “Reggiane Re 2005” by Gregory Alegy, Bancarella A. 1991
• “Reggiane Re 2006, una Storia vera” IBN Editore 2002 by Alessandro Berteletti
• “Dal SAI Ambrosini Sagittario all’Aerfer Leone” by Giuseppe Ciampaglia. IBN Editore 2004
• “Royal Air Force Flying review”, October 1957
• “Mecanica Popular”, March 1958
• “Air Enthusiast”, July 1971
• “Aircraft Profile Publications” No. 244 by John F. Brindley, November 1972
• “The Caproni Reggiane Fighters 1938-1945” by Piero Prato 1971
• “Reggiane Re 2005” by Claudio Tatangelo, Monografie aeronautiche Italiane 1990
• “Reggiane Re 2005 Sagittario” by Mauricio Terlizi, IBN Editore 1999
• “Reggiane 2005 Sagittario” by Nino Arena, Mucchi editore
• “Ali Antiche” No. 54, September 1999
• “Air Enthusiast Quarterly” No. 2, 1976
• “Flying review” May 1966
• “Aerofan” No. 68, January 1998
• “Air war Italy 1944-45” by Nick Beale, Airlife 1996
• “Ritratto segreto dell’Aeronautica italiana nella Seconda Guerra Mondiale”, by Giuliano Colliva, Storia Militare No. 63, 1998
• "Vita ignorata del Centro Studi ed Eperienze di Guidonia” by Bruno Lattanzi
• “Re 2007” by Daniele Lembo, Storia e Battaglie No.4, Ed. Lupo 2000
• “Storia Militare” No. 59, August 1998
• “Regia Aeronautica. Registro delle Matricole Militare e delle Commesse”. AMI Archives, Rome.
• “Alas italianas en la Segunda Guerra Mundial (XXXIV)” by S. Rello, “Flaps”.
• “Les Ailes” No. 1463, 13/02/54
• “JP4” magazine No. 11, 1976
• http://pub157.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm57.showMessageRange?topicID=26.topic&start=1&stop=20
• http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=835.0
• http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=835.0;atach=7352
• http://cloud.prohosting.com/hud607/uncommon/aircraft/re2005/re2007.html
• http://www.aerei-italiani.net/SchedeT/aereore2007.html
• http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2569/RE2007.html
• www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php
• http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/reviews/axis/ity/wanta2007.htm
• http://cloud.prohosting.com/hud607/uncommon/aircraft/re2005/re2007.html
• http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane-progetti_avanzati
 

Attachments

Kim Margosein

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
One thing that puzzles me in this series-and this is not against you, Justo I have seen these aircraft crop up elsewhere- are the 2006P and 2006PP aircraft.

These single-engined high-speed small payload aircraft seem more to resemble a throwback to the Lockheed Sirius and Northrop Gamma and the like of the 30s, rather than large multi-engined aircraft with useful payloads.

Thoughts?

Kim M
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Justo, good theory, but I can give some additional details that probably will make the "conservative" explanation even more compelling that it already is.

1) Cometti in a series of occasions narrated the "drawing session" with Longhi in a Milan hotel room in 1960. Longhi hadn't any "original" or draft drawing with him, he directed Cometti in every move he made, even changing idea now and then. No mention of the engine, but probably it was a "generic" form, not a real one.
2) Longhi, who was very keen in taking credit of other people job, never spoke of a joint Italian-British post war project. BTW, the possibility of a similar project in 1948 is out of question. When Italy acquired the Vampire license in 1950, the construction techniques used were mind-blowing for our factories. To have an idea of our technological level, compare the Fiat G-80 (a copy of the Shooting Star) to its original counterpart: it was one and half time larger and heavier.
3) The only Italian manufacturer that was perhaps willing to give a job to Longhi was Caproni. Now, Caproni had indeed two jet projects after the war, but they were very traditional straight wing airplanes. One was indeed based on the Jumo, but had nothing to do with the alleged 2007, nor the even more ridicolous "2008" (area rule in 1948...): straight wing and ventral position of the two Jumos
4) The Jumo that is in Vigna di Valle was property of Ambrosini (for whom Stefanutti worked). Ambrosini, even though worked in Milan, was from Friuli and had very extensive connections there. The Arados were based near Udine...
5) Reggiane had indeed a conceptual design for a jet airplane during the war, but it was from Marchesini and seems was a derivative of the Re-2005 Bifusoliera. I owe this information froma member of this forum who spoke extensively with Ing. Marchesini nepew.
6) Every source that gives credit to a 2007/2008 is ultimately coming from Longhi. The apparent discepancies between the "liberal" opinions derive from the fact the Longhi changed his memory very often.
7) There is absolutely NO WAY the Germans would have spoken of swept wings technically with Italians. Some German jets were actually based in Italy (as staging during recon flights) but when that happened, the Italian personnel was confined in closed spaces. And that were Arados and Me-262. The Italian pilots brought to Germany for couses of jet airplanes (there are hints and fuzzy records and reconings on this) were intended to fly on the Salamander.
8 ) Longhi in his late years was, in his mind, in direct competition with Ing. Ferri who was working at the Brooklin Polytechnic. (actually the competition ended in Longhi insulting retrospectively Ferri for the wartime Re-2005R project, which progressed to the ground testing of the complete airframe just before the armistice). So he invented a relationship with the Cornell University. For what I know there is no record of a Longhi work in that University.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,541
Reaction score
55
So the Re 2007 "F86-like" fighter, that is often seen in some publishings or Internet site is, obviously, a fake.
I agree with Skybolt when he wrotes that an swept-wing jet fighter was too far from Italian technological possibilities of that times (1945).

For example you can not only compare the F80 with G80 (strange nomeclature resemblance) but you can compare F86 with G91 (that is explicily insipired by). Obviously the American counterparts remains still more advanced by several point of view...
 

red admiral

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
560
Reaction score
14
On the subject of wing design, a lot of work was done on this pre-war in Italy in the supersonic wind tunnel at Guidonia. The NASA reports server has quite a few of the reports translated into English. Theres one by Ferri entailing the extensive testing of straight-edge supersonic wing designs (IIRC there were about 8 different types tested in this experiment) with various biconvex, convex designs. After having another look I found another report detailing tests in the transonic wind tunnel. I'm pretty sure that Italy had the technical knowledge but manufacturing problems would have prevented it being used to any great degree.

Edit- Hesham, that drawing is from Campini's 1931 patent.
 

Justo Miranda

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,449
Reaction score
83
Skybolt said:
Justo, good theory, but I can give some additional details that probably will make the "conservative" explanation even more compelling that it already is.
Hi Skybolt,

Thanks for your answer. Your explanation is very consistent. I am afraid my theory has suffered same dead than Humpty Dumpty.
 

Attachments

Justo Miranda

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,449
Reaction score
83
red admiral said:
Schematic of Re 2005R with Campini turbine - not a proper jet engine. A prototype was meant to have been nearly complete by 1943 iirc
I have tried an speculative reconstruction of the RE 2005 R. Please see attached drawings.
 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Justo, there were two different versions of the Re-2005R.
 

Justo Miranda

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
3,449
Reaction score
83
Skybolt said:
Justo, there were two different versions of the Re-2005R.
That is great news! Is it possible to know anything on the other version?
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
The motto of this forum is "ask, and you will be given"... ;D
First 2005R project was originally designated 2005SF, for Sarracino-Ferri, the two Regia Aeronautica officials working in Guidonia that conceived it. It is the one illustrated in your drawings, using a centrifugal compressor driven by the A20 engine (this used an A20, 370 HP engine, the A30, 550 HP, was used in the Caproni 183bis). The rear part of the fuselage was completely re-designed by Luigi Broglio, another Guidonia's official, expert in structures (after the war he was one of the fathers of the Italian space program). BTW, the rear part of the Re-2005 was notoriusly too weak, and having a Guidonia official intervene on it to correct the problem in view of the additional charge probably gave Longhi some stomach wranglings... ;)
This first design was a proof of concept more than a definitive solution. This (see picture) would have used a different engine installation. No more auxiliary engine but a centrifugal compressor installed just after the pilot, driven mechanically by the main engine (a DB-605) using a trasmission with a disinserible friction coupling manned by the pilot. When the airplane needed additional thrust (in combat), the compressor would have been coupled and, firing up the burner, generate a 351 kgs thrust, costing 350 HP of substracted power from the engine. Max speed was projected in circa 750 Km/h with full thrust for 10/15 minutes (the burner consumed 864 Kgs of fuel per hour...). The viability of the scheme was tested and proven in Guidonia using a static model with a IF Gamma engine driving the compressor.
Two additional notes. First, you may ask, why not use the exhaust gases to drive the compressor ? Answer: our (italian) metallurgical level of expertise wasn't up to the task to produce alloys for building the turbines (even the Germans had problems during the early war). Remember that in Campini-style engine, the compressor works on fresh air.
Second note: it is often been narrated that the Re-2005R was so interesting to the Allies than when they arrived in Rome in late spring of 1944 they searched the archives and went to look after Ferri to trasfer him in the US. The interest is explained in that the Americans were looking in mixed propulsion aircrafts because they were skeptical on the near term viability of the all-jet airplane... It is now time to debunk this myth, which is perfect to please the patriotic spirit (we had something that even the mighty Amwricans didn't have). First, and that's obvious, in 1944 the jet technology both in UK and US was well advanced, the aircraft companies were designing the SECOND generation of jet airplane, etc etc.. A mixed propulsion design when you don't have gas turbines is very different from one when you have them. Second, the timing doesn't fit, how the Allies knew of the Re2005R before entering Rome ? They (a RAF official, not American) did searched the archives looking for something interesting in late June 1944 and produced the customary reports (later), maily for interviews and interrogations, regarding the R projects. Third: probably the relevant Re2005R documents weren't even in Rome when the Allies arrived. In fact, the drawings and reports that are included in the notorius series of microfilm from the National Archives (which every serious Italian aviation historians know and use) contain different type of material, from different sources. The operational documents were taken by the Allies when they arrived, but the project material (including the Campini one) from Direzione Generale Costruzioni e Approvigionamenti (DGCA) was found by the Americans in Germany in April-May 1945 (probably in Reichlin). The Germans had transfered it there in 1943, only for the projects they were interested in (there's a lot on the Leone, for example, and on unconventional design like the Ionas). The Americans filmed it and tneh restituted to Italy in 1960, to SIOS (the Aeronautica information service). In fact the DCGA fund in the the Historical Archives of Aeronautica Militare in Rome was originally the SIOS Fund, and the documents carry three different classification markings: one German, one American (only on some, what was considered interesting, probably), which was a white glued ticket with red borders and black handwriting, and a very schematic SIOS one. Fourth, Ferri was looked after and transfered in the US on explicit orders from Theodore Von Karman, a leading aerodynamicist. Why, simply because he knew very well Ferri from the fundamental research on compressibility at near sonic speed he published BEFORE the war, one even in the world-attended Lilienthal Congress in 1938 in Germany. Ferri actually demonstrated that the sound barrier, i.e. the asymptotic rise in resistance encountered by a body approaching the sound speed and foudn by NACA, was an artifact from the shock waves reflecting from the walls of the wind tunnel. Ferri modified the Guidonia wind tunnel to avoid reflection and demonstrated that the resistance wasn't unsurmountable: no "sound barrier, or wall". I think that this was a result worth hunting him down in his Appennine refuge, and BTW worth some REAL patriotic pride. When Italian aeronautical would-be engineers and physicists working on fluido-dynamics at the University discover who was the author of the fundamental Ferri's Law, they are quite astonished. So much for real patriotic pride in Italy. :(
 

Attachments

Nick Sumner

Yabba dabba DOOOOOM!
Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
431
Reaction score
19
Extremely interesting.

One observation, the main engine (the one driving the prop) looks too long to be a DB 605 - could it be a DB 609?
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
26
Mmm, think no. The only German engine planned for future use (and license building) were the 603 and 628. The extra-lenght could be due to the friction and coupling trasmission for the compressor. Will check, good point.
 
Top