WesWorld

So, Italy has a few new types coming into ether production or testing in 1945. Details below.

An new version featuring some improvements to range, service ceiling and defensive armament.

Crew: 5
Length: 24.38m Span: 36.27m Height: 6.02m Wing Area: 120m­^2
Empty Weight: 18,682kg Maximum Weight: 27,650kg
Engine: 4 x 2040hp Isotta-Fraschini diesel
Maximum Speed: 575km/h@4000m
Rate of climb: 350m/min
Service ceiling: 9,750m
Range: 5000km
Armament:Two twin remote controlled 20mm Breda-SAFAT gun turrets, one dorsal mount aft of the cockpit, one ventral mount aft of the bomb bay. Up to 4000kg of bombs.

The first designed from the ground up jet, and jet fighter to see prototype testing. Never enters combat service, tho data gathered during its testing is invaluable going forward. Test fights in early 1945, program officially ends in 1946 but the airframes are used in various testing rolls for longer. Line drawing is of a Lavochkin La-150, which this aircraft shares a similar layout with.


General characteristics
Crew: 1, pilot
Length: 9.5 m
Wingspan: 8.00 m
Height: 2.5 m
Powerplant: Fiat C.1600 turbojet (1600 lbf thrust)
Empty Weight: 2000kg
Gross Wieght: 2800kg

Performance
Maximum speed: 775 km/h
Range: 490 km
Service ceiling: 10,000m

Armament (planed)
4x20mm Cannon

Having much more practical experience, Caproni opts for a twin engine design for its first dedicated jet fighter. Despite its later introduction, this plane wins the approval of both the Italian Air Defense Force and the Marina Militare. It will see mostly land-based service, but it will also be the first Italian jet to land on a carrier (. Later variants and developments of the type and design linage will be the first Italian carrier based jet fighters. First flight in mid-late 1945, service adoption in several squadrons early-mid 1946, phased out to training rolls by 1949. Picture is of the MiG-9, of which this aircraft shares a similar layout.



General characteristics
Crew: 1, pilot
Length: 9.75 m
Wingspan: 10.50 m
Height: 3 m
Powerplant: Two Fiat C.1600 turbojets (1600 lbf thrust each)
Empty Weight: 3350kg
Gross Wieght: 4900kg

Performance
Maximum speed: 880 km/h
Range: 825 km
Service ceiling: 12,000m

Armament
2x20mm Cannon
2x250kg hardpoints (plumbed)

High speed tactical recon aircraft as well as the first aircraft to fly with a axial turbojet in Italy. Note I am making a change from the originally posted version of this design to change the engine manufacturer to SAI from Fiat. The layout of this aircraft is similar to the Ar 234.

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 12 m
Wingspan: 13.75 m
Height: 4 m
Powerplant: Two SAI A.2200
Empty Weight: 5300kg
Gross Wieght: 9500kg

Performance
Maximum speed: 760 km/h
Range: 1300 km
Service ceiling: 10,000m

Armament
1000kg under wing stores, including gun pods, rockets and fuel tanks.

So there are a few versions of this I am tossing around. The idea behind this design is the update the strike capabilities of the Mariana Millitare to at least a faster type in comparison to the Ba.67. OOC this is, idealy, going to be the apex of piston single engine strike aircraft for Italy in the same vain of the Skyraider.

First up is a slightly tweaked carbon-copy the Kaiser-Fleetwings XBTK. I like this option because it it not a total moster which should allow all of the Italian fleet carriers to handle it, and depending on the load maybe even the Pisas. Most of the improvements over the Ba.67 come from improved speed and range, the payload stays similar.



General characteristics
Crew: one
Length: 11.86 m
Wingspan: 14.83 m
Height: 4.78 m
Wing area: 35.30 m2
Empty weight: 4,517 kg
Gross weight: 7,159 kg
Powerplant: 1 × 2100hp Alfa-Romeo 136 RC.40bis

Performance
Maximum speed: 600 km/h
Range: 2,205 km
Service ceiling: 10,180 m
Rate of climb: 18.0 m/s

Armament
2 x 20 mm IFS cannon
One centreline hardpoint rated for 1000 kg (Plumbed, Bombs, Torpedo)
Two wing hardpoints rated for 500 kg (Plumbed, Bombs)
Two wing hardpoints rated for 250 kg (Plumbed, Bombs, Rocket racks 4 per hardpoint)

The other two designs I don't have the engine for yet, so I'm not going to go into exhaustive detail on them. Both have the disadvantage of that it would be imposible to operate them from the smaller carriers, which might include the recently reconstructed Aquila and Europa. The first would be build not necessarily around speed but the ability to haul as much ordinance as posible, this would be based of the Martin AM Mauler (with Jason's permission of course, but IIRC correctly we had talked about Brazil doing something along these lines so I am assuming for the moment it is ok). The third option would be a majorly upgraded Ariete, in much the same way that France is juggling between the Milan Royal and Gargouille, to push the Mariana Millitare into operating a single type that can serve as both the main fighter and fighter-bomber (more specialized variants expected) of the main fleet units.

EDIT:: Seeing as the Gargouille is on hold, I see no reason to postulate plans around it. The posted stats and possible Mauler-based alternative are still on the table.

...somebody's in a panic. :rolleyes:

Quoted from "Brockpaine"

...somebody's in a panic.

Not as much as you (and others) seem to think. I have been somewhat unhappy with a few aspects of the Ba.67, mainly its speed, and how it affects its viability as Italy's primary single engined strike platform going forward. As such, I was looking at designs that filled the gap between the primary strike planes of WWII and the takeover of the roll by jets in order to provide an similar type of plane for WW Italy. Out of the designs I had looked at while searching for designs that fit the bill of multi-torp carriers to answer Rocky and at other times, the XBTK was the only one I had an engine that I felt I could stretch to meet its OTL power; the Alfa-Romeo 136 RC.40. I PMed Jason about using the design this morning before I read the specs of the turbo-compound Gargouille, in relation to the Ba.67 and Ariete which I knew that I could not match without a comprible engine. I added the other two posibles based on the second set of provided specs for the piston-only Gargouille but as stated, I don't as of current have the engines to match ether of those types. I feel pulling engines of that horsepower out of thin air in such short order would be unfair as an imediate knee-jerk response to the Gargouille and as such would provide a bit more lead time then 12 months or less before putting them on a military aircraft. With the added consideration of two jet engines and three new jet airframes flying this year, a high-power radial is something I do not feel could be realistically added to the mix without warning.

So I have a question for the board. Given the recently posted stats for the Ju390B, and the similar performance figures to the OTL Bz.308 (which will in WW be called the Ca.500, as Breda is a subsidiary of Caproni) I am wondering if moving the type's introduction up is something the membership would be ok with. I feel there are several historical factors that lead to the design's delay OTL that would not necessarily be pressent in WW. First off is WWII and all its influence on the Italian civilian areo industry, none of these factors are present here including the delays imposed on the project by the Allied Control Comission. Second is that I have intended from the start to have the aircraft fly with domestically built engines, thereby eliminating a major source of delays. Third is the overall better shape of the Italian Areo industry in comparison to OTL. With those factors in mind, I propose the following for the stats of the Ca.500 with a first flight at some time in 1945 and service entry as an airliner somewhat later.

General characteristics
Crew: 5 (two pilots, flight engineer, navigator and radio operator)
Capacity: 54 passengers (Low density) 80 passengers (High density)
Length: 33.52 m
Wingspan: 42.1 m
Height: 7.15 m
Wing area: 208 m2
Aspect ratio: 8.55:1
Empty weight: 27,500 kg
Max takeoff weight: 46,500 kg
Fuel capacity: 18,000 L
Powerplant: 4 × SAI R.25 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engines 2,500 hp

Performance
Maximum speed: 573 km/h
Cruising speed: 441 km/h at 4,300 m
Stall speed: 135 km/h
Range: 7,700 km
Service ceiling: 8,000 m

EDIT: Derped the number of cylinders, corrected.

Quoted from "snip"

Based of the historical examples I have discovered, I feel that the combination of cruising speed and range is excessive for an aircraft of this approximate size. I am comfortable with ether figure taken by itself, but in combination I feel that it is pushing things a little to far. I have yet to find a WW-example that dislocates the OTL trends to such a degree that this design fits.

*Whistles innocently.*

Quoted from "snip"

Given the recently posted stats for the Ju390B, and the similar performance figures to the OTL Bz.308 (which will in WW be called the Ca.500, as Breda is a subsidiary of Caproni) I am wondering if moving the type's introduction up is something the membership would be ok with.

Assuming those stats are locked in. If they are not, then the point becomes moot and the design will revert to its historical date, or a separate WW-appropriate time. In addition, I do not see how a stated cruising speed of 441kph in comparison to 570kph leave basis for an accusation of double standard.

I think it's a bit hypocritical of you to critique a design for something while simultaneously trying to advance your own design about which the same criticisms might be equally valid - and then offering to tone it down if the other person does the same. You've done it twice now in the space of a week. Really a rather classless move on your part.

Edit: that said, I don't have that much opposition to you moving the Buzzer forward a few years; I've done similar stuff with French aircraft.

First, with regards to the Basilisco via the Gargouille, IMO these two aircraft are nowhere near the same preformace class or role IMO. The only place where the Gargouille fails to top the Basilisco is the payload. I have been looking for a replacement/supplement for the Ba.67 for some time (I recall talking with you about it on IRC on at least one occasion), a ten year old airframe in 1945 has little place caring over into the 1950's as a primary strike aircraft of a modern Navy and Air Force IMO. Seeing the OTL longevity of piston engine strike aircraft lead me to want to replace a 1930's design with a more modern type. Because I happen to find a good example of what I think is a good combination of upgrade and reasonable figures on the same day you propose a airframe because I am looking for designs which seek to answer a question poised by another member does not mean I am trying to one-up what you are doing.

With regards to the Ca.500 via the Ju390B. I attempted to poise the question in such a way that the Ju390B's stats had influence on the desition to ask about the Ca.500 because they do. If a airliner is being introduced that can match or exceed a historical type, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask if it is ok to move a historical design up and then post the planed figures. I fail to see how asking, in effect, "Hey, this type Y is coming out with X figures and I have a historical type Z with figures close to X. Would it be ok if I bump up Z because Y is happening?" implying that if Y does not happen it is not a valid question, is classless. Also, if you note the timestamps, I posted the question at about 0800 PST and posed my inital question to Bruce about the cruise speed at the same time. I had made the assumption that the 570kph figure was quoted as the designs top speed, making it similar to the Ca.500 with a difference of only 3kph and therefor such a question on my end about moving the Ca.500 up was, IMO reasonable given the commonality of figures. When Bruce clarified that the listed speed was for the listed cruise ranges several hours later, that lead to my concerns about the Ju-390B out-of-period. I did not think it was necessary to revise or withdraw the question on the Ca.500 until after my own questions on the Ju390 have been resolved, as that result would put the issue into a more appropriate light.

Quoted from "snip"

First, with regards to the Basilisco via the Gargouille, IMO these two aircraft are nowhere near the same preformace performance, class, or role, IMO. The only place where the Gargouille fails to top the Basilisco is the payload. I have been looking for a replacement/supplement for the Ba.67 for some time (I recall talking with you about it on IRC on at least one occasion). A ten year old airframe in 1945 has little place caring carrying over into the 1950's (no apostrophe here) as a primary strike aircraft of a modern Navy and Air Force IMO. Seeing the OTL longevity of piston engine strike aircraft led me to want to replace a 1930's (no apostrophe here) design with a more modern type. Because I happen to find a good example of what I think is a good combination of upgrade and reasonable figures on the same day you propose a airframe because I am looking for designs which seek to answer a question poise posed by another member does not mean I am trying to one-up what you are doing. (Suggest a restructuring to avoid run-on phrases.)

Oho, okay, let's go there. I don't agree that the Ba.67 needs replacement: it is one example of a plane that RA got away with that he shouldn't have. Its capabilities are still in excess of many aircraft built five to ten years later. It's capabilities are in excess of what France is fielding right now.

I was willing to accept your

Quoted from "snip"

With regards to the Ca.500 via vis-a-vis the Ju390B. I attempted to poise pose the question in such a way that the Ju390B's stats had influence on the desition decision to ask about the Ca.500 because they do. If an airliner is being introduced that can match or exceed a historical type, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask if it is ok to move a historical design up and then post the planed planned figures. I fail to see how asking, in effect, "Hey, this type Y is coming out with X figures and I have a historical type Z with figures close to X. Would it be ok if I bump up Z because Y is happening?" implying that if Y does not happen it is not a valid question, is classless.

In this case, you've posted your brand-new "ME TOO!" design and then proceeded to rag on other people's stuff. In the case of your Basilico, you immediately retconned part of your writeup on the basis of an outcome in another discussion. You're making the same case here - pursuing a "ME TOO!" design before you even question the original post. For all you knew, it could have been a typo. Waiting a few days or a week to see how the discussion settles out isn't going to kill you, and over the course of a few days' careful thought, you might actually come up with a better idea or line of reasoning.

Quoted from "snip"

Also, if you note the timestamps, I posted the question at about 0800 PST and posed my inital initial question to Bruce about the cruise speed at the same time. I had made the assumption that the 570kph figure was quoted as the design's top speed, making it similar to the Ca.500 with a difference of only 3kph and therefor therefore such a question on my end about moving the Ca.500 up was, IMO reasonable given the commonality of figures.

And, once again, you could have waited politely to see how that discussion panned out, rather than chiming in "ME TOO!" the moment you see the opportunity. I find it vaguely amusing that you've advanced this design on the basis of "commonality of figures", yet you're now arguing that B is not equal to A.

Frankly, I do not yet believe you have made your case in regard to the Ju390B. Your argument there hinges on a similarity of definitions. What is "max cruise speed", for example? The Ju390 cruises at a significantly higher altitude than your Ca500, and so the max cruise speed at that altitude will be greater. At that altitude, in fact, the Ju390's most efficient cruise speed and top speed may be very similar - and if you tried the Ca500 at that altitude, your design might in fact have similar cruise speed.

Having said all that, I'm going to bow out of this discussion.

We disagree on the replacement of Ba.67 and I don't see a way to change that. The example I wish to replace it with has clearcut OTL period backing. It is not another out of time frame pipe dream that I agree was way to early for the abilities it possesses.

I have repeatedly stated that the Basilisco as fully outlined in the stats was me happening into a good example to fit my requirements. The timing of such was not intended as "me too!", I wished to record my thoughts while the design was fresh in my memory and I was already working on the 1945 aircraft. The additional designs were indeed added as afterthoughts, and I gave reason why I did not think they were an acceptable design for Italy to produce at this time in the game but wanted to note that I was considering other options.

I have already admitted to my assumptions regarding the original presentation of the Ca.500, and how the differing answer to my inquires on the Ju390 changes the viability of my initial request. I fail to see how commenting on lack of an OTL example and following up with stating the combination of figures make me feel it is "pushing things a little to far", not the figures individually (I quote "I am comfortable with ether figure taken by itself") is "rag[ging] on other people's stuff". I feel I answered Bruce's responses in a civil and polite manor while backing up my concerns with historical examples. In my opinion he has done the same in responding to my queries. If he feels differently and choses to talk to me about my approach, I will apologize to him if necessary.

I see no reason that we cannot have synchronous debates about designs from various nations. As inspiration and questions can come from reading others posted designs and comparing stats to historical examples (Ju390/Ca.500), research conducted to answer questions (Gargouille/Basilisco), carful research and laid out planing (Italian Jets as well as plenty of other examples), or even "I wonder what that would look like if [My Nation] built that as opposed to [Other Nation]". Regardless of when they are presented and what caused them to be presented, each design is open for debate as to whether or not it fits in WW.

I see no problem with the XBTK clone either given its based on real-world stats. The Breda Ba.67 was advanced, but its was always RA's intention to operate it into the 1950s as his Skyradier. He had planned some engine upgrades and even a turboprop final version. I don't think it necessarily needs replacing, perhaps a Mk II with new electronics and some minor kit upgrades would do just as well?

I see no problems with the Bz.308, design started in 1946 OTL and under the +3 allowance for piston-types I see no problems at all why this can't be done. The specs are real-world so there is no doubt there (though as ever using Wiki stats has caveats), the Bristol Centaurus exists in WW and has done for years and Snips' new SAI R.25 14 is a Centaurus clone (with my permission).

I'd like to take this opportunity to cut all this crap flying around about ME TOO designs etc., for a start me and Snip have been discussing the Centaurus clone and the Bz.308 and a few other things since Friday 16 May - which far precedes Bruce's post yesterday. Everyone needs to calm down on these petty technical matters, its a just a silly reprise of the stuff that drive RA and Kirk away. This is supposed to be peer review to double-check things and suggest ideas, not playtime squabbles at nursery arguing who's toys are better and who grabbed what toy first.

Quoted from "Hood"

I see no problems with the Bz.308, design started in 1946 OTL and under the +3 allowance for piston-types I see no problems at all why this can't be done. The specs are real-world so there is no doubt there (though as ever using Wiki stats has caveats), the Bristol Centaurus exists in WW and has done for years and Snips' new SAI R.25 14 is a Centaurus clone (with my permission).

Neither do I.

Quoted from "Hood"

I see no problem with the XBTK clone either given its based on real-world stats. The Breda Ba.67 was advanced, but its was always RA's intention to operate it into the 1950s as his Skyradier. He had planned some engine upgrades and even a turboprop final version. I don't think it necessarily needs replacing, perhaps a Mk II with new electronics and some minor kit upgrades would do just as well?

Well, I feel replacing it rather then doing an upgrade is preferable and honestly my reasons mostly have to do with the strong feeling that the Ba.67 invokes. The path I have laid out is more Dauntless -> Helldriver then Dauntless -> Skyraider in terms of relative performance gains, and given the Ba.67's advanced features I am ok with that. As can be seen, the Ba.67 is still a design that carries a lot of strong feelings and I would rather replace it with a new type that has better period backing then do an upgrade. Even if the stats are similar or practically identical between the Ba.67 Serie II that Hood proposes and the Basilisco, I hope the stigma of the Ba.67's advanced abilities would not follow a new design.

Edit for clarity of thought.

In light of the SAI R.25's appearance, I took a crack at possible upgrades of current and proposed airframes to the engine. The goal behind this is to have a single engine in service on board Aircraft carriers to minimize the number of different types of spares that have to be carried.

Caproni Ariete Serie III
General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 10.00 m
Wingspan: 12.00 m
Height: 4.25 m
Wing area: 28.00 m2
Empty weight: 4,190 kg
Loaded weight: 5,600 kg
Max. takeoff weight: 6,645 kg
Powerplant: 1 × SAI R.25 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engines 2,500 hp

Performance
Maximum speed: 740 km/h at 5,500 m
Cruise speed: 415 km/h
Range: 1,200 km with internal fuel; 1,775 km with two drop tanks
Endurance: 2.5 hr cruise + 30 min combat
Service ceiling: 10,910 m
Rate of climb: 21.9 m/s

Armament
Guns: 4 × 20 mm IFS cannon
Hardpoints: (total max hardpoint load, 1000kg)
--One centerline rated for 1000kg (Plumbed, Bombs)
--2 wing rated for 500kg (Plumbed, Bombs)
--2 wing rated for 250kg (Rocket racks)

Caproni Basilisco Serie I
General characteristics
Crew: one
Length: 12.00 m
Wingspan: 14.75 m
Height: 4.50 m
Wing area: 35.30 m2
Empty weight: 4,517 kg
Gross weight: 7,159 kg
Powerplant: 1 x SAI R.25 18-cylinder air-cooled radial engines 2,500 hp

Performance
Maximum speed: 610 km/h at 5,500 m
Cruse speed: 340 km/h
Range: 2,000 km with torpedo and drop tanks
Service ceiling: 10,180 m
Rate of climb: 14.0 m/s

Armament
2 x 20 mm IFS cannon
Hardpoints: (2000kg max load)
One centreline rated for 1000 kg (Plumbed, Bombs, Torpedo)
Two wing rated for 500 kg (Plumbed, Bombs)
Two wing rated for 250 kg (Plumbed, Bombs, Rocket racks)

These look ok to me, the Ariete pretty-well replicates the Sea Fury performance and the Basilisco resembles the general Skyraider/Mauler/Fleetwings/Firecrest/Firebrand ballpark figures too.

Me and Snip have discussed these via PM and they seem fair aircraft from my viewpoint, and the high rate of climb of the original Basilisco has been slightly toned down a bit to more realistic levels based on figures from the above list of similar aircraft.