WesWorld

Reggiane Falco

A new fighter / fighter-bomber developed for naval use. All-metal construction and strengthened for catapult use. Wings fold upwards outside of the landing gear. The landing gear rotates through 90° and retracts rearwards.

Engine is the new Fiat A.61 RC.50 with flat-12 configuration. The 3-speed supercharger mounted underneath ensures good altitude performance., power being maintained to 5000m. The new engine is quite thirsty and still has some bugs to be worked out. Fuel tanks are contained in the wings roots.

Armament comprises of 1x20mm Oerlikon FFL firing through the propellor and 2x13.2mm Scotti in the upper fuselage. There is a ventral 630kg hardpoint for carriage of a bomb, a depth charge or a torpedo.

Reggiane Falco

Year of First Flight: 1935
Description
Carrier or Rough Field
Monoplane
Conventional Fuselage

Characteristics:
Weight (maximum) 7,200 lbs
Weight (empty) 4,777 lbs
Length 27.5 ft
Wingspan 36 ft
Wing Area 220 sq ft
Sweep 5 degrees
Engines 1
Fiat A.61 RC.50 Piston
1,400 hp
at 16,000 ft
Crew 1

Performance:
Top Speed 343 kts = 394 mph
at 16,000 ft
Operational Ceiling 43,000 ft
Range 600 nm = 691 miles
with 1,332 lbs payload
1,418 lbs released at halfway point
Cruise 240 kts = 276 mph
at 16,000 ft
Climb 3,961 fpm
Corner Speed 268 KIAS =
268 kts at 0 ft
Turning Rate 39.9 deg/sec
Radius 1,299 ft

-------------------------------------------------------------

Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 12 ft

Bypass Ratio 100.2

Engine Weight 1320 lbs
Overall Efficiency 20 percent

Structural Factor 1.00

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 400 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 12.00 g
Wing Taper 0.8
Wing Thickness at Root 1.8 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Length 6 ft
Diameter 3 ft
Fullness 0.5

Fuselage Diameter 3.5 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.6

Cleanness 70 percent
Unstreamlined section 1.1 sq ft

User equipment 500 lbs

The engine concerns me, more than a little bit.

First off, it again is having a horsepower/pound ratio of over 1.0, it's too early (even assuming 5 years ahead of time) for that in production engines.

Second, the flat-12 design - that's going to result in a very wide, if not very tall, engine. The result will be either a wider fuselage than your showing, a wider fuselage than you could get with a V-12 engine (or probably even than one you'd get with a radial) or a fuselage that's shaped kind of like a rounded rectangle,

Also, where would the 20mm FFL go in this sort of a design? Certainly not between the cylinder banks......

The A.61 is based off Fiat's racing engine technology developed for the Schneider Trophy. Reliability isn't an issue, the actual race engines rated are more reliable than the early Merlins. The problems are size and fuel consumption.

The fuel consumption issue will be solved in two stages. With the race mix of alcohol its about 260g/hp-hr, which isn't too bad in itself but not up to "good" standards of around 200g/hp-hr. Switching to standard 87-oct fuel will solve some of the problem (at the expense of power). New desmodromic valves to improve the volumetric efficiency will do the rest, no springs to absorb energy in them either.

Size is more problematic as the AS.6 engine is about 3.3m long. I wanted to reduce this to below 3m and preferably mount a cannon. I changed to 2xFlat-12 layout and moved the supercharger and carbs underneath along with some of the other auxilaries. This'll get the length down to about 2.8m of which the engine blocks are 1.9m in length. The other bits are the gearbox and shaft. Cannon rests on the rear engine block and fires through the inner prop shaft which is raised above the crankshaft level due to the reduction gears. Thats for the double version. The A.61 is a single engine block for smaller applications. I calculate width to be 1.1m scaling off the Sabre but it'll probably be less as the AS.6 uses very short connecting rods. A bit wide for this airframe (3.8 v 3.5ft) but some "bumps" as with the Griffon Spitfires should make it fit, just.

Weight. I could have used the race engine but its easier to add weight and beef up parts for some more margin, i.e. steel instead of magnesium. As a scaling factor I used the RR R vs Griffon to give me an engine weight of 1100kg - 600kg for the single engine.

Two heavy bomber prototypes will be flown in 1935, the Piaggio P.108 and the CANT Z.1014. Four prototype aircraft each were ordered in 1934 for a competition to be held in late 1935. In fact, the competition and the entire heavy bomber program will be scrapped as a cost cutting measure, but the aircraft will still exist and be used experimentally.


Piaggio P.108 prototype with nose turret

The P.108B mounts 6 12.7mm Scotti machine guns, one in each of the manually operated nose and dorsal turrets. The remaining guns are in remotely operated turrets in the outer engine nacelles. The two 7.7mm machine guns are fixed forward firing in the nose.

Function: Heavy Bomber
Year: 1935 Crew: 7 Engines: 4 * 1500hp Piaggio P.XII RC35
Wing Span: 32.00m Length: 22.30m Height: 6.00m Wing Area: 135m2
Empty Weight: 17325kg Max.Weight: 29885kg
Speed: 430km/h Ceiling: 6000m Range: 4000km
Armament: 6*mg12.7mm 2*mg7.7mm 3500kg


CANT Z.1014 layout

The CANT Z.1014 features 4 x 20mm FFL cannon in power-assisted nose,ventral,dorsal and tail turrets.

Function: Heavy Bomber
Year: 1935 Crew: 7 Engines: 4 * 1700hp Alfa-Romeo 135 RC.38
Wing Span: 28.30m Length: 24.32m Height: 4.80m Wing Area: 111m2
Empty Weight: 12900kg Max.Weight: 25000kg
Speed: 534km/h Ceiling: 8800m Range: 3000km
Armament: 4*20mm 5000kg

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

I calculate width to be 1.1m scaling off the Sabre but it'll probably be less as the AS.6 uses very short connecting rods. A bit wide for this airframe (3.8 v 3.5ft) but some "bumps" as with the Griffon Spitfires should make it fit, just.

Weight. I could have used the race engine but its easier to add weight and beef up parts for some more margin, i.e. steel instead of magnesium. As a scaling factor I used the RR R vs Griffon to give me an engine weight of 1100kg - 600kg for the single engine.

RA, there's two problems with this.

1. If your own scaling showed 3.8, after hypothetical alterations to bring size down, ... just shrinking it another 10% doesn't make sense.
Somewhat off topic, I generally add .2" for framing/cowling (.1" ea. side), but I have no basis at all for that figure.
2. You're using the RR Griffon to scale weight from? That started development in 1939, but didn't enter production service with the Spitfire XII until Feb 1943 with No 41 squadron. Scaling off a +8 year engine is not likely to produce acceptable +5 year results.

As another matter, you are still basing this on a racing engine, not a production engine. I believe that for the SIM purposes, +5 year production engines are the benchmark for maximum performance. The exception admittedly has been made when you specified that a very limited number were to be built requiring extensive hand work, but you have not stipulated such in this case.

Quoted

1. If your own scaling showed 3.8, after hypothetical alterations to bring size down, ... just shrinking it another 10% doesn't make sense.

The bumps over the cylinder heads should take care of the remaining bit. I'll play with an widened fuselage version. THe fuselage shouldn't be much, if any wider than the engine as the exhaust ports are usually the widest part.

Quoted

2. You're using the RR Griffon to scale weight from?

No. The Griffon can be looked at as a production version of the Rolls-Royce "R". The weight increase is 16% between them. I used this scale factor on the AS.6 engine (930kg) to come to the 1100kg figure.

I'd use the normal V-12 race engine apart from the fuel consumption issue and future development problems. Reliability isn't an issue here. The race engine is running for hours at full throttle (3.5hrs at 2800hp) and much longer at lower powers (i.e. non-combat use)

The desmodromic valves to improve efficiency will require more precision manufacturing which will limit the number of engines that can be produced. It isn't suitable for mass-production but neither is Italian industry.

Edit: with a 3.8ft wide fuselage the speed drops by 1mph and small alterations to range/climb/weights

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

1. If your own scaling showed 3.8, after hypothetical alterations to bring size down, ... just shrinking it another 10% doesn't make sense.

The bumps over the cylinder heads should take care of the remaining bit. I'll play with an widened fuselage version. THe fuselage shouldn't be much, if any wider than the engine as the exhaust ports are usually the widest part.

Quoted

2. You're using the RR Griffon to scale weight from?

No. The Griffon can be looked at as a production version of the Rolls-Royce "R". The weight increase is 16% between them. I used this scale factor on the AS.6 engine (930kg) to come to the 1100kg figure.
....
The desmodromic valves to improve efficiency will require more precision manufacturing which will limit the number of engines that can be produced. It isn't suitable for mass-production but neither is Italian industry.

Edit: with a 3.8ft wide fuselage the speed drops by 1mph and small alterations to range/climb/weights

Ahh, ok that explanation clarifies things.
And if extra framing around the engine isn't needed, some of my planes can get slimmer

Radials still need some space around the cylinder heads so the fuselage needs to be a bit wider. Looks to be around 5-10% on this picture for the carburettor intake.

The picture is of the Bristol Orion, largened Centaurus to 6.25 x 7.5

Breda Ba.67 Occhione

Following on from the Breda Ba.64/65 series of attack aircraft the Ba.67 builds on the combat experience gained in South America along with the newer generation of materials and construction techniques. It is a cantilever mid-wing monoplane, the wing position being moved up to accomodate a larger internal bay. The basic structure of the fuselage and wing is of chrome-molybdenum steel alloy tubing, covered with duralumin sheet. The wing incorporates Handley-Page leading edge slats and large double-slotted flaps. Large wheels and strengthened structure allow for carrier landings and operations off second line airfields. There is extensive armouring around the cockpit and underneath the engine.

The engine is the large Isotta-Fraschini W1518, this new model being modified to run at higher rpms and so produce more power. The engine mounting has been carefully designed so that it is plug-compatible with the Alfa-Romeo 135 radial, which is currently producing less pwoer, but for much less weight.

Two versions are planned, a single-seat and two-seater.


Year of First Flight: 1935
Description:
Conventional Aircraft / Monoplane / Conventional Fuselage

Characteristics:
Weight (maximum) 18,000 lbs
Weight (empty) 9,839 lbs
Length 37 ft Wingspan 49 ft Wing Area 400 sq ft Sweep 5 degrees
Engines 1
Isotta-Fraschini W1518 RC50 Piston
2,200 hpat 16,000 ft

Crew 1

Armament: Single seat 4 * 13.2mm Scotti in nose and wings, Two seat 3 * 13.2mm Scotti in nose and power-assisted dorsal turret

Performance:
Figures for combat weight and clean configuration
Top Speed 317 kts = 365 mph at 16,000 ft
Operational Ceiling 30,000 ft
Range 1,500 nm = 1,727 miles
with 3,922 lbs payload 4,445 lbs released at halfway point

Climb 2,717 fpm
Cruise 240 kts = 276 mph
at 16,000 ft

Corner Speed 313 KIAS =
313 kts at 0 ft
Turning Rate 29.4 deg/sec
Radius 2,062 ft
Stall Speed 57 kts = 66 mph

Internal Data:

Intake / Fan Diameter 13 ft

Bypass Ratio 90.52

Engine Weight 2640 lbs
Overall Efficiency 23 percent

Structural Factor 1.00

Number of Wings 1
Number of Fuselages 1

Limiting Airspeed 385 kts
Wing Ultimate g Load 12.00 g
Wing Taper 0.7
Wing Thickness at Root 2.3 ft

Tail / Canard Factor 0.4

Fuselage Diameter 5 ft
Fuselage Fullness 0.4

Cleanness 65 percent
Unstreamlined section 2 sq ft

User equipment 1,500 lbs

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

The engine is the large Isotta-Fraschini W1518,

Yikes, that is a big beast. From the power and weight it must be ~55L, which is huge. Otherwise, nice plane.

Quoted

Yikes, that is a big beast. From the power and weight it must be ~55L, which is huge. Otherwise, nice plane.

Its the Isotta-Fraschini Asso 1000 engine relabelled into a shorter format. W1518 = W configuration 150mm bore 18 cylinders.

It uses the 150x180 cylinder arranged in a W configuration giving a displacement of 57L. The engine is also used on MAS boats producing 1150hp at 1900rpm weighing 1350kg. This new aircraft version ups the rpm to 2500rpm, adds a single speed centrifugal supercharger and weight is reduced slightly to 1200kg through the substitution of steel parts with aluminium alloys. Cooling is through an anterior radiator and an oil cooler on the port wing.