WesWorld

The Italian Navy has been operating the Caproni 2001 Falco (Reggiane having been re-absorbed into the Caproni company a few years back) off it's carriers for a good few years during the 1930s. They are fighter-bombers with a reasonable bombload of ~500kg maximum. Withe higher performance aircraft coming into service, a study for a replacement was started a couple of years ago. The main problem with the performance is the low speed and climb rate which makes interception of attacking aircraft more challenging. The new aircraft is designed more around the fighter role, with bomber duties being taken up by the Breda 67 and it's replacement (probably SM.93 ish). Priorities are speed at low altitude and climb rate.

I haven't quite made up my mind on what the replacement will be, but there are some options below.

1. Baseline Reggaine 2005
2. With Fiat A.38 inline engine, nice and streamlined, high speed at medium/high altitude, good climb rate
3. With Alfa-Romeo 136 radial engine, bigger and not as streamlined, but more power available at low altitude
4. Another AR 136 cowling option
5. With a big hump for better visibility over the nose
6. With a smaller hump

What is the difference in climb and fuel consumption/ radius/ loiter time?

That is what will decide the issue more than just speed. I like No.5 as it looks very FIAT G.50ish (OTL) and very Italian and getting a good view is paramount too. Lovely designs though. Italian knows how to build a sleek machine.

The world's best looking carrier fighter? (until my WW Seafire 47 comes on line...hehehe)

Picture 3 does not show up for me but from what I can judge, No 6 looks best to me. :o)

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
The world's best looking carrier fighter? (until my WW Seafire 47 comes on line...hehehe)

Naw. Fairey Firefly, I-02N, and F4U Corsair are the rivals for that title.

I like #2 the best because it's closest in looks to the G.55, even if it does look sadly hunchbacked and less sleek.

Quoted

What is the difference in climb and fuel consumption/ radius/ loiter time?

Likely a big advantage in climb rate at low altitude for the AR136 engined versions, but worse off for fuel consumption, loiter etc. One issue playing in my mind is the availability of engines. The A.38 will be used in both the Fiat G.55 and the Macchi C.205 Orione so I'm not sure how many spare engines there will be.

I'm leaning towards No.6 myself, I think the pronounced hump in No.5 is just a bit too much. I might have to try and draw up a bubble canopy version.

The inlines might require more maintainence work but overall probably go with that version.
A bubble might spoil her fine lines, at the moment she looks about right but the pilot needs better visibility aft.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
A bubble might spoil her fine lines, at the moment she looks about right but the pilot needs better visibility aft.

It's not as bad as it looks from the side. If you have a look here you can see that the fairing behind the cockpit is an odd shape which roughly follows a head and shoulders outline. Not that much view is actually blocked off by it.

Ah, yes.

Can't say I'm a fan of that weird shaped fairing myself but it should do the trick and retain that Italian look.