# Italian Bombers



## V-1710 (Jan 14, 2006)

I probably know less about WWII Italian bombers than any other category of aircraft. This is about the extent of what I do know:
Savoia-Marchetti SM-79. This was the famous 3 engined bomber used throughout the war, could drop torpedoes as well.
Caproni Ca-135. A nice looking twin engined bomber, maybe about the size of a B-25. Had problems?
Fiat BR-20. Widely used twin engine, larger than the Ca-135.
Piaggio P-108. Experimental 4 engine heavy, didn't see service?
Any others?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 15, 2006)

P108 Were used in several mission over Gibiltair.

Ca-135 (specifications http://www.luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/itf/ca135.htm ) had not particular problems, but it's developement was particularly slow, due to the difficulty to find the right engines for it. When the definitive powerplant was found, the Z-1007 (faster and with higher service ceiling, but with less range and payload) was already in production, so, the Ca-135 was built for export only. 100 of them were used from the Hungarian air force in the eastern front.

The infamous Breda Ba-88 "Lince". A light bomber of the same class of the Mosquito, 148 built.






Savoia Marchetti SM-85, less than satisfactory dive-bomber, 34 built.





Fiat CR 25, heavy fighter - light bomber, similar to Beaufighter, 11 built since Regia Aereonautica preferred the Ba-88 and the Caproni 311.





Fiat Cansa Fc-20, heavy fighter - light bomber, 12 built





Imam Ro 57, heavy fighter - light bomber, 53 built.





Savoia Marchetti Sm-81, medium bomber, 535 built (only 100 used in WW2)





Savoia Marchetti Sm-82, transporter - heavy bomber, 411 built





Savoia Marchetti Sm-84, medium bomber - torpedo bomber, 309 built





Cant Z-1007 "Alcione", medium bomber - torpedo bomber, 562 built




(formation photo) http://www.apostoloeditore.com/gallfoto1/1007-11.jpg

Cant Z-1018 "Leone", good, fast (525 km/h, 326 mp/h), medium bomber, 18 built





Reggiane Re-2002, fighter - dive bomber, 249 built





DogW


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2006)

> A light bomber of the same class of the Mosquito



that's incredibly insulting to the mosquito...........



> 11 built since Regia Aereonautica preferred the Ba-88



wait a minute- you mean the italians actually thought there was a plane worse than the Ba-88, dear god


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 15, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > A light bomber of the same class of the Mosquito
> 
> 
> 
> that's incredibly insulting to the mosquito...........


I said class, not capability  
Few times a military aircraft was so nice looking and so useless at one time.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> > 11 built since Regia Aereonautica preferred the Ba-88
> 
> 
> 
> wait a minute- you mean the italians actually thought there was a plane worse than the Ba-88, dear god


The funny thing is that the Cr-25 was a REAL capable aircraft, and the few built were intensively used as convoy escorts, when they proved to be able to engage the Beaufighters. But the Regia Aereonautica had great expectations for Ba-88, and even the political power of FIAT, that was able to impose the G-50 and CR-42 over Re-2000, wasn't able to impose a good machine over the "Lince".

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2006)

I personally like the P108, and think it could have been developed nicely. Unfortunatly it is a "Could have been, Should have been, never was" aircraft.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 18, 2006)

ive heard about some plane called the piaggio P50, could u please explain or link me to some website?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 18, 2006)

P50 was the basis for P108, only two prototypes were built, the first with four inline engines, in a two-by-two tandem arrangment, the second with four radials in a conventional arrangement.
http://www.aerei-italiani.net/SchedeT/aereop50I.htm
http://www.aerei-italiani.net/SchedeT/aereop50II.htm

DogW


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 18, 2006)

I forget this, in service until 1960, in the rescue role.

Cant Z-506 floatplane - medium bomber, 324 built










DogW


----------



## JCS (Jan 18, 2006)

Nice shot of the Ba.88 there, DogWalker. I've never seen that one before.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 19, 2006)

Thanks.  

DogW


----------



## Clipper79 (Jan 19, 2006)

Why did the Italians go with the Tri-motor set up when most country's went either with a two or four engine set up.

Was it that their engines just didn't have the HP? A B25 would look odd with an extra motor though.

BTW, Hello I'm new to this forum. My name is Clipper79 from the beautiful state of New Hampshire.

Clipper


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 19, 2006)

In part it was due to the success of SM79, in part to the lack of power of available engines.
In substance, it was a political decision. 
In the mid '30 the italian tecnology of inline engines was quite advanced, not only in record breaker engines, but even in reliable units. 
In 1933 the SM 55X floatplanes were equipped with two 18 cylinders Isotta Fraschini Asso 750, capable of 800 hp each (other sources report 820 or 880 hp), and they flew from the artic to the equator without problems.




Two years later, a Cant Z-501, equipped with a 960 Hp version of the Isotta Fraschini Asso 750 broke the world distance record for floatplanes flying no-stop from the British Somaliland to Trieste (3,080 mile, 4957 km).
In 1936 became available the enlighted (516 kg, compared to the 634 kg of the Asso 750, or the 623.7 kg of the MerlinII/III) 12 cylinders Isotta Fraschini Asso XI RC.40, in different versions from 800 to 960 hp.




And the inverted-V Isotta Fraschini Delta RC35




an air cooled inline engine capable of 900hp.

They were all good units, that could be developed in the same way of the DB or Rolls Royce engines. But in the mid '30 the Regia Aeronautica decided that the radial engines, sturdier, easier to mantain and capable to work with less expensive low octane fuel, were better for military purposes.
The first effect of this decision was to stop the developement of inline engines, the second, to force constructors to acquire the licences of foreign engines
The fact is that italian engineers were not able to design powerful radial engines, cause they had never done it before. First than the decision of Regia Aeronautica, in Italy, radials were considered "poor" engines, good only for small touring aircraft.
For this, the Fiat A 59R was a licence builded Pratt Whitney Hornet, the Fiat A 74 RC 38 (860 hp), a licence builded Pratt Whitney Twin Wasp R. 1830/43-65, and the Piaggio P XI RC 40 (1050 hp), a licence builded Gnome et Rhône 14 N-48-89. They were all quite obsolete units, but Regia Aeronautica requires radials, and there were nothing better on sale.
At the 1939 trials to choose the new italian fighters, only an eccentric genius like Sergio Stefanutti introduced an aircraft equipped with a 960 hp Isotta Fraschini Asso XI RC.40, the Ambrosini SS-4.
After, italian engineers learned to do better, and the Piaggio P. XV RC60 was rated at 1700 hp, but, at that time, too many years were wasted.

The final effect was that, at the beginning of the war, the floatplanes Cant Z 501 (used for recognition and rescue), were equipped with a more powerful and reliable unit (a 960 hp Isotta Fraschini Asso XI RC.40) than their escort fighters, and the 2000 hp, 18 cylinders, 57 litres, Isotta Fraschini Asso 1000 became the engine of the MAS (the italian torpedo boats)

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 20, 2006)

I think they should have just bought German Engines like the DB-601 and DB-605.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 20, 2006)

They did just not it great quatities, I think some of the later fighter (MC-202/205) where DB601 and DB605 powered respectively.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 20, 2006)

Without the decision of the R.A., there would not have been the necessity to buy DB engines, and with it, buying foreign inline engines would be useless, cause R.A would not accept it.
At the time they recognize the mistake, too many years were wasted, it was impossible to develop an engine like the DB605 in few months and there were not chances but buying the production licence.
The DB601 was only slightly better than Asso XI RC.40, but DB 601 was an intermediate passage to buy the DB605 (whose negotiations requires more time). In fact, the series of fighters equipped with the DB 601 (Macchi 202 and Reggiane 2001) were named, from the beginning, the "intermediate series", expecting the "definitive series" (the "5 series" fighters equipped with the DB 605)

DogW


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 20, 2006)

Good bit of info on the engines there Dogwalker! 8) I must say it has always confused me as to why pre-war Italian engines were so good, and yet their early was radials were poor. Thanks! 8)


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 21, 2006)

dogwalker is the best source of info on italian aircraft i guess


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 21, 2006)

Yup...

Where do you find all this stuff Dogwalker? I search everywhere for pics and info on the RA but you always come up with little gems that I never seen before...


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 21, 2006)

To live at 20 minutes from the aeronautic museum of Vigna di Valle is useful.  









The rest is only some luky net search.  

DogW


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 21, 2006)

what is that? a thermojet thing or a pepperoni campini?

and like how many pages and searh engines do u look through 2 get that!?!?!?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 22, 2006)

Is the Caproni Campini CC-2, the second prototype, exposed at the Vigna di Valle museum. Not difficult to find.  







DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

Do you even know what a thermojet is?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 22, 2006)

Also known as "motorjet", in italian "motoreattore"













DogW


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 22, 2006)

Good diagrams DogW, very interesting.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 22, 2006)

Nice cutways, havent seen them before 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

Im sorry Dogwalker if you thought that was dircted at you. It was not. I know what a thermojet is.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 22, 2006)

No problem, a good occasion to show the cutways of CC-2.  

DogW


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2006)

Agreed they are nice.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 24, 2006)

what flight sim are u flying that caproni in?
i think ive seen a CFS version and a site where u can DL a C-C

oh and Mr. Adler, yes i know a thermojet is, a piston engine and a jet engine combined in some fashion, like thats what i knew before the diagram


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 24, 2006)

I have to post this.
Summer vacation of a Z-506.  






DogW


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 24, 2006)

Good pic DogW, all the more interesting as it is colour.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2006)

Feel sorry for the guy who probably fell off the ladder in this pic


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 25, 2006)

Wow!





DogW


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2006)

It is an interesting pic - never really figured out whats going on. Maintenance perhaps?


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 25, 2006)

I would say that would be most likely, especially when you look at the plane in the background getting worked on.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2006)

Yep - a crane of that size on the coast seems like random overkill 

Oh I realise now...to hoist the planes from water to land...Ignore me


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 25, 2006)

I think nothing too big, only the usual manteinance work to do on the engines, after taken the aircrafts out of the water. But it's difficult to say.
The the plane in the background is hung to the crane, so it is probably taxying in or out of the water, or is necessary to change the floats.

DogW


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 26, 2006)

what was that twin engined floatplane called?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 26, 2006)

It's a Fiat RS-14, it first flew in 1938, and was developed as a replacement for Z-501 in the recognition, transport and antisom duties, 152 built.
Note the ventral pod, that could be removed and replaced for different missions.
















an interesting variant could have been the Fiat AS 14, attack airplane equipped with a 45mm cannon, seven 12.7mm guns and two 7.7mm guns, but only the prototype flew.






DogW


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 26, 2006)

What was the ventral pod for? Carrying extra fuel or ordinance?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 26, 2006)

I read of: 6 50 Kg bombs, or 4 100 Kg bombs, or (more ofren) two 160 Kg antisom depth bombs.

DogW


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 26, 2006)

The A.S.14 could really have become something...


----------



## Clave (Jan 26, 2006)

Cool info about the Italian bombers - good or bad - I will be searching out pics for my site now..


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 27, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> The A.S.14 could really have become something...


After the first north-african experiences, Regia Aeronautica was actively searching for an effective anti-tank and anti-ship air weapon. So there were multiple experiments, with artillery pieces mounted on aircrafts, and trasformations of existing planes into dive-bombers.
Even tha Fiat Camsa FC-20 Bis, with the 37/54 mm Breda anti-tank / anti-air cannon had a quite daring appearance.







If someone is interested, this is the Breda 37/54 cannon. Originally created as a naval AA gun it was used pratically in all units of Italian navy in WWII, and even in North-Africa, as anti-tank weapon






the 37/54 in action: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/DogW/c21ee0c5.jpg

Specifications here: http://regiamarina.net/arsenals/guns/specs/specs_us.asp?ID=5

However, for me, the right place to fit it, would be the nose of a special version of the Imam Ro-57 Bis.
One of the more underrated italian aircrafts of the WWII, in my opinion.

DogW


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 27, 2006)

Yep...Ro.58 was neat as well...


----------



## Dogwalker (Jan 27, 2006)

Could be. Even if, for Ro-58, the decision was for a big amount of medium fire (five 20 mm with the "gun pod"), rather than less amount of heavy fire. It's possible than the Ro-58, weighing a full ton more than the Ro-57b with pratically the same wings and similar armament, was less adapt to carry another heavy weapon. While for the Ro-57, the problem was the lack of power of the engines.
I think that the '57, with two more powerful radials only (that were fully avaliable when the Regia Aeronautica returned on his previous decision, and ordered the production of the Ro-57b, for close ground support and dive bombing) could fill the gap that Regia Aeronautica had in AT aircrafts and nightfighters, with only a different version of the same plane.

DogW


----------



## Dogwalker (Feb 12, 2006)

A good pic, the only one i found so detailed, of a full loaded Ro-57bis divebomber.
You can see the dive brakes under the wings and the pointing window under the fuselage, tipical of the "bis" vertion.





www.modelersunderground.com

DogW


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2006)

Great pic!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 12, 2006)

Nice pic DogW!


----------



## Twitch (Feb 12, 2006)

While on the subject of the Caproni jet does anyone know this story?




REGGIANE 
Early Italian jet experimentation with indigenous power plants, such as the Caproni-Campini N.1 that used a 900 HP Isotta-Fraschini piston engine and ducts to produce jet thrust, were lackluster but Italy almost had a potent jet. The 1943 Reggaine Re-2007 was to use the Junker Jumo 004B with 1,980 lbs. thrust.

The open exchange of ideas and material between Germany and Italy saw interesting applications in the aviation field such as using Daimler-Benz piston engines on Italian prototypes. When the Jumo was seen as a possible source of power Reggaine laid out a small fighter design. For the time, right before Italy’s capitulation, the craft looked quite a lot like contemporary Reggaine piston engine fighters, which makes sense. Even the classic Reggaine tail was present on the horizontally oval-shaped 29.5-foot fuselage. Though the tail was non-swept the wings spanning 31.1 feet did have a slight sweep.
A certain Hauptmann (Captain) Bohm, was the Luftwaffe's senior engineer at the Reggiane plant, but even he was unable to obtain a positive decision concerning the supply of the two Junkers Jumo 004B's which had been promised by the Berlin. On January 7, 1944, Reggaine engineer Roberto Longhi wrote to Count Caproni, requesting that he intervene with the Germans as design work had diminished. Much of the rear fuselage, wing spars, ribs, undercarriage and the cockpit were already built but because of the inability to obtain adequately detailed dimensional specifications about the engine work once again halted.
In October 1944 the finished components were transported to the Caproni plant at Taliedo, where they remained until the end of the war. They were ultimately shipped to the US. The two Jumo 004B engines were sent to Italy, but were allegedly sold for scrap in Milan immediately after the withdrawal of German forces in Italy.

Keeping with the Italian lust for compact planes of high maneuverability the Re-2007 was that weighing just 7,788 lbs. loaded compared to around 14,000 lbs. for the Me 262. Its pair of 004Bs was buried in the fuselage for a very post-war look. The pilot’s bubble canopy sat adjacent to the leading edge of the wings.

Maximum speed was estimated to be about 630 MPH while a range of 931 miles was estimated. Four 20 mm MG 151 cannon were to be the armament.

This jet design was quite standard in every way and specifications seem legitimate.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2006)

Yeah, its a farce. It was actually designed after WW2 by Longhi, but claimed to have been designed during the war, in the hope that the company would still get design contracts.


----------



## SAHARAS (Dec 8, 2007)

Do you know this plane, near Siwa at N 28° 23' et E 25° 57'
It is probably the nose of a light italian bomber.
Which one?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2007)

Possibly a Carproni Ca 311?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2007)

I think its a Carproni CA 310


----------



## SAHARAS (Dec 9, 2007)

Bravo, FLYBOYJ !

I found a new picture (attached)

You are fine. It's surely a CA310

Thanks.

Yves

PS: go to my saharian site ( ACCUEIL) and see the chapter AVIONS

PPS: a report of the search is also attached (C'ESTUNCA310..PDF)


----------



## Johnny .45 (Jan 2, 2010)

Why does it look like it has a ring-mount for a turret or something? The CA-310 didn't have anything like that, at least not that I can see in the pics above. Maybe it's actually something else? A chin turret? Bomb-sight? Other than that, it definetly looks right. Besides, a B-17 nose is a B-17 nose, whether its a chin-turretless B-17E or a G model, right? Pretty damn cool either way. Did they just find this nose section lying in the desert? Crazy. Where did they find it? I think that would be a trip and a half, to find a piece of a WWII plane lying undiscovered somewhere. Just think, that was a piece of a plane, shot down way back when, and it fell away when the plane broke up and landed in the sand. And there it sat until it was found again. Who sat in that nose once? Did they aim any fatal bombs from there? What were they like? THIS is why I like history so much! =)


----------



## Marcogrifo (Jan 2, 2010)

Hi, I thought, better, I was almost sure that's a Caproni Ca.309 
The circular frame on nose tip looks very different from the same area on Ca.310.

What puzzled me was that circular hatch on nose roof (or bottom? ), and a bit of research on net about 309 leads me to this image of a 309 from Bunderarchive:






Now that make sense! In fact, a bunch of 309s were used by italians as ground attack planes against british desert patrols and were consequently equipped with a manned 7.7mm gun in the nose that was mounted on the floor on a round base 
Anyway, that wreck was already identified as a 309 some year ago...

Cheers


----------

