Breda Ba.88 Lince: what went wrong?

[ChrisMcD]

The Fiat engine was a race engine so not comparable at all nor usable in anything else but racing

So was the Rolls Royce R and look what that led to!

 

[ChrisMcD]

A rather unfair comparison.

Fair comment, I chose it as a generic example rather than as a specific one.

BUT the Italians never really seem to have got a usefully powerful radial engine into full scale production - which I suppose indicates why they were so keen on trimotor aircraft.

I suppose my real point is that some of the Italian airframes were superb, but that they were let down by poor engine development and that, in turn, seems to have been due to poor governmental direction - AFAIK, since Italian engine development strategy is not something I know much about.

What I find strange is that a country that was highly competitive in the Schneider trophy races does not seem to have been able to take that technology and develop it in the way that Rolls Royce and Supermarine did.

 

[Shortround6]

The Rolls-Royce "R" didn't really lead directly to anything. It was a souped up/modified Buzzard and while it used the same bore and stroke as the Griffon I doubt much of anything except nuts and bolts were interchangeable. What it did do was show what was possible.

The Buzzard ran on 73-77 octane fuel and maxed out at 2000 rpm. The "R" ran at 3200rpm if not beyond and used 17.6lb boost at sea level, which really isn't that much a stretch for a supercharger. It was about what the Merlin "C" could do as far as pressure ratio.

The British didn't start using 87 octane fuel until 1933-34. I don't know when the Italians started using 87 octane fuel. On the Kestrel 87 octane allowed going from about 1.5lbs of boost to 3.5lbs boost in 1933-35 at altitude and allowed for 6lbs boost at take-off.

You are right, the Italians never did develop high powered aircraft engines but a lot of that goes back to the fuel. You don't build heavy duty aircraft engines in the hope that better fuel will come along that will let them develop more power. In the meantime you would be saddled with overweight engines. You also need strength of materials, research into vibration and bearings.
The Alfa Romero car company did know a thing or two about high performance car engines in the 1930s yet their aircraft engines were either licensed deHavilland 4 & 6 cylinder engines or The Bristol Pegasus. The 18 cylinder (two row short stroke Pegasus) didn't really go anywhere.

Perhaps it was government meddling or perhaps engines were just getting a lot more complicated to build and get good power to weight ratios from? Most Italian engines are on the light side for their displacement and ran at low RPM in comparison to the higher powered American and British engines. However the same could be said about the majority of French engines (including the Hispano V-12).

Some engine companies needed to redesign the crankshaft, rods and pistons just to pick up 100-200 rpm. In some cases new crankcases were needed to hold the new moving parts.

Italy was a small country and not well industrialized. Splitting aircraft engine development between 4 companies was probably not a good idea as development became more complicated.

 

[swampyankee]

I remember reading that Fiat was told to start building radials by the government; it had been building perfectly serviceable V-12s. I believe Italy had four manufacturers producing engines for military aircraft: ALFA-Romeo, FIAT, Isotta-Fraschini, and Piaggio; I don't think Italy had a significant domestic market for these engines outside of the fascist government.

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe it was politics.
Isotta-Fraschini managed to sell a fair number of V-12s to the Italian military in the mid to late 30s. At least in comparison to the total number of engines built, however the Isotta-Fraschini V-12 never seemed to crack the 1000hp barrier in production form and so never made any real impact on the aviation scene. Perhaps Fiat backed the wrong people in government?

The 1938 Jane's does say that at some point Fiat was told by the Italian government to simplify their range of liquid cooled engines, in the late 20s they had five different V-12 engines not including minor variations and/or race engines. This might not have been an unreasonable request. Fiat did trim the lineup to 3 engines.

I would note that NONE of these engines had superchargers and ALL were in operation before 1930. That leaves the AS-6 race engine as the last Fiat V-12 to try to develop a service engine from and yet it could be traced back to the AS.5 of 1929 (unsupercharged).

Please note that a racing engine at sea level is operating quite differently than an engine at 15,000ft. These old Fiat engines were delivering a much higher percentage of power developed in the cylinders to the propeller, the only loss being power to friction (pumps are included in this catagory) while a supercharged engine operating at 15,000ft could be devoting several hundred horsepower to driving the supercharger which means a higher thermal load and more pressure/stress inside the cylinders.

Perhaps the Fiat company decided on their own to go for the air-cooled market? Or perhaps, with their eye on Africa, the Italian government issued a requirement (or more than one) that favored air cooled engines? The consumption of water by liquid cooled engines in the dessert would be minuscule in comparison to the consumption of water by hundreds of ground crew but sometimes logic wasn't a strong point in armchair air marshals (or like the US Navy, experiences in the 1920s with leaky liquid systems soured them on liquid cooled engines?)

 

[rinkol]

Maybe it was politics.
Isotta-Fraschini managed to sell a fair number of V-12s to the Italian military in the mid to late 30s. At least in comparison to the total number of engines built, however the Isotta-Fraschini V-12 never seemed to crack the 1000hp barrier in production form and so never made any real impact on the aviation scene. Perhaps Fiat backed the wrong people in government?

The 1938 Jane's does say that at some point Fiat was told by the Italian government to simplify their range of liquid cooled engines, in the late 20s they had five different V-12 engines not including minor variations and/or race engines. This might not have been an unreasonable request. Fiat did trim the lineup to 3 engines.

I would note that NONE of these engines had superchargers and ALL were in operation before 1930. That leaves the AS-6 race engine as the last Fiat V-12 to try to develop a service engine from and yet it could be traced back to the AS.5 of 1929 (unsupercharged).

Please note that a racing engine at sea level is operating quite differently than an engine at 15,000ft. These old Fiat engines were delivering a much higher percentage of power developed in the cylinders to the propeller, the only loss being power to friction (pumps are included in this catagory) while a supercharged engine operating at 15,000ft could be devoting several hundred horsepower to driving the supercharger which means a higher thermal load and more pressure/stress inside the cylinders.

Perhaps the Fiat company decided on their own to go for the air-cooled market? Or perhaps, with their eye on Africa, the Italian government issued a requirement (or more than one) that favored air cooled engines? The consumption of water by liquid cooled engines in the dessert would be minuscule in comparison to the consumption of water by hundreds of ground crew but sometimes logic wasn't a strong point in armchair air marshals (or like the US Navy, experiences in the 1920s with leaky liquid systems soured them on liquid cooled engines?)

I found it curious that both Piaggio and Isotta-Fraschini licensed the Gnome-Rhone 14K. In hindsight this probably wasn't the best choice given the limited development potential of the basic design. Furthermore, the latter company carried out little development and production of the K14 engine. Perhaps they would have been better off developing a monobloc version of their V12s or licensing the DB engines.

The Fascist government seems to have made many bad decisions, such as giving priority to the production of light tanks of minimal usefulness, to say nothing of jumping into a war it was badly prepared for. It seems that the decision makers heard only what they wanted to hear.



.

 

[swampyankee]

I found it curious that both Piaggio and Isotta-Fraschini licensed the Gnome-Rhone 14K. In hindsight this probably wasn't the best choice given the limited development potential of the basic design. Furthermore, the latter company carried out little development and production of the K14 engine. Perhaps they would have been better off developing a monobloc version of their V12s or licensing the DB engines.

The Fascist government seems to have made many bad decisions, such as giving priority to the production of light tanks of minimal usefulness, to say nothing of jumping into a war it was badly prepared for. It seems that the decision makers heard only what they wanted to hear.



.

A chronic disease of ideologues. Evidence that disagrees is just a [insert etnic group or nationality of choice] conspiracy. Alas, not a defunct position.

 

[parsifal]

The failures of the Fascists is inherent to the regime. Mussolini was acutely aware of Italian economic weakness. Having said that, the fascist regime was a highly centralised regime, in which nearly all power, but no responsibility was vested in the hands of one man. This one man needed lieutenants to pay the bills, switch the lights on and off, but ultimately were beholden to the Duce for their status. Mussolini was more about style and looks than substance. He was after all, a newspaper journo in which facts were secondary to sensation. He wanted more tanks than anybody, but Italy couldn't afford real tanks, it couldn't even afford to research tanks properly. Results were that Italy went to war with poor AFV park, many tanks were referred to as "sardine tins". They really were rather poorly designed tankettes, on, or below par with a bren gun carrier. The true tanks were a mixture of obsolete types dates back to the late 20s, or a few exceptionally bad types epitomised in the M-13/39.Break down rates were exceptionally high.


Italy boasted that she could raise an army of "8 million rifles". Maybe, but they never did. Closer to 2 million really, including training and militia units. Something like 11 different calibers of rifle spread over 20 something models. Artillery was atrocious and short supply.


Naval units were slow to reach front line units, cruisers were designed to win pre-war trial speed rercords more than anything, carrier aviation was ignored. The design of guns were generally poor with huge dispersal issues, a lack of strength to allow full salvo fire, poor sustained sea speeds, slow rates of fire for most weapons, and fatally a lack of realistic training for night operations. Italy as a whole was short of fuel, but the navy in particular suffered from this shortage.


If ever there was a show pony it was the RM. The RM adopted the same policy as they had against the Austrians, basically hide in harbours and wait until the British surrendered. This never happened, and the RM found itself hounded in its "safe" lairs as epitomised at Taranto.


The RA was the darling child of the Fascists and in the 1930's it had give impressive displays of its power and technology all over Europe, indeed the world. In the early 1930s it was impressive, but as the decade wore on, the italians began to lag. It was in this environment of all show and no substance that the Ba88 was born. It was an aircraft designed and built for show, not a practical response in any sense. designed to grab headlines and not much else.

 

[Shortround6]

The failures of the Fascists is inherent to the regime. Mussolini was acutely aware of Italian economic weakness. Having said that, the fascist regime was a highly centralised regime, in which nearly all power, but no responsibility was vested in the hands of one man. This one man needed lieutenants to pay the bills, switch the lights on and off, but ultimately were beholden to the Duce for their status. Mussolini was more about style and looks than substance. He was after all, a newspaper journo in which facts were secondary to sensation. He wanted more tanks than anybody, but Italy couldn't afford real tanks, it couldn't even afford to research tanks properly. Results were that Italy went to war with poor AFV park, many tanks were referred to as "sardine tins". They really were rather poorly designed tankettes, on, or below par with a bren gun carrier. The true tanks were a mixture of obsolete types dates back to the late 20s, or a few exceptionally bad types epitomised in the M-13/39.Break down rates were exceptionally high.

Agree

Italy boasted that she could raise an army of "8 million rifles". Maybe, but they never did. Closer to 2 million really, including training and militia units. Something like 11 different calibers of rifle spread over 20 something models. Artillery was atrocious and short supply.

A lot of the strange rifles were WW I left overs and/or captured war spoils. And what the Germans may have unloaded on them. Modern Italian artillery pieces were actually rather good but in ridiculously small numbers. Italy's small industrial base and the availability of ex-Austo-Hungarian WWI guns lead to very small production numbers of new guns.

Naval units were slow to reach front line units, cruisers were designed to win pre-war trial speed rercords more than anything, carrier aviation was ignored. The design of guns were generally poor with huge dispersal issues, a lack of strength to allow full salvo fire, poor sustained sea speeds, slow rates of fire for most weapons, and fatally a lack of realistic training for night operations. Italy as a whole was short of fuel, but the navy in particular suffered from this shortage.

I believe (but could be wrong) that the Navy and builders weren't really trying to set records although bragging rights over the French certainly entered into it. However the builders were paid bonuses for speeds exceeding official specifications. The Navy officials also allowed some trials under near idiotic conditions, like main armament (including turrets/gun houses) not being installed let alone magazines and fuel tanks being anywhere near full.

The RA was the darling child of the Fascists and in the 1930's it had give impressive displays of its power and technology all over Europe, indeed the world. In the early 1930s it was impressive, but as the decade wore on, the italians began to lag. It was in this environment of all show and no substance that the Ba88 was born. It was an aircraft designed and built for show, not a practical response in any sense. designed to grab headlines and not much else.

Agree, the Breda 88 being a cautionary tale to those who think you can take record setting aircraft XXX and turn it into a useful warplane without a lot of work.

 

[swampyankee]

There was a book a few years ago about why the Axis lost. The major Axis powers in Europe -- Germany and Italy -- had a lot of internal failings, very importantly, much less efficient allocation of resources than the democratic Allies or the USSR (Germany had all the deficits of a centrally planned economy with none of the benefits). Italy and Germany also had a lot of favoritism in its procurement process and far too little civilian control essentially, the German military could be the kid in the candy store. Italy had many of the same problems as Germany, compounded by a military which was, overall, less professional and less conversant with technology than the Germans. While the Italians did have some quite competent engineers -- I think one can make the case that the Romas were among the best battleships built, and the Zara may have been the best 8 in gunned cruiser, the country also had very limited resources and was reliant on imported energy, and an economy with a very large agricultural sector.

Italy had some decent equipment -- it seems the Italian engineers fielded some very good torpedoes -- and their warships were competently designed, and their light units did the heavy lifting of escorting supply ships.

 

[parsifal]

Certainly some of the Italian cruisers, particularly those delivered as the threat of real war began to loom in the late 1930s had elements of better design embedded into them, and were far more balanced than the earlier headline grabbers. But conversely none of them produced or revealed outstanding results or performance under wartime conditions.


Case in point could be the vaunted Polas. Despite their apparent superiority in speed and protection, they were still lost with relative ease. They failed to display exceptional levels of protection. Some would say they fell over relatively easily actually. They still suffered relatively low rates of fire for various reasons and indifferent levels of accuracy again for various reasons, but one had to be due to the poor layouts of their turret designs. Despite their opponents being (mostly) non radar equipped, at Matapan they still allowed themselves to be ambushed at point blank range by the british and shot to pieces with no appreciable damage done in return. This was a trend repeated often. It would be unfair to say or claim such poor showings were the result, or even mainly the result of design. It was mostly about deficiencies in training, and the operational (and defensive) posturing of the Italian fleet, but even so, there was no aspect of the Italian cruisers that stood out to the point that they could make any difference, even when the odds were heavily in their favour on the basis of simple firepower comparisons.

 

[parsifal]

The question I think that is relevant is whether, with the tools and equipment at hand if there was anything that could have been done to rescue the Ba-88. Certainly engines of higher power and further engines that didn't lose power in desert conditions. This is a bit of a mystery to me, since other Italian aircraft used exactly the same engine and did not suffer the same catastrophic losses in performance as the Ba-88. Makes me think something else was wrong with this aircraft. Im thinking fuel management.


A comparison with the Z1007, another aircraft with the same engine, albeit 3 attached, allowed that aircraft, at slightly over 30000 lb fully loaded to achieve deent levls of performance. The published figures (probably not carrying any great amounts of weight) enabled the z 1007 to reach respectable speeds of 285 mph. The z 1007 had an empty weight of 20718 lbs. I would hazard a guess and claim the z 1007 was less aerodynamic than the BA 88.The BA 88 in comparison had an empty weight of (10,251 lb) and a fully loaded weight of 14,881 lb. Comparatively the BA 88 had significantly greater amounts of power per lb of weight to the Z 1007, yet was barely able to get off the ground. What caused this?

 

[tomo pauk]

The question I think that is relevant is whether, with the tools and equipment at hand if there was anything that could have been done to rescue the Ba-88. Certainly engines of higher power and further engines that didn't lose power in desert conditions. This is a bit of a mystery to me, since other Italian aircraft used exactly the same engine and did not suffer the same catastrophic losses in performance as the Ba-88. Makes me think something else was wrong with this aircraft. Im thinking fuel management.

It was not about the engines mysteriously loosing the power by great amount. It is about a mistake in design phase, that went both with metalic grider construction and stressed skin construction methods aplied in a same aircraft, leading to the rise in weight of aircraft vs. another aircraft that will employ either only metalic grider (wrapped with fabric) or only stressed skin. Thus the construction method eat into any worthwhile bombload or fuel load that was supposed to be carried - not a problem with short-range high-speed A/C, but a major problem to a wanabee bomber.

A comparison with the Z1007, another aircraft with the same engine, albeit 3 attached, allowed that aircraft, at slightly over 30000 lb fully loaded to achieve deent levls of performance. The published figures (probably not carrying any great amounts of weight) enabled the z 1007 to reach respectable speeds of 285 mph. The z 1007 had an empty weight of 20718 lbs. I would hazard a guess and claim the z 1007 was less aerodynamic than the BA 88.The BA 88 in comparison had an empty weight of (10,251 lb) and a fully loaded weight of 14,881 lb. Comparatively the BA 88 had significantly greater amounts of power per lb of weight to the Z 1007, yet was barely able to get off the ground. What caused this?

Wing area - the Z.1007 was with more than twice of it than the Ba.88, that was comparable with P-38, albeit without it's Fowler flaps, 1 crew member, and more powerful engines. Greater wing area meant that wing loading of the Z.1007 was, on max take off weight, about the same if not more favorable than of the Ba.88 when at loaded weight.

 

[Shortround6]

The prototype set a record of " averaging 524 km/h (326 mph) over 1,000 km (621 mi) with a 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) load."

Now trying to lift three 250kg bombs plus the three 12.7mm mgs and all the other military equipment may have been beyond it but where did the 1000kg payload go? Obviously the plane must have carried pretty close to a full fuel load to go that distance at that speed.

Unless the addition of operational equipment caused a shift in the center of gravity forcing the plane to fly nose up or nose down (less than optimum angle of attack on the wing? Just a wild guess?

Photos show different cowlings, no large air intake. large air intake on top of cowl (at least two different ones) , large air intake at bottom of cowl. Spinners, no spinners. Seems like they were trying different things?

 

[tomo pauk]

Did the prototype had any means of protection, either for crew or fuel, or both? For oil system? Radios, batteries, antennea masts, how many crew on board? Top crop of the pilot(s) for the prototype vs. run on the mill pilot(s) for the military-viable ones?

We know well how the P-36C become the P-39D, or how the P-40 (no suffix) became P-40E, or how A6M5 became A6M5c - performers turned into turkeys once protection, better/more radios and firepower was added for almost no increase of engine power. Neither of whom featured 'double construction' methods applied on the Ba.88.

 

[parsifal]

As a 1936 design, I would think it unlikely that the BA 88 carried any protection.


Regarding engiune power, whilst I accept your explanation, there are many accounts of the BA88 losing power when sent to the heat of Nth Africa. Engine power was calculated to be less than half that which could be delivered in cooler conditions. The results were that the BA 88 could not gain altitude when carrying even a reduced bombload, and could not even maintain formation. its top speed was under 200mph.


If those accounts. have any veracity, there are serious issues with the engine power delivery, and not just aerodynamic issues. moreover if it was just wing design, why didn't these failure manifest themselves under temperate conditions.


Some ideas that I have.


1) No sand filters, allowing sand into the cylinder heads and excessive wear in the pots thereby causing a loss in power due to poor compression.


2) Excessively long fuel lines, increasing the risk of fuel vaporisation under hot conditions. Vaporisation in the fuel lines is a major cause of engine power. It happened once to lorry my dad was driving overloaded up a mountain side in hot conditions. Engine vaporised and lost most of its power.


3) The Italians cooked the books during the trials tests…..

 

[Graeme]

Just needed stronger rubber bands...

 

[Shortround6]

Did the prototype had any means of protection, either for crew or fuel, or both? For oil system? Radios, batteries, antennea masts, how many crew on board? Top crop of the pilot(s) for the prototype vs. run on the mill pilot(s) for the military-viable ones?

We know well how the P-36C become the P-39D, or how the P-40 (no suffix) became P-40E, or how A6M5 became A6M5c - performers turned into turkeys once protection, better/more radios and firepower was added for almost no increase of engine power. Neither of whom featured 'double construction' methods applied on the Ba.88.

Somehow the plane reportedly went from over 300mph in record setting form, and record setting, unlike manufacturer's trials, required some sort of observers or ratification from the FIA, to 155mph in service condition (bombload not given). The Breda 88 went from a Falcon right past Turkey to essentially Kiwi.

I can understand adding operational equipment degrading performance to where an aircraft is no longer a viable warplane, but with a payload of 1000kg NOT including fuel, having the operational equipment degrade the plane to where it can barely take-off and fly in in a straight line calls for some serious miscalculation.

 

[parsifal]

or downright fibbing at the beginning.......

 

[parsifal]

leave the kiwis out of this. cute, harmless birds really....