Italian Carrier Aircraft (1 Viewer)

[Darthtabby]

The aircraft carrier was not without its prominent supporters in the ranks of Italy's Regia Marina, but the carrier supporters didn't have enough clout to actually get any carriers laid down before 1940, and no Italian carrier was completed before Italy's surrender to the allies. As such, the window for serious Italian carrier aircraft development was quite short. But what sort of aircraft might have seen service on Regia Marina carriers had Italy started building carriers and a fleet air arm in the mid to late 1930s and/or managed to build a carrier during the war? Does anyone know of any pre-war proposals for Italian carrier aircraft? What aircraft might have been considered suitable for conversion? I've generally assumed the CR.32 and 42 would be work, but that's an assumption that's primarily based on them being biplanes.

As for potential later war Italian carrier fighters, I've seen it presumed that ongoing Italian carrier aircraft development would continue to be based on Regianne fighters due to the Re.2001 being selected for Aquila's air complement during the war. However I question whether the Re.2005 would be strong enough for carrier operations. It was a clean sheet design with a different landing gear from the Re.2001, and seems to have been structurally weak in the tail.

(I'm also interested in potential strike and reconnaissance aircraft, not just fighters.)

The creation of this topic is partly motivated by the research I am doing for a video game mod, but I figured it might make for an interesting alternate history topic in general.

 

[GrauGeist]

All I've ever read, regarding aircraft for the Aquila (slated for 51 aircraft) and Sparviero (slated for 34 aircraft), were the Reggiane RE.2001 Serie II aircraft for fighters. Nothing regarding dive or torpedo bombers, unfortunately.

 

[GTX]

The RE 2000 "Catapultabile" would be the leading candidate I would expect:

Though Chris Dunning's "Courage Alone: The Italian Air Force 1940–1943" and other sources suggest that they selected the Re.2001 OR Serie II to fill the combined fighter and bomber/torpedo carrier for the Aquila:

 

[Admiral Beez]

My pick for fighter….. Caproni Vizzola F.5

 

[SaparotRob]

Looks like the Gloster!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Looks like the Gloster!

The Buffalo was carrier-capable, you know.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Looks like the Gloster!

Indeed, they even share the same F.5 designation: Caproni Vizzola F.5 and Gloster F.5/34. As for the looks, Gloster, Caproni and Mitsubishi all seemed to find similar inspiration.

First flight Dec. 1936

First flight Feb. 1939

First flight April 1939

 

[SaparotRob]

The Buffalo was carrier-capable, you know.

Speaking of thread drift, using the retrosprectro-zoetrope, I wonder if the FAA could have equipped some its carriers with license built F2A's. Wasn't Gloster kind of light on work? If Gloster or ANY other manufacturer (including those delightfully dotty ladies who were knitting Merlin engines while having tea and bikkies) could produce them, the FAA might have had a better fighter? The Finns did knock down P-39's with them.

 

[SaparotRob]

And thanks, Thumpster! I was dying to use that line.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Speaking of thread drift, using the retrosprectro-zoetrope, I wonder if the FAA could have equipped some its carriers with license built F2A's. Wasn't Gloster kind of light on work? If Gloster or ANY other manufacturer (including those delightfully dotty ladies who were knitting Merlin engines while having tea and bikkies) could produce them, the FAA might have had a better fighter? The Finns did knock down P-39's with them.

Brewster or Skua isn't a hard decision for me -- Brewsters as fighters; Skuas as DB/backup fighters; Swords for strike, ASW, recon. 3 units of 12 each on an Illustrious and you can do good things, I reckon.

Would a Buffalo fit the elevators? A Admiral Beez ? You're good with this stuff, what say ye?

 

[GrauGeist]

The F2A (Buffalo) had a wingspan of 35 feet, three feet shorter than the F4F/Martlet

 

[Darthtabby]

The RE 2000 "Catapultabile" would be the leading candidate I would expect:

View attachment 633381View attachment 633382


Though Chris Dunning's "Courage Alone: The Italian Air Force 1940–1943" and other sources suggest that they selected the Re.2001 OR Serie II to fill the combined fighter and bomber/torpedo carrier for the Aquila:

View attachment 633383

The Re.2001 was derived from the Re.2000, so it's not hugely surprising that the Italian Navy considered it for Aquila given the use of the Re.2000 as a catapult fighter. Aircraft Profile #244: Capproni Regianne 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete & Re 2005 Sagittaire by John F Brindley also indicates that the Re.2002 also underwent catapult testing with a view towards having the type equip Aquila and Sparviero. The main reason I'm not so sure about the Re.2005 as a carrier fighter is because it was largely a new design with a different landing gear design then previous Regianne fighters, and one source indicates that its rear fuselage was structurally weak.

Actually Plane Encyclopedia claims that there was a proposal for a carrier version of the Re.2005 though no prototype was built. I wish they indicated which of their sources made that claim. It's not Brindley -his profile covers some of the other variants mentioned in the article, but not a carrier variant.

Do you have access to a copy of Dunning's book? It sounds like a well regarded source, so I want to see if the text actually backs up what the Wikipedia's article on Aquila (specifically the section on the aircraft planned for Aquila) cites it for. I'm somewhat sceptical of the idea that the carrier variant of the Re.2001 was actually intended to carry heavy ordnance like torpedoes. My understanding from Brindley is that there were experiments with torpedoes and heavy bombs and one incident where a pair of Re.2001s dropped bombs made out of converted battleship shells on HMS Victorious, but that generally 250kg bombs were the heaviest ordnance employed by Re.2001 fighter bombers and some Re.2001s weren't fighter bombers at all. Granted Brindley is an older source and maybe someone has dug up better sources in the decades since his profile on the Regianne fighters was published, but I have a suspicion that this carrierborne Re.2001 fighter/bomber/torpedo variant might be the result of someone reading about several different Re.2001 variants and blurring them together in their head.

Indeed, they even share the same F.5 designation: Caproni Vizzola F.5 and Gloster F.5/34. As for the looks, Gloster, Caproni and Mitsubishi all seemed to find similar inspiration.

First flight Dec. 1936
View attachment 633654

First flight Feb. 1939
View attachment 633655

First flight April 1939
View attachment 633656

Interesting, but Caproni actually owned Regianne and the F.5 only flew about half a year before the Re.2000. It seems inefficient for them to be competitors though one could say the same about the two planes as land based fighters.

Brewster or Skua isn't a hard decision for me -- Brewsters as fighters; Skuas as DB/backup fighters; Swords for strike, ASW, recon. 3 units of 12 each on an Illustrious and you can do good things, I reckon.

Would a Buffalo fit the elevators? A Admiral Beez ? You're good with this stuff, what say ye?

IIRC the Brewsters had pretty good endurance which might solve some of the issues encountered with the Sea Hurricane as a replacement for the Fulmar. However IIRC the back seater in the Skua and the Fulmar played a critical role in the RN's early efforts to direct intercepts using shipboard radar, so I'd be a bit cautious about replacing them with a single seater.

Also would the Royal Navy actually get the Brewsters it ordered? Brewster wasn't that great at actually building aircraft.

 

[MikeMeech]

Speaking of thread drift, using the retrosprectro-zoetrope, I wonder if the FAA could have equipped some its carriers with license built F2A's. Wasn't Gloster kind of light on work? If Gloster or ANY other manufacturer (including those delightfully dotty ladies who were knitting Merlin engines while having tea and bikkies) could produce them, the FAA might have had a better fighter? The Finns did knock down P-39's with them.

Hi
Gloster 'light on work'? No. It was rather busy building Gloster and Hawker designs that overlapped on the production lines:

From 'Gloster Aircraft since 1917' by Derek N James, page 417.

Mike

 

[Admiral Beez]

If the Italians have a carrier or two this would I hope encourage the UK Air Ministry and the RN/FAA to up their games on the quality/capability and sizes of their CAGs.

 

[SaparotRob]

Hi
Gloster 'light on work'? No. It was rather busy building Gloster and Hawker designs that overlapped on the production lines:
View attachment 633666
From 'Gloster Aircraft since 1917' by Derek N James, page 417.

Mike

Thanks MikeMeech. I got that notion from a post that I conveniently can't remember. Something along the lines they built a jet then nothing much else until later in the war.

 

[SaparotRob]

The Re.2001 was derived from the Re.2000, so it's not hugely surprising that the Italian Navy considered it for Aquila given the use of the Re.2000 as a catapult fighter. Aircraft Profile #244: Capproni Regianne 2001 Falco II, Re 2002 Ariete & Re 2005 Sagittaire by John F Brindley also indicates that the Re.2002 also underwent catapult testing with a view towards having the type equip Aquila and Sparviero. The main reason I'm not so sure about the Re.2005 as a carrier fighter is because it was largely a new design with a different landing gear design then previous Regianne fighters, and one source indicates that its rear fuselage was structurally weak.

Actually Plane Encyclopedia claims that there was a proposal for a carrier version of the Re.2005 though no prototype was built. I wish they indicated which of their sources made that claim. It's not Brindley -his profile covers some of the other variants mentioned in the article, but not a carrier variant…..


Also would the Royal Navy actually get the Brewsters it ordered? Brewster wasn't that great at actually building aircraft.

I did bring that up myself. Hence the "ANY" other manufacturer.

 

[Admiral Beez]

But what sort of aircraft might have seen service on Regia Marina carriers had Italy started building carriers and a fleet air arm in the mid to late 1930s and/or managed to build a carrier during the war?

Best way for Italy to get carriers into service is to avoid the war entirely. Follow Franco's lead, keep your fascism but don't join the fight with Germany. Then Italy can focus on getting its carriers into service by about 1939-40.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Speaking of thread drift, using the retrosprectro-zoetrope, I wonder if the FAA could have equipped some its carriers with license built F2A's. Wasn't Gloster kind of light on work? If Gloster or ANY other manufacturer (including those delightfully dotty ladies who were knitting Merlin engines while having tea and bikkies) could produce them, the FAA might have had a better fighter? The Finns did knock down P-39's with them.

Four minutes in the penalty box bub.

Although you mentioned the sacred Buffalo in a good light, so only go to the sin bin for two minutes.

 

[GrauGeist]

Here's a good page that covers the Aquila, the Italian carrier design process and the R2001 in detail (including carrying torpedoes).

Aircraft carrier Aquila

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The F2A (Buffalo) had a wingspan of 35 feet, three feet shorter than the F4F/Martlet

I can't find the folded width, but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.