- Thread starter
-
- #61
Darthtabby
Airman
- 59
- May 22, 2021
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
The storage of aircraft in the Roma was actually rather high-capacity for a conversion. Aircraft could not only be carried on the flight deck and soil of the hangard, but could also be suspended to the hangar's ceilling to make use of as much space as possible. The aircraft which was adapted to be used in the Aquila was Reggiane's Re.2001 fighter, a rather slow but smaller and more robust fighter in comparison to the Macchi C.202; 51 of the first carrier model, the Re.2001OR, could be operated from the Aquila, with 10 sitting on the deck and the rest in the hangar; if a folding wing model of the Re.2001 could be produced, the number of aircrafts used could be risen to 66, and all could be stored within the hangar when needed. The Fiat G.50 has also been considered as a carrier fighter, but the Re.2001 offered superior armament (two 12.7mm and two 7.7mm on the Reggiane, just the two 12.7mm on the G.50) and performance. It was reportedly even better than the German Bf 109T; a German delegation arrived in Italy in March of 1943 to help train the fighter group that was to be operated from the Aquila on carrier operation, and reportedly reported that the Re.2001 had more potential than the Messer for carrier operation. It could also be modified into a decent naval fighter-bomber (Re.2001GV), and a torpedo bomber model, the Re.2001G, was in trials by September of 1943.
The Re.2001G prototype, modified to fit a 600kg torpedo under the fuselage and featuring a raised tailwheel. It did not have an arrestor hook and was therefore not adapted to carrier operation, though it is not inimiginable that a torpedo-bomber Re.2001 may be able to be fitted with a tail hook.
The Italians desperately need folding wing. Instead of 27 fighters Aquila could have a CAG of 40 plus. Though will the "usually" calm Mediterranean weather, deck parking would be more feasible.
View attachment 634418
HiNaval Encyclopedia has lots of interesting info that often isn't included in other sources, but I don't 100% trust it. I don't have access to all the sources it cites, but I'll note this segment from the the Quora Write Up it cites.
The mention of the fighter bomber and torpedo bomber variants in that paragraph seems like an aside/afterthought, and most of what I've read on the Re.2001 leads me to believe the G and G/V models were strictly land based and built in small numbers (three G/Vs and one G). They didn't have tail hooks, which the Quora response even directly pointed out in the caption of a photo depicting a G model.
Again, I have my suspicion that people have attributed the capabilities of highly specialized land based Re.2001 variants to the navalized Re.2001 variant Aquila was intended to carry. As far as I can tell most Re.2001s carried bombs of 250kg or less if they were equipped to carry bombs at all.
I've seen much larger air wing figures attributed to Aquila, so maybe they did intend to use a deck park? While I don't 100% trust Naval Encyclopedia its article on Aquila states that "The hangar measured 160 by 18 meters, initially large enough to house only 26 planes" which suggests the hangar may have been expanded. Alternately perhaps when it says 41 in the hangar and 15 suspended from the roof later in the article what it really should say is 41 including 15 suspended from the roof to save space since 26+15=41. Add the ten aircraft on deck and you have the 51 planes commonly attributed to Aquila. Alternately 41+15 suspended on the roof + 10 on deck would match the figure of 66 planes I've seen associated with a notional folding wing variant.
I think you might be overstating that. What about the Fiat G.50? MC. 200 was coming online too. Both a lot better than a Gladiator.Exactly right, as simplistic as that sounds. Italy was a threat from the sea, not the air. The Luftwaffe's presence was entirely unexpected over the Med (I believe the Germans couldn't believe their luck when they succeeded in invading Western Europe so quickly) and German intervention in North Africa was a response to Italy getting its backside kicked by the British Army and RAF.
The Italians certainly didn't have any fighters in service at the outbreak of war that was better than the Gladiators based in Malta in 1939 (it did have a few Fiat G.50s, but not many in 1939) that could reach its carriers at sea and it had the Fulmar entering service on those. Why would the British expect anything else?
Neat! Wasn't the big problem with the Italian fleet in general the lack of fuel?Hi
Numbers of aircraft to be carried by the Aquila vary in different sources, probably because it never went into service and therefore rather speculative. Details from 'Aircraft Carriers of the World, 1914 to the present' (1992 edition of 1984 original) by Roger Chesneau, page 153:
View attachment 634454
And pages 290-291 of 'Conway's All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946' (1980) Editorial Director Robert Gardiner and Editor Roger Chesneau (it appears his earlier work differs from his later work reference aircraft numbers, change of mind?):
View attachment 634455
View attachment 634456
Mike
Yes it was, but at what power levels?
The mid 30s R-1830 engines gave about 950hp for take-off and were limited to 2550rpm.
By 1938-39 they were turning 2700rpm.
An early R-1830 weighed about 1235lbs.
The early R-1830 engines made a fair amount of power at sea level but they used small superchargers and had FTH well under 10,000ft. Great for getting transport planes out of small airfields and cruising at heights that passengers would be comfortable without oxygen. Not so good for a fighter intended to operate at over 10,000ft.
I think you might be overstating that. What about the Fiat G.50? MC. 200 was coming online too. Both a lot better than a Gladiator.
Grant, that's the stern.
I agree.Oh good, thanks for that. It is deceiving because it is so narrow.
Not overstating the situation at all. Better than a Gladiator they might have been, but if they were not in use, that makes the Gladiator's rival the CR.42. The G.50 was available in very small numbers only, we are talking a handful, the first unit was still working up to serviceability and was in no way ready for combat operations in 1939. The MC.200 was the same and entered service with a unit in North Africa first, again in very small numbers, but it was not looked on very well by the pilots, so they actually re-equipped with Fiat CR.42s again. In 1940 when the Italians began attacking Malta with their bombers, the Gladiators and Hurricanes were able to match them because they had no fighter escort, despite both types being in service for a year or so, in fact, the first SM.79 shot down over Malta was by a Gladiator.
Over Britain in late 1940 the Fiat G.50 was available, but again in much smaller numbers, double figures only in total service with the RA, whereas the CR.42 was the most numerous fighter in RA service with over 200 available. It's worth noting that the MC.200 was not used in Belgium at all, despite its performance.
I think this is pretty misleading. Obviously the R-1830 could and did scale up to higher altitude (2 stage) version (see R-1830-76 and 86 on the F4F). They even had a turbocharged version on the P-43. You are implying it could only be made in low-altitude version for some reason.
R-1830 seems like it would have been a good choice, it started out better than the Mercury with the potential to get a lot better. The only problem would have been Nationalist or the administrative logistics of arranging a production license (and / or shipping engines over).
"The Taurus XVI was rated at 1130hp at 3500ft at 3100rpm at 4.75lbs boost using 100/130 fuel.
One might estimate a bit over 800hp at 14,000ft from that and the only advantage the Taurus has is smaller diameter.
It never got a two speed supercharger.
The Japanese Zuisei engine was 1702 cu in (9.8% larger than the Taurus) the Japanese only used it to power the first two A6M prototypes before changing engines to the Sakae.
It was used in other aircraft.
The engine used in the Brewster Buffalo was 19.7% bigger in displacement than Mercury/Perseus.
The British simply have no path forward for a radial engine fighter in the late 30s no matter how well some of the prototypes performed.
Ease of storage and transportation.
HiThe fact was, there was no need for them to ever do so. The concepts you are thinking of didn't exist back in the day. Carrier aircraft were for either attacking ships with torpedoes or bombs, fleet reconnaissance or shooting down enemy recon aircraft or bombers out at sea threatening the fleet. Attacking ground targets from the air was either the RAF's job or in a naval context what big guns were for. Naval air was not responsible for attacking land targets (other than dockyard facilities, cos it's the navy and ships, 'n stuff).
Joint operations came via WW2, very rarely beforehand and each of the services in peacetime had their own agendas. This is why that quaint British term "Army Co-operation" comprised of Westland Lysanders and Hawker Hart variants carrying teensy bombs flying straight and level over a target area at height. Close support was a very different beast to what it became as a result of WW2 or even what it had been during the Great War.
Ok, what path forward did Britain have in 1937-38 for a useable radial engine fighter using a British engine that would arrive in time to do anything in the first few years of the war?Obviously, when planning for future aircraft development, there is always a certain amount of guesswork involved. Engine development was often disappointing, took longer than expected, ran into problems, ran into impassable dead ends. I don't think, however, that your bolded statement above holds water. Obviously they did have a path forward if they wanted to, but they chose to go with the Merlins at least initially because those were performing quite nicely and better than their radials. And maybe for other reasons. In the long run as we know the British developed both air cooled and liquid cooled engines for their fighters. Whether the Bristol Hercules or Centaurus lived up to the 'sleeve valve hype', they did become effective engines, albeit probably too big for the Bristol 146.
But probably not too big fir any radial engine fighter. The Hercules available in 1939 was already producing 1290 hp.
There is no reason, IMO, to assume they couldn't use American engines. The US sent plenty of engines to Britain. Engines were being lent (license built etc.) from both the US and Britain, and from wherever you want to put the epicenter of Hispano Suiza, to half of the developed world. It might be hard to predict that it was possible to develop a two stage or two speed supercharger for certain engines, but there were certainly many options, and it was obvious that ~840 hp wasn't the upper limit.
The P-43 is a bit of an outlier, since it used a turbo, but the two stage engine for the Wildcat came fairly early.
Well, for an abject failure, the Gnome Rhône Mistral powered a lot of aircraft, some of them pretty successful ones: IAR 80, SM 79, Cant Z.1007, PZL 24, Re 2000, Su-2, IL-4. Maybe not the best aircraft of the war, but hardly the worst either.
Well, the Ford flathead V-8 lent itself to all kinds of hacks. Didn't stop the design from being toast when the small block Chevy came out. And by the way, strengthing the weakest pieces, increasing the boost and accepting shorter service/overAs for the 12Y and the M-105, sure they hacked it - that is one of the traits of good designs- they lend themselves to hacks! And some quie good planes came out of it. Dewoitine D.520, Bloch MB 170, Latecoire 298, Pe-2, Pe-8, Yak-1, Yak 7, Yak 9 etc. I'd call that one of the more successful engine designs of the war.
In a rather convoluted way you are correct.The Wright R-1820 was of course the basis for the Shvestov ASh-82 of Lavochkin La 5 fame...