Most Beautiful Aircraft of WW2? (2 Viewers)

[buffnut453]

I'm going to look into it today and get back to you guys, but also I don't know if you guys should think the italians would do the best and brightest in regards to aeronautics. Example: The Ca313.

Well, for starters, the Italians used a different aerofoil section in the Re2000 than was in the P-35. The former had an N-38 section while the latter had the Seversky S-3 section. So we're supposed to believe that the Italians couldn't build their own fighters but they were smart enough to completely redesign the wing of the P-35...and do it in such a way that it significantly improved aircraft performance? Sorry, but that's simply illogical.

 

[Donivanp]

Re. 2000 looks beautiful. Italians know how to make a plane look real nice

That they do

 

[SaparotRob]

It rather depends on the quality of the source. There are plenty of sources that state the Zero was derived from an American design which, patently, is untrue.

The Zero was a copy of the Focke Wulf, as was the Mustang.

 

[special ed]

Well, for starters, the Italians used a different aerofoil section in the Re2000 than was in the P-35. The former had an N-38 section while the latter had the Seversky S-3 section. So we're supposed to believe that the Italians couldn't build their own fighters but they were smart enough to completely redesign the wing of the P-35...and do it in such a way that it significantly improved aircraft performance? Sorry, but that's simply illogical.

The landing gear retracted into the wing rather than swing to the rear, semi enclosed.

 

[GregP]

I'm thinking it was a combination of fully enclosed landing gear and substantially less cooling drag.

I can't prove that, but every Italian fighter I've looked closely at has a well thought out cooling system. Most of the early radial engines did not have any great effort expended on coordinating air entry and exit though the engine cowling. Many early radials just had the cylinders sticking out in the airstream with no effort to route the air efficiently around the cylinders.

The Re.2000 might have a more aerodynamic canopy shape and I am not sure whether or not it was flush riveted but, if you combine those, it WOULD result in a speed increase.

The last gasp of Seversky styling cues were the Re.2002 Ariete and Re.2005 Sagittario.

Both look like they rolled out of a Seversky plant, but the Italians did it quite beautifully. I don't know if there was a license, but the ancestry is pretty evident. Still, a basic layout, even if it was completely copied without plans, doesn't tell you how to build one. I feel pretty sure the Italians can design an aircraft without help and can built a few of them without any support.

Their trouble in WWII was not building some, it was building build more than a few and supporting them with logistics and spares.

 

[buffnut453]

The landing gear retracted into the wing rather than swing to the rear, semi enclosed.

But, again, that's a non-trivial redesign because you have to find space within the wing for the wheels.

I'd like to know how many spars formed the structure in the P-35 wing. Apparently, the Re2000 had 5 spars which is unusual. If the P-35 has a different number of spars, it strongly indicates that the entire wing was of Italian design with no input from the Seversky product.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

The Zero was a copy of the Focke Wulf, as was the Mustang.

The things that one learns here. Must be true since it is in the internet

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But, again, that's a non-trivial redesign because you have to find space within the wing for the wheels.

I'd like to know how many spars formed the structure in the P-35 wing. Apparently, the Re2000 had 5 spars which is unusual. If the P-35 has a different number of spars, it strongly indicates that the entire wing was of Italian design with no input from the Seversky product.

At about 28:20 in this video it shows the P-35's wing root. It appears to my untrained eyes to have five spars.


View: https://youtu.be/xVZLZFFDM40?t=1693

 

[Admiral Beez]

What's the most beautiful single-engined radial-powered monoplane British aircraft? Contenders would include:

Blackburn Roc
Blackburn Skua
Bristol Type 146
Bristol Type 148
Gloster F5/34
Hawker Fury (1st flight Sept 1944)
Hawker Tempest Mk. II
Miles M.19 Master II
Vickers Venom

While the Tempest II is pretty, my vote is for the Westland Lysander. It must have looked a beautiful sight when approaching a rough strip to extract a downed pilot or VIP.

 

[MarkS]

P-38.

 

[SaparotRob]

Is "none of the above" an acceptable answer?

 

[Donivanp]

What's the most beautiful single-engined radial-powered monoplane British aircraft? Contenders would include:

Blackburn Roc
Blackburn Skua
Bristol Type 146
Bristol Type 148
Gloster F5/34
Hawker Fury (1st flight Sept 1944)
Hawker Tempest Mk. II
Miles M.19 Master II
Vickers Venom

While the Tempest II is pretty, my vote is for the Westland Lysander. It must have looked a beautiful sight when approaching a rough strip to extract a downed pilot or VIP.

View attachment 777521

View attachment 777522

Now that was a mouthful And couldn't believe you didn't come up for air saying it.

 

[The Stannum Crusader]

This site, which sites several Italian books, (so I can't verify) claims that the designer worked in America for several different companies in the last 30's, so even if it isn't a copy, its definitely not a coincidence. Reggiane Re.2000 Falco Italian Fighter

edit: I'll put this in my wishlist to get some day, but if someone else has it maybe they can help us out. Amazon.com

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is "none of the above" an acceptable answer?

Just for that you're flying home in a Supermarine Nighthawk. Not R.J. Mitchell's finest hour. Good luck.

 

[Shortround6]

Is there any established proof that the Re2000 was a copy of the P-35 (other than it being visually similar)? The Re2000 was 40mph faster and had a ceiling 5000ft higher than the P-35.

Well, we can look at amazing coincidences, like the wing being within 1in (25mm) in width and being within 1 sqft of area.
Maybe somebody has details of the actual construction, like number of spars and ribs.

The 40mph is partially covered by the different landing gear, and the fact that the Engine in P-35 was good for 1050hp at 7500ft and the Italian engine was good for 986-1000hp at 13,000ft. That difference in Altitude was good for 15-20mph to a Hurricane I fighter. One can also figure at least 2-3mph for the collector boxes on the wing machine guns on the P-35A

Trying to figure out the drag difference in the cowls and the Canopies needs more than just looking at pictures.
One can also compare the P-35 and the P-43. The P-43 could do about 325-330mph just under 15,000ft at 'Normal' power (1050-1100hp at 2550rpm, not 2700rpm military power).

RE 2000

 

[Shortround6]

Just for that you're flying home in a Supermarine Nighthawk. Not R.J. Mitchell's finest hour. Good luck.

Well, considering that the customer wanted wanted a 4 man crew, 2 machine guns and 1 1/2pdr recoilless rifle over 9 hours of endurance and a searchlight

And somebody decided to do all that with a pair of 100hp engines (200hp total and not a misprint) things were going to get rather strange.
Of course the intended target/s were 1916-17 Zeppelins so high speed was not needed

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well, we can look at amazing coincidences, like the wing being within 1in (25mm) in width and being within 1 sqft of area.
Maybe somebody has details of the actual construction, like number of spars and ribs.

The 40mph is partially covered by the different landing gear, and the fact that the Engine in P-35 was good for 1050hp at 7500ft and the Italian engine was good for 986-1000hp at 13,000ft. That difference in Altitude was good for 15-20mph to a Hurricane I fighter. One can also figure at least 2-3mph for the collector boxes on the wing machine guns on the P-35A

Trying to figure out the drag difference in the cowls and the Canopies needs more than just looking at pictures.
One can also compare the P-35 and the P-43. The P-43 could do about 325-330mph just under 15,000ft at 'Normal' power (1050-1100hp at 2550rpm, not 2700rpm military power).

RE 2000

Some more fun on this topic here:

Brothers From Other Mothers - Dual Build - Seversky P-35 - Reggiane 2000 - 1/72 Scale

I've always had an affinity toward odd and forgotten aircraft, and of late I've really taken a liking to the aircraft of the immediate pre-WWII period. The designs were so optimistic and with every designer pushing the boundaries of what what technologically possible there were some really evocat...

www.britmodeller.com

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What's the most beautiful single-engined radial-powered monoplane British aircraft? Contenders would include:

Blackburn Roc
Blackburn Skua

I'd knock these two off the list right away. Love the Lysander all the same, built a model of it as a kid.

Just for that you're flying home in a Supermarine Nighthawk. Not R.J. Mitchell's finest hour. Good luck.

View attachment 777538

Is that a prop on the front, or a Windows "wait" dial in particularly slow motion?

 

[GregP]

I don't think it has enough wings.

Maybe 2 more sets? And some interplane sesqui-wings for good luck, with a triplane tail and 4 vertical fins and rudders.

Needs a gym with a weight room and a bar, too. Definitely needs some sort of Italian hood ornament for easy identification.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think it has enough wings.

Maybe 2 more sets? And some interplane sesqui-wings for good luck, with a triplane tail and 4 vertical fins and rudders.

Needs a gym with a weight room and a bar, too. Definitely needs some sort of Italian hood ornament for easy identification.

The French will be suing you for copyright infringement.