This is a absolutely beautiful aircraft! Has anyone ever done any research on this aircraft that I could include with my website at http://www.comandosupremo.com?
Italian Jet Campini Caproni CC1
-
Comando Supremo
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 27 Sep 2002, 04:58
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Italian Jet Campini Caproni CC1
This is a absolutely beautiful aircraft! Has anyone ever done any research on this aircraft that I could include with my website at http://www.comandosupremo.com?
-
Logan Hartke
- Member
- Posts: 1226
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 19:30
- Location: Illinois, USA
-
Comando Supremo
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 27 Sep 2002, 04:58
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Never implimented
It was never pursued. It first flew on 27 August, 1940. Makes you wonder what could have developed if they concentrated on it.
Perheps so, but probably one of the worst performing jets of all, even in that era. Heres a couple of stats from Back to the Drawing Board by Bill Gunston:This is a absolutely beautiful aircraft!
Top Speed: 196 mph
Ceiling: 13,000 feet
Range at cruising speed: 168 miles
Time to climb to 13,000 feet: 53 minutes!
Phil
-
Comando Supremo
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 27 Sep 2002, 04:58
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Stats
It was the beginning of the jet era, so I figured it's performance had much to be desired. It still would have been interesting to see its evolution if they truly concentrated on this jet.
The main trouble with CC was it´s engine. This type of jet-engine was not developed further (it was a dead end). If You search around in Google a bit You can find articles giving more detail (i have lost my notes about them in my computer).
The only other deployer of campini type jet was Japanese Navy, who used this type engine on their Ohka 22 kamikaze planes.
Best Regards,
Mait.
The only other deployer of campini type jet was Japanese Navy, who used this type engine on their Ohka 22 kamikaze planes.
Best Regards,
Mait.
-
SM79Sparviero
- Member
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002, 10:01
- Location: Culqualber
Campini motorjet
Remember the main problems of the first turbojects:enormous fuel consumption rate and failure of the turbine blades caused by the poor quality of the metallurgy(life of Me-262 Jumo turbojets about 8 hours!!!!).The ducted fan engines had no future but they proved to be advantageous than the piston-driven airscrev at speeds around 720 km/h with about half the fuel consumption rate of a turbojet unit.
If you can use a piston engine, then, a3-stage axial compressor works enough to create an air flow. And the exaust gas from the pipes of the engine can warm the airflow enough to create a good thrust. If you need more thrust you add an afterburner ,but the fuel consumption increases.
For a country with a poor metallurgy and poor fuel stores as Italy motorjet was not a bad idea. ( turbine blades in Italy, in 1940? Ah Ah Ah)
Look at this project......C:\Documenti\Might Have Beens Italian Twin-Engined Fighters, 1943.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can use a piston engine, then, a3-stage axial compressor works enough to create an air flow. And the exaust gas from the pipes of the engine can warm the airflow enough to create a good thrust. If you need more thrust you add an afterburner ,but the fuel consumption increases.
For a country with a poor metallurgy and poor fuel stores as Italy motorjet was not a bad idea. ( turbine blades in Italy, in 1940? Ah Ah Ah)
Look at this project......C:\Documenti\Might Have Beens Italian Twin-Engined Fighters, 1943.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Campini motorjet
That link points to an address no one of us can see, as it is on your computer.SM79Sparviero wrote:Look at this project......C:\Documenti\Might Have Beens Italian Twin-Engined Fighters, 1943.htm
/Marcus
-
SM79Sparviero
- Member
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002, 10:01
- Location: Culqualber
a tribute for a genial aeronautical engineer
one of the greatest minds in aeronautical world was Henry Coanda.In 1910 he built a motorjet that created 220 kg thrust with a 50 HP engine, and the airflow was warmed only by the exaust gas of the engine, he didn't use a real afterburner!
Campini built only a technological model , the CC1 ( 700 kg thrust with a 900 HP engine, that's a failure) with the same purpose as Sir Whittle 's first jet ( the Squirrel) and Dr. Ohain 's Heinkel 178, and the performances of the italian motorjet were not much worse . Campini' compressor, howewer ,was not the best, it had a 3-stage blade rotor without a stator and the combustion chambers of the afterburner were not anular.
The exaust duct was too long , so an amount of the the thrust was lost ( why Mig 15's fuselage-and The wonderful Ta 183- was so short ?).A short air-streamed engine nacelle with a light small engine as Isotta-Fraschini Zeta 24-cylinder 4 stroke air-cooled ( 1250-1500 HP) would have been a good solution.
Another of the problems met by the first jets Me 262 and Arado 234 was the slow answer of the engines at low RPM . This is the reason why a gas turbine is not the best engine for land traction.
A Me-262 with a motorjet system maybe wouldn' t have been a "sitting duck" in landing and at low speed.Even if the top speed would have been lower ( maybe 820 km/h, as Caproni Ca 183 bis)
Campini built only a technological model , the CC1 ( 700 kg thrust with a 900 HP engine, that's a failure) with the same purpose as Sir Whittle 's first jet ( the Squirrel) and Dr. Ohain 's Heinkel 178, and the performances of the italian motorjet were not much worse . Campini' compressor, howewer ,was not the best, it had a 3-stage blade rotor without a stator and the combustion chambers of the afterburner were not anular.
The exaust duct was too long , so an amount of the the thrust was lost ( why Mig 15's fuselage-and The wonderful Ta 183- was so short ?).A short air-streamed engine nacelle with a light small engine as Isotta-Fraschini Zeta 24-cylinder 4 stroke air-cooled ( 1250-1500 HP) would have been a good solution.
Another of the problems met by the first jets Me 262 and Arado 234 was the slow answer of the engines at low RPM . This is the reason why a gas turbine is not the best engine for land traction.
A Me-262 with a motorjet system maybe wouldn' t have been a "sitting duck" in landing and at low speed.Even if the top speed would have been lower ( maybe 820 km/h, as Caproni Ca 183 bis)
-
SM79Sparviero
- Member
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002, 10:01
- Location: Culqualber
Sorry
I' m not a genious of the computer!I send to you the article and the correct address of Chandelle, an interesting on-line magazine about aviation history. The whole article with images of the aircrafts is in volume 3, march 1998.
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/
Might Have Beens: Italian Twin-Engined Fighters, 1943
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the years immediately preceding Marshall Badoglio's anti-Fascist coup and the subsequent capitulation to the invading Allies, the Italian aircraft industry was just beginning to emerge from the technical backwater it had occupied since its heyday in the early 1930s. License manufacture of German aeroengines—the Daimler-Benz DB.601 (as the Alfa Romeo R.A.1000 RC44-1a Monsonie) and the DB.605 (as the Alfa Romeo Tifone)—had finally filled the gap left by the failure of Italy's pre-war engine-development programs. In the face of generally disastrous war experience, the Regia Aeronautica had at last abandoned the outmoded, unrealistic tactical doctrines that had hitherto framed the service's requirements. By hastily fitting the German powerplants to existing airframes like the Macchi MC.200, FIAT G.50, and Reggiane RE.2000, the engineers had also met the immediate needs of the Italian pilots at the front. With both time and powerful engines available at last, the Italian aviation industry produced a flood of promising and original, state-of-the-art combat aircraft between 1941 and 1943. Among them were a series of designs for high-performance, high-altitude, twin-engined fighters capable of overtaking and destroying the USAF Lightnings and RAF Mosquitos that were then operating over the Mediterranean countries with relative impunity.
SIAI Savoia-Marchetti designed, built, and tested two twin-engined fighter designs, the SM.91 and a derivative, the SM.92. Both were heavily armed, twin-boom two-seaters powered by pairs of imported, 1475-hp DB.605A-1 engines.
The SM.91 was one of the first all-metal aircraft that Savoia-Marchetti had produced. Its crew of two were housed in a central gondola beneath a large canopy. Three 20-mm Mauser MG.151 cannon were grouped in the nose of the gondola, and a similar gun was fitted in the wing root on either side. The aircraft could carry an 1100-lb bomb or a 218-gal drop tank under the gondola or four 220-lb bombs under the wings. It weighed 14,110 lbs empty and 19,600 lbs loaded.
The SM.91 flew for the first time on 10 March 1943. Performance and handling were good. The airplane could reach a maximum of 363 mph at 22,960 ft and could climb to 19,680 ft in 8 min 30 sec. It had a service ceiling of 36,090 ft and a range of 994 miles at a cruising speed of 320 mph. The SM.91 spanned 64 ft 7.25 in and was 43 ft 5.75 in long. Wing area totaled about 450 sq ft.
While the SM.91 proved thoroughly satisfactory in tests, the Savoia-Marchetti engineers were already looking for ways of boosting performance still further. Since further power would not be immediately forthcoming—the larger displacement DB.603 was not yet available to the Italians—drag reduction seemed the only course open to the designers. Keeping the same engines and the same, basic wing and tail design, the designers abandoned the central gondola and placed the crew in a redesigned port tail boom. They installed two 20-mm MG.151 cannon in the leading edge of a now substantially narrower center section, one MG.151 between the cylinder blocks of the starboard engine, firing through the airscrew hub, and two synchronized, 12.7-mm, Breda-SAFAT machine guns under each engine. The tail wheel now retracted into a pod on the centerline of the horizontal stabilizer. A single, remotely aimed 12.7-mm Breda-SAFAT was mounted at the rear of this pod. The new SM.92 weighed 13,779 lbs empty, 19,290 lbs loaded. It spanned 60 ft 10 in and was 44 ft 11 in long. Wing area totaled about 415 sq ft.
The SM.92 flew November 12, 1943, after Italy's capitulation. All testing was carried out under Luftwaffe control. As the engineers had hoped, performance was significantly better. The SM.92 could reach 382 mph at 29,935 ft, could climb 19,680 ft in 7 min 10 sec, and could reach a service ceiling of 39,370. Range increased to 1242 miles at 335 mph. But it was all for nought. Northern Italy was now to all intents and purposes a province of the German Reich. Her production resources were now German resources. While the Luftwaffe technical evaluation team found the SM.92 interesting, they preferred to devote Italy's resources to the production of existing, German types and types that better fit Luftwaffe requirements and operational doctrine. Work was stopped, and the pilots that remained in the dwindling rump of Fascist Italy retrained on the Bf109G.
The principle competitor to the SM.91/92 remained a paper project only. The Caproni-Bergamaschi CA.380 Corsaro ("Corsair") was an equally radical, twin-boom two-seater. But it could hardly have differed more from its rival. From the first, the Caproni team strove for absolute minimum drag. The two man crew was housed back-to-back in the starboard tailboom behind one of two 1475-hp DB.605 engines. These would be replaced by 1550-hp DB.603s at the earliest opportunity (the DB.605 was a bored-out DB.601 with its displacement limited by the original bore centers, while the DB.603 was a groundup redesign with substantially increased capacity). To reduce the cooling drag of the airframe and radiators, the design team used a refined version of the P-38 radiator layout. Ducted, annular radiators surrounded the tailbooms aft of the wing, where drag-producing interactions between cooling air and airflow over the airframe could be kept to a minimum. Careful design of the ducts and their exit flaps promised to generate enough thrust to offset the remaining cooling drag altogether. The wing had a broad, semielliptical planform. Four 20-mm MG.151 cannon were grouped in a streamlined pod under the center section, and a single, 12.7-mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun was fitted in each outer wing panel, outside the propellor arc. The Corsaro spanned 52 ft 6 in, was 39 ft long, and was to weigh 16,383 lbs (loaded).
The Corsaro never flew. But it ought to have been an excellent airplane. Caproni estimated its maximum speed as 400 mph at 23,525 ft and ceiling as 34,450 ft. It was to climb to 19,680 ft in 7 min 9 sec. Maximum cruising speed was to be 323 mph, and maximum range would lie between 1336-1616 miles.
The last of our Italian might-have-beens typifies the mix of backwardness and visionary originality that permeated Italian aviation during the war early war years. Having rejected the gas-turbine as impractical and futuristic (even as Whittle and Ohain were testing their first engines), the Italians set out to create a complex, afterburning, piston engine-driven, ducted fan. The Caproni-Campini research airplane showed that this system could be made to work (if only just). But the Campini compressor was clearly no competition for a good propellor, all else being equal.
Of course, all things are seldom equal in engineering, and Caproni (Milano) engineers reasoned that a refined Campini system might have advantages in flight regimes where conventional propellors were less efficient. At really high altitudes, the compressor might give an interceptor a very useful amount of extra thrust. Accordingly, a team commenced design work on a specialized high-altitude fighter, the CA.183bis. The CA.183bis had a liquid-cooled, 1250-hp DB.605 in the nose, driving contrarotating 3-bladed propellors. A 700-hp FIAT A.30 air-cooled radial engine drove a Campini compressor in a mid-fuselage duct. Scoops in the fuselage sides provided cooling air for the FIAT engine and air mass for the afterburner. The Campini device was expected to contribute up to 60 mph to the aircraft's 460-mph estimated top speed while endowing the airplane with a maximum range of 1242 miles. The fighter was to carry four 20-mm MG.151 cannon in the wings, outboard of the propellor, and a fifth gun in between the cylinder banks of the DB.605. Design loaded weight was 16,538 lbs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next page
Return to Table of Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/
Might Have Beens: Italian Twin-Engined Fighters, 1943
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the years immediately preceding Marshall Badoglio's anti-Fascist coup and the subsequent capitulation to the invading Allies, the Italian aircraft industry was just beginning to emerge from the technical backwater it had occupied since its heyday in the early 1930s. License manufacture of German aeroengines—the Daimler-Benz DB.601 (as the Alfa Romeo R.A.1000 RC44-1a Monsonie) and the DB.605 (as the Alfa Romeo Tifone)—had finally filled the gap left by the failure of Italy's pre-war engine-development programs. In the face of generally disastrous war experience, the Regia Aeronautica had at last abandoned the outmoded, unrealistic tactical doctrines that had hitherto framed the service's requirements. By hastily fitting the German powerplants to existing airframes like the Macchi MC.200, FIAT G.50, and Reggiane RE.2000, the engineers had also met the immediate needs of the Italian pilots at the front. With both time and powerful engines available at last, the Italian aviation industry produced a flood of promising and original, state-of-the-art combat aircraft between 1941 and 1943. Among them were a series of designs for high-performance, high-altitude, twin-engined fighters capable of overtaking and destroying the USAF Lightnings and RAF Mosquitos that were then operating over the Mediterranean countries with relative impunity.
SIAI Savoia-Marchetti designed, built, and tested two twin-engined fighter designs, the SM.91 and a derivative, the SM.92. Both were heavily armed, twin-boom two-seaters powered by pairs of imported, 1475-hp DB.605A-1 engines.
The SM.91 was one of the first all-metal aircraft that Savoia-Marchetti had produced. Its crew of two were housed in a central gondola beneath a large canopy. Three 20-mm Mauser MG.151 cannon were grouped in the nose of the gondola, and a similar gun was fitted in the wing root on either side. The aircraft could carry an 1100-lb bomb or a 218-gal drop tank under the gondola or four 220-lb bombs under the wings. It weighed 14,110 lbs empty and 19,600 lbs loaded.
The SM.91 flew for the first time on 10 March 1943. Performance and handling were good. The airplane could reach a maximum of 363 mph at 22,960 ft and could climb to 19,680 ft in 8 min 30 sec. It had a service ceiling of 36,090 ft and a range of 994 miles at a cruising speed of 320 mph. The SM.91 spanned 64 ft 7.25 in and was 43 ft 5.75 in long. Wing area totaled about 450 sq ft.
While the SM.91 proved thoroughly satisfactory in tests, the Savoia-Marchetti engineers were already looking for ways of boosting performance still further. Since further power would not be immediately forthcoming—the larger displacement DB.603 was not yet available to the Italians—drag reduction seemed the only course open to the designers. Keeping the same engines and the same, basic wing and tail design, the designers abandoned the central gondola and placed the crew in a redesigned port tail boom. They installed two 20-mm MG.151 cannon in the leading edge of a now substantially narrower center section, one MG.151 between the cylinder blocks of the starboard engine, firing through the airscrew hub, and two synchronized, 12.7-mm, Breda-SAFAT machine guns under each engine. The tail wheel now retracted into a pod on the centerline of the horizontal stabilizer. A single, remotely aimed 12.7-mm Breda-SAFAT was mounted at the rear of this pod. The new SM.92 weighed 13,779 lbs empty, 19,290 lbs loaded. It spanned 60 ft 10 in and was 44 ft 11 in long. Wing area totaled about 415 sq ft.
The SM.92 flew November 12, 1943, after Italy's capitulation. All testing was carried out under Luftwaffe control. As the engineers had hoped, performance was significantly better. The SM.92 could reach 382 mph at 29,935 ft, could climb 19,680 ft in 7 min 10 sec, and could reach a service ceiling of 39,370. Range increased to 1242 miles at 335 mph. But it was all for nought. Northern Italy was now to all intents and purposes a province of the German Reich. Her production resources were now German resources. While the Luftwaffe technical evaluation team found the SM.92 interesting, they preferred to devote Italy's resources to the production of existing, German types and types that better fit Luftwaffe requirements and operational doctrine. Work was stopped, and the pilots that remained in the dwindling rump of Fascist Italy retrained on the Bf109G.
The principle competitor to the SM.91/92 remained a paper project only. The Caproni-Bergamaschi CA.380 Corsaro ("Corsair") was an equally radical, twin-boom two-seater. But it could hardly have differed more from its rival. From the first, the Caproni team strove for absolute minimum drag. The two man crew was housed back-to-back in the starboard tailboom behind one of two 1475-hp DB.605 engines. These would be replaced by 1550-hp DB.603s at the earliest opportunity (the DB.605 was a bored-out DB.601 with its displacement limited by the original bore centers, while the DB.603 was a groundup redesign with substantially increased capacity). To reduce the cooling drag of the airframe and radiators, the design team used a refined version of the P-38 radiator layout. Ducted, annular radiators surrounded the tailbooms aft of the wing, where drag-producing interactions between cooling air and airflow over the airframe could be kept to a minimum. Careful design of the ducts and their exit flaps promised to generate enough thrust to offset the remaining cooling drag altogether. The wing had a broad, semielliptical planform. Four 20-mm MG.151 cannon were grouped in a streamlined pod under the center section, and a single, 12.7-mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun was fitted in each outer wing panel, outside the propellor arc. The Corsaro spanned 52 ft 6 in, was 39 ft long, and was to weigh 16,383 lbs (loaded).
The Corsaro never flew. But it ought to have been an excellent airplane. Caproni estimated its maximum speed as 400 mph at 23,525 ft and ceiling as 34,450 ft. It was to climb to 19,680 ft in 7 min 9 sec. Maximum cruising speed was to be 323 mph, and maximum range would lie between 1336-1616 miles.
The last of our Italian might-have-beens typifies the mix of backwardness and visionary originality that permeated Italian aviation during the war early war years. Having rejected the gas-turbine as impractical and futuristic (even as Whittle and Ohain were testing their first engines), the Italians set out to create a complex, afterburning, piston engine-driven, ducted fan. The Caproni-Campini research airplane showed that this system could be made to work (if only just). But the Campini compressor was clearly no competition for a good propellor, all else being equal.
Of course, all things are seldom equal in engineering, and Caproni (Milano) engineers reasoned that a refined Campini system might have advantages in flight regimes where conventional propellors were less efficient. At really high altitudes, the compressor might give an interceptor a very useful amount of extra thrust. Accordingly, a team commenced design work on a specialized high-altitude fighter, the CA.183bis. The CA.183bis had a liquid-cooled, 1250-hp DB.605 in the nose, driving contrarotating 3-bladed propellors. A 700-hp FIAT A.30 air-cooled radial engine drove a Campini compressor in a mid-fuselage duct. Scoops in the fuselage sides provided cooling air for the FIAT engine and air mass for the afterburner. The Campini device was expected to contribute up to 60 mph to the aircraft's 460-mph estimated top speed while endowing the airplane with a maximum range of 1242 miles. The fighter was to carry four 20-mm MG.151 cannon in the wings, outboard of the propellor, and a fifth gun in between the cylinder banks of the DB.605. Design loaded weight was 16,538 lbs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next page
Return to Table of Contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
gabriel pagliarani
- Member
- Posts: 1583
- Joined: 01 Aug 2002, 04:11
- Location: ITALY
Turbofan
The real innovation of Caproni Campini jet was not in the main engine ( a normal piston engine) but in the Jet after-burner. A ducted propeller worked as an air compressor pumping fresh air in a Venturi duct: the injection of fuel worked as the first afterburners used on F-100 Super Sabre during 50's. There were not annular combustion chambers and the ducted propeller was unable to change hydraulically the inclination of the blades (pitch). Also the jet exhaust had no flux adjustement by changing the outer diameter of the outlet, like it happens on modern jets. These were the reasons of the too long ventury duct crossing the fuselage. Now try to image, as a never built CC2, a turbodiesel engine moving hidraulically an adjustable pitch fan in a short duct having annular combustion chamber and a variable geometry outlet...this never produced evolution of Caproni Campini could fly at low speed with the lowest consumption possible of vegetable oil (colza, sesami ect) closest as possible to the allied bomber "boxes" and after attacking by using the afterburner! About the metallurgical problem of the blades, SM79 Sparviero said that that technology was out the reach of italian industry. It was true if we are discussing about AXIAL jet engines like Jumos: there was another kind of jet engine called CENTRIFUGAL jet engine like the first british jet engines used on Gloster Meteor and Vampire. But the CC1 solution was totally different from both solutions because the thermodynamic performance of any engine is linked to entropy(dQ/dt°C).The higher the temperature in the combustion chamber the more the energy really useful for weight of fuel burned per second: internal combustion engines (piston engines) have an internal "flame" temperature varying from 900 °C to 1400°C in the while jet engines never exceed 700°C-750°C. But a jet theorically can exceed the speed of the exhausted gases (rule of parallelogram of forces plus reaction): an after-burner can push out gases with a speed largely supersonic.With a sudden injection of methilic alcohol in the after burner this CC2 could have a good chance to reach or trespass Mach1 during a climbing high Mach strifing attack to the allied close box-formations, to be repeated till end of alcoholic fuel. Finally this strange half-jet could have the possibility to reach its own landing-site by mean of the diesel engine at "cruise economical" speed and without burning a liter of rare petrol... This was the real final evolutionistic target of Caproni-Campini project: the first supersonic "no-petrol" interceptor.The only competitors were the german rocket fighter Me-163, Me-263, Ju-248. Stupidly this intrepid and succesfull development program was stopped at the very beginning: with the death of Italo Balbo the genius of Prof. Campini was forgotten. Mait said that post-burner was a dead end: at the contrary CC1 was the real early bird of supersonic era.
POST SCRIPTUM
It is evident to me that the site that Sparviero mentioned cannot be seen worlwide...enforcing my own suspicion that Internet is not the same from country to country. So I enclose some fine pics fom it.
POST SCRIPTUM
It is evident to me that the site that Sparviero mentioned cannot be seen worlwide...enforcing my own suspicion that Internet is not the same from country to country. So I enclose some fine pics fom it.
Last edited by gabriel pagliarani on 26 Oct 2002, 04:54, edited 2 times in total.
-
SM79Sparviero
- Member
- Posts: 136
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002, 10:01
- Location: Culqualber
ducted fan
you have been very clear , are you an aeronautical engineer?
I' m interested in Campini's jet propulsion research and motorjet aircraft projects.
Could you please write your sources? I knew the two projects of fighter and bomber , a jet helicopter, a turboprop and a hydro-motorjet small submarine, but nothing about this second step of the technical evolution of the motorjet propulsion.
Thank you.
I' m interested in Campini's jet propulsion research and motorjet aircraft projects.
Could you please write your sources? I knew the two projects of fighter and bomber , a jet helicopter, a turboprop and a hydro-motorjet small submarine, but nothing about this second step of the technical evolution of the motorjet propulsion.
Thank you.