Caproni Ca.1, Ca.2 & Ca.3

[@mikhailiagacesa3406]

Sorry this is late (2 years). I'm an Amateur WW2 historian specializing in Italy, and this Video hit the spot, answering many questions about the RA in its early formation, personalities and doctrine. Thanks ever so much!

[@hlynnkeith9334]

Wow! Kudos on your research. Quite a lot of information, especially about the business arrangements. Your criticism of the Fiat-Revelli machine gun was mild compared to others I have heard. So the differences between the Ca.1, the Ca.2, and the Ca.3 amount to differences in engines? You may be curious why one of the two surviving original Ca.3s is in a USAF museum in Dayton, OH. The US entered the war unprepared. Before the USAAS got its flying schools up and running, pilot candidates were sent to train in Canada, in Britain, and . . . in Italy. (The French system was specifically rejected for primary training.) Among those sent to Italy to train was Fiorello La Guardia, later mayor of New York City. Those American Army airmen who trained in Italy flew bombers over Austria. La Guardia commanded a squadron of Ca.3 bombers in 1918. So the USAF traces its history back to the USAAS and at least a part to the Ca.3 bomber in Italy. I believe the US Marines also trained and flew in Italy, but they flew Macchi flying boats. There were few of them. I do not think they formed a squadron but only a detachment. Now that you have done the Caproni bombers, when will you do the Ilya Mourometz?

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

The business arrangements struck me as being rather amusing. But yes, the difference between the three types comes down primarily to engines and the rear gunner. I was aware of the US involvement with the Ca. 3, but along with other information simply didn't make the final cut due to time issues. All my video's can be regarded as being a summary, which means a lot of information has to get cut out. The FIAT-Revelli isn't the worse machine-gun to make it into the air. That accolade possibly belongs to the Hotchkiss Portative. I'm reluctant to get into how bad (or not) it really was, because there's so few left, and firing tests 106 years later wouldn't necessarily be representative of the original. As for the Russian heavy bombers, the simple answer is I'll get around to them eventually.

[@hlynnkeith9334]

@@Forgotten_Aviation Yeah, the Hotchkiss was worse, but the French soon stopped using it on airplanes. The Italians persisted with the Fiat-Revelli. Everything the French did with machine guns in WW1 demonstrated that they did not correctly conceive of how machine guns would be used. Their best decision was to abandon their own efforts and license build the Vickers.

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

The Lewis gun strikes me as being a bad machine-gun for a scout. I know why it was used, but it's a less than optimum solution. Can you imagine fighting your aircraft with one hand, and having to drag thing down to clear a jam or reload it? It's okay for gunners, so perhaps the same was true for the FIAT-Revelli.

[@stone8597]

Excellent video, great detail.

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

Thank you!

[@stone8597]

@@Forgotten_Aviation I live in Dayton, Ohio and have been to the USAF Museum more times than I can count. It is one of the best in the World, is free, and has an excellent WW I area. Standing next to the Caproni you see just how large it is. They have done a beautiful job on it.

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

@@stone8597 That is good to know. The picture I found on Wikipedia goes some way to show the large size. Should you go back, perhaps you could take some photographs and I could to a presentation on the Museum with them. My current circumstances and location pretty much prevent me from doing such a thing, and it would be an interesting addition to the channel.

[@stone8597]

@@Forgotten_Aviation I'd be glad to do that. Looking at the plane up close you can study it. For example you see where that rear gunner stood and see the chicken wire around the bottom of posting to keep him from sticking his leg into the pusher prop.

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

@@stone8597 Pictures don't normally show that kind of detail. I'll hang on to that piece of information for the Ca.5.

[@MrNethianrogga]

If you were the rear gunner in a Ca.2 or Ca.3, you definitely would want a safety harness or something similar, to insure you did fall over the rail into the rear propeller!

[@MrNethianrogga]

...DIDN'T, rather, lol

[@drpancakes7897]

Can you take about the Fokker e111 or the Handley Page Type O?

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

Absolutely. Sooner or later I'll get around to them.

[@Meckalausse]

Where did they put the bomb's?

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

Under the fuselage.

[@williamroberts8470]

Wonderful

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

Glad you enjoyed it! This one proved more fiddly than I expected.

[@williamroberts8470]

@@Forgotten_Aviation I think preventing "nosing over" is a good way to describe the function of the forward wheel assembly. Great job on this video sir.

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

That's a better description than I gave.

[@xboxoficial861]

The wind of rises