Italy's Forgotten WWII Jet Program

[@zanenobbs352]

Very interesting! The theoretical jet fighter you referred to was the Reggiane Re-2007 of 1944-5. I too believed this jet as a post-war ficitional element, however, my wife is from Italy, and we got in touch with the museum there, and they kindly sent us a copy of the actual plans stamped by the Reggiane company showing that this aircraft was, indeed, a genuine project. Further, there was also a planned Re-2008, but only as a potential design. Italy also had plans for a two-motorjet engined bomber, the Caproni-Campini CC.7 (CS.11) Toscana (Tuscany), which progressed to the wind-tunnel stage under the Aeronatuca Nazionale Repubblicana of the Italian Socialist Republic (German puppet state) of 1943-1945. In actual aircraft, Italy did not remain out of the jet field very long, returning in 1951 with the Fiat G.80 trainer that could also be converted into a fighter/ground attack aircraft. This was followed in 1952 by the Caproni F-5 Trento, a purely civilian jet trainer. Japan too was not long out of jet aviation, coming back in 1958 with the Fuji (Nakajima renamed) T1F1 Hatsutaka (Peregrine Falcon) trainer, which could also double as a fighter/ground attack aircraft. Even Germany was back by the 1950s with the Baad 152 jet airliner of East Germany, which was based on the wartime Junkers EF-152 bomber design. Many aviation enthusiasts focus only on the wartime aircraft of the former Axis nations and miss out on their many post-war developments, but post-war, their journeys did continue, mostly because of the new Cold War forcing former enemies to become allies, as former allies became the new enemy.

[@Ace-rp7vr]

Fun fact about the G91 it out preformed the contemporary British and French fighters of the time and they were both so ashamed that they didn’t want to admit that they had been beaten by the Italians and told the Americans who were interested in buying the G91 that “NO! They can’t have it!”

[@max_vtv]

I’ve never even heard of Italian WW2 jets lol thanks for the info !

[@jerryumfress9030]

P-59 was envisioned as a fighter at first, but relegated as a test bed very early on in the process. The United States Army Air Corp knew that it would not be successful as a fighter, as the engine was under powered. All they needed to know was if they could get it off the ground, keep it in the air, and how it would respond. The P-80 Shooting Star benefited from what was learned during this time

[@drpsionic]

Interesting. One small note. It is not generally known but the P 80. the F 80 of Korean war fame, was actually flown over Italy in early 1945 meaning that the US also had an operational jet fighter in WW2, albeit never seeing combat.

[@Ricky40369]

Few people know that. Thanks for pointing it out to the uneducated.

[@glennquagmire1747]

Wrong a jet fighter and a jet reconnaissance plane are TWO DIFFERENT PLANES, learn your history before commenting on something you absolutely have no knowledge or understanding lol

[@dave8599]

Very nice video, informative about a rare airplane, thank you!!!

[@doankhang9496]

Your video are really like OverSimplified videos. Also, amazing video

[@Historically]

Thank you for the kind words! Oversimplified definitely served as a big inspiration to me and got me into making these videos, but I tried to make mine unique :)

[@iconicshrubbery]

Mamma mía! We- a- love da sensa humor Ina your video... make la historia interesting! Ciao, and thanks!

[@dave8599]

You should add the mighty P80 Shooting Star jet, developed in WW2.

[@theodoros9428]

The Italians was the first costructed Jet plane

[@None-zc5vg]

Wasn't it a "ducted fan" design, using a conventional aero engine to power the fan ?

[@michaelpielorz9283]

this comment ensures you get a nice table visiting next time that nice italian restaurant (:-)

[@piter6076]

No

[@theodoros9428]

Yes 👍 and i have a photograph

[@piter6076]

@@theodoros9428 maybe you have a picture...anyway the italian Is not properly a jet plane

[@p40o]

Could you talk about the caproni ca 183 bis. It is the prototype mentioned in the video.

[@frank1fm634]

Very interesting.Italy's WWll aircraft just weren't up to par.I think if they had invested more resources in aircraft development they probably could have designed a state of the art fighter aircraft,Italy used many German Stukas during the war.

[@Historically]

Italy had some actually quite decent aircraft, British pilots in the region recall newer Italian aircraft to be superior to German ones. Unfortunately they were introduced too late, we’re hampered by poor weapons, and didn’t make a big enough impact.

[@raybarnes3888]

I was surprised by just how large this plane is, stand under it and say Wow.

[@imreallynoob8311]

Italian aircraft like (as the video stated)Machi 202 , G.55 , Re.2005 are some of the best aircraft however with limited indestry capabilites only few were produce

[@Ezekiel903]

Italy had many good prototypes and the Fiat G50 was comparable to aircraft in the early 1940s, the Finnish had the highest kill ratio with the G50 against all Russian planes. Later the misjudgment of Mussolini and colleagues lead to many mistakes and hurt the entire army, he sent Alpini, mountain soldiers, to Africa etc. But we should remember that Italians did not use Jews or POV as workforce like Germany. Of course, the Germans were good in efficient planning, but Germany was still highly dependent on this workers, otherwise they could never keep up with the ally. Italy didn't had this and the bombardment of industrial cities did the rest! Italy had the Fiat G55, RE 2005 and more, but far to less, the G55 was considered even by the German one of the best planes, but to complex to build!

[@Ezekiel903]

great video, love your unbiased style! 👍 and the picture of BENITO the monster

[@davidtong2776]

Italy was a poor nation in a rich nation war. They were simply out produced at every level. There was no money for the R&D that was needed, never the less Italy made some very good planes, in too small numbers.

[@danielefabbro822]

Italy was basically the "McGiver" of the time. 😑 And despite that this didn't saved us. It even didn't saved us from jokes and insults from the whole world.

[@robertdragoff6909]

It’s a great video, Funny too…. Especially since you showed how Il Duce like Hitler screwed everything up by basing everything on Style over Substance…. Anyways, I think you should’ve included a diagram of how the engine worked. The piston engine drove the turbine blades, that part I get, but after that it gets kinda fuzzy to me. I’m guessing that fuel was spritzed into the turbine blades and ignited, and while the set up looked interesting it didn’t do much to make it faster….. Anyways, great informative video

[@Bearthedancingman]

It's actually really interesting and I'm a bit obsessed with the history of the very few motorjets built and the surprisingly high number of proposed designs that never saw production. The motorjet or "Thermojet" as Campini named it (there's a newer designed pulsejet of that name now) is basically a ducted fan with an afterburner. However, it differs from a ducted fan in that in drives a 'compressor' rather than a fan. They look similar but there's some differences. Anyway, ducted fans are more efficient than open propellers at low speed. Compression type ducted fans are even more efficient, but interestingly, at high speeds. There are a few sub-types of motorjet but I'll stick to the Campini type here for clarity. Basically, you have a compression stage, being a type of ducted fan system. Next you have the engine and radiator which the airflow over cools. Next is a mixing chamber and then an afterburner. The heat from the engine actually helps increase the 'cold' thrust. But when the afterburner is engaged, the jet effect is capable of 3-4 times the thrust of the piston engine alone. NACA built a test engine that was apparently very highly developed. Using an 825hp radial to drive a compressor, and a well designed duct and burner system, they recorded thrust equivalent to 2,980hp. And due to the high velocity of the jet, an estimated top speed of "greater than 580mph". According to their research, the engine was more efficient at high speeds and they postulated the engine could be further developed to research the "compressibility' phenomenon that was occuring when fighters dived over 550mph. The Japanese had a small motorjet design that produced approximately 600-680 lbs thrust. The Russians developed them as boosters on aircraft with traditional propellers. The MiG-13/I-250 was one test design. It could use the motorjet part as a booster giving the equivalent of an extra 650hp. And giving the I-250 a top speed when boosted of 510mph. Engine manufacturers continue to experiment with the idea but nothing has gone into production. The best design in modern times is from a 1997 patent for a high-bypass turbofan with a multi-rotor Wankel type engine for combustion and driving the compressor. The bypass fan being driven by a turbine in the exhaust to avoid thrust surge. This design claimed to be more fuel efficient, and significantly cleaner than traditional turbines. A design study of an almost identical design was done around 2014 showing that the idea is still significantly more fuel efficient and cleaner burning than turbines. In fact, the design estimates better efficiency, lower fuel consumption and less additional weight than the electric hybrid systems being proposed currently.

[@Bearthedancingman]

As I understand it, and I could be wrong here, the reason the Campini jet was slow was due to an error in the design of the duct and too small compressor radius. The jet having a speed of 204mph when only using the engine is about 20mph slower than similarly sized and powered aircraft of the time. And it should have been about the same. But the afterburner gave the Campini jet a boost to only about 233mph. When it should have tripled the power output and gave a speed closer to 350mph. The C.C.2 was a big aircraft. 50ft wingspan and 9800lbs take off weight. With just 900hp it wasn't going to perform like a fighter. Also, I have read some accounts that the reason they never went over 240mph was due to problems with the compressor and airflow within the main duct. Campini claimed that they were unwilling to use full throttle "yet" due to being in development. But that statement, if even real, likely was hiding the issues with the system. It's entirely likely that given time to develop the design it could have reached its potential of 350+mph.

[@domenicozagari2443]

The English jet engine did not work, they had to wait for the German jet.

[@bernardwills9674]

Except technically it was not a jet. Of course, saying the CC N1 was not a jet immediately starts an argument about the definition of a jet but most sources classify its engine as a 'ducted fan'.

[@gameplayer0534]

Well it's kind of not. It's not a turbojet but it's still a jet since once it compresses the air it burns it like a turbojet, the only difference it's that it's not driven by a turbine but it's an engine. And it's not a fan, since actually the engine it's connected to series of compressors which are different from fans since fans accelerate air, meanwhile compressors boosts up the pressure of the airflow making it better for combustion

[@Bearthedancingman]

TL:DR; motorjet can operate as ducted fans but are still considered jet engines. Even when run cold or as a ducted fan due to the design producing compression. I think you're confusing "jet" with "turbojet". A turbojet is a jet type engine that uses a portion of the thrust to drive a turbine (thus the "turbo") which drives the compressor stage. A motorjet uses a piston or electric engine to drive the compressor stage. A motorjet can operate 'cold' as it doesn't require the combustion stage to be active because it has two combustion stages. A very modern term for motorjet is "compound-jet" as the piston engine and jet combustor stages can be seen as separate engines that work in synchrony. Other types of jets are: *Turbofan (jet engine with attached ducted fan) *Valved Pulsejet (uses valves and a resonator to create thrust. *Valveless Pulsejet. (No moving parts) *Pressure jet (uses high pressure gaseous fuel to generate a vortex of flame that generates thrust.) *Ramjet (no moving parts) *Scramjet (no moving parts) *Rocket (rockets are types of jets too) *And more I don't want to bother trying to remember lol.

[@tbuyus8328]

Italy starts at 5:00 motorjet > 7:00

[@tbuyus8328]

I wonder if they could have made a hybrid system with a first stage compressor that was piston powered and a second stage compressor powered by a turbine?

[@idrinkandigrowthings3800]

This was so good lol

[@Historically]

Thank you, glad you liked it!

[@jagsdomain203]

Is this oversimplified?

[@Historically]

Haha nope, just another KZbin channel telling the story of history through animation!

[@jagsdomain203]

@@Historically you almost sounded like him. I 8 year old daughter watch your channel as well now. We both love this style of story telling. Glad to have found you.

[@veronicalogotheti1162]

I knew about the italians Also their trucks

[@Bob-sh3vd]

Wtf you drunk dude?

[@zofe]

Fiat G.91 is the British en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.177 minus the rocket. Sunders-Roe bid for the Italian R&D contract and won. Italy built it.

[@ccclll987]

This isnt true. Also, what you linked is a different aircraft, with a different role.

[@zofe]

@@ccclll987 Same shape and timing.

[@ccclll987]

@@zofe and? They're still different planes, completely unrelated. Typhoon and Gripen look similar, are they the same plane?

[@zofe]

@@ccclll987 T & G differ in motor-count, planform, intakes, and size. Once the rocket was removed from the RS-back - the fusekage became G.91 with a milder mission capability (lesser thrust). The elevators were lowered for maintenance sake.

[@ccclll987]

@@zofe so do the g91 and the sr177 :)