This opens up a can of worms that includes canard and pusher type WW2 combat aircraft. Time to dive down that worm hole Ed. Can’t wait. I just picked up a copy of Miranda’s book Fighters of the Dying Sun.
I just found out about this plane for the first time three days ago while researching for pusher props that could potentially be refitted with jet engines. Something's in the air...
This is amazing - back in the early 1970s I came across an article in Jane's Aircraft with photos and drawings on this aircraft and made a rubber band balsa and paper model from scratch and it flew pretty well.
Thank you Ed, the SS4 was a design way ahead of it's time. It doesn't take much imagination to see how an engine with a larger HP out put would have made it into a world beater, and add a jet turbine..... well that would have been amazing.
Considering that the engineer Campini was working on a jet airplane (the Campini Caproni C.C.2) while Stefanutti was working on his S.S.4, it could have been possible.
@@emilianocaprili4160 The main thing was that Americans, British, Germans, Russians were better in making dreams reality. But anhow if the prototype flew in 39 it might have seen service equipped with a licence built DB601 from end of 41/beginn of 42 on. It would have competed with Me109 G1, Spitfire MK V, MiG 3. Italy would have been on a similar level as the other aircraft building nations.
Italy's history in aerospace, engineering, technology and indeed industry is all like that- very sporadic development, moments of brilliance, elegance and innovation, some that even make it into use, but overall lacking in the necessary substructure to keep things going and often in follow through. It's still an honourable history though, and a good reminder to us that despite the unevenness of its industrialization, there's actually a reason Italy has been in the top ten economies of the industrial age.
Add 15 degree sweep to the wings and forward canard, put vertical stabilizers on wing tips and this would be very close to a Long EZ with tri gearl instead of a nose skid.
Pusher aircraft are really interesting! The Ass-Ender, the Shinden, and the only relatively successful one, SAAB 21! Greetings again from the Philippines!
The Shinden might well have ended up as successful as the Saab 21 if circumstances had allowed its continued development. Also almost certainly would've ended up with a jet version like the Saab 21R, since Kyushu Aircraft Company already had that in mind for the future when they built the 2 prototypes.
I first read of this plane in one of the volumes of William Green's wonderful and now highly collectable series of WWII aviation books. Italy also created and flew several other highly innovative airplanes before the 1943 armistice.
“Shin den” style was the way to go, if only the cooling could be sorted. I have only just found out about using low rpm tip pusher props instead of winglets
In theory, cooling shouldn't be too much of an issue. Just provide a spitfire /p51 style radiator underneath the wing. Obviously this rules out using an air-cooled radial though
@@jackroutledge352 I had the same thoughts but history shows it’s not that simple. Strangely it seems exhaust heat in the engine bay is more trouble than cylinder temperature. Even more surprisingly is that air cooled radials have more success. B36, that aerocobra twin engine thing are two of the hardest to solve.
Hello Ed. Yet another , "never heard of this one either !" You have a great source of seemingly endless obscure finds Ed. Yes, the Whirlwind came a very close second regarding armament but there's no doubt a 30mm would have obliterated most aircraft with one shell ! Thanks Ed.
Why the hell do people like you leave a comment like you KNOW the guy personally? calling him by his name? No really, I want to know. Are you just a flaming boomer?
Given what Italy actually had cooking in limited-use and experimental designs, in terms of small arms, aircraft and even tanks to a lesser extent, it is increasingly apparent to the modern student that far from the stereotype of incompetence, Italy really suffered only from a lack of actual manufacturing capabilities - it did not lack brave, skilled, intelligent or talented people, and had they the same massive manufacturing capabilities as the Big Four, Italy's place in World War 2 would rival its contemporaries.
The Italians, like the French, were caught between generations of equipment. While having a much smaller industrial base than Germans the Italians had beggared themselves supporting Franco and expanding in Africa. Hitler, who never cared a toss for allies and only ever saw them as 'competitors in abeyance'*, launched his war regardless of whether his allies were ready or not. This saw the Italians stuck with tankettes and biplanes in the early 1940s while trying to be a big power while Hitler made sure they couldn't really perform. Of course this all came back to bite him on the butt at Stalingrad. (*I've heard the Axis Powers aptly described as "less an alliance and more a pack of individual predators")
I do think the Germans had better relations to the Japanese than to the Italians and considered them more of an equal power. Of course the issue there was that the distance made military cooperation almost impossible.
Thank you for this update. Indeed, in the USA, we don't hear/read about advanced fighter designs of Italy, France, & Japan. Please keep unearthing these rare birds that _" could have been. "_
Reminiscent of the Curtiss XP-55. Top speed of the XP-55 was 390mph with an Allison V1710 engine. Its design speed was over 500mph with a Pratt & Whitney X-1800 engine. The cancellation of this engine meant substitution with an engine of less horsepower, thus a reduction in speed and overall performance. The XP-55 was successfully flown 169 times in 1943. Stalls were restricted as it had a tendency to go inverted and flat-spin. 3 prototypes were built and flown but was not put into production. The Japanese experimented with a similar design as did the Italians. The service ceiling of the XP-55 was 34,600 feet and displayed satisfactory handling characteristics despite the problematic stalls. She became overly sensitive during low speeds. Engine overheating was never fully overcome and some stability problems remained despite modifications mainly in it vertical keel. The XP-55 (Curtiss Model 24) was the second prototype selected by the Army in 1939 for unorthodox designs. Armament were four .50 caliber machine guns located in the nose with a combined total of 1,000 rounds. The American, Japanese and the Italian designs were not true canards as they all lacked a fixed forward elevator. In effect they were all basically flying wings with a forward trimming surface.
The Italian manufacturing base was not ready by 1939 , and would needed at lest 3 more years to get up to speed . The CR42 was a very good aircraft . Believe it or not it saw service during the Battle of Britain . One RAF pilot reported, it was impossible to shot down . Due to it's excellent aerobatic performance .
I had never heard of this before. You did it again, Ed! Thank you for this. The only thing the Italians really lacked in air combat was high-powered engines they could mass produce. As most/all of you know - once the Germans started giving/selling them some of their engines (and some better cannon)? The Italian fighters just sang. And danged if they were not some of the prettiest fighter aircraft of the war. The Re.2005, C.202/205 and the G.55 and (my fav) the G.56. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55_Centauro#/media/File:Fiat_G.56.jpg Basically a G.55 fitted with the larger DB603 engine. She had three 20mm cannon, handled superbly and went 426+ mph. And really pretty. Only 2 were built.
The CR-42 was a great plane however, as pointed out here like the Gladiator in the RAF and Royal Navy it was obsolete by the beginning of WWII. It did however, last through war seeing service in the Balkans being used to fight partisans as a night fighter. The other problems the Italian Air Force and Industry had to deal with was obtaining advanced in-line engines and people to produce the plane, and the industrial capacity to produce the more advanced, Macchis 202s, Centauros and other planes in timely manner.
@@CorePathway The P&W X-1800 powerplant was never developed. With the available Allison V-1710 it was a dog, and didn't outperform conventional fighers. It also had a mean tendency for stall/spins.
Extraordinarily well in many cases, and against some of the toughest troops. My stepdad was a Liberator pilot and he especially disliked what he termed 'The long-nosed Italian fighters' over comparable similar German aircraft (although obviously he hated them all). However Italy wasn't the monolith that most people think and Italians often disliked many choices of command and the political class. More than western armies the troops themselves often had strong political views that manifested in group action and what many westerners see as cowardice was often a rebellion against commanders, the political elites or other factors.
@@jameslawrie3807 Totally agree. I always ask when in a discussion about the Italians in WW2 “would you have fought for Mussolini?” I think the long noses had German engines if memory serves.
@@armatacalanca962 Absolutely, in some ways it's the very basis. I really meant 'English speaking' and used a poor choice of words. The usual subconscious anglosphere arrogance.
Italy's engineer's are excellent, and they're airmen were valiant, one of our aces Robert Stanford Tuck was annoyed that our media reporting on the Italian bombing raid on London poured scorn on the Italian air force but our pilots who fought against them reported the opposite saying although the types of aircraft involved were inferior to our types they're airman were skilful and hard to intercept. The account is in Tucks autobiography Fly For You're Life
Like the L-133 March 30, 1942, Lockheed formally submitted the L-133-02-01 to the USAAF for consideration. Powered by two L-1000 turbojets and featuring a futuristic-appearing canard design with slotted flaps to enhance lift, the single-seat fighter was expected to have a top speed of 612 mph (985 km/h) in level flight, but a range of only 310 mi (500 km)
Both the Fiat G.50 and Macchi C.200 both were initially in service with enclosed cockpits, but the service pilots rejected that and wanted open cockpits
I find it very interesting that Italy, Japan, and the US all had virtually this exact design. So similar are these designs that I wonder who was sharing notes with whom.
@@5nowChain5 Its a bit of an exaggeration to describe the Supermarine racing float planes like the S6B as "prototype" Spitfires... more like a "Grandfather" or "Great Uncle" to it... lol
@@trooperdgb9722 Not at all. Anyone who bothers to look up the history, can see the sequence. "Schneider Cup ... The race was significant in advancing aeroplane design, particularly in the fields of aerodynamics and engine design, and would show its results in the best fighters of World War II. The streamlined shape and the low drag, liquid-cooled engine pioneered by Schneider Trophy designs are obvious in the British Supermarine Spitfire, the American North American P-51 Mustang, and the Italian Macchi C.202 Folgore.
Not the Italians & Americans. The SS.4 flew & crashed March 1939. The XP-55 didn't fly until July 1943. If they really were copying off the Italians it wouldn't have taken 4 years to create a working example.
When designing a canard, it is important that the forward canard stalls first when going into a stall. If it's rigged so that the main wing stalls first, you are going to be in big, big trouble.
Economics and industrial capacity were always an issues for Italian war efforts in all areas that it mattered. For planes much of the problems are that unlike other countries who could be blamed for NOT listening to pilots the Italian aircraft companies and Airforce brass listened to their pilots a little too much. Their pilots demanded open cockpits and many were skeptical of monoplanes to fault. Not sure who can be blamed for the lousy armament standard on early war Italian planes but that was a huge fault too. All in all old fashioned thinking was never pushed out of the way until the and of the war for Italy ie 1943. Italy had bad leaders in general and thats why they get so much flak it certainly wasn't that they weren't capable of making great designs but
This aircraft predated the Japanese Kyushu JW-1 Shinden which was very similar in design though it had taller landing gear and was to be equipped with four matching cannons.
Definitely one for the list of 'we'd like to have seen that one in service.' One of the things I've wondered about with this sort of configuration is how do you protect the engine as this is the rear of the aircraft is the area most likely to be hit. I think I read in Air Vice Marshal James Edgar 'Johnnie' Johnson's book Full Circle that he mentions that many Italian pilots did not want enclosed cockpits because stunt pilots did not use them. It was a case of if they don't use them I don't use them.
Designed a year before, the Grumman XF5F Skyrocket had 2600 hp, 383 mph top speed, 1200 mile range and a climb rate of 4000 ft/sec. It mounted either two 20mm cannon or 4 - 0.50” Brownings in the nose. It would have shredded the Zeros (with effective tactics) but the USN declined and went with the F4F. Why? Cost, extra pilot training for multi-engine craft, conservative notions of what was needed to fight. The Army suffered from some of the same mindset in its armored force philosophy until reality made them rethink it.
Strange, isn't it. Some angles of photos and it looks like a nice, capable aircraft and futuristic, then other angles looks like a plastic toy you would play with in the bath tub.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 gods you are a moron. The SAAB 21 was design in the late 1930s a short while after this Italian design. Whilst many early aircraft were indeed pushers, this does not make any difference to my initial musings. The Sopwith Triplane influenced Anthony Fokker to design his Dr.1 triplane. PLEASE NOTE I SAY INFLUENCED. The SAAB 21 has a passing similarity to this Italian design. There were several other designs that followed roughly the same design layouts, some like the SAAB 21 with a conventional tailplane and others like the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 with a canard configuration (and built to meet the needs of the USAAC's specification R-40C of November 1939). Really if you can't ubderstand that earlier designs influence later ones, you shouldn't ne allowed on YT without an adult to supervise you.
Thank you for increasing my knowledge of unusual WWII aircraft. May I suggest a video on the Japanese pusher aircraft called the Sin den. Greetings from the USA.
IMHO The XP-55 "Ascender" looks as though Curtiss Wright stole the plans from the Italians after seeing this video. Terrific video on a very interesting airplane.
960 hp! That's very impressive, especially for late 1930's. I think early spitfires were around that mark? Interesting design, looking at the photos, the thing I find startling though, is the ground clearance of the Propeller. Wouldn't need much to strike on landing and with an aggressive take off, I would have thought?
If it was me I'd try and get the rear wheels behind the prop (maybe by sweeping the wing backwards) so that the rotational force actually helps to lift the prop away from the ground
@@geordiedog1749 The engine quoted for this plane was very decent. However, it was designed to be made by hand in small quantities. Probably very hard to adapt it to large scale production.
WWII Italy's problem was industrial: not only was it lacking in massive industries like Germany or the USSR and it's industrial sector had a considerable weight in decision-making. But the key cause to its problems with implementing innovation is the reconfiguration of the industrial process required to change production. In order to change production from a biplane factory to an innovative fighter built in mass the costs were above what the industry complex were prepared to pay.
@@kirklenagh3095 Certainly the Italian Navy did better than most people realize, but there were some serious shortcomings that held its performance back. One was lack of radar which not only affected gun performance, but made it a daylight navy only. Another was lack of oil which seriously affected operations and another was leadership that did not capitalize on possibilities. When the Italian frogmen driving human torpedoes severely damaged two British battleships in Alexandria harbor, the Italian navy made no move to capitalize on subsequent British weakness. Those frogmen were excellent and made many successful attacks.
@@JDSFLA Fair comment. They had some excellent ships but indeed the Brits had them on latest technology and fleet aviation.The fact that what was still the most powerful in the world regarded them as a threat in the Mediterranean says a lot. Taranto rocked their confidence. The frogmen were elite. Another interesting side note is the performance of the Italians at Stalingrad.
I remember R.S. Tuck writing about that. A friend of mine refused to believe that the Regio Aeronautica had bombed Britain, and in the 70s finding another source was impossible for me.
@@mbryson2899 they certainly did. In fact Yeovilton naval airstation had a standing order for the gladiators based there for training were forbidden to join the battle over Southampton, in case they were mistaken for Italian Regia Aeronautica.
similarly to the Bugatti 100P these were planes DECADES ahead of their time.Fitted with a ALFA RONEO 1200 cv o (or a later Isotta Fraschini ) the estimations of top speed were an astounding 705 km/h ( AM sources )
Civvy aircraft don't need to be as cheap or as plentiful. That is a massive factor when trying to create a military airframe based on civilian designs. The BF-108 Taifun springs to mind, the BF-109 derived from it had some issues that were the result of cost cutting to allow mass production such as a narrow landing gear which couldn't be rectified due to the cost and disruption such a change would incur.
Wild! Never have heard even a distant rumor of this. Looks like something from Battlestar Galactica. I think the US was moving along these lines later in the war, something made of magnesium? I'd have to look it up. Anyway, this seems like very advanced thinking, and a real design object!
The Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender was a Canard design. Both the SS-4 & XP-55 look very much alike , too much so for my liking. They also shared another important similarity , flying coffins . The Westland Whirlwind twin engine fighter first flew in 1938 armed with four 20mm cannon in the nose.
There are some real issues with pusher style aircraft. Can't really bail out you need an ejection seat. Can't easily see behind you as was mentioned in the video. So while you are being jumped by enemies because you can't see them on your tail they can easily go about shooting up your engine. But I bet the performance was amazing
Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes. As for rear visibility, the early Spits had the mirror.
@@neutronalchemist3241 HJ Marseille was killed by the empennage of his Me-109F. Before ejection seats, a blow-away prop was the only ''safety feature'' to pitch to test pilots.
@@HootOwl513 To be killed by the tailplanes was possible but not normal. Marseille did only because his aircraft was on his back and diving. In the same situation the prop of the SS.4 would be dangerous, so what's the difference? The blow-away prop was needed on the X-55 because in that case the cockpit was placed further back, and the pilot was supposed to slip on the wing, like in a conventional aircraft.
@@neutronalchemist3241 drag on the pilot, and lots of it, so they decelerate quicker than gravity can drag them down, especially if the emergency exit was topsides, the crew would be above the main wing as they can't fall through it can they, so maybe in a fighter plane no more than 1.5 metres before they pass the tail planes. The poor buggers didn't fall enough to miss the tail planes.. There are enough accounts of air crew hitting the rear tail fins, even in RAF night bombers, to make this not an unusual event.
Nope! Liquid cooled engines are very susceptible to ground fire, whereas an air cooled engine could absorb a tremendous amount of damage and still keep running. Case in point is the P-47 Thunderbolt air cooled radial vs the Mustang's V-12 liquid cooled merlin.
How sad that they wouldn't push forward and continue with research. That design and possibilities could have changed a lot of thinking in all countries designing aircraft.
I read somewhere where General Bill Slim of WW2 fame, wouldn't allow his subordinates to ridicule Italian troops. He felt they were just poorly lead by their officer corps.
Several years before them. I did wonder, when I came across this, if they ripped it off the Italians. But think it was just one of those ideas people just kept coming up with.
@@WALTERBROADDUS maybe because so often when you see simialr or identical ideas put into practise it was the case - reverse engineering, industrial espionage, etc. There are of course genuine cases of invention.
As a self confessed aircraft nerd, I can honestly say, I have never heard of this plane. Thanks again Ed.
This opens up a can of worms that includes canard and pusher type WW2 combat aircraft. Time to dive down that worm hole Ed. Can’t wait. I just picked up a copy of Miranda’s book Fighters of the Dying Sun.
looks like a mig-8
Your comment saved me the bother of writing the exact same thing.
I just found out about this plane for the first time three days ago while researching for pusher props that could potentially be refitted with jet engines. Something's in the air...
Ditto, and it sounds awesome dammit!
This is amazing - back in the early 1970s I came across an article in Jane's Aircraft with photos and drawings on this aircraft and made a rubber band balsa and paper model from scratch and it flew pretty well.
Thank you Ed, the SS4 was a design way ahead of it's time.
It doesn't take much imagination to see how an engine with a larger HP out put would have made it into a world beater, and add a jet turbine..... well that would have been amazing.
And imagine what it would've been capable of with a warp drive ! Astounding !!
Considering that the engineer Campini was working on a jet airplane (the Campini Caproni C.C.2) while Stefanutti was working on his S.S.4, it could have been possible.
@@emilianocaprili4160 The main thing was that Americans, British, Germans, Russians were better in making dreams reality.
But anhow if the prototype flew in 39 it might have seen service equipped with a licence built DB601 from end of 41/beginn of 42 on. It would have competed with Me109 G1, Spitfire MK V, MiG 3. Italy would have been on a similar level as the other aircraft building nations.
Airplane design is actually a lot more complicated than that.
Many "ahead of it's time" designs proved to be not ahead because the amount of problems totally outclassed the very little benefits.
Italy's history in aerospace, engineering, technology and indeed industry is all like that- very sporadic development, moments of brilliance, elegance and innovation, some that even make it into use, but overall lacking in the necessary substructure to keep things going and often in follow through. It's still an honourable history though, and a good reminder to us that despite the unevenness of its industrialization, there's actually a reason Italy has been in the top ten economies of the industrial age.
In other words, Ferraris & Fiats.
@@johnhughes2653 yes
Obscure prototype: "exists"
War Thunder: [free real estate meme goes here]
@@keithmoore5306 The XP-55, looks great
@@hachipanki8634 ah yes, the ass-ender
@@keithmoore5306 As did Japan. And Germany had a fighter with both pusher and puller engines.
It got suggested and its now being considered by the developers lol, congrats on predicting the future.
or the caproni piston jet fighter, first accredited jet plane. Only after the war the title got to the Me262!
Add 15 degree sweep to the wings and forward canard, put vertical stabilizers on wing tips and this would be very close to a Long EZ with tri gearl instead of a nose skid.
Pusher aircraft are really interesting! The Ass-Ender, the Shinden, and the only relatively successful one, SAAB 21! Greetings again from the Philippines!
Wait, may interes ka rin sa pusher-props?
Oh don't forget the "swoose goose" and the "black bullet" (not the anime. The plane)
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 hindi masyado I just find them interesting hehe, also yesss how could I forget the long boi and stubby boi
The Shinden might well have ended up as successful as the Saab 21 if circumstances had allowed its continued development. Also almost certainly would've ended up with a jet version like the Saab 21R, since Kyushu Aircraft Company already had that in mind for the future when they built the 2 prototypes.
@@RedXlV yup. Definitely. But it's really too late to further progress...
Thank you for bring to light all these almost unheard of airplanes.
I first read of this plane in one of the volumes of William Green's wonderful and now highly collectable series of WWII aviation books. Italy also created and flew several other highly innovative airplanes before the 1943 armistice.
“Shin den” style was the way to go, if only the cooling could be sorted.
I have only just found out about using low rpm tip pusher props instead of winglets
In theory, cooling shouldn't be too much of an issue. Just provide a spitfire /p51 style radiator underneath the wing. Obviously this rules out using an air-cooled radial though
@@jackroutledge352
I had the same thoughts but history shows it’s not that simple.
Strangely it seems exhaust heat in the engine bay is more trouble than cylinder temperature.
Even more surprisingly is that air cooled radials have more success.
B36, that aerocobra twin engine thing are two of the hardest to solve.
@@jackroutledge352 The Mitsubishi J7W "Shinden" did have an 18 cylinder air cooled radial.
@@Mishn0 It's Kyushu, not Mitsubishi. The engine, Ha-43, is Mitsubishi though.
@@brucebaxter6923 Interesting, thanks.
Hello Ed. Yet another , "never heard of this one either !" You have a great source of seemingly endless obscure finds Ed. Yes, the Whirlwind came a very close second regarding armament but there's no doubt a 30mm would have obliterated most aircraft with one shell ! Thanks Ed.
Why the hell do people like you leave a comment like you KNOW the guy personally? calling him by his name? No really, I want to know. Are you just a flaming boomer?
Looks a lot like the Curtiss-Wright XP55 Ascender (aka the "Ass-Ender"). Convergent evolution at its best!
Convergent evolution indeed. 4 different nations secretly working on the same basic design at about the same time.
@@mikearmstrong8483 And the Saab 21 made it into service, then was converted into a jet fighter :P
Goodness I had no idea about this fascinating Italian aircraft. Thanks Ed!
Given what Italy actually had cooking in limited-use and experimental designs, in terms of small arms, aircraft and even tanks to a lesser extent, it is increasingly apparent to the modern student that far from the stereotype of incompetence, Italy really suffered only from a lack of actual manufacturing capabilities - it did not lack brave, skilled, intelligent or talented people, and had they the same massive manufacturing capabilities as the Big Four, Italy's place in World War 2 would rival its contemporaries.
A very impressive fighter for these days with a more as descent armament.
...and a potent one at that.
?
@@guaporeturns9472 a pair of 20 mm and one 30 mm cannons...?
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450 yes
Is descent armament only usable while reducing altitude?
The Italians, like the French, were caught between generations of equipment.
While having a much smaller industrial base than Germans the Italians had beggared themselves supporting Franco and expanding in Africa. Hitler, who never cared a toss for allies and only ever saw them as 'competitors in abeyance'*, launched his war regardless of whether his allies were ready or not. This saw the Italians stuck with tankettes and biplanes in the early 1940s while trying to be a big power while Hitler made sure they couldn't really perform. Of course this all came back to bite him on the butt at Stalingrad.
(*I've heard the Axis Powers aptly described as "less an alliance and more a pack of individual predators")
I do think the Germans had better relations to the Japanese than to the Italians and considered them more of an equal power. Of course the issue there was that the distance made military cooperation almost impossible.
@@mikeblatzheim2797 Very true, and also they were far enough away that they weren't a rival.
Wow, really cool plane, and thank you for the amazing and detailed information you’ve provided!
Columbo was the test pilot?
Was he known for asking the tower for 'One more thing?'
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Did he wear his grubby mac when he flew?
@@Simon_Nonymous Of course! That is the standard Italian test pilot uniform.
@@Simon_Nonymous...with a cigar in one hand and a notebook in the other.
Colombo lost his life so show a miminum respect and avoid jokes
Thank you for this update. Indeed, in the USA, we don't hear/read about advanced fighter designs of Italy, France, & Japan. Please keep unearthing these rare birds that _" could have been. "_
We hear about it as much as anyone else does. You have to search for obscure military designs. They don't teach this in school anywhere.
XP55!
Similar ideas being thought about across the world.
Thanks for shining a light on this Aircraft.
Reminiscent of the Curtiss XP-55. Top speed of the XP-55 was 390mph with an Allison V1710 engine. Its design speed was over 500mph with a Pratt & Whitney X-1800 engine. The cancellation of this engine meant substitution with an engine of less horsepower, thus a reduction in speed and overall performance. The XP-55 was successfully flown 169 times in 1943. Stalls were restricted as it had a tendency to go inverted and flat-spin. 3 prototypes were built and flown but was not put into production. The Japanese experimented with a similar design as did the Italians. The service ceiling of the XP-55 was 34,600 feet and displayed satisfactory handling characteristics despite the problematic stalls. She became overly sensitive during low speeds. Engine overheating was never fully overcome and some stability problems remained despite modifications mainly in it vertical keel.
The XP-55 (Curtiss Model 24) was the second prototype selected by the Army in 1939 for unorthodox designs. Armament were four .50 caliber machine guns located in the nose with a combined total of 1,000 rounds. The American, Japanese and the Italian designs were not true canards as they all lacked a fixed forward elevator. In effect they were all basically flying wings with a forward trimming surface.
Thanks for this, especially in regards to the proper canard definition.
The Italian manufacturing base was not ready by 1939 , and would needed at lest 3 more years to get up to speed . The CR42 was a very good aircraft . Believe it or not it saw service during the Battle of Britain . One RAF pilot reported, it was impossible to shot down . Due to it's excellent aerobatic performance .
Great vid Ed, I first learned of this plane from the game Navyfield.
I had never heard of this before.
You did it again, Ed!
Thank you for this.
The only thing the Italians really lacked in air combat was high-powered engines they could mass produce.
As most/all of you know - once the Germans started giving/selling them some of their engines (and some better cannon)?
The Italian fighters just sang.
And danged if they were not some of the prettiest fighter aircraft of the war.
The Re.2005, C.202/205 and the G.55 and (my fav) the G.56.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55_Centauro#/media/File:Fiat_G.56.jpg
Basically a G.55 fitted with the larger DB603 engine.
She had three 20mm cannon, handled superbly and went 426+ mph.
And really pretty.
Only 2 were built.
Amazing design for that time. Respect to the engineers
The CR-42 was a great plane however, as pointed out here like the Gladiator in the RAF and Royal Navy it was obsolete by the beginning of WWII. It did however, last through war seeing service in the Balkans being used to fight partisans as a night fighter. The other problems the Italian Air Force and Industry had to deal with was obtaining advanced in-line engines and people to produce the plane, and the industrial capacity to produce the more advanced, Macchis 202s, Centauros and other planes in timely manner.
I would like to see a match up between an SS.4 "Deadly Duck" (military service) Vs XP-55 Ascender (military service). would be a cool Vs
War thunder?
Not really... more like Spike TV’s Deadliest Warrior.
Looks like a Curtiss XP-55 Ascender. The ''AssEnder'' was not accepted either.
Pity. A delta-winged pusher could be the ultimate zoom and boom air superiority fighter with the benefit of concentrated firepower.
@@CorePathway The P&W X-1800 powerplant was never developed. With the available Allison V-1710 it was a dog, and didn't outperform conventional fighers. It also had a mean tendency for stall/spins.
It is a rather beautiful, typical of Italian design.
Italy in WW2 is a very nuanced subject. Well equipped and motivated units did well.
Extraordinarily well in many cases, and against some of the toughest troops. My stepdad was a Liberator pilot and he especially disliked what he termed 'The long-nosed Italian fighters' over comparable similar German aircraft (although obviously he hated them all).
However Italy wasn't the monolith that most people think and Italians often disliked many choices of command and the political class. More than western armies the troops themselves often had strong political views that manifested in group action and what many westerners see as cowardice was often a rebellion against commanders, the political elites or other factors.
@@jameslawrie3807 "many westerners". what? Italy is a pillar of classic western culture.
@@jameslawrie3807 Totally agree. I always ask when in a discussion about the Italians in WW2 “would you have fought for Mussolini?”
I think the long noses had German engines if memory serves.
@@armatacalanca962 Absolutely, in some ways it's the very basis. I really meant 'English speaking' and used a poor choice of words. The usual subconscious anglosphere arrogance.
Italy's engineer's are excellent, and they're airmen were valiant, one of our aces Robert Stanford Tuck was annoyed that our media reporting on the Italian bombing raid on London poured scorn on the Italian air force but our pilots who fought against them reported the opposite saying although the types of aircraft involved were inferior to our types they're airman were skilful and hard to intercept. The account is in Tucks autobiography Fly For You're Life
Like the L-133 March 30, 1942, Lockheed formally submitted the L-133-02-01 to the USAAF for consideration. Powered by two L-1000 turbojets and featuring a futuristic-appearing canard design with slotted flaps to enhance lift, the single-seat fighter was expected to have a top speed of 612 mph (985 km/h) in level flight, but a range of only 310 mi (500 km)
Both the Fiat G.50 and Macchi C.200 both were initially in service with enclosed cockpits, but the service pilots rejected that and wanted open cockpits
I find it very interesting that Italy, Japan, and the US all had virtually this exact design. So similar are these designs that I wonder who was sharing notes with whom.
they were sharing notes at the civilian sea racing events, where the supermarine spitfire was prototyped as a time trials racing plane.
@@5nowChain5 Its a bit of an exaggeration to describe the Supermarine racing float planes like the S6B as "prototype" Spitfires... more like a "Grandfather" or "Great Uncle" to it... lol
@@trooperdgb9722 Not at all. Anyone who bothers to look up the history, can see the sequence.
"Schneider Cup ... The race was significant in advancing aeroplane design, particularly in the fields of aerodynamics and engine design, and would show its results in the best fighters of World War II. The streamlined shape and the low drag, liquid-cooled engine pioneered by Schneider Trophy designs are obvious in the British Supermarine Spitfire, the American North American P-51 Mustang, and the Italian Macchi C.202 Folgore.
@@dnomyarnostaw Totally agree. That is a LONG way from the S6B being the "spitfire prototype" however...which is the comment I was addressing...
Not the Italians & Americans. The SS.4 flew & crashed March 1939. The XP-55 didn't fly until July 1943. If they really were copying off the Italians it wouldn't have taken 4 years to create a working example.
When designing a canard, it is important that the forward canard stalls first when going into a stall. If it's rigged so that the main wing stalls first, you are going to be in big, big trouble.
Wow that was way ahead of its time
Another fascinating tale of an experimental, potentially great 'plane - thanks Ed!
Economics and industrial capacity were always an issues for Italian war efforts in all areas that it mattered. For planes much of the problems are that unlike other countries who could be blamed for NOT listening to pilots the Italian aircraft companies and Airforce brass listened to their pilots a little too much. Their pilots demanded open cockpits and many were skeptical of monoplanes to fault. Not sure who can be blamed for the lousy armament standard on early war Italian planes but that was a huge fault too. All in all old fashioned thinking was never pushed out of the way until the and of the war for Italy ie 1943. Italy had bad leaders in general and thats why they get so much flak it certainly wasn't that they weren't capable of making great designs but
Yay! One of my favourite aviation obscurities!
A perfect summary. It ticked all the boxes but the inherent weaknesses in the industry prevailed.
Yes its Achilles heel was a very people who built it!
This aircraft predated the Japanese Kyushu JW-1 Shinden which was very similar in design though it had taller landing gear and was to be equipped with four matching cannons.
Definitely one for the list of 'we'd like to have seen that one in service.' One of the things I've wondered about with this sort of configuration is how do you protect the engine as this is the rear of the aircraft is the area most likely to be hit.
I think I read in Air Vice Marshal James Edgar 'Johnnie' Johnson's book Full Circle that he mentions that many Italian pilots did not want enclosed cockpits because stunt pilots did not use them. It was a case of if they don't use them I don't use them.
Designed a year before, the Grumman XF5F Skyrocket had 2600 hp, 383 mph top speed, 1200 mile range and a climb rate of 4000 ft/sec. It mounted either two 20mm cannon or 4 - 0.50” Brownings in the nose. It would have shredded the Zeros (with effective tactics) but the USN declined and went with the F4F. Why? Cost, extra pilot training for multi-engine craft, conservative notions of what was needed to fight. The Army suffered from some of the same mindset in its armored force philosophy until reality made them rethink it.
Strange, isn't it. Some angles of photos and it looks like a nice, capable aircraft and futuristic, then other angles looks like a plastic toy you would play with in the bath tub.
There were a couple of exceptions to the large cannon in the nose theory. Airocobra comes to mind.
Well, I think he’s way more genuine that most.
Reminds me of a reaper drone
I wonder just how much this influenced the design of the SAAB 21.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350I did say influence?. The Saab 91 had a pusher engine and twin fins. Geese.... Burt Rutan was influenced in his designs.
@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 gods you are a moron. The SAAB 21 was design in the late 1930s a short while after this Italian design. Whilst many early aircraft were indeed pushers, this does not make any difference to my initial musings. The Sopwith Triplane influenced Anthony Fokker to design his Dr.1 triplane. PLEASE NOTE I SAY INFLUENCED. The SAAB 21 has a passing similarity to this Italian design. There were several other designs that followed roughly the same design layouts, some like the SAAB 21 with a conventional tailplane and others like the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 with a canard configuration (and built to meet the needs of the USAAC's specification R-40C of November 1939).
Really if you can't ubderstand that earlier designs influence later ones, you shouldn't ne allowed on YT without an adult to supervise you.
Wow an early war pusher that was ahead of its time. Great video thnx.
30 seconds. Beat that. First to see the Pasta boomerang
20 seconds and first comment. I beat that
Methinks Japan was looking closely at this aircraft when designing the Shinden. Very similar in basic design.
Thank you for increasing my knowledge of unusual WWII aircraft. May I suggest a video on the Japanese pusher aircraft called the Sin den. Greetings from the USA.
IMHO The XP-55 "Ascender" looks as though Curtiss Wright stole the plans from the Italians after seeing this video. Terrific video on a very interesting airplane.
i was gonna note the resemblance myself.
Epic as always, thanks.
All new to me, and v neatly described. Thanks!
It reminds me a bit of the Fokker D23 and Schelde S- 21
WOW this is New , thanks for info man ❤️👍
960 hp! That's very impressive, especially for late 1930's. I think early spitfires were around that mark?
Interesting design, looking at the photos, the thing I find startling though, is the ground clearance of the Propeller. Wouldn't need much to strike on landing and with an aggressive take off, I would have thought?
I thought that, too. Italian air engines were generally thought of as very poor. Certainly by the start of the war they were.
The almost identical British Miles Libellula had a dolly wheel to prevent prop strikes
I think most of these pusher planes from around the WW2 era have a similair amount of clearance, it seems like they didn't see it as a problem
If it was me I'd try and get the rear wheels behind the prop (maybe by sweeping the wing backwards) so that the rotational force actually helps to lift the prop away from the ground
@@geordiedog1749 The engine quoted for this plane was very decent. However, it was designed to be made by hand in small quantities. Probably very hard to adapt it to large scale production.
WWII Italy's problem was industrial: not only was it lacking in massive industries like Germany or the USSR and it's industrial sector had a considerable weight in decision-making. But the key cause to its problems with implementing innovation is the reconfiguration of the industrial process required to change production.
In order to change production from a biplane factory to an innovative fighter built in mass the costs were above what the industry complex were prepared to pay.
Great video thank you
Thank you!
Reminds me of the Curtis XP-55 Ascender, which might also be worth a video.
The USA and Japan had strikingly similar experimental models that never went anywhere.
It took Burt Rutan to popularize the configuration.
Italian styling is superb.
Thank you. I had never heard of this plane before. The Italian air force was the best arm of Italian forces in WWII.
I think the Navy May have them beaten
@@kirklenagh3095 Certainly the Italian Navy did better than most people realize, but there were some serious shortcomings that held its performance back. One was lack of radar which not only affected gun performance, but made it a daylight navy only. Another was lack of oil which seriously affected operations and another was leadership that did not capitalize on possibilities. When the Italian frogmen driving human torpedoes severely damaged two British battleships in Alexandria harbor, the Italian navy made no move to capitalize on subsequent British weakness. Those frogmen were excellent and made many successful attacks.
@@JDSFLA Fair comment. They had some excellent ships but indeed the Brits had them on latest technology and fleet aviation.The fact that what was still the most powerful in the world regarded them as a threat in the Mediterranean says a lot. Taranto rocked their confidence. The frogmen were elite. Another interesting side note is the performance of the Italians at Stalingrad.
Piaggio wanted the turbo prop version for corp turbos! very interesting!
There was at least one squadron of CR32s in the Battle of Britain. They didn't perform well. Great video
I remember R.S. Tuck writing about that. A friend of mine refused to believe that the Regio Aeronautica had bombed Britain, and in the 70s finding another source was impossible for me.
@@mbryson2899 they certainly did. In fact Yeovilton naval airstation had a standing order for the gladiators based there for training were forbidden to join the battle over Southampton, in case they were mistaken for Italian Regia Aeronautica.
Great channel and great content... Any plans to do a Romanian Royal Air Force story in WW2 ? IAR 80 and IAR 81 were great planes.
Oh yes. One day 😁
The most surprisingly advanced plane I’ve seen in this series.
Bailing out looks dicey with that pusher prop.
I knew about the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 and Kyushu J7W, but I've never heard of this aircraft.
Bailing out might be interesting with that prop behind.
Cannot believe no-one has mentioned the Miles M.39B Libellula ....
similarly to the Bugatti 100P these were planes DECADES ahead of their time.Fitted with a ALFA RONEO 1200 cv o (or a later Isotta Fraschini ) the estimations of top speed were an astounding 705 km/h ( AM sources )
It looks very intresting. It reminds me of the japanese J7W1
Ditto. .. And the Curtiss Ascender.
Civvy aircraft don't need to be as cheap or as plentiful. That is a massive factor when trying to create a military airframe based on civilian designs. The BF-108 Taifun springs to mind, the BF-109 derived from it had some issues that were the result of cost cutting to allow mass production such as a narrow landing gear which couldn't be rectified due to the cost and disruption such a change would incur.
Beautiful design.
Wild! Never have heard even a distant rumor of this. Looks like something from Battlestar Galactica. I think the US was moving along these lines later in the war, something made of magnesium? I'd have to look it up. Anyway, this seems like very advanced thinking, and a real design object!
The Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender was a Canard design. Both the SS-4 & XP-55 look very much alike , too much so for my liking. They also shared another important similarity , flying coffins . The Westland Whirlwind twin engine fighter first flew in 1938 armed with four 20mm cannon in the nose.
Looks similar to the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender and the Miles M.35 Libellula
I hope you cover more Italian aircraft in future videos, because their designs are from the Gorgeous to the Groggy.
There are some real issues with pusher style aircraft. Can't really bail out you need an ejection seat. Can't easily see behind you as was mentioned in the video. So while you are being jumped by enemies because you can't see them on your tail they can easily go about shooting up your engine. But I bet the performance was amazing
The Curtiss XP-55 has a prop-jettison switch for bail-outs.
Look at where the cockpit is.
The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft.
To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
As for rear visibility, the early Spits had the mirror.
@@neutronalchemist3241 HJ Marseille was killed by the empennage of his Me-109F. Before ejection seats, a blow-away prop was the only ''safety feature'' to pitch to test pilots.
@@HootOwl513 To be killed by the tailplanes was possible but not normal. Marseille did only because his aircraft was on his back and diving. In the same situation the prop of the SS.4 would be dangerous, so what's the difference?
The blow-away prop was needed on the X-55 because in that case the cockpit was placed further back, and the pilot was supposed to slip on the wing, like in a conventional aircraft.
@@neutronalchemist3241 drag on the pilot, and lots of it, so they decelerate quicker than gravity can drag them down, especially if the emergency exit was topsides, the crew would be above the main wing as they can't fall through it can they, so maybe in a fighter plane no more than 1.5 metres before they pass the tail planes. The poor buggers didn't fall enough to miss the tail planes.. There are enough accounts of air crew hitting the rear tail fins, even in RAF night bombers, to make this not an unusual event.
This layout would seem to be ideal for a ground attack platform. Excellent forward visibility and plenty of room for weapons.
You'd want to put in an armored bathtub even stronger than the Sturmovik's, though. The engine won't absorb any head-on ground AA fire.
Nope! Liquid cooled engines are very susceptible to ground fire, whereas an air cooled engine could absorb a tremendous amount of damage and still keep running. Case in point is the P-47 Thunderbolt air cooled radial vs the Mustang's V-12 liquid cooled merlin.
Crazy. Highly swept wings, twin stabilisers, tricycle wheels, how did this happen?
See the similar Curtiss-Wright XP-55
What about the Fokker D.XXIII and the De Schelde S.21
You pulled a good one here. I'm not sure 1% of aero enthusiasts have heard of this one.
;)
looks a lot like the Curtis XP56 Ascender.
How sad that they wouldn't push forward and continue with research. That design and possibilities could have changed a lot of thinking in all countries designing aircraft.
"push forward" - I see what you did there :P
So the Curtis ascender was not an original design?
I read somewhere where General Bill Slim of WW2 fame, wouldn't allow his subordinates to ridicule Italian troops. He felt they were just poorly lead by their officer corps.
One is reminded of the Miles M39B Libellula.
Looks like the Ascender and the Kyushu. I wonder if they copied each others designs?
Several years before them. I did wonder, when I came across this, if they ripped it off the Italians. But think it was just one of those ideas people just kept coming up with.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters I guess it's like evolutionary pressure to converge on one design.
@@WALTERBROADDUS maybe because so often when you see simialr or identical ideas put into practise it was the case - reverse engineering, industrial espionage, etc. There are of course genuine cases of invention.
Fantastic and informative‼️®™️
I really like this plane. It would be so cool to have it in war thunder!
@00:20 - That's a CR32, not a CR33!
1:10 built for reversing away from the conflict.
Again, I learned something new from Mr. Nash.
Wow...fascinating stuff! I'll bet bailing out would've been quite...an adventure.
If you added a jet engine to this like the Saab 21R it might have awesome!. Maybe scale it up a bit.
It's worth noting that this kind of wing and stabilizer layout is usually referred to with the French word "canard", which means "duck".