Talk:Caproni Campini N.1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Are you sure that some of these were used by the Germans on the eastern front during the war? I've never heard that before! I really do doubt there any proof?

No, this plane was experimental only. It's top speed of 230 MPH and it's appalling fuel efficiency mean it would have been of little use in combat.Romanianlies (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


There is an obvious missprint in the specifications. 500 Kilowatts is, by definition, 670 Horsepower, not 750 Horsepower.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Intubed propeller[edit]

An "intubed propeller" is not essentially a motorjet. It's a ducted fan. Motorjets don't use propellers, they use compressors and need to generate some serious pressure to get added thrust from injecting fuel into the airstream. That's why the single-stage axially compressed Japanese Tsu-11 was a failure. Romaniantruths (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Campini Caproni[edit]

Delavenay (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Dear Sir , I would like not to waste your worthy time in argue about personal topic, ( but how could you judge my english poor english :-) ? ) I would rather go to the core question directly. Of Course Nothing of personal with you but the information you have probably read on some leaflet and you have written on wikipedia are not exact and on certain instance they are easily demonstrable as false. May I ask you if you have ever seen the Campini Caproni aircraft, or have ever known relatives of Doctor Campini who can show genuine material. or have you read some literature about the study of jet propulsion in Italy in 1930-1943. This helping you to write accurate technical infos, so in this way you could use use your good native english to provide services to English reader who eventually read about Campini's aircraft instead to provide them incomplete figure (we call them intox). As Italian and as Aerospace engineer I am proud of Campini's aircraft (at least from historical pint of view) and I would like that people around the world could read true information not Coca-Cola style brochure(nothing of personal of course!). By the way please have a look at Campini Caproni report page on wikipedia italy. See you then meanwhile I go to improve my english :-) . Ciao Marc Delavenay Delavenay (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

English language sources refer to it as "Caproni-Campini" eg ths item in Flight magazine. Hence the way this article is named. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


There is considerable disagreement in modern sources about the naming of this aircraft, including the claim that the "C.C.2" name is incorrect - a claim that was repeated in the LEAD.

To start, it is worth pointing out that there is widespread agreement that the "N.1" is correct, and that it is short for "Number 1", and therefore "No.1". See this, or this as typical examples of many similar sources.

But it is also notable that many sources, both contemporary and modern, use the term C.C.2. These include things like this reference from 1944, or this one from 2007 or this one. So by what logic did this article refer to this as erroneous? None of the references in the article state this, yet, this claim has since been repeated by other sources copying this material.

Finally, the question becomes why the "Number 1" design would be so widely referred to as the "C.C.2". In this the references disagree:

1) Flight in 1951 states that the two designs are the same, and seems to be claiming that they are simply the two prototypes. Josesph gives support to this claim, stating that the C.C.2 was the two-seat version. However, Joseph also falls for the Re.2007 story hook line and sinker, so I am hesitant to give it much weight.

2) Pavelec claims that the C.C.2 was the company designation, and N.1 was the air force designation.

3) this source from 1946 claims that the C.C.1 was an earlier design that "never materialized" (pg. 48).

I think we should put some effort into clearing this up. In any event, any of the older references above clearly demonstrate that the aircraft, although which one is not clear, was widely referred to in the press as the C.C.2. This article should not claim that this is incorrect, unless there is another reputable source that demonstrates why this is. I have changed this for now.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Although sources say that CC.2 is not accurate it is clearly called that by some sources so I dont have a problem with your lead. Perhaps if we ever find out why the designations came about from a reliable reference then it can be explained in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I did find this which explains that the two aircraft built:
  • No 1 manufacturer serial number 4849 (military serial MM487) and probably also known as CC.1
  • No 2 manufacturer serial number 4850 (military serial MM488) and probably also known as CC.2

It would appear that CC.2 is one of the aircraft and the first to fly, so with a bit of mix and match you can see why different names have been used. The first N.1/CC.1 and the second (but first to fly) N.2/CC.2 unless somebody has another theory! MilborneOne (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That was certainly my gut feeling about this too. But there is that one reference from '44 that does suggest otherwise. I'm not going to give it too much credence because, as a wartime reference from before the factory was overrun in April 1945, it's unlikely to be terribly accurate. It's by no means a reason not to believe it's N.1/C.C.1 - N.2/C.C.2, but only that we should tread carefully! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Understood but at least we have this on the talk page as record until something better comes along, no need to do anymore to the article at this stage. MilborneOne (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you thought this couldn't get more confusing… I was looking around on Flickr for more images of the example shown in the article. One user had a shot from the front that showed the placard in front of the aircraft, but the resolution was too low to make it out. I emailed him and he sent me a larger version, which clearly reads… C.C.1! Now as this is clearly the two-seater version, all logic is out the window. *sigh* Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)