Talk:Caproni Campini N.1/Archive 1

Untitled
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 that...is 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
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)

Horsepower
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
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
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)
 * Your source doesn't exist any more. Still it would be interesting to find out how some English writing authors came to this Caproni Campini, when all original sources, that is Italian ones, call it Campini-Caproni 2003:F5:6F1C:7300:F1E2:E649:86D7:EACD (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Marcp PB
 * Naming conventions Campini, Campini-Caproni, Caproni-Campini are all used in citable sources. The naming confusion is discussed by Gregori Alegi in the article “Secondo’s Slow Burner, Campini, Caproni and the C.C.2.” which is cited in the main article:


 * “Because the Campini aircraft were built in the Caproni factory, piloted by Caproni’s chief test pilot and supported by Caproni’s flight test organisation they would later be widely referred to as Campini-Caproni or Caproni-Campini aircraft. At this proved particularly annoying to the designer who complained and threatened to sue from as early as 1941 to at least 1961, by 1973 however he appears to have accepted the Campini-Caproni name as satisfactory”


 * The key point is that there is no right or wrong answer. The different names used reflects ambiguity that really did exist in contemporary Italian sources.


 * For the article we should use the designation that is most widely used in English language sources. The English language Wikipedia designation does not need to be the same as the Italian Wikipedia. The Italian Wikipedia should follow the designation most widely used in Italian Language sources just as German should follow whatever designation is most widely used in German and so on.


 * We can find sources in English for “Campini-Caproni”, and just “Campini” but the most widely used designation in English is Caproni-Campini. The primary source for this naming convention is George Geoffrey Smith who wrote an article in 1941 for Flight magazine (BTW the article still exists it’s just not accessible for free) and the 1951 book “Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion” which can be seen in snippet view on Google books.


 * Both Smith (Caproni-Campini) and Alegi (Campini-Caproni) are referenced in Tony Butler’s 2019 book “Jet Prototypes of WW2”. Butler goes with Caproni-Campini for his book (which is cited in the main article).  Butler's book is published by Osprey who are one of the big names in miliary history publications.  There are also non-book citations such as the 1:72 model kit produced by Valom and the computer game "Total Tank Simulator" both of which go with "Caproni-Campini'


 * Given that we have a 1941 english language source for "Caproni-Campini" and a breadth of later publications and products which also use "Caproni-Campini" I think its fair that we stick to the "Caproni-Campini" naming convention for the english language wikipedia Stivushka (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Naming
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 http://www.modellismosalento.it/index.php/Walkaround-Aerei/caproni-campini-cc-2-qsagittarioq.html which explains that the two aircraft built:

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)
 * 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


 * 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)

Frank Joseph
Joseph is a pen name of Frank Collin, a neo-Nazi author of pseudoscience. For more information, see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The first ever jet propelled craft?
While adding citations to development section to close out outstanding citation requests from 2017, I have removed claims that the Campini's 1932 Venice jet boat demonstration was the first ever vehicle to harness jet propulsion.

The claim is not accompanied by any citations and its not consistent with other Wikipedia pages (see History of Jet Engines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_jet_engine).

Consensus view is that the term "Jet engine" too nebulous to pin down to any one specific inventor or occasion.

Campini developed the first pump jet propelled watercraft and later the first afterburning/reheat engined aircraft but it would require a major shift in WP:CON and multiple edits on other pages, not to mention citations, before the VENAR boat could be accepted as the first jet propelled vehicle of any kind ... and, no doubt, a fight with the Robert Goddard fanclub :-) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stivushka (talk • contribs) 09:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * While the ending assessment might be true, remember that other Wikipedia pages are not relevant to the content on this page, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Bushranger your points are correct and valid. To be clear I am not suggesting we use other Wikipedia pages as a direct reference, I agree that this would be against Wikipedia good practice.

That said, it is reasonable to expect a claim as profound as the “first jet propelled vehicle” would be widely cited in source material ... and not just those specifically pertaining to Secondo Campini ... and yes it would be reasonable to expect this cited material to be referenced on other Wikipedia pages (and other encyclopedic works) especially those about the history of jet propulsion.

In any case the original claim was not cited and had an 3 year old citation request ... justifiable grounds for removal.

Stivushka (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Top Speed 515km/h?
Removed sentences that stated to speed of the N1 recorded in testing was "Roughly" 320MPH / 515km/h

The specification section of the article claims a top speed of 233MPH / 375km/h (with afterburner running) which is consistent with reference books though it should be noted that independent testing at Regia Aeronautica's Guidonia Experimental Establishment gave a slightly lower figure of 223MPH / 360km/h.

Either way 320MPH/515km/h is clearly not plausible not even when the word "roughly" is used.

I can't know what the original authors intent was (perhaps a confusion between MPH or km/h?) so I think it was best to simply remove the sentences while keeping the text readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stivushka (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have sources for your claim "is clearly not plausible", this is your personal opinion, wholly irrelevant in WP. There are sources stating that the max speed was about 500 kmh, e.g. William Maglietto, Mario De Bernardi. Da Milano a Guidonia con il Campini-Caproni, in Rivista Aeronautica, n. 5/1991 2003:F5:6F1C:7300:F1E2:E649:86D7:EACD (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC) Marco Pb
 * We have two citations which give top speeds of 233MPH and 223MPH (both cited in main article). The lower of the two figures is from the Regio Aeronuatica's Direzione Superiore degli Studi e delle Esperienze (DSSE) at the Guidonia research airfield. For military aircraft it is normal practice to take the speed found in testing by military research body of that country. The higher figures I have seen come from an interview with Caproni's test pilot de Bernardi while he was a POW. The interviews were conducted by Sqn Ldr F.E Pickles of the British Ministry of Aircraft Production. During the interview De Bernardi mentioned flying the C.2 (that the name its called in the report) at speeds between 93 and 373mph. In his 2019 book “Jet Prototypes of WW2 Tony Butler states that the 372mph figure is unlikely, in any case its can't be corroborated with data from DSSE or Caproni both of which give much lower speeds. Stivushka (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Sole Survivor?
While casually copyediting this article, I came across a bit of a nonsense. First, it's stated that two were built. It is then claimed that one was destroyed by allied bombing. Leaving one... allegedly transported to the RAE in England, subsequent fate unknown. However theer is an example on display in Italy. Wassup?? TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that the cite for the stauff about the RAE is the Italian Science Museum. I don't think this works a cite; avarious searces eg Caproni & Campini yeilded zip.TheLongTone (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Italian article says that the bomb damaged (not destroyed) aircraft was moved to Farnborough for analysis then scrapped at 'Newton' in 1949, I would think that is RAF Newton. It is cited in that article.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  14:55, 5 July 2022
 * Ah, you have to click on the 'archived' link to see the article. Thanks; I'll amend the article to make sense.TheLongTone (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC) (UTC)