The Breda Ba.88 Lince; When Propaganda and Reality Crash Together
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Buy my book: amzn.to/3preYyO
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/edna...
/ ednash
![Italy’s Bizarre Flying Barrel | The Stipa Caproni [Aircraft Overview #55]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X3K0QPfmznY/mqdefault.jpg)
A cautionary tale- illustrating why we should be wary of prototype performance as against service models.
& ignore the "Top Speed" of production aircraft. Example: B-17's quoted top Speed of 280 mph, but the real-world cruise Speed in combat was around 170 mph
@@fredmyers120hardthrasher does a very good video on the b17
@@toqtoq3361 Pays to know the history of a company!
That goes for a variety of things, such as weapons and vehicles.
It goes for a lot of people too, particularly politicians.
I had to laugh when I heard they tried to make it a dive bomber. You have to be able to GAIN altitude before you can DIVE!
Breda (or rather Ansaldo-Breda) really made a habit of costly failures. Some ten years ago they made the abominous Fyra high speed train, which was to ride between Brussels and Amsterdam. But after a few months they had to stop the service completely after numerous complaints of malfunctions, even fires onboard the riding train. Ansaldo-Breda had to take back all their trains, and pay several millions euros of indemnities. History repeats itself.
The Italian Blackburn/Fairey perhaps? 😀
Ah, the Ba-88! I was hoping this aircraft would be covered sometime. From potential world-beater to abject failure... With Breda also producing the Ba-65, another poor aircraft, and several of Italy's less than spectacular small arms, I'm given to wonder whose side they were really on.
Trivia note; the Ba-88 appeared in a British wartime movie, "Ships With Wings", probably the only time it's appeared on the silver screen. It was surprisingly successful; but only in fiction could that have happened.
Is it ships and wings or ships with wings?
@@crunchybro123 Ships With Wings. If you check out the IMDB entry, the first featured review mentions the Ba-88 specifically!
The BA-65 wasn't too bad when used as a ground attack plane which is what it was originally intended for.
What was bad about the Ba.65? It performed its CAS tasks well enough in Spain and Ethiopia and was ahead of what most other nations had when it entered service.
And which Italian small arms weren't good? The Carcano's look like just a regular bolt action rifle to me. The MAB 38 was much better than the Sten or the Thompson.
You're just giving the usual over-stating, non-researched takes on Italy, buddy.
Despite having abysmal performance, this has always been one of my favorite looking aircraft. It is halfway between looking like a de havilland hornet or ta 154 and something from wacky races, with a touch of crimson skies.
Im also a big fan of the gnome rhone 14 series engines and their developments, like this one.
Italian design almost always looks great. Mechanically, not so much.
Another aphorism might be: 'The stories of success are interesting, the stories of failure are fascinating.' Sadly, I find this true. Thanks, and keep up the good work.
People should learn more about the italian aircraft of ww2 , as some fighters and bombers where so modern they where to expensive and complex to build in numbers during wartime , out performing most alied and german aircraft . Italy is a bit of forgotten child in this department .
In a similar vein, the Blenheim never quite lived up to the propaganda around the original Bristol 142 “Britain First”. It did at least have some military use early in the war though, until better machines came along.
The Blenheim was actually perfectly fine. Nothing amazing, but it was decent.
I think one of the main problems was the very thick wing. It just added unecessary weight and wing loading, but nothing short of a total re design of the wing would have fixed it
Yes, the other problems are evident but I suspect you are right, there was some very serious aerodynamic problem that wasn't resolved. Breda may not have even had a wind tunnel.
Wing loading really only matters for fighters, unless it's extremely high.
Can't make a Greyhound pull a sled I suppose, or make a Greyhound into a Bulldog then expect it to outpace the wolves. So many designs suffered this fate: Westland Wirlwind, the below mentioned Yak-2, and even much more modern designs like the Cessna 177, and (Burt Rutan designed) Adam A500. Excellent preface for the video with the Aero-engineers principle....very true.
No! the Whirlwind suffered due to it unique engines.. It was designed specifically for the RR Peregrines and was unable to be redeveloped for the Merlin .. The Whirlwind was a great aircraft..it would have proved even more successful and formidable if it could have been fitted with Merlins
Well said, on both sides of the argument. The Whirlwind was let down by it's engines, but a better airframe would have been able to throw off most of the problems. As it was, they were pretty good as low-level hit and run fighter-bombers (and much as I like the Tiffy, they should have been produced turn and turn about with each other!)
RR could have also further developed the Perigrines for greater power, they weren't inherently bad like the Vulture and Buzzard (Too much and too big respectively). The Ba.88 was always dogged by underpowered underdeveloped engines. The Perigrines could have become a great "Hyper engine" candidate.@@kittyhawk9707
I reckon the Whirlwind could have outdone the Tiffy had engine politics not intervened. The Mitsubishi Zero was a formidible fighter with its mousey twin row engine of only 950HP. The Merlin was not necessarily every Brittish aircrafts saviour. But 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.@@robertwilloughby8050
When you mentioned about them going to North Africa I was rather hoping they had to face the Gloster Gladiator. Loses to a biplane which it was supposed to be faster than has got to be a humiliation.
Not lemons. Limoni.
Good to have you back Sir.
Thanks Ed!
One of the things I've never understood about this aircraft, is how it had such poor performance.
The Italians knew how to design a decent aircraft - normally, it was the supply of engines that held them back.
So why did this aircraft have such poor performance? It had plenty of power, a small, lightweight airframe with a monocoque construction, and no externally obvious flaws. So what went wrong?
That’s my question. How come it was so bloody awful? Without knowing I can only assume Breda flat-out lied and the construction of the prototype differed completely from the production models to ensure it performed well, ie it was a publicity stunt that couldn’t hold water in series production.
I THINk the problem is that it didn't have a lightweight airframe - it was overbuilt and the weight and wing loading was what go it. The record breaking aircraft was much lighter
basically all the equipment needed for it to be used in war .. how much weight for instance does a bomb bay, with all the bomb shackles and plumbing have ?? .. not to mention stuff like .. gunners seat and equipment, radios n stuff .. It is all gonna add up .. add to that the lack of engine development ..and questionable aerodynamics ..
Did not have monocoque construction. Tube frame covered with aluminum skin which is best suited for fabric covering. But fabric would be a poor choice for a combat aircraft.
Once I thought you had already done a video about this plane and tried to find it.
I think the next episode should be about its Soviet cousin - Yakovlev Yak-2. Designed as a record-breaking aircraft, it was converted into light bomber/reconnaissance aircraft, and its story was even more embarrassing and tragic than Ba-88. And Yakovlev himself wasn’t punished for this failure, while most of other aircraft designers were imprisoned.
Wasn't Lavochkin sent to an unheated shed in Siberia? Only to be fêted when the La-5 and the La-7 turned out to be fantastic machines?
@@robertwilloughby8050 If I remember correctly it wasn't prison like you describe, he was shoved aside and that's where la5 was born.
@@robertkalinic335 it wasn’t a jail, but very close to it (literally). In case of failure he would certainly end in one of the labour camps or deserve a faster way of death.
@@KF99 He wasnt imprisoned or anything, his design bureau was just going to get sent to Tbilisi, Georgia, since his LaGG-3 plane was phased out and Yakovlev pretty much monopolized all fighter production. Until Lavochkin made the La-5, that is.
It must be me, but the over-the-tail view showing the twin rudders seems to have unsummetrical horizontal elevators. They seem to have uneven sizes. It might be the angle of the camera position, but that's how it looks to me.
Interesting piece on a plane I've never heard of
it was conceptually valid but the biggest problem were the engines, with 500-700 hp more one could wonder...
I don't know how you do this, but many times I start modelling project, you cover the plane in your next episode.
Tubular construction fuse and a metal skin? Could of halved the weight right there. Looks like the fuse could of been drastically reduced in cross section, and wing seems unusually thick too, all adds up to slow and heavy, ie, a dog...
The propaganda vs reality echoes in my ears because of all the systems that were bought by many state agencies based son the word of the vendor-or in one case the purchasing team who rolled out a system weeks before the vendor had thought it was supposed to be ready for feild pre test
Love this.
Always liked the look of the Lince, pitty it did not have the power to carry a decent armament.
A great very interesting video and aircraft I have never heard about Mr.Ed.Have a good one.
That looks like a very high drag wing, short, thick cord, and deep. Wonder if the design could have been "fixed."
To be fair that was a sick looking plane
like HOW did this fail it does indeed look right and I can't get my head around this one
Always great videos, thanks.
Nice looking craft it was.
Oh boy, yeah, it looks right the way an exaggerated sketch looks cool, but those huge engines hanging on tiny wings are almost cartoonish,..just notice how the BF110 has almost 2x the wing area... I also think they cheated with the prototype speeds since extra weight wont affect them to that degree😂
I expected Italian engineering. Amazing speed, handling and sexy...but breaks down every day and replacing spark plugs will take 3 months.
Only fast without military equipment...kinda stupid for a MILITARY design.
What a deal....Thanks Ed.....
Old Flying Shoe🇺🇸
Counter-rotating props!
I just read about this on Monday, foreshadowing for Ed's main event
I wonder what made it perform so poorly. I'd love to do a wind tunnel test.
I was wondering the same thing.
Underpowered. When military equipment was added, the weight was too much.
what are those raised bumps are on the engine housing? I noticed that its mostly Italian planes that have these.
I think they are just humps to clear the rocker covers, so they can keep the cowling ring small.
3:48 - photo of confidence.
Another gem Ed.. Not quite as reveered as the Mosquito then ? 🤣🤣
I'm no expert but the nacelles look terrible, compared to the sleek fuselage. They look very high drag and I'm sure they didn't help the wing loading. I wonder how it would have done with some nice sleek DB601s under the wings.
Holy crap, unable to open the canopy in flight. That is a big yikes..😮
How was the performance so poor - not enough power?
Not exactly😅... huge weight I think It was overweight even before the military conversion
Weight. Primary culprit is that bulbous rounded fuselage, designed mostly to aesthetically match the radial engine fairings. Its at least twice as large as necessary (see Bf. 110) and was mostly empty space.
Throwing good money after bad!
So the frame was overbuilt with engines not powerful enough?
Wing was too thick.
I knew this plan was bad...I did not know it was THAT bad.
I'd say it looks _almost_ right. Something is off in the looks to me.
_[__6:40__ yeah, I spotted that one...]_
you should cover the Stampe SV10 and LACAB GR10, two Belgian biplane medium bombers that also defied that saying in the other way, they definitely did not look right, but they were faster than the monoplane medium bombers in 1935...
I'd seen the odd picture of this thing before, but it's interesting to hear its full story. But I'm afraid I've never thought it looked good in any way, more an over-inflated frankfurter than a sleek fighter-bomber. One look at its frontal area shows it must have had a major drag penalty compared to the Bf110, for instance, and the wing design doesn't look good for manoeuvrability. Visibility for the pilot looks awful and would have made even take-off and landing difficult, let alone combat. The only plus must be that it diverted Italian resources away from anything that might actually have been dangerous to the Allies!
Nice looking plane. Too bad they could not equip it with a more powerful engine. That might have made a difference.
Have you done the Bf-110, Mr Nash?
It seems very underreported. Everyone "knows" about it, but details seem to be very scant, especially the progression of versions.
Good short video.
Love this plane in rank one War Thunder.
Oh well, into each life a little Edsel must fall : )
Breda advertised this plane to the Finnish airforce in 1939. A good thing we didn't buy it :D
But Finland turned failed designs into war-winning weapons. So really it's a pity the Ba. 88 wasn't given the chance to become a scourge of the Red Army, like all the other junk the Finns somehow made to work.
Finns seemed to turn a lot of otherwise mediocre planes into decent performers.
A very good looking plane.
Striking looking machine. But that isn't always enough...
BA Lince was possibly the most ill-conceived of the war! A disaster...
Plusses - designed by Italians, minuses - built by Italians.
Breda BA 65 next?
Looks sleek like a fish. Strange it failed.
Too heavy
Pratically it had been build for being the italians' Mosquito, pity that Breda's engineers screwed everything, on contrary De Havilland's ones achieved EVERYTHING Ok, Probabilly it was too heavy build, also with more powerful engines it couldn't had gained nothing, the design was flawed from the start, but naturally the dictatorship couldn't loose the face.
P.s. very interesting the fact about the impossibility to open the cockpit in the air, imagine how was its pilots' morale !
It least it makes for an interesting subject matter for a plastic model kit. Thanks
Suspect that a part of the reason for the Lince's performance was the engines.
Piaggio's..issues with QC are well known by this point and can't have done this plane any favours.
"As the mission pilot and unit commander, you are required to report the cause of mechanical failure that aborted the attack on the enemy!"
"...plane just wasn't going to make it, sir."
I remember playing it in War Thunder. It is simply not good, performance is mediocre at best and the engines cook themselves very easily. If the real thing was anything like that I can definitely see why it failed.
It reminds me of a Japanese WW2 plane.
That is too bad considering many of the aircraft the Italian developed in the interwar period that became successful during the second world war. But unfortunately, every nation has a long laundry list of aircraft that did not live up to expectations.
I love ittalian aviation, they made some of the sexiest planes of the war.
I was hoping you might go into detail at the end there about the finer differences between the 110 and the Ba 88 that made it such a dog despite it seeming similar on the stat card, do we know what it's main deficiencies were? Maybe parasitic drag being really bad despite it's clean lines? if i remember correctly the P38 had similar issues in it's early stages of development, although obviously to not as great a degree
The two planes are completely different. The Lince was a bomber, not a heavy fighter.
Could you do a Video about the Breguet 690 familly mentioned in the video ?
Oh yes, one day.
I wonder if it was designed to have aluminium skinning but was actually given steel skinning?, or something like that? And given it had the issues it did, I wonder why they didn't try using fabric instead of metal skinning where possible, to lighten the plane and see if it was enough to make it at east somewhat usable?
Doesn't quite work that way. Aluminum skin's big advantage is that it can take compressive and shear loads, whereas fabric can only take tension and so is considered to have zero structural contribution.
Sure, the internal structure was probably strong enough anyways to take all loads if the skinning was replaced, but this is just one thing to consider for your proposal.
Beautiful aircraft though.
Also, it's interesting it behaved so well originally, while rapidly becoming unusable in practical application. I know the Italian Navy had similar problems, especially with their shells. On official trial runs they would be supplied with the very best armament factories could produce, resulting in wonderful results. During the war they were equipped with much worse stocks which resulted in unreliable performance. I wonder if whoever modified the aircraft was inept or cut corners or if it was purely incapable.
Similar story with the naval armour plate, which was'nt! Another Breda-Ansaldo story.
Sigh. Such a beautiful looking aircraft but sadly so bad :(
I wonder if the issues stem from the massive opening to the engines. They must have had massive drag even if it looks cool.
Radials were nothing new. They don't stop planes from being fast. They actually powered the fastest propeller fighters built.
@@anzaca1 drag increases exponentially with speed. The radials in fast aircraft had cowlings that fitted very tightly with only small opening for airflow. Look at the front of a late war FW190. Radial engine but very streamlined.
The B29 is another example where it was so streamline heat became an issue.
The openings on the Ba88 radials are massive.
You can’t overcome drag with HP at high speeds, the returns diminish.
Couldn't they just add more powerful engines?
They used the most powerful Italy had available.
They couldn't even use the Ba.88 as a mail plane because it was that slow
They took '30s art deco a little too far...
I knew this Moment would come sooner or later. The great failure of italian aircraft industry. I have to say that in Italy this Is not exactly a forgotten aircraft precisely because It was useless.
The policy of "It looksa bella bella aeroplana, but donta fucking worka" has been carried on in most Italian industries ever since.
How the hell did it have such a huge drop in performance? Were those record runs simple inventions?
Presumably they stripped the test planes right down, then manipulate the figures a bit and just lied (VW exhaust scandal anyone?)
high drag design, bet that's what its problem is. may look good, but not good for aerodynamic efficiency.
You'd think it'd be good at shooting up trains, if it catch them.
Mussolini's Roman ego was too much for these chicken wings to support. When you have to remove a machine gun, just to allow your bird to climb, it's time to put the airframe on a diet.
Wow. I guess this is a kind of retrograde proof of how sophisticated aircraft design had become since the days when "if it looks good" was a common practice. Your analysis in conclusion of its failure is good. In hindsight the plane does look chubby. Given this, it's interesting how much looks still effect design but they need to be backed up by numbers.
Typical Italian design - looks amazing, performs poorly - fur coat, no knickers!
I would hate to bailout of this plane you'll probably hit the tail
Doesn't look right to me.
If it looks right it is right...
It looks great from the front, but terrible from the side view!
Just cursed
Looks like the hot sister of the Beaufighter.
I've never really understood the heavy fighter role. Is the concept similar to today's air superiority role?
it was a counter to the idea that "the bomber will get through" - a bomber destroyer. They also had (in theory) more endurance and range than a single engined fighter
The idea emerged in the 1930s when the new bombers were often as fast as the short-range single-engine fighters at that time, despite being so lightly armed as to make it questionable they could destroy a bomber if they caught it. For example, the USAAC issued the specification for a twin engine fighter that led to the Lockheed P-38 because there was no existing engine that could lift the weight of armament desired to the speed and altitude desired, so it would require two engines.
The heavy fighter could also hold more fuel and have longer range for offensive operations such as fighter sweeps and bomber escort. There were no expectation that a single engine fighter could achieve the range necessary to escort long range bombers. Unfortunately the German RLM gave the twin engine heavy fighter a bad name because they made the Bf-110, 210, and 410 too heavy to succeed in combat against single-engine fighters. The problem was not that the Bf-110 had too many engines, it was that it had too many crewmembers plus defensive guns and was more like a light bomber than a fighter. In the Battle of Britain it could stay with the bombers longer but failed as an escort fighter due to poor performance against single engine fighters.
The heavy fighter concept had a second wind at the end of the war with designs like the North American P-82, Grumman F7F, and Dh Hornet, which unfortunately came too late to prove their capability in combat.
This was far from the only example of a great test aircraft making a lousy military aircraft...
Wow. What a shame. Does appear a bit 'fat' though... 🐿
According to this video.
This might be THE most useless combat aircraft of WW2.
☮
I don't think it looks good at all, so the first rule still applies ;)
No accounting for taste 😁
Other than The Berretta and Paolo Rossi nothing good has ever come out of Italy. 👍
@@DaveSCameron tell that to the Royal Navy facing their torpedo bombers...
@@jlvfr Haha! Taranto anyone..
what about Sophia Loren, Ferrari, Lamborghini@@DaveSCameron
Dorothy D. Raper