>Second, anyone have any Caproni Ca-44 references (pictures or color
>plates)? I have access to two other Ca-44 pictures in _Naval Aviation
>in World War I_, but neither is at an angle to view insignia markings
>(one is of a crashed plane stillin Italian markings).
>
>Three, is there a 3 view line drawing of the Ca-44 in the Harleyford book
>on bombers? Also, is there any appreciable difference between the Ca-44
>and Ca-45? Or any of the Ca-4x planes?
>
>Last, why the @#$% do we do this :)
The National Air and Space Museum has quite a few photos of the Caproni CA.4x
series. If you can get access to a local research site which has the NASM
Videodisc series, you can get a look at them. They are on disk 1, frames
18411-18493. Given these numbers, prints can be ordered from the musem.
Unfortunately, the video quality of most of these photos isn't really good
enough for most research. Interestingly, this series of designs included
both biplanes and triplanes. The Ca.44 through 47 were biplanes. Version.
40 to 43 were triplanes and 48 was a triplane. If I don't have this quite
straight, you at least get the idea. The photos show enough variation to
keep a researcher busy for a while. All variants had the twin fuselages.
The Harleyford book has drawings of both types, but identifies the Ca.4 as
the triplane and the Ca.5 as the biplane. My other references don't indicate
that the Ca.5 was a member of this family at all.
In general, I don't find the drawings that convincing, but they may be the
only game in town.
No, I don't know why we do it. And I'm damned if I'll pay a fortune to a
psychiatrist to find out either.
Eli Geher