Italian Fighter looks a lot like a P-36

there does not seem to be a lot of design copying during World War II,
but this Italian fighter seems to have some very similar lines to a
Didn't the copying start in ernest after the war when the Soviet Union
was copying the B-29, etc.?
formatting link

Reply to
Loading thread data ...
It's a development of the Re 2000 which most closely resmbled the Seversky P-35. Despite the resemblance I don't think there was any production license nor any parts that would cross-fit.
Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr.
Reply to
William Banaszak
Depends on whether you mean authorized or non-authorized copying. The former started VERY early. Usually called "licensed copy". I suspect with the termoil the world was in during the war the niceties of licensing were ignored, so it makes sense that there was a lot more non-authorized copying.
That being said, if you are optimizing a design for certain performance specs, it is very common for folks to arrive at very similar solutions, at least in the basic shapes and arrangements.
Certainly the Russians and the Japanese made absolute copies of allied planes from just before to after the war. However, others that merely were similar in appearance are ones I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the designer.
Brings up a gripe of mine- patenting. Patents, at least in US, are supposed to be NOVEL, something a normal practicioner of the state of the art would not think of. All these airplanes and car designs that folks patent- ridiculous. Of course, the patent office no longer really checks very much for novelty- let the courts decide that. To me a design really should be novel for folks to get a patent. No patent, no penalty for copying.
That being said, I wonder if the cost of reverse engineering wouldn't be more than simply doing a fresh design.
Reply to
Don Stauffer
You all folks forget one simple thing.
When an engineer seeks a solution to a problem, first thing is to look for an existing design that works and then adapt and/or improve it to suit your application.
Nowadays, I'm surprised that nobody tried to patent the wheel.
Hell, we wouldn't have the Internet today if the guys who invented it and made it work were thinking or enforcing patents for their excellent work.
Reply to
El Viejo Dragon
Which explains the F-15 and MiG-25, as well as the TU-144 and Concorde.
The phenomenon is very apparent in the fossil record, where it is known as "convergent evolution".
Reply to
Enzo Matrix
: : folks patent- ridiculous. Of course, the patent office no longer really : checks very much for novelty- let the courts decide that. : Two problems here:
1) The supremes (before the bush boffins), tried to play politics, and get congress off of its collective dead ass and fix a bad law, so they decided to make software patentable, and perhaps so called "business methods" patents.
Problem - the USPTO was not equipped (and, for that matter, still is not), to have patent examiners who are also software engineers. So, a lot of crap is approved for a patent.
2) "prior art" is ass backwards. It is better, from a legal stand point, to NOT LOOK for prior art. Then, if it is found, you can plead ignorance.
Problem - the USPTO is looked upon as a revenue center, not a cost center - another ass backwards problem. So, patent examiners are required to approve X major patents and Y minor patents per time frame, so they do not look for prior art, either.
This is another reason a lot of bad patents are issued - there is an incentive NOT to look for prior art. And, the submission is secret, so there is no opportunity to search for prior art before a patent is issued, then you have to fight to get it revoked - a very difficult process. Meanwhile, piss poor patents are still (legally) valid until they are revoked, so the patent trolls can continue to milk the (sorry) system.
And, frankly, having judges decide the legitimacy of patents is ludicrous. They know even less about technology, and still must work within the legal framework that permitted software patents in the first place.
Reply to
Bruce Burden
Exactly. Those are some of the planes I was thinking of. I worked at MD when the 15 was born, and when the 25 was first shown. Few thought the Mig (wasn't it the 29 that looked so much like the 15?) was a copy.
Reply to
Don Stauffer
The reason for the Reggiane Re.2000 looks like Seversky P.35 is that Roberto Longhi, the chief designer of Reggiane, had worked in the United States for the Uppercu Burnelli Corp. and collaborated with Alexander Kartveli of Seversky. Ing. Longhi also learned that american aviation factories use to protect with primer all interior parts of airplanes and so he applied this tecnique to Reggiane airplanes. Reggiane were the best built italian airplanes of that years, and Re.2005 remains probably the best and more beautiful italian fighter of WWII.
Musicman59 ha scritto:
Reply to
Or the Space Shuttle Orbiter and Buran.
Reply to

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.