# The Fiat G 56



## post76 (Oct 20, 2011)

If this aircraft were produced in Mid 1944, do you think it would've made a difference for the Axis powers in Europe?


----------



## jim (Oct 20, 2011)

post76 said:


> If this aircraft were produced in Mid 1944, do you think it would've made a difference for the Axis powers in Europe?


 
Im mid 44 no ,too late. But g55 first flew 30/04/1942 and DB 603A was in production by January 43 .So ,theoriricaly G56 would be possible to be in service by late summer 43 . then it would have an impact on air war. With a speed of 700km/h ,excellent handling , strong airframe , heavy armamentwould help enormously but of course the outcome would be the same. After all the numbers made the difference. We must notice however that it was more expensive than the german fighters and logistically would be a better choise to introduce the Db603 to the Fw190 airframe. 
I always liked the german aircrafts ,but today i believe that G56 and Re2006 were possibly the best poor air superiority fighter airframes of the entire war. Even Re 2005 was very very competitive.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 20, 2011)

The G.56 seems to have been a fine aircraft a straigforward development of the G.55 Centauro with the DB605 replaced by the big DB.603A engine of 1750hp. The DB603E was also becomming available in 1944 and this increased power to 1800 and added 2km to the full throttle height (about 7.3 instead of 5.4 or so)

The Germans and axis needed superior aircraft like the G.56 by mid 1943 before the P-51B hits them in large numbers in December 1943/January 1944. However the DB603 was already available in Jan 1943 (powering Me 410) so there is no reason that the G.56 couldn't have been produced around then. The Italians needed superior aircraft in large numbers before the allied landings in the northern Mediteranean in 43/44. Large numbers of G.55 was adaquet in 1943 and really also 1944 if they were fitted with the DB605AM or oversized supercharger DB605ASM (both with Water Methanol Special Emergency Power or super-WEP)

I recall seeing a roll rate comparison between the Italian fighters and German ones, despite the good handling of the Italian aircraft most had poor roll rates. Can't find link now.

However a G.56 in Mid 1944 is still better than a FW 190D9 in november or a TA 152C or Ta 152H in Feb 1945 but I think mid 1944 was too late.

The G.56 with the 2260hp DB603EM (C3 fuel and MW50) would have been a monster. With the two stage DB603LA it would become Godzilla. Witth the 2800hp DB603N it would have been Mothra and Godzilla together.


----------



## vanir (Oct 20, 2011)

I haven't seen the original document but there is a meeting by minutes on record between Goering, Galland and Hitler specifically discussing the G.56 after Goering saw a prototype demonstration in Italy. He wanted them for the Luftwaffe. The meeting discusses difficulties in maintaining current aircraft production iirc for putting 603 engines in modified 109 production (ie. Me-309 which did prototype but production was cancelled in favour of Tank/FockeWulf development), the state of the war could not afford the industrial transitional period for such radical changes to the current model (it was hard enough going from Emil to Friedrich, let alone Gustav to something that resembles a Mustang with a bomber engine). Messerschmitt proposed making the Me-309 using 30% or more of Me-262 parts but it wasn't enough and Dora/Tank fighters enter production easily using readily modified Anton plants.
I don't even know if it's a genuine historical record or fiction but the point is the same either way.

So the German equivalent to the G.56 was really the Dora and Tank series fighters, over the course of 1945 it was planned that all versions in general service would transition to the DB-603 motor (variously EB/C, G and L/LA motors), even the Ta-152H was planned to switch to the DB-603LA from mid-45 production had the war continued, according to Dietmar Hermann.

Germany got its equivalent, just not until the engines were available.

The Italian use of the G.56 could not have been any better. It was only prototyped and there were no series engines available for mass production of a fighter installation any sooner than the Germans could do it. DB-603 production was very convoluted and sporadic, most of those used in wartime testing like the 603G were limited production only and did not enter mass production, and did not find its way into planned equipment in the Me-410B for example (so they used the same 603A engines as the 410A and only differed in equipment).

The 603E series (EB and EC motors) never entered mass production and was only prototyped in some fighter projects like the Ta-152C as an L motor substitute. The 603EB that was in Fw-190V21/U1 in November 1944 was designated 603E-V17 serial 525 and a prototype engine. The 603EC that was in Ta-152V6 in December 1944 was designated 603E-V19. The 603EC in Ta-152V7 was 603E-V20.

The 603LA did enter at least limited production but not until March 1945. A prototype 603LA-V16 was put in 190V21/U1 (the original airframe they modified to come up with the Ta-152C structure/layout based on a Dora testing prototype), that was in December 1944 but no more were put in aircraft until after March, in practise V7 was the only other prototype that got one.

So that only leaves the 603A which actually entered mass production and the 603G was only produced in limited numbers like the E series, prototyped and used only in testing, aircraft like the Me-410B which was supposed to have them, had 603A in reality.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 20, 2011)

I see no problem with the performance of a G.56 powered by the DB603A or the DB603AA (both of which were available, 85 x DB603AA were used on the He 219A2 I believe.)

The AA provides more power at altitude at the expense of lower sea level power. It opens up the possibillity of optimising the G.56 DB603A for fighting below 5700m/19000ft and the G.56 DB603AA for fighting around 7300m (24000ft)

Obviously around 1944 improved version offereing more power will need to become available, for instance the DB603AM.

DB 603A, rated altitude of 5.7 km, B4 fuel
Power (max): 1287 kW (1750 PS) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1162 kW (1580 PS) at 2500 rpm at sea level

DB 603AA DB 603A with rated altitude of 7.3 km, B4 fuel
Power (max): 1228 kW (1670 PS) at 2700 rpm at sea level
Combat power: 1162 kW (1580 PS) at 2500 rpm at sea level


From Another Forum by seaplanes: DB603 deliveries to Heinkel:

"I found the following information that may be of help in this case:
Source BA/MA RL 3/1024 Flugzeug-Programm 227 Ausgabe 1, dated January 9, 1945:

Muster Motor Total on order delivered to Planned deliveries
30.11.1944 from 01.12.44
He 219A-0 DB 603A 104 104 nil
He 210A-2 DB 603AA 85 85 nil
He 219A-7 DB 603E 210 nil 210
He 219D-1 213E 5 nil 5

All were produced by the Ernst Heinkel Flugzeug Werke.
"


----------



## vanir (Oct 21, 2011)

Okay so it appears the only failing deliveries were the E series. The A and Aa series both appear to be getting delivered reliably in numbers.

Still the Dora and Ta-152 airframes that tested DB-603 all used prototype 603E and their calculated figures in 1944 were based off projected 603G data, which I don't know if were ever even fitted to anything, nothing I've found so far although it had been planned for several (and claimed by some, but never actually fitted to any by historical example). Same with lots of things like Mk103 motorguns.

What I do know is the Ta-152C/V7 with the EC motor was used for upper envelope performance testing, this airframe was the speed demon one, she recorded the 617km/h at 30 feet thing, fully war loaded with four MG151 and ETC rack I might add.
But at the same time the prototype Me-309V was tested with the 603A and it single handedly killed the project because the performance was so dismal. It was only marginally better than the current high performance versions of the Me-109 which couldn't justify the switch.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 21, 2011)

vanir said:


> But at the same time the prototype Me-309V was tested with the 603A and it single handedly killed the project because the performance was so dismal. It was only marginally better than the current high performance versions of the Me-109 which couldn't justify the switch.



The Me 309 with DB603A (not G) supposedly recorded a speed of 455mph around the time that it flew in July 1942, which would have been vastly superior to the contemporary Me 109G2 of 397 mph or so.

Supposedly when the Me 309 was armed its speed fell to the point that it had negligible advantage over the Me 109.

There has got to be some bull-dust in this story. I can not conceive of any armament that could pull 55 mph or even 27 or 15 mph of the Me 309. Even a pair of gondola 30 mm guns beneath the smaller weaker Me 109G cut speed by a minuscule 6 km/h or 1.1%. The tests must have overloaded the aircraft with ridiculously huge armament requirements.

The Me 309 had some interesting technology for instance a laminar flow wing. It's likely it would have kept up with the P-51A at low altitude that was then entering service and been much faster than it at higher altitudes.

Kurfürst - Geschwindigkeitseinfluß von 2 MK 108 unter den Flächen der Me 109 G.

Ergebnis: Geschwindigkeit ohne Attrappen Vw = 525 km/h 

Geschwindigkeit mit Attrappen Vw = 519 km/h 

Geschwindigkeitsverlust durch Attrappen ΔV = 6 km/h 

n = 2600 U/min; p – 1,30 ata; B = 717 mm Hg; 
t = 19°C; H = 480 m. 
***********

Next is the more serious allegation that the aircraft had a worse maneuverability in turning flight. It's not clear to me whether this is a turning rate or a turning circle.
If the turning rate is less it may be more of a power to weight ratio issue, if it is a turning circle issue it may be a more of a wing loading issue.

If maneuverability is required then the wing area needs to be increased: say 20%. To compensate add 10% power something which the DB603A should achieve when it progresses.

Of course if we tested a P-47A with 87 octane it too might be looking a little like a dog.

The real reason might be shortages of the DB603 engine because the next several prototypes move to the smaller DB605 engine then only entering service on the Me 109G1 is being installed in the subsequent Me 309 test aircraft. This is like testing the P-47 with a R-2600 engine.

It seems to me that with the Me 309 flight testing in Mid 1942 it could be in production in Mid 1943 with a few modifications such as a bigger wing. Of course it didn't help that the Me 309 prototype was put on low priority and flew 6 months behind what it could have and that the DB603 was not really in production yet.

This is also occurring at the height of the Me 210 crisis, when Willy Messerschmitt is being deposed and the companies reputation is in tatters.

I don't think the Me 309 story has really been told yet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Oct 21, 2011)

post76 said:


> If this aircraft were produced in Mid 1944, do you think it would've made a difference for the Axis powers in Europe?



G55 - Aircraft History

It is hard to say “production” when speaking about italian “Serie 5” fighters, as they were practically made one by one in a strict “artisanal” way, even if the Fiat was, among Macchi 205 and Reggiane 2005, the only one designed with a slight idea of “mass production” in mind.
For his very reason the Fiat was, among the “Serie 5” the one present in less numbers with the “Regia Aeronautica” until Sept. 8, 1943.

Certainly in Italy, 1944, the manifacturing of an airplane in numbers was out of question and, even if Germans would have preferred the Fiat to theirs 109s and 190s, starting a license production in the Reich, probably no less than two years would have been necessary to redesign the inside of the plane in a more suitable way, together with the extruded aluminium and the tooling and jigs necessary for a mass production, taking the resources of manpower and materials from aircrafts that were produced in that very moment.
And this was unthinkable by a German ( and mine) point of view, even if the Fiat G 56 was an outstanding fighter.







O.T.

It would be very interesting to know what the test Pilots at Tangmere did think about ....(of course this is a G 55 and not a G 56)






I’ve read some of their opinions about Macchi 202 and 205, Reggiane 2005 and Fiat CR 42, but never anything about the Fiat G 55.


----------



## post76 (Oct 21, 2011)

I've seen the comparisons and the italian series five fighters seem superior to most contemporary designs. 

Why continue to build 109s when thousands were already in the field?
Perhaps they were more complex and complicated to build, and matching the Allied fighter force was more about numbers than superior performance. 
My guess is the G. 56 didn't make it into production for the same reason, and the DB603 would be kind of shorthanded, no?

I took a glance at the performance figures for the Series five fighters on Kurfursts site.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 21, 2011)

Do you have a souce fo the clim the 603E did not enter production? I was to power the He 219 A-7 and Heinkel delivered 50+ A-7 from late 1944 on.
AFAIR the 603G was stopped because it required C3 fuel whereas the 603E achieved its performance with standard B4 fuel with an option to got the Mw-50 route as well.


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

You know what you're probably right Siegfried. You know I don't really know anything about the Me-309 except from a couple of web blogs. The one I saw has a great artists impression of one, and I think I've seen a prototype partially built in a photo kicking around somewhere. I was thinking, damn they shouldn't have cancelled that but put the 603G into full production and slap those in until the E is available.
It was that blog that said it wasn't much better than a 109G in war trim. Two MG151 and a motorgun wasn't it for these? Some pilot armour, full set of radios...

I think you're right, it shouldn't have killed speed that much. It's a nice, clean design stealing the thrust producing radiator from the Mustang (actually I think the Me209 projects discovered it independently).
The Me-262 cockpit/tail section gives a bubble canopy and clean lines. Laminar flow wings you say? This should've kicked butt with any 603 motor really.

Must've been industrial reasons, downsizing for jets, diverting 603 production to FW (which was limited by 605 demands anyway) and a reluctance to divert jet parts to piston manufacture.


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

Denniss said:


> Do you have a souce fo the clim the 603E did not enter production? I was to power the He 219 A-7 and Heinkel delivered 50+ A-7 from late 1944 on.
> AFAIR the 603G was stopped because it required C3 fuel whereas the 603E achieved its performance with standard B4 fuel with an option to got the Mw-50 route as well.



The records show despite orders placed, very few 603G or E actually appeared in any aircraft demonstrably. What was in aircraft listed as having 603G (like the Me-410B) in fact had 603A motors.
The only 603E actually put in aircraft were protype engines. Both G and E series would most accurately be described as limited (pre-) production engines. The 603E may very well have entered mass production around the end of 1944/early45 but what aircraft was it put in? (not planned but I mean a physical example). The 603LA went into mass production around June45, two production series went into aircraft but before then I only know about 603A/Aa production for service orders myself, does anyone know differently?


----------



## Elmas (Oct 22, 2011)

post76 said:


> .........................
> Why continue to build 109s when thousands were already in the field?
> Perhaps they were more complex and complicated to build, and matching the Allied fighter force was more about numbers than superior performance.
> .......................



Certainly there were thousands in the field, but the attrition rate in aerial warfare was so high that hundreds every week were required to fill the losses.....

Today, with CAD and CAM it is a little bit different ( uhmmm, maybe not so much: let’s see the delays in production of the 787 and A 380, for example.....) but in those day an aeroplane prototipe was built entirely by hand as a “one off”: if the performances were satisfactory, a small series of planes (say, a couple of dozens) were built, to test more thoroughly armament, engine, electrical and idraulics plants, training pilots etc.

Only if a huge thunderstorm was foreseen, as was from 1936 onwards, and the necessity to build aeroplanes in huge numbers would arise, was thinkable to build aeroplanes in an industrial, rather than in an artisanal way.

The 109 was designed with this well in mind, Hitler now too well that a war was on the edge, and so an easy production of this plane was from the beginning present on the drawing board of Willy Messerschmitt: I don’t remember well if was he who said that _“An aeroplane employed in a war will never become worn out, as it is to be destroyed well before.....”_

Prudently, England didn’t put all the eggs in one basket, so they produced both Hurricanes and Spitfires....and mass produced Spitfires were, industrially speaking, a completely different thing from K 5054...

In Italy in those days a mass production of aeroplanes was out of question as, simply, there wasn’t the machinery ( heavy presses to obtain a wing rib just in one shot from an aluminium sheet etc.....) to build them, so the Italian aeroplanes were built in a number of small pieces patiently assembled one by one as a giant jigsaw work: look at the complexity of the fuselage of the CR 42 biplane, that first flew in middle 1938:













and of the wing








This structure was light, strong and capable to suffer heavy punishments, but also extremely difficult to build: an Italian fighter did need five time more manpower than a 109 ( from my memory, but more or less so).

So, no wonder that the Germans considered practically impossible to build under license the G 56, when a war was going on.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 22, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> I don't think the Me 309 story has really been told yet.


I think so, too. There is very little first hand material available about the failure of the Me 309, it'd be very interesting to see the actual results and the corresponding conditions. One thing that's for sure to me though, is that the Fw 190 C prototypes that had flown around the same time were the much safer and reasonable bet: More conventional, but basically it was able to do whatever the Me 309 could and it could've been in production in no time. Not building the Fw 190 C alongside the A was a major mistake.


----------



## post76 (Oct 22, 2011)

i can't help notice that most Italian fighter designs resemble the earlier Avia B - 135.
In fact, they all have that same basic Macchi trademark shape. 

There is a comparison of Kurfursts site that puts the Re-2005 ahead of the bunch, including the G.55 and 109G.
I found it a tough read, however, as i used the google chrome translator.


----------



## post76 (Oct 22, 2011)

Another look...





The Avia B-135










Fiat G-59


----------



## vanir (Oct 22, 2011)

riacrato said:


> I think so, too. There is very little first hand material available about the failure of the Me 309, it'd be very interesting to see the actual results and the corresponding conditions. One thing that's for sure to me though, is that the Fw 190 C prototypes that had flown around the same time were the much safer and reasonable bet: More conventional, but basically it was able to do whatever the Me 309 could and it could've been in production in no time. Not building the Fw 190 C alongside the A was a major mistake.



But they did that. The Fw190B/C began as a private venture by Kurt Tank's team at Focke Wulf, when the RLM finally tabled a höhenjäger requirement it turned into the Ta-153 project, which became the Ta-152 project and caused a requirement for an interim fighter that would enter production sooner using simpler modifications to Antons: the Dora.

The Fw-190C was basically an early version Ta-152C using a turbosupercharger instead of a two-stage blower. It was at an early stage of development, that's why it didn't enter production, not because nobody wanted it to but because it wasn't ready, the Ta-152C was definitely entering production at the end of the war. This is what it had finally matured into, and it is a heavily modified Anton so production is easily transitioned without serious loss of output.


What you are seeing here in action, what we all saw is the truth behind aircraft development. Most of the fighters flown during the war or entering production during the war were designed before the war. It just took that long to get them developed into production. There are only a relative handful of notable exceptions, like the Mustang which set design records. The Fw-190A you see suffered a prewar design setback when the planned engine went out of production. So it was still being designed at the start of the war. And generally aircraft which started development at the start of the war were lucky to make production by its end. Considering Tanks little shop of FW variants got up and running in 1942 it's quite an achievement to get a 2000hp fighter in production just as the war ended.

According to most course curriculums, in the 30s-40s in fighter manufacture, a new fighter took three years to get from blueprint to prototype, a new aero engine took seven years. The biggest thing the Fw-190C/Ta-152C was waiting on was the 603 engine development as a high powered fighter engine like the 603E or L. As for aircraft design itself, that started in 1942 for this particular concept given only variation on a theme, thus entering production in 1945 is running by standard measures.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 23, 2011)

vanir said:


> You know what you're probably right Siegfried. You know I don't really know anything about the Me-309 except from a couple of web blogs. The one I saw has a great artists impression of one, and I think I've seen a prototype partially built in a photo kicking around somewhere. I was thinking, damn they shouldn't have cancelled that but put the 603G into full production and slap those in until the E is available.
> It was that blog that said it wasn't much better than a 109G in war trim. Two MG151 and a motorgun wasn't it for these? Some pilot armour, full set of radios...
> 
> I think you're right, it shouldn't have killed speed that much. It's a nice, clean design stealing the thrust producing radiator from the Mustang (actually I think the Me209 projects discovered it independently). The Me-262 cockpit/tail section gives a bubble canopy and clean lines. Laminar flow wings you say? This should've kicked butt with any 603 motor really.
> ...



See Aeronautical research in Germany: from Lilienthal until today, Volume 147 By Ernst-Heinrich Hirschel, Horst Prem, Gero Madelung
Page 179 for info on Me 309 laminar profile wings.


Aeronautical research in Germany ... - Ernst-Heinrich Hirschel, Horst Prem, Gero Madelung - Google Books

Amazingly two researchers K.A. Kowalki in 1940 and latter with B. Goethert in 1944 reported on supercritical airfoils. This report saved Airbus a huge sum of money in a law suit Boeing had brought against airbus.

Me 309's belly radiator was retractable.

With Jumo 213A entering service in mid 1942 with the Ju 188E and the DB603E with the Me 410 in Jan 43 can't see what the holdup was with the FW 190D9 entering service in only November 1944 or making that engine available to G.56. Perhaps developing the emergency boost systems?


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 23, 2011)

Elmass, in terms of production costs the Me 109 was also designed to be produced by small subcontractor firms, this in fact made it more difficult to mass produce whereby large assumblies are pressed or made in single opperations. The progression from Me 109E, through F,G and finally K greatly faciliated opportunties to facilitate mass production. The onerous compound curves of the Spitfire were so hard to produce they almost lost the RAF the BoB due to this feature, however when large scale presses from the motor industry were introduced the disadvantage became an advantage.

There are rough costs of the Me 109 series in man hours, minus engine.
Bf-109E (1939)
12,000 Man Hours
Bf-109E (1940)
6,000~ Man Hours
Bf-109F (1941)
7,800~ Man Hours
Bf-109F (1942)
4,000 Man Hours
Bf-109G (1942)
5,700~ Man Hours
Bf-109G (1943)
4,000 Man Hours
Bf-109G (1944)
2,000 Man Hours

The problem for Italy is obvious: she did not have signifcant sources of either coal or oil so a highly industrialised economy built around high energy mass production would take time to develop. Natural gas was discovered in Italy during the war (using a German supplied balance gravitometer) but could not be exploited till after war.

Then Italian engine industry let itself slip behined in the vital 1938-1942 period though the 850kg 1500hp 18 cylinder Piaggio P.XII seems to have been an outstanding engine of low weight no fighter airframe was there to exploit it; this forced a quick catch up via liscence produced DB601 and DB605 which the Italian airframes seemed to exploit much better than the Me 109.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 23, 2011)

If I remember well, 30.000 hours were needed to produce a Macchi 202.......

I think the industrial production problems that affected the Spitfire, fortunately for England, were solved before the BoB, ( even not very much before....) as during the Battle there wasn't a particular shortage of Spitfires.
Certainly, the numbers were not those that the factory at Castle Bromwich could assure after the production started there from June 1940 onwards.

The Piaggio P.XII was certainly a well designed engine but.......
Briefly, as Italy in 1936 was sanctioned by the League of Nations, the raw materials used in the Nation had to be "autarchic" and as minimum depending from abroad: so the metal alloys used in italian engines were of very poor quality for the lack of the metals like chromium, manganese etc. and that caused the Italian engines of high power to be very unreliable.

And, finally, to the contrary of the general opinion that the "Regia Aeronautica" had a special treatment by the Fascist Government, most of the money spent in the Italian Armed Forces in the first '30 did actually go to the "Regia Marina": and so the lack of research and development in modern aeroplanes and aero engines even if, by my personal point of view, I dare say that the professional skills of Mario Castoldi and Giuseppe Gabrielli were not inferior to those of Reginald J. Mitchell o Willy Messerschmitt.

Cheers


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 23, 2011)

Elmas said:


> And, finally, to the contrary of the general opinion that the "Regia Aeronautica" had a special treatment by the Fascist Government, most of the money spent in the Italian Armed Forces in the '30 did actually go to the "Regia Marina"



fiscal year budget in lire's milions Army Navy Air Force

1930/1 3230 1582 787
1931/2 3067 1626 775
1932/3 3068 1614 770
1933/4 2700 1440 720
1934/5 3036 1360 896
1935/6 7472 2927 2339 
1936/7 9460 3491 3728
1937/8 6250 3041 4086 
1938/9 7146 3500 4490
1939/0 15350 5291 7228


----------



## Elmas (Oct 23, 2011)

Thanks, very instructing figures.
It has to be noted that in the years from 1935 onwards, Italy was engaged in three wars (Spain, Abissinia and Albania) that were extremely costly, expecially for the Army and Air Force, much less for the Navy, and the sums had to be employed to fill losses, rather than to get more advanced material.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 23, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> Then Italian engine industry let itself slip behined in the vital 1938-1942 period though the 850kg 1500hp 18 cylinder Piaggio P.XII seems to have been an outstanding engine of low weight no fighter airframe was there to exploit it; this forced a quick catch up via liscence produced DB601 and DB605 which the Italian airframes seemed to exploit much better than the Me 109.



The 850kg 1500hp 18 cylinder Piaggio P.XII may have been a much better bomber or transport engine than fighter engine. In physical size this 53 liter engine was quite close to the Wright R-3350. the 1500hp is for take-off, rated power at 3,500 meters was 1350hp. It's low weight may have meant limited strength which held it's max RPM to 2100. The 176mm stroke didn't help either.


----------



## vanir (Oct 23, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> See Aeronautical research in Germany: from Lilienthal until today, Volume 147 By Ernst-Heinrich Hirschel, Horst Prem, Gero Madelung
> Page 179 for info on Me 309 laminar profile wings.
> 
> 
> ...



No 603E was fitted to an Me-410 mate, they all had the A. The 410B is reported third party as being fitted with the 603G but this is inaccurate, they were all fitted with 603A. There was quite a historical research project by a small team back in the old AAA IL2 days, I remember all the documented references in the release thread, I looked them up and downloaded some.

Interesting the 309 radiator retractable, is that like the He-113/100 prewar Messerschmitt competitor?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2011)

The retractable radiator or 309 can be seen here:

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/germany/me-309.gif


----------



## krieghund (Oct 23, 2011)

Here's the original report from Kurfurst's site and a Word translate version.

It has references to lateral comparisons between some of the types that give an idea of roll capability.


----------



## riacrato (Oct 24, 2011)

vanir said:


> But they did that. The Fw190B/C began as a private venture by Kurt Tank's team at Focke Wulf, when the RLM finally tabled a höhenjäger requirement it turned into the Ta-153 project, which became the Ta-152 project and caused a requirement for an interim fighter that would enter production sooner using simpler modifications to Antons: the Dora.
> 
> The Fw-190C was basically an early version Ta-152C using a turbosupercharger instead of a two-stage blower. It was at an early stage of development, that's why it didn't enter production, not because nobody wanted it to but because it wasn't ready, the Ta-152C was definitely entering production at the end of the war. This is what it had finally matured into, and it is a heavily modified Anton so production is easily transitioned without serious loss of output.
> 
> ...


 The V13 flew for the first time in march / april 1942. It reached 663 km/h. The V16 reached 724 km/h at 7000 m in the summer of the same year, all with normal blower. Of course with armament the speed would drop, but it still had some refinement potential like integrating the oil cooler into the front. I guess the point I'm trying to make is, that it was a very bad idea to wait for the perfected Ta 152 an 153 and instead a less refined Fw 190 C could've been introduced in mid-to-late 1943, available for the critical months of 1943-44 and able to fight the Mustang on equal terms. Of course this is with hindsight, but imo it should always have been a priority for any nation to have a single-engined fighter using its latest engine technology available, so you don't open the enemy a window of opportunity to defeat your airforce (which is essentially what happened).


----------



## vanir (Oct 24, 2011)

Sorry I might've not made a very good presentation. I do appreciate what you're saying, and you could very well be quite right. I tend to just stream thoughts onto forums, so what I was thinking was the Fw-190C experienced protracted development historically, it couldn't have entered production because Kurt Tank couldn't sort out a turbosupercharger/intercooler system for it that was reliable and delivered his performance requirements. At this stage it was also a personal project, the RLM hadn't bought in on it yet, they didn't until the Ta153 was drawn up for them and they wanted it to use the Fw190A production lines, so Tank had to simplify it to the Ta152 for the same role. What he did was simply continued his Fw190B/C project (höhenjäger) under the new title of Ta152, the B the H (switching bmw for jumo, I mean more in the sense of its design requirements and specified role, ie. high alt int and recon in two major variant series) and the C the C and B (escort-fighter, zerstörer, recon, jabo in three then two major variant series).

He did try to put the Fw190C into production, but he had to use a two stage blower intead of a turbosupercharger. And he went full kilt on modifications to refine it, ergo Ta152C. Mid-45 was the soonest, the earliest date this type of fighter could be put into mass production, the historical date which indeed it was about to.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 24, 2011)

IMHO Fiat G 59 and B135 were not so similar, if examined under the skin.....and neither on the outher skin, always IMHO.....

The ancestor of B 135 was a family of French planes







from wich derived a lot of others








also Italian, of course
















but certainly not the G 59.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 25, 2011)

Thought I would post the G55 Data to contrast to the G56 Data I posted earlier. Also in the G56 data it would appear the DB603A was only cleared to 1510 PS and it still does 428MPH.


----------



## jim (Oct 25, 2011)

krieghund said:


> Thought I would post the G55 Data to contrast to the G56 Data I posted earlier. Also in the G56 data it would appear the DB603A was only cleared to 1510 PS and it still does 428MPH.


 
That s something that i had never noticed ! 685Km/h with 1500 hp Db 603A! Even with Db 605ASM G55 would be extremely competitive and with lower wing loading !


----------



## Denniss (Oct 25, 2011)

1510 PS @ 5700 m is the standard 30 minute rating for the DB 603A at full throttle height, the same with the G.55 and the DB 605A - 1250 PS @ 5800 m.


----------



## vanir (Oct 25, 2011)

They're nice ratings those two engines, my favourite aero engines, given that it is at nice lazy rpm with big intake strokes. Great cruisers and climbers.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 26, 2011)

jim said:


> That s something that i had never noticed ! 685Km/h with 1500 hp Db 603A! Even with Db 605ASM G55 would be extremely competitive and with lower wing loading !



Changing from a DB605A at 1.42 ata to DB605AS increased Me 109G5AS speed by 24km and raised ceiling considerably.

Speed went from 630km/h to 654km/h achievable at higher altitude of 8km (low altitude performance remained unchanged)
(This is with a pair of Gondala guns which slow the aircraft 6km/h)

Changing the Me 109G14AM essentially a G5/G6 with a larger oil cooler and MW50 achieved a speed increase from
from 630km/h at 5km to 652km/h at 5km. About the same speed by available at lower altitude.
(This is with a pair of Gondala guns which slow the aircraft 6km/h)

The Me 109G14ASM achieved 668km, a gain of 38km/h over the Me 109G5/G6 (1.42 ata)

It would be fair to assume that the G.55 could also gain 38km/h (23.6mph) and probably more like 44km/27mph.

Thus a G.55 with an early DB605ASM (1.7 ata) shoud easily achieve 665km/h or 410mph and of course doesn't have to carry Gondala guns as 3 x 20mm and 2 x 12.7mm weapons are good firepower.

However as the engine developed to 1.8 as shown in the Me 109G10 (about 434mph, 34mph gain) and Me 109K4 (441mph 40mph gain).

My guestimates

Of course the main feature of the G.55 was that it could as the G.56 take the DB603 engine
0 G.56 DB605ASM engine = 413 to 428mph 
1 G.56 DB603A engine = 426mph (1750hp sea level, FTH 5.7km) (only confirmed)
2 G.56 DB603E engine = 444mph ( 1800hp sea level, FTH 7.2km)
3 G.56 DB603EM engine = 444mph (2260hp sea level, FTH 7.2km) with MW50 much faster at low altitude.
4 G.56 DB603LA engine = 465mph FTH 10km two sage supercharger, no intercooler required.
5 G.56 DB603N engine = 480mph 2700hp-2800hp.


----------



## vanir (Oct 26, 2011)

I'm afraid you have entirely the wrong impression of the performance tuning of the 605A compared to AS and in general the effects of taking what is in fact the very same engine and changing the outside diameter of the blower casing and playing with tuning conventions.

The AS motors have roughly 150PS less grunt at any combat setting than an A motor with the smaller blower at its own throttle heights. It's less efficient, but at least works up at 8km where a 605A has already reached typical service ceiling, its climb rate is hopeless at that height, the AS is real strong. You lose a little in order to put it somewhere else.

Next thing to know, take an engine on B4 and retune it to C3 with higher compression and you lower throttle altitude by about 1000m.
And MW50 is useless unless you use it at least 500 metres or more below the throttle altitude.

So in other words the AS has a throttle altitude of 1050PS max continuous at ~8km, 1150PS 30min rating at ~8km and a 1200PS military at ~8km.
Take the very same engine, slap MW50 and retune for C3. 1050PS max continuous is now at ~7km. WER the highest altitude you get any real benefit from MW50/overboost is 1500PS at ~6.5km.

That's about the same throttle height as a 605A at military on B4.


----------



## Denniss (Oct 26, 2011)

Up to the critical alt of the DB 605A the 605AS-equipped G-6 was always a tad slower than the 605A-equipped G-6 - the larger supercharger required more power to operate (40 PS more at sea level). The aerodynamic cleaner nose helped to keep the speed loss small but it was still preseent.

BTW the power ratings of the german engines are in PS (metric) not in hp (imperial) - hp rating is always lower. 1750 PS = 1726 hp - this is always a major source on confusion in books as they often used a 1:1 conversion from PS to hp, then kW conversion based on the wrong hp ratings.


----------



## vanir (Oct 26, 2011)

My point was the A series of the 605 family are A/M, AS/M, then the D series are DB/C and ASB/C because they use two distinct series of piston crowns and chamber design allowing for higher pressures on B4. It was all about the fuel type. They wanted B4.
Putting MW50 designations aside the differences A, AS, D describe three different blowers on the 605x base engine.

So it's two different motors, three blowers and two fuel types is what all these describe. The earlier motor can only handle 1.4-1.7ata. The later 1.5-1.98ata since it solved the problem with piston burn throughs.

So when you say the AS was better than the A, problem is they both use the earlier base engine. If you're talking about the later base engine, the DB/C and ASB/C only have about 500m throttle altitude between them at maximum continuous and at higher engine settings they level out. Using the 603A blower on the DB/C gives it a more efficient cruise range and better fuel economy, an exact opposite of what putting a 603A blower on an A motor does.


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 26, 2011)

What speed would a G.55 with an DB603ASM be capable of?
Wikipedia states G.55 speed as 623 km/h (337 kn, 387 mph (417mph with WEP)) at 7,000 m (22,970 ft)

So where does the WEP figure come from, an DB605AM? There is no way going from military power at 1.3 ata to notleistung at 1.42 ata (WEP) will take the aircraft from 386 to 417. This I suspect is data for an ASM.

What speed would we get with the Me 109K4's engine: the DB605DCM?


----------



## vanir (Oct 26, 2011)

Well I think you're asking the right question there because this brings up the point that you don't go by top speeds to guage performance. The engine setting used for a top speed guideline (and it is a highly circumstantial guideline), simply isn't the one used in combat and it simply doesn't reflect the performance of the aircraft either through its envelope or during combat regimé.

Always use maximum continuous to compare the guts of regular flight performance, and use military power to compare speed/climb performance during extended combat. WER/sondernotleistung are used for escaping combat, not fighting. If you don't want to blow your motor, WER use during combat is very selective and very conservative. You're at military for 85% of the time, doing cooldowns 14% of the time and give yourself an extra WER boost that 1% of the time you can unload G and not waste it. Because right after you use WER the cooldown is a serious issue if you're still in combat.

Anyway it's the industry convention. You compare always with maximum continuous and military settings, WER ratings often aren't even generally quoted when surveying new models. It's a bonus extra.

So the best of the entire 605 series according to the figures I've already quoted is the ASB motor without any question (it's a DB with a 603A blower instead of a D series blower, just like the AS is the same blower on a 605A). It has DB performance with better cruise performance and probably a 50km range increase just by switching the engine over, due to that fantastic cruise the ASB has really, just a purring 1200ps at max continuous 6.5km and a lazy 2300rpm with a cool temp guage, you can do it 'till the tanks run dry and should be around a comfy 300mph in a clean light fighter like an Me-109 or similar.


And keep in mind adding an M to the DB/C or ASB/C is superfluous. They're both designed to MW50 so there's no designation, because you can't hurt one by putting in a kit. You have to designate AM/ASM because if you get an A and put a kit in it, you'll blow the motor immediately. It has to be converted to C3 for the MW50, but was always intended to be developed back to use B4 with MW50 (which didn't happen until the D block). So they said AM/ASM and A/AS are different. But DB/ASB and DC/ASC are different. Yet AM/ASM are the same, A/AS are the same (just blower changes), and DB/ASB are the same, DC/ASC are the same (same blower change). But what is different about DB/ASB and DC/ASC that has to be designated is again, C3 must be used. So they specify B (uses both fuels, preferred motor), and C (retuned to use C3 only, hotrod interceptor for small unit deployment). There is no need to mention M designation because they both use MW50 without a problem right out of the box.
So MAG designations only go, A-1, AS, AM, ASM, DB/C, ASB/C. There are tuning changes between fuel types. All D blocks can use MW50.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 26, 2011)

Here the DB603A chart


----------



## Todd Secrest (Jul 18, 2021)

Think I'm starting to fall in love with the G.55/G.56, guess it's my Italian blood.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 28, 2021)

Todd Secrest said:


> Think I'm starting to fall in love with the G.55/G.56, guess it's my Italian blood.


Dat's coz dey's purdy...





G.55

The family line was attractive...




G.59 tail

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Jul 29, 2021)

Gabrielli was a prolific designer, even in the years following ww2.






















The last one is still in production, albeit with updated engines and avionics, as the C-27 Spartan

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 5, 2021)

I got a soft spot for the G.91, it's a nice one and doesn't get much exposure.




G-91Y 




G-91PAN 




Gatow 75

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## msxyz (Aug 6, 2021)

Ah, the G.91. It was a much maligned aircraft at the beginning (mostly by French, who lost the NATO competition for a lightweight fighter  ). It was said to be a scaled down copy of the Fiat F-86K (a Sabre licensed design adapted to local production) but, probably, it was more a case of convergent evolution. Italian designers started to tinker with jet engines even during WW2 and, in any case, the G.91 wasn't the sole Italian swept wing aircraft that entered the NATO competition.

Gabrielli himself had been a student under Von Karman, so he must have known a thing or two about aircraft design  The G.91 could go supersonic in a shallow dive at altitude and was very agile. In terms of combat capabilities, I would rate it between the Mig-15 and the Mig-17. The Italian version was armed with four .'50" machine guns, the German version with two 30mm Aden cannons and four hard points. (usually the inner two were always occupied by a pair of 260 liters fuel tanks). Each hard point could host around 250kg of ordnance, the most common being a free fall bomb or a small rocket launcher. The G-91 'PAN' aircraft used by the Italian Acrobatic Team were the first production run, with an elegant pointy nose. The subsequent versions had a 'fat' nose with three recon cameras in it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2021)

I believe the Folland Gnat was also in the same competition. 
They both use the same engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 6, 2021)




----------



## msxyz (Aug 6, 2021)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe the Folland Gnat was also in the same competition.
> They both use the same engine.


The Gnat predates the G.91 and was not evaluated in the competition, though it might have inspired it. (Or maybe it was an answer to the Easter block which was flooded with rather crude but effective jets like the Mig 15 and 17).

They both used the Bristol Orpheus turbojet, which -at the time- was the jet with the best thrust to weight ratio, and also one of the simplest, least expensive (Bristol said, it would have been possible to build them in quantities at £500 apiece - that's something like 20000$ of today). It was as powerful as the RR Nene but weighted less than 400Kg and was very compact. The mean time between overhauls was low (around 150hrs in the first version; the FIAT made unit mounted in the G.91 was around 300hrs, if memory serves me right) but still very cost effective and reliable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2021)

I read somewhere, long ago, that Petter refused to put bulged landing gear doors on the Gnat which would have been needed to accommodate the size tires needed to meet the NATO Field requirement (grass air strip?). There may have been other requirements He did not want to change the design for? This would have knocked it out of the running well before any fly off took place. 
I think it was something by Bill Gunsten but could be wrong. Doesn't mean he was right either.


----------



## msxyz (Aug 6, 2021)

I dunno if it was a requirement, but the G.91 had .25" armor plates protecting the cabin and the engine against small arm fire from below. That also explains why it's quite heavy (around 3 tons empty) despite the diminutive size.

As for the requirement to operate from semi-prepared airstrips, the G.91 had indeed low pressure tires and a strengthened gear. Tyre dimensions are 640mm (dia) x 240mm (width) for the main gear wheels and 430mm x 170mm for the nose wheel.

I found an interesting picture of the G.91... supposedly this was taken in the late '50s. I thought the US Army had ceased to operate fixed wings aircraft after 1947. It's interesting that they evaluated a tactical support plane like the G.91

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 6, 2021)




----------



## msxyz (Aug 6, 2021)

Wurger said:


>



You really seem to enjoy this thread  If you love Gabrielli's aircraft designs, then maybe I should open a thread in the "Post War" forum about the fabled Fiat G.95


----------



## Wurger (Aug 6, 2021)

I would say that's not needed. You may keep posting here. But the choice you yours.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 24, 2021)

msxyz said:


> I found an interesting picture of the G.91... supposedly this was taken in the late '50s. I thought the US Army had ceased to operate fixed wings aircraft after 1947. It's interesting that they evaluated a tactical support plane like the G.91



The US Army received two G.91Rs and one G.91T two-seater for evaluation in 1961, trials taking place at Fort Rucker and Kirtland AFB for a tactical strike aircraft. I read that trials were suspended when two of the aircraft crashed.


----------

