# 1939/40: ideal Italian fighter?



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2013)

The Italian air force fielded, in early days of European war, a considerable force of decent, but not great fighters. 
What fighters should Italians have in production use, for the specified time frame (roughly a contemporary of Spitfire), while using the easily available 'bits pieces'? Ie. existing Italian engines armament, then-modern airfoils, radios, layout etc. You can contemplate single and twin engined fighters.


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2013)

1934 Austria attempts unification with Germany.
.....This fails due to Italian diplomatic opposition.

1938. Austrian unification with Germany.
.....Success this time because Italy diplomatically supports the plebiscite.
.....Hitler expressed his undying gratitude to Mussolini for Italian diplomatic support.

Point of Departure. 1938.
"Chancellor Hitler, Italy requires more then gratitude. We need a license to produce the latest model DB601 engine and engineering assistance to build a factory similiar in size to Genshagen (220 engines per month). This engine will power our new Macchi C.202 fighter aircraft. We would like to begin factory construction NLT Summer 1938. Perhaps you can cut through German red tape to make this possible. Then Italy will consider your desire to unite Sudetenland with Germany."


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 7, 2013)

Modern inline engines were the key, of course. Italy had airframes like the MC200 and G50 crying out for better engines. On the other hand, even if the Italians had produced a world beater in 1940 their airforce would still have been dysfunctional due to the nepotism and incompetence in the command structure.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 7, 2013)

Engine power I agree, though italy and germany working together was always a huge pie in the sky until after italy had entered the war. The italians were keen to cash in on German success only after it had been demonstrated, until that point, and the point of their own failures fully exposed, they were more interested in the concept of "parrallel war", proving that italy was still the senior power in the fascist Axis alliance. 

So, in my book, angling for DB engined Macchis (or anything else really) is as big a pipe dream as thinking they might be provided with Merlin engines.

Without German (or allied) help, Italian engine development is stalled, so what can they reasonably do under their own steam (though they did produce great racing engines from a very early stage.....why these were not deveoped into combat types is a bit of a mystery) . 

The Macchi C200, was designed by Mario Castoldi, who had gained a lot of experience in the early '30s with aerodynamically clean schneider cup racers. It is surprising then to see the MC 200 come up as such a poor aerodynamic design, with lumps and bumps, open cockpit and such light armament to boot. If i were in charge, with no restrictions (other than to use Italian resources) I would adapt the CR 42 to a ground attack role, abandon the fiat design and concentrate on improving the aerodynamica and armament of the Macchi.

If the Macchi had been cleaned up and given an armament of 4 x HMG, or 2 x HMG and 2 x LMG, one might expect performance to improve to about 330 mph, and firepower to be about 2/3 of that of the RAF types. Not a lot would have been needed to achieve that sort of outcome


----------



## stona (Apr 8, 2013)

parsifal said:


> The Macchi C200, was designed by Mario Castoldi, who had gained a lot of experience in the early '30s with aerodynamically clean schneider cup racers. It is surprising then to see the MC 200 come up as such a poor aerodynamic design, with lumps and bumps, open cockpit and such light armament to boot.



Supermarine/Mitchell had Schneider trophy winning experience too but look at the performance of the Type 224.

It seems some interim developmental step might be meeded between a pure racer and the adoption of much of the lessons learned into a really effective fighter. It's a long,long way from the Supermarine S.6B to K 5054,much further than much "popular" history would have us believe.

A certain young Canadian aerodynamicist who had been working in Germany, Beverley Shenstone,did not join Supermarine until June 1931

Just saying 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2013)

http://www.cmpr.it/Macchi MC.72/Macchi_MC72_foto_002.jpg

copper surfaces are radiators. Wing is a wire _braced_ monoplane. 

Italians needed to _pick_ TWO engines of their own and work on them instead of trying to develop 2-3 NEW engines PER company.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 8, 2013)

Perhaps if the Alfa Romeo 135 double pegasus had been successfully developed the Italians would have access to a 1,600 bhp radial on 87 octane and up 2,000 bhp if they sourced 100 octane. Mate that to an MC200 style airframe, or Fiat G50 style (the Finns liked it) and push the .5" Beda-SAFATs (or better Scottis) into wing batteries of 3 per wing.

All Italian (well Italian developed from Bristol) and it first ran in 1938. They already had a San Giorgo reflector gunsight and adequate .5" guns.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2013)

The Alfa may have been more of a double Mercury but it does look like a good bet.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2013)

The Italians don't need to struck deals with Germany to get themselves a decent V-12, they have their own. Issota Fraschini Asso IX could be described as the '90% of DB-601A', the Asso L.121 being almost as good as the DB. The IX was in production in 1937, the L.121 was powering a competitor for the CR.42. The hub cannon for the DB was a tricky item for Germans until mid/late 1940 anyway. 
So I'd went for the Asso-engined plane (the MC.202 look-alike), 4 HMGs (either in wing roots, synchronized; or, in wings, like Wildcat was carrying), 300-350 rpg, ~400 L of fuel (or roughly 100-120 USG) between pilot and engine. The twin engined plane with same engines could be a classic twin (ie. layout like Fw-187, DH Hornet etc), carrying 250-300 US gals and up to 8 HMGs.


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2013)

1938 Italy has Germany over a barrel. Germany cannot demand unification with Sudetenland without Italian diplomatic support. 

Why settle for 90% of DB601 when you can have the real thing plus all Daimler-Benz engine improvements for the next 5 years? That leaves Issota Fraschini engineers free to work on something else.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2013)

How much the Italians know about DB-601 in time the new fighter(s) should be in the prototype stage; how much they know about German intentions factories for the engine? 
They know what the Asso XI can deliver in the time the 1st drawings are being made, and they certainly have that engine powering the prototype, some time in 1937? They also know what to expect from the Asso L.121 prior the Germans themselves received the 1st DB-601. 

Once the Italians find out about the DB-601, lets say they make demands and succeed. The time for the Italians to introduce the DB-601 (building of the new factory, manpower training, engine testing, mating the airframe with engine, testing of the upgraded aircraft) would be what, 1.5-2 years, if the Italo-German connection works flawlessly? (they emulate Packard RR combo?! the Packard beaing already well versed in engine manufacturing) Just when this time-line ends - the new fighter being too late for 1940, let alone 1939. 

The Issota-Fraschini management can dump the Delta, so the engineers can try and upgrade the Asso in the meantime.


----------



## bobbysocks (Apr 8, 2013)

hell of you are going to get a license to produce engines...why not go one step further and produce the whole plane....109s. other countries bought them from germany before the war. when germany went to war with the Yugoslvians it was one of the few times 109s fought against 109s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2013)

"How much the Italians know about DB-601 in time the new fighter(s) should be in the prototype stage; how much they know about German intentions factories for the engine? 

In 1938???

Not much, Engine on display at the 1938 Paris Airshow (in Nov/Dec of 1938 ) was a DB 600 with carburetor/s. 

Merlin X was display with power ratings being given for 100 octane fuel in sales brochure.


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2013)

1936. DB600 selected for Luftwaffe use. A new factory is constructed at Genshagen. Eventually a total of 8 factories will be used to build DB600 / DB601 / DB605 series engines.
…..Feb 1937. First DB600 engine completed.
…..Jun 1937. The new factory has 5,813 workers.
…..Nov 1937. 65 x DB600 and 19 x DB601 engines produced.
…..Jul 1938. DB600 production ends. 94 x DB601 engines produced.

Spring 1938 Italy should know everything they need to know about DB601 engine performance and production cost.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 8, 2013)

parsifal said:


> The Macchi C200, was designed by Mario Castoldi, who had gained a lot of experience in the early '30s with aerodynamically clean schneider cup racers. It is surprising then to see the MC 200 come up as such a poor aerodynamic design, with lumps and bumps, open cockpit and such light armament to boot.
> 
> If the Macchi had been cleaned up and given an armament of 4 x HMG, or 2 x HMG and 2 x LMG, one might expect performance to improve to about 330 mph, and firepower to be about 2/3 of that of the RAF types. Not a lot would have been needed to achieve that sort of outcome


 
I'm not so sure the MC200 was so unaerodynamic. After all, it was almost as fast as the opposing Hurricanes, with 250 hp less. Those lumps and bumps on the engine cowling covered the cylinder heads of course, so the only way to eliminate them would be to increase the diameter of the entire cowling, which would be a bad option. And the MC200 was designed with an enclosed cockpit - Italian pilots flew without it by preference. Many of the British and Soviet pilots they flew against did likewise.
Armament was an issue of course. At the end of the day the Italians had good designers and airframes ready to go, but they lacked the engines and guns to put in their fighters and that left them playing catch up. But their biggest problem was the incompetence of their commanders and force structure. Even once they had the MC202 they lacked the logistical nous to keep such advanced aircraft flying under front line conditions. Servicibility rates were terrible. As Walter Boone said; the P-40s and Hurricanes couldn't outfly the MC 202, but they could outlast it.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2013)

I'd concentrate on the Macchi Mc.202 or the Fiat, pick one, doesn't matter which. The engine doesn't matter as much as building it and getting an air force mattered. Pick an engine and an airframe and get to work. 

Too bad they didn't, but they didn't. With war loomingm they still didn't do it.


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2013)

1930s Italy spent a huge amount of money conquering Ethiopia and establishing military facilities in East Africa. That's why modernization of the Italian armed forces lagged behind neighboring nations. 1930s Japan was in the same boat. Most of the military budget was required to support ongoing military operations in China with little remaining for modernization. 

1930s Italy can have Ethiopia or they can have modern aircraft and tanks. They cannot afford both.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2013)

"Spring 1938 Italy should know everything they need to know about DB601 engine performance and production cost."

Why? 

Telling the Italians may be the same thing as sending the blueprints to MI6 

It sure doesn't look like they were trying to sell the DB series on the open market to ANYBODY. 

6 months after the start production of the DB601 they are showing the OLD engine at the largest Military-Civilian Airshow in Europe? With absolutely NO mention of the new model?

Not only were they hiding their light under a bushel they were adding a washtub and a dirt mound.


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2013)

Italy can play diplomatic hardball during 1938 just as they did during 1934. 

Not sharing DB601 engine with Italy may mean Germany foregoes the opportunity to annex Sudetenland.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2013)

I bet Haile Selassie would have wished for the Italians to pursue an Air Force ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2013)

davebender said:


> Italy can play diplomatic hardball during 1938 just as they did during 1934.
> 
> Not sharing DB601 engine with Italy may mean Germany foregoes the opportunity to annex Sudetenland.



Italy has to KNOW the DB601 exists in order to DEMAND the Germans share. They can get the DB600 though, at least the Germans are admitting that one exists.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2013)

plus the concept of aerial warfare that the DB601 represents, is a form and theory of aerial warfare that the italians rejected prewar. they rejected the concept of the velocity fighter in favour of the manouvre fighter. it was a concept they simply rejected. not until battle was actually joined was the flaw in italian theories exposed

there was as much chance of the itslians accepting german engine techs prewar, as there was the germans accepting the CR42 as the main LW operational type


----------



## Jugman (Apr 9, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> I Those lumps and bumps on the engine cowling covered the cylinder heads of course, so the only way to eliminate them would be to increase the diameter of the entire cowling, which would be a bad option.



On the surface that may seem true but keep in mind that a cowling is just a ribbon of aluminum and doesn't add mush frontal area. Both surface area and form drag would be less. The additional space between the rockerboxes would likely allow better control of cooling air over the cylinder heads. If the cowling and fuselage were properly fairied and a proper ejector exhaust fitted, top speed could have easily been increased by 15 mph.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 9, 2013)

Ejector exhausts are a lot harder to fit on a radial. They do help but not to the extent as a V-12. 

As understood _at the time_ the little bumps over the rocker boxes were streamlining vs a bigger cowling, the smaller cowling was also _supposed_ to offer a better view.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 9, 2013)

Another interesting airplane the Italians designed was the diminutive SAI-Ambrosini 403, powered by a 1000 HP version of Isotta Frashini Delta (air cooled V-12), featuring 2 HMGs. Almost an 'Italian Yak-3', speed was claimed to be almost 650 km/h.
The Delta was capable for 750-770 HP in late 1930s, so the speed should be under 600 km/h for a 403 with such an engine?

added: contrary to the MC.200 and G.50, the Re.2000 was powered by Piaggio P.XI RC 40 engine, that was giving 15-20% more power than the Fiat A74 RC 38. The Re.2000 was faster than the Re.2000 by ~25 km/h, and 60 km/h faster than G.50. The Piaggio P.XI was of similar dimensions and weight like the A74 and single stage R-1830, power being similar to the American*.
Now about dimensions. Wing area of the MC.200 was at 16.80 m^2, for the G.50 was 18 m^2, for the Re.2000 was 20.4. The Swedish FFVS J22 (single stage R-1830 aboard)did have wing area of 16m^2, and claimed to make 575 km/h!
So, the airframe dimensioned like MC.200, with P.IX and 4 Breda-SAFAT for our Italian fighter? Without that gap between engine section and mid-fuselage, of course 

*1000 HP was the 'rated power', ie. max continuous for the P.XI. For 'Swedish' R-1830?


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2013)

If we concentrate on things available in 1939, I'd pick the Aeronautica Umbra Trojani AUT.18, Caproni - Vizzola F.5, or the Macchi C.200.

Aeronautica Umbra Trojani AUT.18
View attachment 230338


Caproni - Vizzola F.5
View attachment 230339


Macchi C.200
View attachment 230340


Any of them could be developed into a good aircraft ... but you have to DO it, not talk about it.


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2013)

How? It ended production during July 1938.

If Italy requests the DB600 they will get DB601s. Just as Italy will get Jumo 211 if they order out of production Jumo 210.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 9, 2013)

It is interesting to compare the evolutions of the MC.200 and Re.2000, when fitted with DB-601 engines (or copies). The MC.202 was some 50 km/h faster than the Re.2001, the Macchi doing almost 600 km/h! Regianne was featuring the wing with extra 20% of area; probably also thicker wing?
Interestingly enough, the Regianne was tested with IS Delta engine, the version with 840 HP. Speeds were in 460-480 range, so that version quickly lost favor.

added: the Re.2001 was some 10% heavier in 'loaded' condition, that also tends to kill speed


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2013)

Genshagen DB601 factory required a year to build and another 18 months to achieve design capacity of 220 engines per month. 2 1/2 years. About as long as it takes to design a fighter airframe from scratch.

Most important consideration for Italy is to get moving NLT 1938 and provide the engine factory with ample funding. 

Here's a good place to find funding. What was Italy thinking when they built a major naval base at Massawa, Eritrea? This naval installation would almost certainly result in war with Britain as it threatened commerce passing through the Red Sea. Yet Italy could not supply the place during wartime without first seizing control of Suez Canal.
Comando Navale Africa Orientale Italiana, 10.06.40


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 9, 2013)

GregP said:


> If we concentrate on things available in 1939, I'd pick the Aeronautica Umbra Trojani AUT.18, Caproni - Vizzola F.5, or the Macchi C.200
> 
> Any of them could be developed into a good aircraft ... but you have to DO it, not talk about it.



In the case of the MC200, if you are including a new ingine as a prerequisite for improvement, I agree. The MC202 proved it. But I remain sceptical of the previous posts suggesting there was significant extra performance to to be had from the Saetta by simply polishing up the aerodynamics and bolting on a few extras. Castoldi was no slouch as a designer - in the MC200 he produced an 870 hp fighter that was ruggedly built, could out climb and out turn the Hurricanes and P 40s it faced, at least equal them in the dive and was within 15 - 20 mph of their top speed. How much more can you reasonably expect to get from a fighter that had only 40 hp more than a Gloster Gladiator?
I actually think the MC200 was underrated. It was a solid aircraft that mat the most of an obsolescent engine, performing creditably against opposition with more advanced power plants.
One final plug for Castoldi - how about the asymmetrical wings of the MC202; a simple and elegant feature for compensating for the extra torque of the DB engine.


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2013)

You may be right, Cobber. I was thinking of hanging a higher-power engine in the MC.200 along with the general cleanup. A radial could have been made to perform quite well, I think. Maybe not quite as fast as the inline ... but it depends on the pwoer of the new engine. Put ona 1,500 HP radial and you have a new animal ... even 1,250 HP would make for a leap in performance. Depends on how the new engine would fit and the amount of extra weight ... fuel consumption, etc.

I haven't done a radial search for one that would work, but the thread asked for what we thought. I say re-engine and look at the airframes of the three I mentioned above ... pick one, and then go DO it ... and then MAKE some so you are ready for the coming war.

They didn't do that, but could have.


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2013)

Unlike DB601, late 1930s Germany spared no expense building Jumo 211 engine production facilities. Consequently they had a large surplus Jumo 211 production capacity by 1942. Italy should have been able to purchase 1,340hp Jumo 211 engines in large numbers.

I realize most fighter aircraft designers preferred Daimler-Benz engines but beggers cannot be too picky. Would Macchi C.202 or some other Italian airframe benefit from the Jumo engine?


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 9, 2013)

What if....Italy had gotten hold of the P&W R-1830, either legally or by ripping it off like everyone else did. The P&W was about the same weight as the Fiat donk in the Saetta but produced another 330hp. The Folgore was proof that the Saetta was well up to the extra power. It was competitive against second tier fighters like the Hurricane and P-40 with 870hp - with 1200 hp it might have been giving Spitfires a fright.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2013)

I was thinkiong the exact same thing when I wrote the response above ... but wasn't thinking of a copy. It might have worked out just fine.

An Italian FFVS J-22!


----------



## parsifal (Apr 10, 2013)

well, the Re2001 wqas essentially a redesigned P-35, so i guess that might be a possibility....but still not getting over the hump that the italians did not want any sort of energy fighter....they were all for manouvre at any price


----------



## Elmas (Apr 10, 2013)

The AUT 18, by sheer admission of his designer, Ing. Felice Trojani, was a failure: it had the same defect of some other Italian planes of that era, too strongly built (main spar and other parts in steel etc....) thence expensive and slow, even if it was a reasonable climber.
The G. 50 had wing profiles that made it very unstable, as the necessity of evolving profiles from wing root to wing tips and wash out were then not fully understood (the AUT 18 had some of these problems too). Not only: the Pilots were piloting early monoplane fighters as biplanes, say continuously moving the stick, thence adding problems, and making the early monoplane fighters rather dangerous.
The Caproni Vizzola, to the contrary, had a very stable and safe flying behaviour but the structure of the airframe, even if economical (it costed about 1/3 less than a MC 200) was obsolete.
But, but above all, the F5 was too late and the War had shown the necessity of other kind of fighters.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2013)

The F.5 was introduced in 1939. How can it possibly have been too late?

The war didn't get started for real until after that time.


----------



## Elmas (Apr 10, 2013)

Quickly, from Wiki (Italian, my translation):

"_The F .5. was developed by the preliminary drawings made by Ing. Fabrizi, and then by Ing. Ripabelli, joined later by Ing. Baldassarre, after the death of Ing. Fabrizi due to a flying accident. The project involved a mixed construction combined with a radial engine and two machine guns Breda A.74-SAFAT 12,7 mm, set by the specifications of the competition. The prototype was built during 1938 and was flown for the first time on the airfield of Vizzola Ticino February 19, 1939 under the command of test pilot Giuseppe Pancera, *even if the date of the first official flight is dated July 15, 1940. *"_

MC 200 flew late 1937, and entered service in 1939.
Briefly, the Caproni factories were not very well seen by the technical Staff of the Regia Aeronautica, so the F5 was not seen too favourably, for a number of reasons.
In the days of “Co-belligerance” the experience of the War has shown that airplanes were needed in very large numbers, and that Italy could not afford the use huge quantities of a strategical raw material as aluminium. So the necessity of a kind of “_repechage_” of plane tipes using less aluminium.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 10, 2013)

The Jumo 211 is an interesting idea though the Germans refused to sell any to Rumania when they wanted to experiment with upgrading the IAR 80.

The bad press it had with the Avia S199 was caused more by the use of the He111 propellor that came with the engines.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> What if....Italy had gotten hold of the P&W R-1830, either legally or by ripping it off like everyone else did. The P&W was about the same weight as the Fiat donk in the Saetta but produced another 330hp. The Folgore was proof that the Saetta was well up to the extra power. It was competitive against second tier fighters like the Hurricane and P-40 with 870hp - with 1200 hp it might have been giving Spitfires a fright.



Part of Italy's problem was that it never seemed to get beyond 87 octane fuel. And then they failed to get two speed superchargers on the engines. Early R-1830s running on 87 octane fuel were good for 950hp for take off and 850hp at 8000ft as installed in P-35s. The -13 version (as used in some p-36s with new cylinder heads and a new impeller and other changes was good for 1050hp for take off and 900hp at 10,000ft "Normal" (max continuous, there was NO military rating for this engine) using 91/93 octane fuel. the engine in the MC 200 was good for 840hp at 12,500ft. other versions with different supercharger gears were good for 920hp for take off and 900hp at 5,900ft and 820hp for take-off and 770hp at 13,800ft. Take off ratings for the Fiat engine are at 2550rpm and altitude ratings are at 2400rpm.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2013)

The data for the Italian engines is puzzling, to say at least. 
The Manual for the engine "Fiat A 74 RC 38 S" allows for 2520 rpm in three cases: take off, 'high speed level flight (for few minutes)' (max 840 HP at 790 mm Hg at 4300m) and 'emergency (for few minutes)' (max 960 HP at 890 mm Hg at 3000m). However, that is for the engine with 'S' suffix (when that engine was being built?), the manual being dated 28th Feb 1941. Manual is available here, and seems it was in possession of the Finnish air force.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2013)

It is sort of understandable.
A bit like the Merlin III, 1030hp at 16,500ft but only 880hp for take-off. Once they got the 100 octane they could open the throttle more at low altitudes. The Italian engine was full at 4300 meters and at part throttle below that. The supercharger would supply more than enough air but with 87 octane fuel detonation may set in. Again the difference between 3800 meters (official?) and 4300 meters may be due to RAM in the intake (?) just as the Merlin was actually good for several thousand more feet in high speed level flight. 

I wouldn't worry much about 20-30 rpm one way or another in a particular test. the only question is the _emergency (for few minutes)_ part, at a rough guess being 800-1300 meters below the rated altitude of the engine there should be some spare supercharge capacity available. The question is how well the engine stands up to the extra power, how fast it may overheat (less of a problem in Finland  or what maintenance procedures needed to be done/changed following such use.


----------



## Elmas (Apr 10, 2013)

Here you can find some manuals of the Italian engines.
A registration is required.

AVIA - Associazione di Volontariato in Italia per l'Aviazione


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2013)

> Jumo 211 is an interesting idea though the Germans refused to sell any to Rumania


Italy is not Romania. They had much more diplomatic clout when dealing with WWII era Germany. 

During 1939 to 1940 Germany was practically begging Italy to join the war against Britain and France. Delivery of 200 Jumo 211 engines per month could be part of the deal which gets Italy into the war.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2013)

To clarify the 3800 vs. 4300m: the 'rated altitude' (Quota normale da funzionamente) was the one where engine was making the 'normal power at normal altitude' (ie. max continous, or 'Potenza normale a quota normale'), or, 3800m was the rated altitude, where 840 HP was being produced on 2400 rpm. 
The regime titled as 'Volo orizontale a velocita maxima (per pochi minuti)' (~ 'Horizontal flight at maximum speed (for few minutes)') should increase the RPM to 2520 rpm, so those 840 HP could be attained at altitude 500m greater. Or at least that's how I gather it.
The data is from engine manual, not from aircraft manual - that should exclude ram? Our Italian members could chime in, my Italian if far from fluent 








added: the manual for the G.50 notes that high speed for each km of altitude is to be attained with engine running at 2520 rpm, engine being "Fiat A 74 RC 38" - no suffix S at the name.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2013)

Hey Elmas,

My refernces have the AUT 18 at 300 mph! How can it be too slow? The Macchi (and Fiat for that matter) wasn't much faster and the AUT 18 could have been developed. Instead it faded away but looked pretty solid in prototype form.


----------



## Denniss (Apr 10, 2013)

Romania got Jumo 211 engines for their upgraded SM.79 bomber (twin-engine version).


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2013)

What's really strange is Junkers couldn't use Jumo 211 engines for their Ju-252 transport even though there was an obvious surplus of that engine type. Makes me wonder about the sanity of government officials managing German aircraft production.


----------



## Elmas (Apr 11, 2013)

Hi Greg
Yes, you're right, I do not have in my hands Ing. Felice Trojani book, "La coda di Minosse", into wich he personally states a maximum speed of 489 km/h (303,4 mph). In the afternoon I will confirm.
But the Italian Air Ministry required a speed over 500 km/h, say over 310 mph, that MC 200 was able to attain.
And, while the MC 200 had an engine Fiat A.74 RC.38 840 CV (618 kW), the Aut 18 had the Fiat RC.41 18 cilinders 1000 CV (735,5 kW).
I will be more exaustive in the afternoon.
Bye

That it was solid (too much solid...) no doubt: the three different versions (only one built) of AUT 18:

From http://www.trojani.it/Historia/Felice/FeT_articoli_AUT 18.html


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2013)

Bye and thank you for the reply. Seems that a little more speed could have been gotten from it with some attention to weight and streamlining ... but I have not even looked at the reality of it. Maybe not. If it missed by that little, it was within 3% of the design goal, which is pretty good, all things considered, for the time.

Should have been a player and AUT should have cleaned it up a bit to meet the spec, but it is possible they didn't even have the chance. The competition might have been a 1 time only flight ... I don't know.

Do you know why it wasn't considered or given a chance to get better? Most good planes had to go through at least 1 redesign to correct something, even if it was the paint scheme. Many times the propeller was at fault and nothing else. The AUT 18 had a 1,044 HP Fiat A.80 R.C. 41 engine. If the issue was power, it would only have needed another 108 HP to make 310 mph or the equivalent in drag reduction. That seems possible to me but I wasn't there and don't know why it was excluded.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 11, 2013)

Hey Greg - replied to your email via this forum, but not sure I did it right - did you get it?

Cobber


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2013)

The AUT 18 have had three things going against it.
One was the engine choice: the diameter of the Fiat A.80 was 1335 mm, vs. 1200 mm for the A.70. That would transpire in ~20% more profile area for the A.80. It was also heavier, 750 vs. 590 (dry weight), or some 27% heavier. The whole power plant weight, of course, goes up in such a fashion. So, much of the engine power surplus of the 18 cyl engine was used up just to overcome the increased drag and weight, compared with 'common' Italian fighter engine of the time. The empty weight was 2300+ kg, vs. the 1800-1900 for the competing fighters that had A.74 installed. The climb time to 6000 m was more than 8 minutes, compared to 6-7 vs. competition (Italian one; biplanes included, the CR.42 and Ca.165) - the AUT 18 was weighting 2975 kg loaded, vs. 2200 kg for the MC.202, or 2530 vs Re.2000.**
Another thing was the internal fuel weight: twice as much vs. the winning competitor, the MC.202 (230 kg vs. 470+ kg). Good for the range* (1000+ km on internal fuel only, or almost double than competition), bad for performance - and the Italian Air ministry wanted performance.
Third thing, at least as I see it, was the thick wing, much more reminiscent to, say, Hurricanes, than of MC.202. At the end of the day, it was some 30-40 km/h slower than Re.2000, and half of that vs. MC.202.

*makes for the good 'what if', doesn't it? Just install some better engines 
**weights of competing prototypes


----------



## Elmas (Apr 11, 2013)

Yes Greg, you’re right. First it must be said that the Factory that built AUT 18 ( Aeronautica Umbra Trojani, 18 mq being the wing surface) was owned by the Macchi family, the same of MC 200.
The Designer wanted to redesign the airframe with a substantial reduction of the safety factor, that was excessive, as a private venture, but the owner of the Factory refused, probably because the factory, that was located not far from Rome, while the main Macchi Factory is not far from Milan, was heavily involved (and making a lot of money) just repairing airplanes damaged in Spain during the Civil War and producing MC 200 in quantities, by Italian standards, of course.
Even in this case, even if to a lesser extent than Breda 88, the structure was redundant, stressed skin plus metallic tubes. And also the wing profile seems very thick. I don’t think that a substantial increase in power would have improved things: this aeroplane has a P47 like appearence, but P47 had a wing area of 29 square meters and AUT 18....18....


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2013)

This could be interesting for the members to read - the 1st generation of Italian monoplane fighters competition, with competitors' data. Can be translated.

Programma R

The table I was drawing my info from (translation by yours truly):


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2013)

Looking at that chart, the MC.200, Re.2000, and Caproni-Vizzola F.5 seem to be good places, speed-wise, to start with wing loading being about a wash.


----------



## Dogwalker (Apr 23, 2013)

Crediting the Macchi C.202 of a max speed of 596 km/h with a 1175 PS engine, a 960 PS Isotta Fraschini Asso XI engined Macchi 200, would have had a max speed of 580 km/h.
Reducing the ammo load to 250 rounds for gun (still enough for 26 sec. of fire), it can be armed with a third synchronized Breda SAFAT with only 30kg more weight, still in central position (virtually negligible in a three-ton heavy aircraft).
I think that the pilots would have liked both the increased performance and the greater volume of fire. But the plane would have been more expensive to produce.

Wanting to produce both an in-line and a radial engined fighter, in 1939 there were really no alternatives to the radials used in the "Serie 0" fighters. But, in november 1939, The Regia Aeronautica requested to Reggiane to design a DB601 engined Re.2000 prototype (of which the Alfa Romeo had just purchased the production license). It was the beginning of the development of the DB601 engined italian fighters.
Really, that of Alfa Romeo was a normal commercial transaction, and, during the war, the lack of production capacity of Alfa plants was a source of problems for the supply of their engines, especially for the Reggiane itself, since the Macchi C.202 was favoured in supplies.
In the same last weeks of 1939 however was homologated the 1500 PS Piaggio P.XII. It was larger and heavier than the P.XI, but the Reggiane 2000 fuselage was already large enough to accomodate it, the fighter had a low wingload, and the P.XII was a "cool" engine, on which were used the very enclosed, aerodynamically efficient, cowlings we see on Cant Z.1018 and Caproni Ca.169.
If the request of the air force had been different, then the Reggiane would have been able to begin first the production of Re.2000, go to a P.XII engined, and better armed, “Re.2001” as soon as possibile (probably at the end of 1940) and then to its further evolution, the 1700 PS Piaggio P.XV, around 1943. The Re.2001 was a good fighter-bomber. With a 1500 PS radial, probably it would have been better.

Speaking of twin engined fighters, Italy had a good base in the Imam Ro.57 in 1939. The late attempt to turn it into a dive bomber was unsuccessful, because in 1943 his performances were already obsolete, because of the many aerodynamic hindrances the conversion brought, and because the base was poorly suited for the purpose. But, with 1,200 km range, and more than 1700 ps of installed power (two Fiat A74), with an heavier armament, and a single ventral rack for a 500/600 kg bomb, or a torpedo, it could have been the ideal naval multirole fighter-bomber (in addition to maintaining a use for the radial engines produced by Fiat).


----------



## GregP (Apr 23, 2013)

Hi Cobber,

Having an issue with email right now. Probably will work it out by Friday afternoon.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> Crediting the Macchi C.202 of a max speed of 596 km/h with a 1175 PS engine, a 960 PS Isotta Fraschini Asso XI engined Macchi 200, would have had a max speed of 580 km/h.
> Reducing the ammo load to 250 rounds for gun (still enough for 26 sec. of fire), it can be armed with a third synchronized Breda SAFAT with only 30kg more weight, still in central position (virtually negligible in a three-ton heavy aircraft).
> I think that the pilots would have liked both the increased performance and the greater volume of fire. But the plane would have been more expensive to produce.



Fine proposal. The production cost of the Asso-MC.200 should be probably under the cost of the MC.202?
BTW, the altitude where the Asso XI RC.40 was making just a tad more than 950 PS was 3500m, while the Alfa Romeo RA 1000 RC.41 was making 1050 PS at 4100m (or was it 1100 at 3700, like the DB-601Aa?)? At 4100m, the Asso gives 890 PS - so maybe not 580 km/h, but 550-560, ie. comparable to the Arsenal VG-33 and Avia-135?



> Wanting to produce both an in-line and a radial engined fighter, in 1939 there were really no alternatives to the radials used in the "Serie 0" fighters. But, in november 1939, The Regia Aeronautica requested to Reggiane to design a DB601 engined Re.2000 prototype (of which the Alfa Romeo had just purchased the production license). It was the beginning of the development of the DB601 engined italian fighters.
> Really, that of Alfa Romeo was a normal commercial transaction, and, during the war, the lack of production capacity of Alfa plants was a source of problems for the supply of their engines, especially for the Reggiane itself, since the Macchi C.202 was favoured in supplies.



The MC.202 was also 50km/h faster.



> In the same last weeks of 1939 however was homologated the 1500 PS Piaggio P.XII. It was larger and heavier than the P.XI, but the Reggiane 2000 fuselage was already large enough to accomodate it, the fighter had a low wingload, and the P.XII was a "cool" engine, on which were used the very enclosed, aerodynamically efficient, cowlings we see on Cant Z.1018 and Caproni Ca.169.
> If the request of the air force had been different, then the Reggiane would have been able to begin first the production of Re.2000, go to a P.XII engined, and better armed, “Re.2001” as soon as possibile (probably at the end of 1940) and then to its further evolution, the 1700 PS Piaggio P.XV, around 1943. The Re.2001 was a good fighter-bomber. With a 1500 PS radial, probably it would have been better.



+1 for the Re2000+P.XII, even if it was quite a bulky engine. 1400 PS was available at 4000m (~12900 ft).



> Speaking of twin engined fighters, Italy had a good base in the Imam Ro.57 in 1939. The late attempt to turn it into a dive bomber was unsuccessful, because in 1943 his performances were already obsolete, because of the many aerodynamic hindrances the conversion brought, and because the base was poorly suited for the purpose. But, with 1,200 km range, and more than 1700 ps of installed power (two Fiat A74), with an heavier armament, and a single ventral rack for a 500/600 kg bomb, or a torpedo, it could have been the ideal naval multirole fighter-bomber (in addition to maintaining a use for the radial engines produced by Fiat).



Seems the Ro.57 was too many engines for too little speed punch?


----------



## davebender (Apr 24, 2013)

Italy designed plenty of good airframes. The real issue is producing or purchasing 200+ world class aircraft engines per month.


----------



## Dogwalker (Apr 24, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Fine proposal. The production cost of the Asso-MC.200 should be probably under the cost of the MC.202?


Dunno at what price the two producers sold their engines, but likely the Asso was cheaper, it was in production for more time, while the construction of the Ra 1000 required the installation of brand new tooling (as the previous Alfa Romeo in-line engines were smaller).



tomo pauk said:


> BTW, the altitude where the Asso XI RC.40 was making just a tad more than 950 PS was 3500m,


That's at 2400rpm, but the engine can go up to to 2590rpm for 30". Even considering the corresponding loss in efficiency (less torque at higher rpm) that means a figure of about 990 PS at 3500m, 940PS at 4000m and 930 at 4100m. 



tomo pauk said:


> Seems the Ro.57 was too many engines for too little speed punch?


It was only marginally faster than the C.200, but what makes it interesting is his 1200 km range (vs 600 km for the C.200) and his installed power (more than 1700PS for 4055kg at takeoff). 
The single engined italian fighters couldn't really cover the convoys to north africa, or the fleet, since they hadn't the range to fly over them for long (in substitution, the CR.25 were sometimes used). The Ro.57 had the range, and was certanly a more effective fighter than the CR.25.
His scarce max speed was due to the aerodynamic hindrance of the engines, but, that means that the installation of an heavier armament would not have worsened the prestations of the aircraft further (infact, later, a "quadriarma", four weapon, version was tested, and ordered for the production).
The S.M.79 proved to be a good torpedo bomber, but it was an expensive aircraft, in terms of both material and crew. Even the DB601 engined fighters, with 1100 PS, couldn't carry a full blown 900kg torpedo (the Re.2001 can carry a 600 kg "reduced" one), the DB605 engined ones could (the 1000 kg rack was installed on the Re.2005, and a G55 "silurante" was tested with good results), but it was too late. The Ro.57 could have been a good torpedo bomber from the outbreak of the war (and a naval bomber, with a 500 kg bomb).
For these tasks, his opponents would have been Gladiator, Swordfish, Fulmar, Beaufort... nothing he could not deal with.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 25, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> ...
> That's at 2400rpm, but the engine can go up to to 2590rpm for 30". Even considering the corresponding loss in efficiency (less torque at higher rpm) that means a figure of about 990 PS at 3500m, 940PS at 4000m and 930 at 4100m.



I know the manual says that over-revving was possible in such a fashion, but the Asso was not unique. Eg. many engine tables for the V-1710 give 120-150 rpm for over-revving in dive; the B series of the R-2800 was limited up to 3050-3060 (vs. 'regular maximum' of 2700 rpm), again in dive, so I'd be very careful claiming that Asso was really capable to use the extra 190 rpm in climb or level flight.
The Issota-Fraschini has a better engine to offer, prior the 1939, namely the L.121, the engine more or less comparable with DB-601A an Merlin III.



> It was only marginally faster than the C.200, but what makes it interesting is his 1200 km range (vs 600 km for the C.200) and his installed power (more than 1700PS for 4055kg at takeoff).
> The single engined italian fighters couldn't really cover the convoys to north africa, or the fleet, since they hadn't the range to fly over them for long (in substitution, the CR.25 were sometimes used). The Ro.57 had the range, and was certanly a more effective fighter than the CR.25.
> His scarce max speed was due to the aerodynamic hindrance of the engines, but, that means that the installation of an heavier armament would not have worsened the prestations of the aircraft further (infact, later, a "quadriarma", four weapon, version was tested, and ordered for the production).
> The S.M.79 proved to be a good torpedo bomber, but it was an expensive aircraft, in terms of both material and crew. Even the DB601 engined fighters, with 1100 PS, couldn't carry a full blown 900kg torpedo (the Re.2001 can carry a 600 kg "reduced" one), the DB605 engined ones could (the 1000 kg rack was installed on the Re.2005, and a G55 "silurante" was tested with good results), but it was too late. The Ro.57 could have been a good torpedo bomber from the outbreak of the war (and a naval bomber, with a 500 kg bomb).
> For these tasks, his opponents would have been Gladiator, Swordfish, Fulmar, Beaufort... nothing he could not deal with.



Form my point of view, the Ro.57 can make two 'appearances' - one would be the fast bomber, with either the Piaggio P.XI, or the Asso RC.15 with cropped compressor. Another one would be the heavy fighter fighter-bomber, a single seater with Asso RC.40, or L.121 (= a plane similar to the Ro.58, but that one was a two-seater). The Ro.58 was claimed to make 610 km/h with (second-hand?) DB-601s.


----------



## Dogwalker (Apr 25, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> I know the manual says that over-revving was possible in such a fashion, but the Asso was not unique. Eg. many engine tables for the V-1710 give 120-150 rpm for over-revving in dive; the B series of the R-2800 was limited up to 3050-3060 (vs. 'regular maximum' of 2700 rpm), again in dive,


But the manual say nothing about dive, if there was that limitation, one may think that they would have written in the manual, but it's written only as "exceptional" and allowed for no more than 30". And, also, the manual don't give time limits for revving at 2400rpm (while giving a, quite long, 180" limit for overboosting), so we can consider 2400rpm as maximum continuosus power rpm, and the 2590rpm as the so called "+100" on italian aircrafts.
On that matter, Macchi C.200 pilot Adelmo Rigoli on +100: _"At the 'scramble', immediate take off, turn, and close the undercarriage, engaged the +100, it should have been used for a short time at crucial moments... but we went up too slow!"_
The +100 began to be called so, because, at that time, it consisted of about further 100 rpm more than the maximum (but how many exactly they were, depended on the engine).


----------



## Dogwalker (Apr 26, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Form my point of view, the Ro.57 can make two 'appearances' - one would be the fast bomber, with either the Piaggio P.XI, or the Asso RC.15 with cropped compressor. Another one would be the heavy fighter fighter-bomber, a single seater with Asso RC.40, or L.121 (= a plane similar to the Ro.58, but that one was a two-seater). The Ro.58 was claimed to make 610 km/h with (second-hand?) DB-601s.


An Asso engined Ro.57 would likely have had far superior prestations (The Ro.58 was marginally faster than the C.202, with second hand engines, and being a two seater with larger wingspan than the Ro.57), but:
1) it would have been more expensive.
2) In this scenario, all the Asso XI/L.121 were likely needed for the C.200.
The Fiat A74 was the least expensive of first/line engines in italian inventory, Fiat was the producer with the bigger productive capacity, and, for the naval multirole heavy/long-range fighter-bomber, the prestations of the Ro.57 were adeguate in 1940/41.

Only in 1941 when, in the production of Macchi fighters, the Ra.1000 had, in any case, replaced the IF Asso, then these could have been diverted to Ro.57 production. Moreover, at that point, if the development of the Asso would not had halted in 1939, there would probably have been available a two-speed-supercharger version of it, An Asso Rc.15/50, or 25/60, like there was for the Delta IV and the Zeta.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 26, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> But the manual say nothing about dive, if there was that limitation, one may think that they would have written in the manual, but it's written only as "exceptional" and allowed for no more than 30". And, also, the manual don't give time limits for revving at 2400rpm (while giving a, quite long, 180" limit for overboosting), so we can consider 2400rpm as maximum continuosus power rpm, and the 2590rpm as the so called "+100" on italian aircrafts.



Guess we disagree on this - the manual, when listing the appropriate regimes, lists 2250 rpm for 'normal' power, both at SL and critical altitude, while 2140 rpm is the limit on take off. The 'normal' power should be the equivalent of 'maximum continous' IMO. The 2400 rpm is listed as 'maximum' ('massima'), while the 2590 is listed as 'exceptional' ('eccezionale'). 



> On that matter, Macchi C.200 pilot Adelmo Rigoli on +100: _"At the 'scramble', immediate take off, turn, and close the undercarriage, engaged the +100, it should have been used for a short time at crucial moments... but we went up too slow!"_
> The +100 began to be called so, because, at that time, it consisted of about further 100 rpm more than the maximum (but how many exactly they were, depended on the engine).



The +100 should point us to manifold pressure - from 790 mm Hg to 890 mm Hg for the A.74? The corresponding rpm for the 890 mm Hg was 2520, and that rpm value is listed for take-off, 'maximum horizontal speed flight' and emergancy regime (later two allowed for 'few minutes'). So if we want to draw parallels, the 2520 rpm in the A.74 is 'related' to 2400 rpm in the Asso, and 2400 rpm in A.74 is 'related' to 2250 rpm in the Asso.



Dogwalker said:


> An Asso engined Ro.57 would likely have had far superior prestations (The Ro.58 was marginally faster than the C.202, with second hand engines, and being a two seater with larger wingspan than the Ro.57), but:
> 1) it would have been more expensive.
> 2) In this scenario, all the Asso XI/L.121 were likely needed for the C.200.
> The Fiat A74 was the least expensive of first/line engines in italian inventory, Fiat was the producer with the bigger productive capacity, and, for the naval multirole heavy/long-range fighter-bomber, the prestations of the Ro.57 were adeguate in 1940/41.



Agreed that, if the IF engines are allocated for the Macchi, there Ro.57 would unlikely get any; ditto for Asso/Ro.57 being more expensive than the a historical one, we don't know how much  The historical Ro.57 was good performer for MTO in 1939/40, but not so much for 1941?



> Only in 1941 when, in the production of Macchi fighters, the Ra.1000 had, in any case, replaced the IF Asso, then these could have been diverted to Ro.57 production. Moreover, at that point, if the development of the Asso would not had halted in 1939, there would probably have been available a two-speed-supercharger version of it, An Asso Rc.15/50, or 25/60, like there was for the Delta IV and the Zeta.



Probably we would see the L.122 coming into fruition? Or L.121 with two-speed compressor?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 26, 2013)

There were some interesting and/or useful fighter planes where the Italian engines will be good at. Eg:
-D.520, VG.33, IK-3 and Avia 135 - all powered by Hispano V-12 engines, capable for speeds between 520-560 km/h on modest power (850-900 HP). I-F engines should be able to emulate that, provided the airframe remains also modestly sized (like Macchi fighters).
-P-66, IAR-80A, FFVS J 22 - about 1000 HP at 12-14 kft, speeds claimed from 540-575 km/h; here the Piaggio XI could step in, powering, again, a modestly-sized fighter
-Fokker D.XXIII - originally with two Walter Saggita engines of 530 HP each, Italians can try something similar with I-F Delta engines.


----------



## Dogwalker (Apr 27, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Guess we disagree on this - the manual, when listing the appropriate regimes, lists 2250 rpm for 'normal' power, both at SL and critical altitude, while 2140 rpm is the limit on take off. The 'normal' power should be the equivalent of 'maximum continous' IMO.


I do not see why. If the manual give a time limit for oveboosting, and for 2590rpm, but do non give time limits for reving at 2400rpm, it seems obvious to me that this is not an oversight of those who wrote the manual, but that 2400rpm could be held as long as the pilot want, and then it was the maximum continuous power regime, and 2590rpm the emergency, which could be held for 30". It do not seems to me that "normal" can be considered "maximum"



tomo pauk said:


> The +100 should point us to manifold pressure - from 790 mm Hg to 890 mm Hg for the A.74? The corresponding rpm for the 890 mm Hg was 2520, and that rpm value is listed for take-off, 'maximum horizontal speed flight' and emergancy regime (later two allowed for 'few minutes'). So if we want to draw parallels, the 2520 rpm in the A.74 is 'related' to 2400 rpm in the Asso, and 2400 rpm in A.74 is 'related' to 2250 rpm in the Asso.


Again, I do not see why. The 2520rpm "emergency" power in the A.74, that could be held for "few minutes" are the 2590 "exceptional" power of the Asso XI, that could be held for 30". It is noteworthy that, in both in the A.74 and Asso XI, what determined the time limit were higher revs, not the pressure, infact, in the A.74, there was a "few minutes" limit for reving at 2520 rpm for both 790mm Hg than 890mm Hg (in the Asso, the overboost was not possible over 2000m).



tomo pauk said:


> The historical Ro.57 was good performer for MTO in 1939/40, but not so much for 1941?


In his naval role, the first real opponents would be the Hurricanes that we began to see on board of the British carriers in the Med by mid-1941, but against them also, I would not give the Ro.57 for dead (and the aircrafts available on carriers were not usually many. The entire air escort embarked on the Carriers Argus and Eagle in Operation Harpoon, june '42, consisted of 16 Sea Hurricane, 6 Fulmar, and 18 Swordfish). The first Seafires are in action in Operation Torch, so, for the great part of the “battle of the convoys” the Ro.57 would be effective. Different situation on the ground, where P.40s are available in North Africa from the beginning of 1941.



tomo pauk said:


> Probably we would see the L.122 coming into fruition? Or L.121 with two-speed compressor?


The two speed compressor would be the "natural" evolution. I.F. did it for the engines he could sell (Delta IV and Zeta), if there had been, for the Asso XI / L.121, other use than the Cant Z.501 flying boat, they would have done for it. Other refinements were certainly possible, but it is hard to think of big changes. Those engines were already present at the Aviation Fair of Milan in 1937. Having always the same 87 octane gasoline available, and not being able to have better materials, it is not easy to increase the power. From Piaggio P.XII to P.XV it takes two years to earn less than 200 hp. The same from P.XI to P.XIX, While the A.76 was never ready.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> I do not see why. If the manual give a time limit for oveboosting, and for 2590rpm, but do non give time limits for reving at 2400rpm, it seems obvious to me that this is not an oversight of those who wrote the manual, but that 2400rpm could be held as long as the pilot want, and then it was the maximum continuous power regime, and 2590rpm the emergency, which could be held for 30". It do not seems to me that "normal" can be considered "maximum"



Could the 2400 rpm be mantained as long as pilot wanted? IMO - no, it could not. The manual on page 25 is clear about 2400 being 'maximum', and 2590 rpm being "exceptionally (allowed for no more than 30 sec)"; normal being 2250. 





Manual can be downloaded from here




> Again, I do not see why. The 2520rpm "emergency" power in the A.74, that could be held for "few minutes" are the 2590 "exceptional" power of the Asso XI, that could be held for 30".



Few minutes could be, say, 3 minutes? It is a 6-fold duration vs. 30 sec, and that is a major difference - we can note that early DB-601s have had 5-fold difference for the take-off rating and 'Kurzleistung' (1.40 ata vs. 1.30, on same rpm). The manual does not say anything about the "exceptional" power on 2590 rpm, but merely that such rpm is exceptionally allowed; contrary to that, 2520 rpm for the A.74 is clearly noted by manual. 



> It is noteworthy that, in both in the A.74 and Asso XI, what determined the time limit were higher revs, not the pressure, infact, in the A.74, there was a "few minutes" limit for reving at 2520 rpm for both 790mm Hg than 890mm Hg (in the Asso, the overboost was not possible over 2000m).



Could I read in the manual about the Asso not being possible to over-boost over 2000m? Would that be for all models, or just for the RC.40 ones?



> In his naval role, the first real opponents would be the Hurricanes that we began to see on board of the British carriers in the Med by mid-1941, but against them also, I would not give the Ro.57 for dead (and the aircrafts available on carriers were not usually many. The entire air escort embarked on the Carriers Argus and Eagle in Operation Harpoon, june '42, consisted of 16 Sea Hurricane, 6 Fulmar, and 18 Swordfish). The first Seafires are in action in Operation Torch, so, for the great part of the “battle of the convoys” the Ro.57 would be effective. Different situation on the ground, where P.40s are available in North Africa from the beginning of 1941.



Overall agreable. What would be the "bomb load over distance" capabilities of the Ro.57/bis?


----------



## Dogwalker (Apr 27, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Could the 2400 rpm be mantained as long as pilot wanted? IMO - no, it could not. The manual on page 25 is clear about 2400 being 'maximum', and 2590 rpm being "exceptionally (allowed for no more than 30 sec)"; normal being 2250.


Yes, and it not give limits for reving at 2400rpm, while it gives for 2590rpm (30") and for the overboost (180"). so, 2400rpm are the maximum continuous. Still, I do not think there was a limit, but they forget to write it.



tomo pauk said:


> Few minutes could be, say, 3 minutes? It is a 6-fold duration vs. 30 sec, and that is a major difference


Certainly is a different time, we are talking about different engines.



tomo pauk said:


> The manual does not say anything about the "exceptional" power on 2590 rpm, but merely that such rpm is exceptionally allowed; contrary to that, 2520 rpm for the A.74 is clearly noted by manual.


As the engine was built, it is difficult to think that, at 2590 rpm it gave the same power than at 2400.



tomo pauk said:


> Could I read in the manual about the Asso not being possible to over-boost over 2000m? Would that be for all models, or just for the RC.40 ones?


At p.146. Over 2000m (of course this is not an exact value) the automatic barometric control that regulates the intake valve of the compressor opens it more than the manual control can do, so the overboost lever is in neutral. As the overboost lever opens the valve for a fixed angle, the complete overboost, 900mm hg, is possible only at sea level.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> Yes, and it not give limits for reving at 2400rpm, while it gives for 2590rpm (30") and for the overboost (180"). so, 2400rpm are the maximum continuous.



What is the Italian term for 'maximum continuous'?



> Still, I do not think there was a limit, but they forget to write it.



I'd agree about that.



> Certainly is a different time, we are talking about different engines.



Sorry if it sounds like nitpicking, but then one should not draw parallels comparations to prove the point.



> As the engine was built, it is difficult to think that, at 2590 rpm it gave the same power than at 2400.



Sure enough that 2590 rpm sounds like more power. Question is whether that rpm was allowed for same/greater manifold pressures than as it was possible for 2400?



> At p.146. Over 2000m (of course this is not an exact value) the automatic barometric control that regulates the intake valve of the compressor opens it more than the manual control can do, so the overboost lever is in neutral. As the overboost lever opens the valve for a fixed angle, the complete overboost, 900mm hg, is possible only at sea level.



Thanks for the information.


----------



## Dogwalker (Apr 27, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> What is the Italian term for 'maximum continuous'?


Literally it's "massimo continuo", but the thechnical terms are not translated literally. Tehere is not a literal equivalent for WEP, or "military power".



tomo pauk said:


> Sorry if it sounds like nitpicking, but then one should not draw parallels comparations to prove the point.


Why not? Both the engines have a high rpm regime they can keep for a limited time, that do not means that, on different engines, this time limit had to be the same. It can be different even in two versions of the same engine.



tomo pauk said:


> Sure enough that 2590 rpm sounds like more power. Question is whether that rpm was allowed for same/greater manifold pressures than as it was possible for 2400?


It exists a lever to close the intake valve of the compressor. The manual say to use it at low regime.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 27, 2013)

> Literally it's "massimo continuo", but the thechnical terms are not translated literally.



Would you please be so kind to translate what engine regimes are described in the tables:













> Why not? Both the engines have a high rpm regime they can keep for a limited time, that do not means that, on different engines, this time limit had to be the same. It can be different even in two versions of the same engine.



One engine has three regimes, thoroughly described in the manual, that we can classify as emergency, or over-revving, or something similar. Manual for another engine does not mention a single regime that would include maximal RPM (=2400 here), let alone the exceptionally allowed RPM (=2590 here). As for the duration of the exceptional limits, a 6-fold difference is a realy big one - the 3 minutes can and will offer the plane to either close to the prey, or maybe to run away, the 30 second regime will hardly offer anything similar. 
We can also note that there was no engine with 30-60 seconds regime, apart from take-off rating in early DB-601s.



> It exists a lever to close the intake valve of the compressor. The manual say to use it at low regime.



Does the manual makes the connection with the operation of the lever with engine making 2590 rpm? What would be the 'low regime'?

from the manual for the A.74:


----------



## Civettone (Jun 26, 2013)

Wasn's the latest Asso disregarded as it was considered unreliable? 

I never understood why the Caproni-Vizzola F.4 was not a real candidate. Given the fact that it would have been more aerodynamical with a similar hp than the F.5, speed must have been superior. Probably around 530 kmh? I have seen speed figures for the F.4, but I believe they are bogus. So, I assume again, that the Asso was not considered sufficiently reliable.

Also, I read that the Caproni aircraft won the competition. I assume that the author meant the Caproni-Vizzola F.5. In that nice table we can see that the speed of the F.5 was almost as good as the C.200, but that it had by far the best climb rate! 

Given the mentality of the day concerning manoeuvrable aircraft, I understand that they took the CR.42 as well. But the Fiat G.50?? Two fighter aircraft from Fiat? Unbelievable!

Kris


----------



## Dogwalker (Jun 26, 2013)

The F5 came late to the competition, as the Regia already ordered the other models and there was no more space for it. Moreover, it's wooden wings had raised some eyebrows, since the competition was for metallic aircrafts.
The Asso XI RC.15 used on the Z.506 was reliable, hovever the F.4 was stopped for the same reason the Ca.165 was never really taken into consideration. The Regia Aeronauitca didn't want that engine on a fighter.
The G.50 was choosen for the same reason the Cr.42 was (or the C.205V some years later). It was ready to be produced (infact it was already used in Spain), while all the others needed time to be put in production. A slightly inferior fighter is better than no fighter at all.


----------



## pattle (Jul 3, 2013)

I think the Italians were pretty well stuck with what they already had in 1940. They could have built something better because they had talented enough designers, but they didn't because the country was run by people who didn't know what they were doing, a lot like Britain since the eighties.


----------



## Tollmar (Jul 4, 2013)

The fiat g 50 was designed for a much more powerful engine by Gabrielli, but this engine had so many problems during the validation. So the designer had to give up and fall back on this A.74. If you do the calculations on the performance of the original engine, the aircraft would have been much more performances. What I think was the real loser in the choice instead of fighter for Regia Aeronautica is the REGGIANE Re.2000 which I think was the most modern, least expensive and the most performance of the aircraft in the competition for the Fighter.


----------



## davebender (Jul 4, 2013)

So was everyone else except USA. Most American military units didn't experience combat prior to June 1944 so we had all the time in the world to develop, produce and stockpile equipment.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 4, 2013)

Tollmar said:


> REGGIANE Re.2000 which I think was the most modern, least expensive and the most performance of the aircraft in the competition for the Fighter.


Least expensive? That seems a dubious claim.


And what engine was the Fiat G.50 supposed to have? There was a Fiat G.50ter with a 1,000 hp Fiat A.76 engine and a Fiat G.52 with a Fiat A.75 R.C.53 engine. 
Kris


----------



## davebender (Jul 4, 2013)

Especially if it's competing against the dirt cheap Me-109.


----------



## pattle (Jul 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> So was everyone else except USA. Most American military units didn't experience combat prior to June 1944 so we had all the time in the world to develop, produce and stockpile equipment.


Most other countries had something in the pipeline that could match what their adversaries were bringing through. Britain and Germany were both able to improve their existing aircraft and develop new types while the Italians had reached a dead end through lack of a suitable engine and were left behind. Italian fighters were also generally to lightly armed. You have to remember that the Italians were not ready for war in 1940, yes they had a good sized air force but it had very few modern aircraft which is why the Italians entered the Battle of Britain from Belgian bases with CR42 biplanes.
I knew the Americans were rather late in joining the war but I didn't realise that most American units didn't experience combat until June 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> Especially if it's competing against the dirt cheap Me-109.



Sorry, but this is a totally spurious claim, that ive seen many times. Facts are, its impossible to determine the full cost of any aircraft at this point because of the differing and articficial pegging of price mechanisms at that time. That applies to all nationalities, but particularly the totalitarian regimes.

However, its a telltale sign that this claim is totally bogus, by the numbers of foreign sales and orders the germans had received pre-war for the 109. By my quick reckoning, the Germans had received orders, or had provided as gifts, for around 300 Me 109s, of various marks. By comparison the foreign orders for the Spitfire was running in the thousands. Most were never delivered, but its a measure of the relative expense of each type, at least in part. And Germany was operating on a subsidised command management system, whilst Britain was operating on a free market model (more or less).admittedly countries were lining up to buy British rather than German, because Germany by 1938-39 was actibg clearly as an agressor nation and the neutrals were trying to get ready for a war that would probably see the germans as their enemies. 

I think it significant also, that the Hungarians initially chose the RE 2000 as the basis for their indigenous production program over the 109. Eventually the reggiane design was exposed as inferior, and the hungarians switched to 109 production, but pre-war....up to 1940, they didnt particualalry like the 109, despite a very aggressive sales pitch by the Germans, mixed in with not a little implied threats......


----------



## davebender (Jul 4, 2013)

No one to blame but themselves. Germany was next door, friendly and had a surplus of Jumo 211 engines. With an Italian purchase order in hand Junkers might have developed a fighter variant of the Junkers engine. I cannot imagine Germany turning down a chance to earn hard currency by exporting aircraft engines to an allied nation.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 5, 2013)

Parsifal, I think the Hungarians went for the Re.2000, because of two reasons. They had a longer history of operating Italian aircraft. Also, politically they were closer to the Italians, at least until 1939. Second, they already had the K.14 engine in production, which is basically identical to the P.XI of the Re.2000. I believe this last reason is the decisive argument why they went for the Re.2000 instead of the C.200 or the real winner of the competition, the Caproni-Vizzola F.5.




> No one to blame but themselves. Germany was next door, friendly and had a surplus of Jumo 211 engines. With an Italian purchase order in hand Junkers might have developed a fighter variant of the Junkers engine. I cannot imagine Germany turning down a chance to earn hard currency by exporting aircraft engines to an allied nation.


Friendly? That is new to me

If the Nazis were so friendly, they would have allowed their Fascist allies full access to their technology, helping them to increase productivity and allowing them to produce the uprated versions of the DB 601, instead of the obsolescent 601Aa. 

Germany had no use for Italian liras. it was already giving Italy 90% of its coal, oil and steel requirement in return for Italian food and workers. 

Also, I have seen you mention the Jumo 211 surplus around 500 times already. I would be careful about your claim. Germans were notoriously inadequate in supplying reserve engines. Maybe the Jumo 211 was the first to remedy this shortage in 1942. Also, I have never heard of a single fighter aircraft using this engine (during the war), nor being intended to use this engine. Because the DB 600 existed? Maybe. In any case, without any further information concerning this, I would be careful to keep suggesting these what-if uses of Jumo 211s. 

Kris


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 5, 2013)

parsifal said:


> However, its a telltale sign that this claim is totally bogus, by the numbers of foreign sales and orders the germans had received pre-war for the 109. By my quick reckoning, the Germans had received orders, or had provided as gifts, for around 300 Me 109s, of various marks. By comparison the foreign orders for the Spitfire was running in the thousands. Most were never delivered, but its a measure of the relative expense of each type, at least in part.



Which countries - excluding those not politically dependent on Britian, i.e. Commonwealth states - ordered the Spitfires and how many? The Estonians ordered 12, at a unit price of £12,604. AFAIK the Germans exported 109Es to various countries at about 150 000,- RM, i.e. c.a. 2-3 times of its domestic RLM procurement price.



> And Germany was operating on a subsidised command management system, whilst Britain was operating on a free market model (more or less).



That's a very flawed understanding of economics... there was very little difference between 



> admittedly countries were lining up to buy British rather than German, because Germany by 1938-39 was actibg clearly as an agressor nation and the neutrals were trying to get ready for a war that would probably see the germans as their enemies.



I am unaware of any major British arms export in the pre-war years. 



> I think it significant also, that the Hungarians initially chose the RE 2000 as the basis for their indigenous production program over the 109. Eventually the reggiane design was exposed as inferior, and the hungarians switched to 109 production, but pre-war....up to 1940, they didnt particualalry like the 109, despite a very aggressive sales pitch by the Germans, mixed in with not a little implied threats......


 
Again that is a mistaken understanding. The Hungarians wanted to buy the Bf 109 and its license, which the Germans were not willing to sell. Agressive sales pitch is an utter nonsense. You can't buy something that was not for sale. The Germans did offer 24 He 112s though - which were declined, and were eventually sold to Rumania. 

The Re 2000 was choosen because it was - thought to be - relatively modern, and was available. The Italians freed up the Re 2000 for export, and provided a 600 million loan for weapons purchase for Hungary, which therefore could afford to order Re 2000s and as a stopgap, Cr 42 biplanes. The Re 2000 which had many flaws (the engine was unreliable, the fuel tank system was flawed design and leaked, the original Italian guns were prone to jam and the aircraft had bad stall characteristics). Hungary also had closer political ties with Italy, which politically supported Hungarian revisionist policy, and had long standing antagonism with Rumania, which was important for Germany because of its oil. The Germans did not want to sell any weapons to Hungary, lest the Hungarians be in a position to start a war with the Rumanians and endanrged oil supplies. So Hungarians typically bought Italian and neutral Swedish and Swiss weapons in addition to their old K.u.K. leftovers and domestic designs.

Bottomline - by the time the Hungarians managed to get their licences Re 2000 production in line, Hitler already okayed the Bf 109 licence sell, which went into production rather quickly, and the licence production Re 2000 did not see much use, being now completely obsolate...


----------



## GregP (Jul 5, 2013)

About the 1944 claim ... it's not that we weren't in combat before then, it the fact that many US divisions, armored, cavalry, and infantry, were formed in mid to late 1943 and were deployed to Europe in early to mid-1944. We were there and fighting and taking casualties but remember, the vast majority of bombs dropped in the ETO, about even with the RAF tonnage in reality, were dropped in 1944. 

That's because the war in Europe ended in mid-1945 and the Luftwaffe was basically in retreat in most of 1945. Not literal retreat ... they weren't ... but retreat as far as quality of pilots, fuel delivered to the front line units, and number of combat-ready aircraft are concerned. Germany had the fuel but road, rail, and rivers were basically under continuous attack. Not much actually GOT to the front-line units compared with, say, 1942.

Think about it, we started mobilizing in what was basically January 1942. We got people signed up and through basic training in about April or May of 1942 ... maybe June. Not many but some. They deployed. Meanwhile, more were signing up and production of war materiel was ramping up. It was getting into full swing in about mid-1943 and we had to organize and equip the units and get them combat ready (as far as we knew ... can't do it without the equipment for training). Europe was preparing for war from about 1935 forward and didn't really move any faster than WE did. We had aircraft there before mud-Marines (planes are faster and pilots are already somehwat trained before they fly a fighter or bomber).

So it's NOT that we weren't there, it's that a LOT of planning came together and a lot of units deployed in 1944 as the groundswell of troops that could be equipped fully came into being. We had to build the factories that produced the equipment before we could equip the Army. Going from an isolationist country to a country ona full war footing takes about a year and then you have to train and get the logistics chain in place before you can GET the stuff there.

Ask the British or Germans or Russians or Japanese how long it took to get a credible force together and deployed. It wasn't overnight.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2013)

> Which countries - excluding those not politically dependent on Britian, i.e. Commonwealth states - ordered the Spitfires and how many? The Estonians ordered 12, at a unit price of £12,604. AFAIK the Germans exported 109Es to various countries at about 150 000,- RM, i.e. c.a. 2-3 times of its domestic RLM procurement price.




In 1939, there were actually no commonwealth countries that had actualy ordered the Spitfire, though it is my understanding the canadians were angling for a manufacturing licence. Prewar orders and/or expressions of interest for the Spitfire had come in from the following countries

Yugolsavia, Turkey, Portugal, Poland, Norway, Estonia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Belgium, Eire, Greece, France, Czechoslovakia, Argentina, Spain (Republic) 




> That's a very flawed understanding of economics... there was very little difference between



You may say its a flawed understanding. But according to the Economics Dean at the University Of Sydney (a personal acquaintance, whom I referred your comments to for advice, its not me who has the whacko flawed view of economic theory. According to him....

"_A free market economy is an economy where the market is free to operate based on peoples wants and needs. The economy is driven by a government that practices a laissez-faire, rather than controlling its economic policy. The forces that rule the marketplace are: Supply, Demand, and Competition. There aren't any completely free market economies but the U.S. is probably the closest. Many economies are mixed like the UK, which is open to the idea of free markets, but also involves some government interventin.

In a Command Economy, the government controls all means of production. Examples of the Command Economy were the Stalin’s 5 Year Plans and Mao’s “The Great Leap Forward”. (Good for if you want to make some historical references in your debate) The government decides what items will be made and at what price. The Soviet Union had a Command Economy. In your debate you could talk about how this sort of economy led to their downfall!

The benefits of a free market economy is largely to do with gains from international trade, and improving global efficiency through lower prices, increased consumer choice etc.

Just a little pointer for your debate. There are disadvantages to a free market economy as well. Look at those and try and provide some counter arguments, or explain how the benefits outweigh them_".




> I am unaware of any major British arms export in the pre-war years.



In th case of the Spitfire, they didnt, delays in getting the Castle Bromwich plant up and running meant that Supermarine could not meet even the priority orders to the RAF on time, let alone any of the foreign nations that were queing up to purhase it. 




> Bottomline - by the time the Hungarians managed to get their licences Re 2000 production in line, Hitler already okayed the Bf 109 licence sell, which went into production rather quickly, and the licence production Re 2000 did not see much use, being now completely obsolate...



The hungarians relied on the Heja, as it was known, for a considerable part of their war in the East, where it gave a pretty good account of itself. the Hungarian version was effective at eliminating the types more glaring failures, mostly the armament and the leaky fuel system, but of course could not overcome its basic obsolescence, which im not disputing. Im not accepting your other claims incidentally, but its a whole other debate. The Hungarians were happy to accept the Heja until quite late in the war....in this regard your assertion that it switched to the me109 is totally spurious. From memory the first of a very few Me 109s began frontline service in 1942, but it was well into 1943 before it (the 109) had any significant Hungarian service. Whether they were keen before that to get their hands on the 109, Im not so sure, so wont commit to any debate just yet. but what is patrently untrue is your claim that it was accepted or available to the hungarians from an early stage. perhaps, but I am doubtful. 

Niehorsters site gives a pretty good breakdown as to when 109s were accepted into Hungarian serve, and in what numbers. it certainly does not support the claims you aree asserting 

Hungarian Aircraft

Edit

And it is clear from niehorsters OOB for Hungary, that Germany was willing to sell substantial numbers of other front line equipment to the Hungarians, but not Me109s (allegedly...but Im not buying that for a second). Ju86s, Ju87s, He111s, He170s were all eagerly sold to the Honved, but for some strange reason not the Me 109, which in the same breath is argued as "cheap as chips". In cash starved Germany, if the 109 was so cheap (and it certainly wasnt secret or classified equipment after Spain and its display at air shows allover Europe....remember also that we are not mecessarily taliking "E" here) why the hell wopuldnt they be trying to sell at least one of the earlier marks of the type to intersted nations. I would accept that they might have tried, but failed because nobody trusted the germans after 1938, but thats not the line being pedalled here. whats being shoved down our throats was that the germans simply did not want to sell the 109 to anybody, but then they were willing to sell other stuff, and also the type was the cheapest on the market. Bollocks


----------



## riacrato (Jul 5, 2013)

How does what you professor acquintance say relate to Germany being a planned economy? As correctly stated there are few true free markets, not even the U.S. is or was one, even though it's probably the closest. Germany of the 1930s certainly wasn't a command or planned economy. It was much closer to a free market and in the early 40s in many ways closer to that than the UK was (which was one of the reasons for Germany's inefficiency).

Anyway, prices are a very poor measurement for costs. The use of resources, those being raw materials or manhours, is what counts.


----------



## pattle (Jul 5, 2013)

Greg P, I know that the Americans had already had a big impact on World War Two before D Day I was just being a little sarcastic towards the post I was replying to. The Reg 2000 wasn't a bad design full stop as it was developed into later versions some of which were pretty good. The thing that strikes me about the Reg 2000 series is that it shares its lineage with the Seversky P35 as does the P47. From memory I understand that a member of the Seversky design team had returned to Italy from America and began working for Caproni Regianni where he designed the Reg 2000 using the P35 concept. It is interesting how the basic P35 design evolved in two very different directions one the P47 and the other the Reg 2000 series. For an example of this similarity look at the shape of the wings of all three fighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2013)

Most countries are a mix of economies. However, military production was seldom as "free market" as many other aspects of the civilian market. The US had both government arsenals and ship yards pre-war, which while they could not supply the entire needs of the armed services, did provide some competition and a check on actual costs to produce some items. 
The awarding of contracts in the aircraft industry often had as much to do with keeping a certain number of companies in business for future availability as it did in getting the lowest price or fasted delivery at the moment. This was used by a number of countries between the wars. 

While many economies are not really planned just a simple thing like fooling about with the "official" currency exchange rate can affect the "Free Market" on the world stage,even if it does little for domestic production/competition. Manipulating the exchange rate affects imports and exports and how much these affect the economy as a whole. 

Artificial exchange rates also make it rather hard to compare "costs" between countries.


----------



## pattle (Jul 5, 2013)

I don't know what the pound/euro tourist rate was in 1944 but it couldn't have been much worse than today.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2013)

riacrato said:


> How does what you professor acquintance say relate to Germany being a planned economy? As correctly stated there are few true free markets, not even the U.S. is or was one, even though it's probably the closest. Germany of the 1930s certainly wasn't a command or planned economy. It was much closer to a free market and in the early 40s in many ways closer to that than the UK was (which was one of the reasons for Germany's inefficiency).
> 
> Anyway, prices are a very poor measurement for costs. The use of resources, those being raw materials or manhours, is what counts.



I agree, but I also was not the one claimimg the 109 was the cheapest thing on the market. It wasnt.

Germany was not a free market economy. it was not the same economic model as the west, by any stretch of the imagination. In Germany, if you entered a tender, you didnt lose even if you lost. Germany was not run on any sort of capitalist model, more like a series of medieval fifdoms, full of corruption and innefficiency allover the place. It wasnt a command economy, but it wasnt a capitalist economy either. it was a twisted confused mess actually


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2013)

Pre-war both the German Mark and the French Franc were "pegged" low compared to American Dollar and British Pound to discourage imports and help exports. This also means that domestic raw material prices are skewed compared to world market prices and that labor costs, which are rarely equal to begin with are really out of whack. 

Saying a French fighter cost XX,XXX Francs and the exchange rate was XX Francs = YY dollars doesn't tell you a whole lot because you don't know what the actual cost of either the materials or labor would have been on an "open" world market.


----------



## cherry blossom (Jul 5, 2013)

parsifal said:


> ...snip...
> And it is clear from niehorsters OOB for Hungary, that Germany was willing to sell substantial numbers of other front line equipment to the Hungarians, but not Me109s (allegedly...but Im not buying that for a second). Ju86s, Ju87s, He111s, He170s were all eagerly sold to the Honved, but for some strange reason not the Me 109, which in the same breath is argued as "cheap as chips". In cash starved Germany, if the 109 was so cheap (and it certainly wasnt secret or classified equipment after Spain and its display at air shows allover Europe....remember also that we are not mecessarily taliking "E" here) why the hell wopuldnt they be trying to sell at least one of the earlier marks of the type to intersted nations. I would accept that they might have tried, but failed because nobody trusted the germans after 1938, but thats not the line being pedalled here. whats being shoved down our throats was that the germans simply did not want to sell the 109 to anybody, but then they were willing to sell other stuff, and also the type was the cheapest on the market. Bollocks


The problem was that the Germans could not produce enough DB 601s for their own use. Notice that all the aircraft mentioned as for sale used Junkers engines. A Bf 109 prototype, v21, was even tested with a P&W 1830.

edit: The one you said looked ...wrong - now that I remember where I had seen it.


----------



## davebender (Jul 5, 2013)

That's not exactly accurate.

1936 Germany bet on the wrong engine. Jumo 211 production was established on a massive scale while DB601 production had only a single modest size (220 engines per month) factory at Genshagen. With different production decisions one of the Jumo 211 factories could have been allocated to Daimler-Benz instead which would have given Germany plenty of both engine types by 1940.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 5, 2013)

And yet the He 111 used Daimler engines in the B series, priority of the DB engines for the 109 and 110 led to the D series with DBs being switched to the E series with Jumos. Some F's had DB engines as did most of the "j"s (early torpedo bomber) but a lot of these were the early DB 600 engines which seem to have left something to be desired. Production "P"s are coming off the line in the fall of 1938 but the chronic shortage of DB engines forces the switch to the "H" series, which despite it's letter does come after the "P".

Seems like really poor planning if they were ordering hundreds of HE 111s with DB engines in _addition to_ the 109s and 110s not to have more factory space for DB engines. Of course they might have cut Jumo production in favor of the DB 600 in 1936-37-38 but that might have presented a few problems as apparently the DB 600 engines weren't operating properly which lead to continued production of 109s with Jumo 210s, small scale production of the 110 with Jumo 210s. Around 260 JU 87s got Jumo 210s despite more than one prototype have a DB 600 engine. Why? Politics or the DB 600 series was having trouble with more than just production? 
One prototype of the He 111 series had Jumo 210s, low powered as they were, rather than the DB 600s intended for it. 

It might take a brave man to bet on the DB series of engines 1936 given their state of development.


----------



## davebender (Jul 5, 2013)

I agree.

You've got to eat the soup you cook. Late 1930s Germany began cooking up Jumo 211 engines in huge numbers. RLM should have been planning which airframes would eat those engines. Building a fighter version of the Jumo 211 engine seems like a good place to start.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 5, 2013)

cherry blossom said:


> The problem was that the Germans could not produce enough DB 601s for their own use. Notice that all the aircraft mentioned as for sale used Junkers engines. A Bf 109 prototype, v21, was even tested with a P&W 1830.
> 
> edit: The one you said looked ...wrong - now that I remember where I had seen it.




Thats a good, plausible answer, but still fails to fully explain why the Germans had such relatively minor success in foreign orders. Not even expressions of interest until after the superiority of the 109 had been fuly demonstrated in battle. Nations far preferred aircraft like the CR42 that followed a known formula...manouvre and agility. But where they did realize that the energy fighter was a good idea, they went for other types....aircraft like the hurricanere, Spitfire, P-36/H075, or MS406, and even the the Re2000 over the 109. Why was that? Shortage of engines, well maybe, except they were sellig other aircraft equipped with the DB601. Repugnance or fear of the regime, well yes, but some of the regimes lining up for equipment had more similarity to Nazism than they did to free society. Cost, well if the 109 was cheap, one would expect that the cash starved regimes of Europe would have jumped at it, despite the difficulties, but ther is no real evidence of that. The italians, a fascist, repugnant regime enjoyed far more success with the CR 42 than the germans did with any of their equipment


----------



## Civettone (Jul 5, 2013)

davebender said:


> Building a fighter version of the Jumo 211 engine seems like a good place to start.


What exactly would that Jumo 211 'fighter version' be ? 
What was it that made the Jumo 211 unsuited for a fighter aircraft, while the Jumo 210 was the standard fighter engine? 
Was it merely a bigger weight, compared to the DB 600? Or was there more?

Kris


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 6, 2013)

The Jumo 211 had the pressurized cooling system only with the "E" version, in 1940. An engine with an atmosferic pressure cooling system is handicapped at high altitude, where the boiling point decreases. To not boil the water it has to have a bigger, and draggier, radiator.
Daimler offered the 601 for licence production at the end of 1938. A year and half before the Jumo 211 became suited for fighters.


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2013)

How about the supercharger? Was Jumo 211B supercharger and coupling as good as DB601A?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 7, 2013)

The suoercharger system was significantly different, 2 speed supercharger for the 211, vs. hydraulicaly coupled supercharger for the DB-601. The 601A has advantage in power between 2500-4500 m (the 'dent' in power curve is almost non-existing, vs. the notable 'dent' seen in Jumo 211B power curve, between two full throttle heights). The power above 5 km is as good identical, as is under 2000m. At 3500m, the 601A has 70 more HP, on 30 min power setting.
Another advantage is that 601A was cleared for 5 min power rating (further 50 to 70 PS advantage, under 4000 m), that Jumo 211 lacks. 



Dogwalker said:


> The Jumo 211 had the pressurized cooling system only with the "E" version, in 1940. An engine with an atmosferic pressure cooling system is handicapped at high altitude, where the boiling point decreases. To not boil the water it has to have a bigger, and draggier, radiator.
> Daimler offered the 601 for licence production at the end of 1938. A year and half before the Jumo 211 became suited for fighters.



The DB-601E got the pressurised cooling system, ie. we talk about 1941. According to the German Wikipedia:



> DB 601 E – größere Überarbeitung des DB 601, Druckwasserkühlung für höhere Betriebstemperaturen, bis 1350 PS Startleistung



So if Jumo was not suited for fighters from day one (no pressure cooling), the same logic applies for DB-601N and earlier.


----------



## davebender (Jul 7, 2013)

> The 601A has advantage in power between 2500-4500 m (the 'dent' in power curve is almost non-existing, vs. the notable 'dent' seen in Jumo 211B power curve, between two full throttle heights). The power above 5 km is as good identical, as is under 2000m. At 3500m, the 601A has 70 more HP, on 30 min power setting


.
It appears to me DB601A advantage over Jumo 211B was relatively small. So why didn't Jumo 211B get installed in some fighter aircraft? If nothing else Jumo 211 fighter engine could have been sold to friendly nations such as Sweden, Hungary and Italy. This would give Junkers a reason to continue fighter engine development, increasing the possibility for future installation in Luftwaffe fighter aircraft.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 7, 2013)

what was the weight of the Junkers engine compared to the DB engine?


----------



## riacrato (Jul 8, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Nations far preferred aircraft like the CR42 that followed a known formula...manouvre and agility. But where they did realize that the energy fighter was a good idea, they went for other types....aircraft like the hurricanere, Spitfire, P-36/H075, or MS406, and even the the Re2000 over the 109. Why was that?


There needs to be more light shed on this: To assess whether the other nations really "preferred" fighters like the CR42, it'd be important if the 109 was even in the run and under what circumstances. AFAIK post selection by the RLM, it was pretty much out of scope for any exports. Reasonable, since Germany was under pressure to build up it's own modern fighter force, most other nations having atm more modern fighters in their stables.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 8, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> So if Jumo was not suited for fighters from day one (no pressure cooling), the same logic applies for DB-601N and earlier.



I dont know for the Jumo engine, but the early 601A had 0,75 atü pressure cooling.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 8, 2013)

The Dutch have been trying to buy Spitfires, Hurricanes and Bf109's form 1938 until the war. Most countries, including Germany refused to sell them. The Hurricane and the He112 were the only ones available. Then the retriction on export of engines even stopped that from happening. So if you guys are asking why the Germans and British did not export more Bf109's and Spitfires before the war, this might be your answer.


----------



## pattle (Jul 8, 2013)

I don't think it was so much about the arms trade in the run up to the war. Private companies such as Vickers Supermarine or Hawker would have been interested in making as much money as possible from their designs but there was obviously a realisation in Britain and France that they would be needing all the fighters they could get and this is why both countries were looking to import fighters rather than export them. The major powers did however use arms sales to make friends and influence people for example Yugoslavia was license building both Hurricanes and Blenheims. As for Germany I think it was pretty much the same story, the Germans may have been able to spare a few aircraft here and there for political reasons but really they had their own plans for them and they were never going to deprive the Luftwaffe of 100's of Me109's just to give them to Hungary.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2013)

In a number of cases the foreign sales were not for cash but trades for raw materials. Without the raw materials total production of war items would have been lower than keeping the exported aircraft.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 8, 2013)

Marcel said:


> The Dutch have been trying to buy Spitfires, Hurricanes and Bf109's form 1938 until the war. Most countries, including Germany refused to sell them. The Hurricane and the He112 were the only ones available. Then the retriction on export of engines even stopped that from happening. So if you guys are asking why the Germans and British did not export more Bf109's and Spitfires before the war, this might be your answer.



And it cant be a political decision - the Germans had no problems helping out the Dutch in building subs and battleships based on the Type VII and Scharnhorst class IIRC.

Usually the aircraft sold seems to be in the class of "also run..." - i.e. the loosers of national fighter etc. tenders. Re 2000 was such, He 100/112 was such, Do 215 etc., the Hurricane is somewhat of an exception, it was seen as an interim solution also..


----------



## Marcel (Jul 8, 2013)

It was a political decision in the way that the germans knew they needed them themselves badly enough. 
But what battleships are you talking about?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2013)

There were a few (2?) battle cruisers planned in the late 30s to help defend the Dutch East Indies against the Japanese. The idea being that a BC with nine 11in guns would offset the more numerous Japanese 8in cruisers. I don't think they were ever laid down. 

See Wiki: Design 1047 battlecruiser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note this sentence. "Germany and the Netherlands were eventually able to reach an agreement where Germany would release plans and drawings based upon their ideas for a battlecruiser, in return for a guarantee that all needed equipment would be ordered from German firms".

There were only 5 countries in the world that had the design experience/capability to design such a ship (not including the Japanese) so the Germans already had a 20% chance of being talked to.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 8, 2013)

Ah thanks to the both of you, this is new to me. I never really studied the navy. I'm suprised the ministery agreed with this though. 
But to come back to tante Ju's statement about political or not. Gotto agree with him. The bf109 was not available for sale as the Germans needed the themselves. But they offered the advanced version of the He112 with DB601 engine. On paper a very potent fighter, believed to be on par with the bf109E at that time.


----------



## davebender (Jul 8, 2013)

Production of modern German fighter aircraft and engines started from scratch during 1936. They had nothing to sell prior to 1940.

By 1940 Jumo 211 production was 400 engine per month and climbing like a rocket, passing 1,600 engines per month by mid 1942. Perhaps nobody wants their fighter powered by Jumo 211B but 1,340hp Jumo 211F entered service during 1941. Why wouldn't that engine work in Hungarian built He-112B or Italian built Mc.202?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 8, 2013)

There is really no issue to use the Jumo 211 engines in a fighter. 
The main problem was that Germany was not UK, neither USA. They rarely tried to make the best most of their allies, and their production capability ramped up just in time they lost most of the allies (with Japan being too far away to matter for Germany). The Axis powers rarely informed each another, and rearely talked about strategy, tactics and technology, and that was one reason for their demise.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2013)

davebender said:


> Production of modern German fighter aircraft and engines started from scratch during 1936. They had nothing to sell prior to 1940.



Complete and utter nonsense. 

The Germans did _NOT_ start from scratch in 1936. First pre-production He 51 flew in May 1933. The Arado 65 was just a bit earlier. While the Arado 68 entered service in 1936 the Prototype had flown in 1934, Most Arado 68s used Jumo 210 engines. 

Bulgaria got about 1 dozen Arado 65s and about a dozen He 51s. These types were also the mainstay at the start of the Spanish Civil war with first victories being scored in Aug 1936. 

German had also produced hundreds of bombers by 1936 in addition of hundreds of fighters. 

Granted the JU-86 bomber was not sold in large numbers but it was sold to Austria, Bolivia, Chile, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, South Africa and Sweden. 

Germany in no way, shape or form was starting from scratch in 1936.


----------



## davebender (Jul 8, 2013)

I agree.

Romanian military was mostly hopeless and Italy wasn't much better. However Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland and Don Cossacks fought just fine when properly equipped. Some Ukrainian militia units too. Potentially that adds up to anti-communist forces larger then German Wehrmacht. When Hungary expressed interest in producing He-112B Germany should have bent over backward to make that effort succeed on a large scale and they have nothing to lose by selling Jumo 211 engines to Italy. 

Every Soviet aircraft shot down by Hungarian built He-112s is one less JG52 must contend with. Every British aircraft shot down by Jumo 211 powered Italian fighter aircraft is one less JG27 must contend with.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 9, 2013)

davebender said:


> Perhaps nobody wants their fighter powered by Jumo 211B but 1,340hp Jumo 211F entered service during 1941. Why wouldn't that engine work in Hungarian built He-112B or Italian built Mc.202?


If the engine entered in service for the Germans in mid 1941, when a reengined C.202 could have been in production? Mid '42? DB605 engined C.205 flown in april 1942, and the agreement for the licence production of the engine was already made at that time.
Certanly the Reggiane, whose production of Re.2001 was really suffering from lack of engines, would have been very happy to have a couple of hundred engines per month by the end of '41, whatever they were. But between Italian and German armies there never was such level of integration. The purchases of anything were limited to a few dozens of samples.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 9, 2013)

Remember that 8 Jumo 211Da engined JIS79 (twin engined version of the SM79) were built in Italy for Romania in 1940, further 36 JRS79B, with the same engine, were lience built in Romania in 1941-42, and then 36 Jumo 211F engined JRS79B1 in 1942-43.
So it was possible to purchase the engine, but Romania could pay in oil, and even then, it was not to be so easy to obtain the engines, if one of them had to be removed from a JRS79B1, in 1942, to be then mounted on the prototype of the Jumo211 engined IAR-80 (that flew only once).


----------



## Tante Ju (Jul 9, 2013)

Oh jesus thats a fugly plane


----------



## parsifal (Jul 9, 2013)

I kinda like the way it looks. it kinda grows on you.....


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I kinda like the way it looks. it kinda grows on you.....



So does fungus


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 9, 2013)

The original was a neat aircraft, but the inline conversion was not fortunate.
It's worth to say that the Rumanians tried it only after the Germans did not concede the production licence of the BMW 801. Even obtaining the production licences could be not so easy.


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Jul 9, 2013)

Having read only the 1st two pages...
From books and articles I've read the main drawback Italy's aviation had to make with, was the lack of modernism from its industrial production tool. 
State and big capitalism united may well have sponsored big Fiat and likewise compounds in patriotic fashion, these kept on employing more and more workers, fattening their premises too, but they forgot to modernise their factories and production methods. 
So, artisanal or 'mass-artisanal' is all they got to. And besides fine ingeneering and fine workmanship as well they failed to meet the stressed-metal skinning _standard _industrial output, for instance, or simply the bare efficiency of Fordism applied to aviation.
The one glaring exception being the Reggiane company, which silmply bought an 'off the shelf' complete American production line of the latest standards, sometime in the 30's at which time these were world beaters by far.
But that was only Reggiane...

To add one word we in France were quite 'in between' in this respect, with ambitious and modernist programms - industrially wise - like those set up for the Potez 631 twin medium-light fighter (quite fine) and its (slugish) all-in-one observation light bombardment 'command' Potez 63-11 variant, nice-looking although as it was, too.
I think the main medium bomber Léo-45 also benefited from far sighted_ industrial_ investments, or at least simply modern in a truely late 30's spirit.
The opposite to this was certainly the Morane 406 production 'line', utterly expensive and artisanal with its ivory bowls for gas-handlers, and very longish and wastful production times. However, when actually finished _and working_ the thing was not a bad fighter's mount... better than the Anglo-saxon legend has it ; but was humiliated by the Db601-Bf109E combination, both ways.


----------



## davebender (Jul 9, 2013)

> If the engine entered in service for the Germans in mid 1941, when a reengined C.202 could have been in production?


C.202 prototype first flight was August 1940. 

If Italy intends this aircraft to be powered by Jumo 211 engine then it would be designed that way from the beginning. Prototypes would be powered by Jumo 211B. Production aircraft enter service during 1941 powered by Jumo 211F. By mid 1941 Germany was awash in Jumo 211 engines so Italy can have as many as they can pay or barter for.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 9, 2013)

davebender said:


> C.202 prototype first flight was August 1940.


Daimler offered the licence for the DB601 in dec. 1938, and the contract was signed in late 1939. At that time the Regia Aeronautica requested to Reggiane and Macchi the prototypes of the related fighters.
The only way the C.202 could have been powered with a Jumo 2011 is that Junkers offered the production licence of a comparable engine first than DB (so in mid '38 ), or that it offered several thousands of dirth cheap engines and spare part first than the contract was signed (so in mid '39, since at that time the war already begun for Germany and not for Italy, it seems unlikely). 

Another thing is to offer the engine, in 1941, for aircraft that cannot be supplied by Alfa Romeo, due to it's limited production capability, as Reggiane and Caproni-Vizzola. But, as the Romanian example shows, it does not seems that the Germans were willing to cede thousands, or merely hundreds, of engines to someone.


----------



## davebender (Jul 9, 2013)

Junkers would be offering to sell German made Jumo 211 engines to Italian aircraft manufacturers. A much simpler arrangement then building and tooling up an Italian factory to produce DB601 engines.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 9, 2013)

It's simple, but not so convenient. Production licence had advantages. 
If you produce the engines, there will not be stoppages in engines and spare part supply, even in case of political changes. If you depend on someone else for your supplies, their needs come first, especially in war.
Know how acquisition.

For that reason, once DB offered the production licence, Junkers could revert de decision only offering the engines really dirth cheap.

Moreover, Junkers could not offer the engines directly to aircraft manufacturers. The supply of the engines (along with propellers, weapons and some other equipements) to the manufacturers, for its own aircrafts, was up to the Regia Aeronautica.


----------



## davebender (Jul 9, 2013)

Junkers wouldn't care who writes the check for Italian engine purchases just as long as it doesn't bounce.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2013)

I am just wondering _where_ all these hundreds of _extra_ Jumo 211s are coming from? 

Especially in 1941. Far from being "awash" in extra engines it seems it took until the middle of 1941 to reach 1000 engines a month. If the Germans are building 300 twin engine bombers per month ( JU-88s and He 111 combined) that is 600 engines per month just for new construction, plus JU-87 production. The Americans and British usually figured and extra 30- 50% for spare engines ( The American provision of only about 20% spares for the Merlin powered P-40s turned into a fiasco). This means that 1000 engines per month is just about sufficient for Germany's own needs. Pre-war planning (or promises) called for 300 Ju-88s per month alone. 
German engines were usually NOT rated for as long between overhauls as Western allied engines which would call for an even higher percentage of spares. What they got in the field may be a different matter (better or worse, I don't know) but if some German engines were _rated_at 110 hours before overhaul that is what you plan your spare engine needs on.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 10, 2013)

l'Omnivore Sobriquet said:


> The one glaring exception being the Reggiane company, which silmply bought an 'off the shelf' complete American production line of the latest standards, sometime in the 30's at which time these were world beaters by far.


Maybe, and the more "industrial" mentality is evident in aircraft design (for example, the ribs of the wings of the Reggiane fighters are stamped parts, those of the Macchi are welded) but that seems not having affected the costs per aircraft.
A Reggiane 2001 costs to the Regia Aeronautica 520.000 Liras (without the engine, and the other parts supplied directly by the Regia)
A Macchi C.202, 510.000 Liras (same as above).

Altough being more high craftsmanship than industrial production, the real beater in this respect was the SAI 207, with 300.000 Liras only (less than a G.50, 390.000 Liras).


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Jul 10, 2013)

Interesting all this.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 11, 2013)

It's interesting that all the elements to build a SAI 207 were already present in 1938-1939 (The Isotta Fraschini Delta III engine, the Breda Safat MGs, the Airfoil, even the basic structure), so, in theory, a SAI 207 could have competed with the C.200 and G.50 in the trials for the first generation monoplane fighter (infact the SAI 7 racer, that's the 90% of a SAI 207, competed in summer1939 in several races). Its advantage in prestations would have been so big that it could even sacrifice a little (i.e. a max speed of 560 km/h instead of 580 km/h) for a larger wing, and therefore better maneuverability at height; it has a bigger range than it's opponents (1000 km); It costs less (300.000 Liras vs 390.000 for the G.50 and 400.000 for the C.200), and (altough the production 207s were armed with only the cowling mounted MGs) it was designed from the start to accept a couple of wing mounted MGs or cannons (in the original blueprints there were the holes in the wing spar to accomodate them, and infact a prototype was armed with a couple of MG151-20 without problems).
Maybe the ideal 1939/40 Italian fighter is a wooden one.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 11, 2013)

The SAI.207 had some structural problems. 

I don't think it was suited as a fighter aircraft. I believe the project only matured with the design of the SAI.403.

And as to the Reggiane, also the number of manhours for the Re.2005 was in the same league as the standardized C.205. Only the Fiat G.55 was much easier to build. I believe this aspect is the sole reason why the Luftwaffe was thinking of licence producing the G.55 and not the Re.2005. Luftwaffe test reports show that the Re.2005 rolled better than the G.55 but was a bit less manoeuvrable. All in all, they were quite similar in performance. Yet, the test pilots only mentioned the G.55 could easily have taken a DB 603. 

Kris


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 11, 2013)

It does not seems to me that the 207 showed noteworty structural problems, both during the tests that in the operational use. The aircraft was tested in dives over 900 kph (since at that time the Regia Aeronautica requested a dive speed 1.5 times superior to the max. projected orizontal speed for fighters) without any problem at all, while even the C.202 was not completely safe at that speed. In 1939-40 it would have been considered outstanding robust.


The G55 had a slightly larger wing, an heavier ammo load, and was free from the start from the aeroelastic problems that had to be corrected during the assembly of the Re.2005 preproduction aircrafts. Probably the Germans considered it more "ready" to be mass produced.


----------



## davebender (Jul 11, 2013)

So could the Fw-190, Ju-88 and many other aircraft types. 

It's pointless for Italy to ask for DB603 engines when RLM cancelled program funding 1937 to 1940. There aren't any to be had.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 11, 2013)

davebender said:


> It's pointless for Italy to ask for DB603 engines


?
After the armistice, they not even really want them. Protect the Reich was not really the first concern of Italian designers, who simply spended the rest of the war designing prototypes that they knew would have never put in production before the end of it.
But first than that, the licence production of DB603 was scheduled to start at Alfa Romeo plants (which, in 1943, would have finished the order of Ra.1000) with 2000 engines already ordered, it had to equip, other than the G.56, the Re.2006 and the C.207. The request of the Regia Aeronautica for two prototypes of Re.2006 (MM.540 and MM.541) was of May 1943, that for two two prototypes of G.56 (MM.536 and MM.537) was of July 1943. At that time there was no doubt that there would be the engines for the aircraft chosen for the mass production.


----------



## davebender (Jul 12, 2013)

It's safe to say DB603 production would be more difficult for Italy then DB601 production. How many DB601/DB605 engines were produced in Italy and what sort of technical problems were encountered?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 13, 2013)

About 2380 Ra.1000 and 5120 Ra.1050. There were difficulties at the Alfa Romeo for the tooling of the Ra.1000 (the licence was acquired in dec.1939, but the production started only in mid 1941), as Alfa Romeo did not build big inlines until then, and several tecnologies were totally new (direct ignition, oil driven compressor...) but much less for Fiat, as the base tecnology, at that point, was well known (for example, both the Alfa Romeo Ra.1101 and the Reggiane Re.103 prototypes had the direct injection).


----------



## davebender (Jul 13, 2013)

Nothing wrong with those engines provided quality control is maintained.

1940 Italy cannot afford to shoot for the moon, err DB603. I would stick with the reliable 1,350hp DB601E variant and build them like hot rolls. An Italian fighter aircraft powered by this engine which has performance similar to Me-109F4 would hold it's own right up to the end of the war. The same engine could possibly be used in other types of Italian aircraft. 

Large scale production and quality control are key to Italian success. Those goals cannot be achieved by chasing after more powerful cutting edge engines which even Germany was struggling to perfect.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> 1940 Italy


But *none* speaked about DB603 in 1940 Italy. 
The OT obout the DB603 started speaking about the different tecnologies employed in the Reggiane plant and about the differencies from G.55 and Re.2005, that were aircrafts than the Luftwaffe tested in nov. 1942 and feb. 1943. 
It's obvious that an eventual production of licence produced DB603 cannot start until 1944, and no Italian aircraft will need it until then. The G.56 made it's first flight in mar. 1944. Given that it's developement was halted for three months after the armistice, we can say that, without it, it could have been flown in dec.1943, and, given that it was only a reengineering of an existing aircraft (on the contrary, the Re.2006 was a new project) and that the two prototypes didn't show any problems, it's mass production could have started from mid to late '44.


----------



## davebender (Jul 13, 2013)

Macchi MC.202 Folgore


> limited manufacture of this engine which restricted the number of MC.202's to a total of about 1,500 when production ended in 1943


It appears to me 1940 Italy already has everything necessary for a successful fighter aircraft. Just give Mc.202 program additional resources.
.....Production goal of at least 200 Mc.202 airframes per month. Plus adequate engine production.
.....Introduce DB601E engine when available. Standardize on that engine rather then continuing evolution with DB605 series.
.....Introduce hub cannon similar to Me-109F.

Continue refinement of Mc.202 airframe and DB601E engine based on production and operational experience. But no changes that will hinder production rate or aircraft reliability.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 13, 2013)

The C.202 prototype flown for the first time in aug. 1940. With the licence of DB601 obtained in dec. 1939, the C.202, or any other DB601 engined aircraft, was not mass producible until 1941, unless the Germans, in early to mid 1939, guaranteed massive supplies of engines for the year 1940. Given the needs of aero engines they had themsemlves, this is higly unlikely.

It's sure, and I said it many times, that the limited production capacity of Alfa Romeo hampered the production of the fighters of the Intermediate Series. It's sufficient to see that, when Fiat started the production, it more than doubled the Alfa Romeo figures in a much more difficult environment. But these considerations are valid, in any case, for the years 1941-1942.


----------



## davebender (Jul 13, 2013)

What's wrong with that? 

Me-109 fighter aircraft production didn't average 200 per month until 1941. If Italy accomplishes similar production with Mc.202 they will be in good company.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 13, 2013)

Sure, and surely a C.202 with a DB601E and a central cannon would have been an very good fighter (although, even as it was, it must be given credit to the designers who, at the first attempt with an in-line engine, and the second with a metal monoplane fighter, got a result in the same league of the sixth iteration of the Bf109). But, to me, the topic was more about the fighter Italy could have had at the start of the war, that, for it, was in june 1940.
Obviously a fighter that could have been put in production first than june 1940, should have been able to fly for the first time in summer 1939 at the latest (and only assuming that the prototype was almost perfect), and then the engine must have been at least existing before that date (because the plane must be designed first to be built), and predicted to be fully available for 1940.


----------



## davebender (Jul 13, 2013)

During June 1940 Italy would have what they had historically. It's a matter of development cycles. 1940 would be final year before Mc.202 and DB601 engine enter Italian service. 

If Italy wants to wait for their new fighter aircraft then they will remain neutral until Operation Barbarossa. Which might be a good thing for both Italy and Germany as the initial invasion force could be quite a bit larger.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> During June 1940 Italy would have what they had historically. It's a matter of development cycles.


It's not. What has been done is not necessarily what could have been done. There are many ways to build a plane, and an air force, with what was available in 1939, also in 1939. 



davebender said:


> If Italy wants to wait for their new fighter aircraft then they will remain neutral until Operation Barbarossa.


In june '41 Italy would have been at war from a year as it historically was. It's a matter of political cycles.
It's easy to make objection this way.
The topic requires hypothesis.


----------



## davebender (Jul 13, 2013)

What's wrong with historical Mc.200 fighter aircraft? It compares well with many pre-1941 fighter aircraft such as Soviet I-16, American P-36 and British Hurricane. During 1941 it morphs into the superior Mc.202.


----------



## pattle (Jul 14, 2013)

davebender said:


> What's wrong with historical Mc.200 fighter aircraft? It compares well with many pre-1941 fighter aircraft such as Soviet I-16, American P-36 and British Hurricane. During 1941 it morphs into the superior Mc.202.


The Macchi 2000 and Hurricane Mk1 are quite evenly matched in a lot of respects but in practice the Hurricane normally beat the Macchi. Whether this was because of the areas in which the Hurricane was better than Macchi or down to the RAF pilots being more aggressive than the Italians I am not entirely sure. I personally feel the Italian pilots may have lacked confidence in this machine because overall the gap between the Macchi and Hurricane was wide enough to give the RAF the edge. If you read the accounts of when these two types met over Greece in 1941 there was a clear pattern as to how things turned out.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 14, 2013)

davebender said:


> What's wrong with historical Mc.200 fighter aircraft?


There must necessarily be something wrong? The question was about an "ideal" fighter, and may be made even if the C.200 had nothing particularly wrong. 
The C.200 and the G.50 flew for the first time in 1937. Close to the first flew of the Hurricane. 
Probably in 1937 it was not possible to made something better (it was the "development cycle"), but, as for the Hurricane, in 1939 to make something better was possible. There was much more experience in designing monoplane fighters. It was not a question of developement cycle if the Caproni Vizzola F4 was stopped. if Stefanutti (the same that corrected the errors in the wing of the C.200), to design a fighter, focused on a complex projec as the SS4, instead on a much simpler one as the S7 (that designed at the same time as a racer). If the SS4 crashed at the second fly. Or if Piaggio, wanting to propose a fighter whit the P.XII (that at the same time was running on the bench), in march 1939, to bypass the aversion of the Regia Aeronautica for the use of big engines on fighters, proposed an overcomplicated aircraft as the P.119, that would have taken several years for the development, instead of a classic design that could have flown in six months. 
All have had times when things went well, and times when things went wrong, for errors or bad luck. It 'a legitimate question to ask "what would happen if something went differently"?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 14, 2013)

pattle said:


> If you read the accounts of when these two types met over Greece in 1941...



This is an, altough incomplete, account (in italian) of the aerial operation over Greece from the late 1940 (Giulio Gobbi, "La Campagna di Grecia 1940/41").

"...I pochi bombardieri Greci non fecero molto, vista anche la scarsità di forze ma trovarono il coraggio di spingersi anche fino a Bari, subendo perdite. Arrivarono su Valona anche degli ospiti inattesi, 6 Vickers Wellington della RAF, attaccarono di giorno e senza scorta, intercettati dai G50, persero però quattro aerei, due abbattuti e due costretti all'atterraggio. Dalla parte dei Greci era arrivata la RAF, che con grande disappunto di Wavell, impegnato in Libia contro Graziani, dovette cedere al fronte Greco il 33° Squadron da caccia su Gloster Gladiator ed il 30° Bomber Squadron su Bristol Blenheim. Alla fine del mese giunsero in Grecia anche i Blenheim dell' 84° e del 211 Squadron e i Gladiator dell'80° e del 112°.
Le condizioni meteo diventavano sempre piu' inclementi, all'inizio di Dicembre i pochi SM81 rimasti vennero finalmente trasferiti a Lecce, e vennero convertiti in trasporti per cercare di alleviare la situazione rifornimenti che stava diventando drammatica, gli altri aerei vennero o ritrasferiti sugli aereoporti pugliesi o concentrati nei campi di volo Albanesi di Berati, Devoli, Argirocastro e Tirana, mentre in Puglia arrivavano 23 Macchi MC200 della 373° e 374° direttamente dal Veneto a Bari, 27 SM 79 del 42° Stormo a Grottaglie e a Lecce 14 JU87B del 97° grippo tuffatori, a Foggia 8 MC 200 della 370°. Il 95° Stormo veniva trasformato in reparto terrestre abbandonando i suoi CANT Z506 per i CANT Z1007, mentre venivano traferiti in Libia 12 SM79 e 21 Fiat G50.
Il primo scontro diretto fra la Regia e la RAF si ebbe il 19 Novembre, quando 20 Gladiator dell'80°Sqd. attaccarono 5 Fiat CR42 abbattendone 4. Il 27 Novembre altri 7 Gladiator attaccavano 3 CR42 abbattentendo uno, il giorno dopo, altro duello con quattro Gladiator abbattuti contro 3 CR42. I combattimenti che avvennero fino alla fine del mese erano piuttosto violenti, con anche 20 o 30 caccia per parte, prima della forzata pausa di Dicembre. 
...
A febbraio del 1941 con un miglioramento del tempo, ricominciarono i duelli fra RAF e Regia, il 9, 24 CR42 di scorta ad alcuni BR20, si scontravano con una formazione mista di Gladiator e PZL, entrambe le parti persero due caccia. Il 13 Febbraio, 12 Blenheim in missione si Tepeleni. venivano attaccati da 12 G50 subendo cinque perdite. Il 20 Febbraio arrivano anche i primi Hurricane, il 27 la caccia Italiana non riusciva ad impedire il bombardamento del porto di Valona. Agli inizi di Marzo gli SM81 del 38° Stormo lasciavano il posto ai BR20 e i CR42 del 150° Gruppo ai MC200, arrivavno altri 12 JU87B e a Valona 32 Macchi MC200 e 8 Ro37. IL 4 marzo, 11 CR42 attaccavano una formazione di Blenheim protetti dagli Hurricane, nello scontro furono perduti due caccia italiani e uno inglese. Fra il 9 ed il 14 le perdite furono di 2 MC200, un Gladiator ed un Hurricane Il 16 gli inglesi perdevano 2 Wellington su Tirana, mentre i nostri caccia erano sempre piu' impegnati in missioni a bassa quota, il 22 marzo veniva attaccato di sorpresa l'aereoporto Greco di Paramythia, vennero distrutti al suolo due Blenheim ed un Wellington. In vista dell'intervento verso la Jugoslavia, il 2 aprile arrivano a Tirana altri 9 Ju87B della 208° Squadriglia, 9 Caproni CA311 della 87 Squadriglia osservazione aerea e in ugual numero i RO37 della 35°.
Il 6 Aprile iniziava l'intervento Tedesco nei Balcani, il VIII FliegerKorps della Luftflotte 4 fu mobilitato in Bulgaria per attaccare la Grecia e la Jugoslavia, c'erano gli JU87B del I e III StG, i caccia Messerschmitt ME 109E del II e III Jg27 e i ME 110C del II/ZG26, i ricognitori HS126 e Storch del I(H)/4, i trasporti JU52 del IV/KGzbVI. Erano pronte altre unità in Austria, Ungheria e in Sicilia. La scarna aviazione Jugoslava venne fatta letteralmente a pezzi in 48 ore, alla Grecia non andò meglio, complice anche un colpo fortunato su una nave carica di 250 tonnellate di esplosivo, uno JU87 devastò il porto di Atene affondando 10 navi con una sola bomba, il 9 Aprile i tedeschi erano a Salonicco e dopo altri 5 giorni, l'aviazione Greca aveva cessato di esistere, il 113° Squadron della RAF veniva annientato a terra, stessa sorte toccò ad altri aereoporti inglesi, alla sera del 14 la RAF contava solo 35 aerei in grado di volare, le perdite tredesche erano di soli due caccia! Il 6 Aprile i CANT Z1007 avevano attaccato il porto di Mostar in Jugoslavia perdendo un aereo e abbattendone due, su Spalato venne perso uno JU87B. Il 13 Aprile 300 fra caccia e bombardieri della Regia si avventavano su Mostar e sull'arsenale del Cattaro, perdendo solo uno JU87B. Il 26 la perdita degli ultimi 13 Hurricane a causa di un attacco al suolo portato da alcuni ME110, faceva cessare di esistere la RAF in Grecia, il giorno dopo veniva firmato l'armistizio."


----------



## pattle (Jul 14, 2013)

Sorry Dogwalker I can't read Italian so I am unable to understand what was being said in your last post. From what I have read the RAF believed the MC200 to be a marked improvement over the Fiat G50 and CR42 that it earlier faced over Greece, but it was believed that the Hurricane enjoyed a 4-1 advantage over the MC200 in a dogfight. While the Mc200 was believed to be more agile and better in the climb than the Hurricane, it was said that the MC200 was at a definite disadvantage to the Hurricane because of its poor armament and also because of it's lack of armour to protect the pilot. The MC200 had a lot of potential and was able to be developed into a much better aircraft than the Hurricane. If the Italians had of been able to get their hands on a better DB engine the MC200 would have been a much faster aircraft but maybe it took battle experience against Hurricanes to learn that better armour and armament was vitally needed.
A very good book on this subject is The Air War over Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete 1940-1941, the writers have used records from all sides involved and quote actual reported losses as well as claims made.


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2013)

An aircraft shouldn't need replacement two years after prototype first flight. If you do that then nothing remains in production long enough to optimize the production process. Italy could end up with nothing but prototypes and no mass produced fighter aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2013)

It depends on how fast the state of the art is progressing. Hawker Hurricane first flew at the end of 1935. 

"Even before the new Hurricane was rolling off the production lines in March 1937, Sydney Camm had moved on to designing its replacement"

"In March 1938, Hawker received from the Air Ministry Specification F.18/37. F.18/37 asked for a fighter which would be able to achieve at least 400 mph (644 km/h) at 15,000 feet (4,600 m) and specified a British engine with a two-speed supercharger."

If you optimize your production process for a low performing aircraft you are depending on your opponent to run out of ammo before you run out of cheap planes and pilots. 

At the time in question it was very common for initial design work to start on a fighter's replacement some time between the Prototype's first flight and and the plane going _into_ squadron service. 

"The Mitsubishi A5M fighter was just entering service in early 1937, when the Imperial Japanese Navy started looking for its eventual replacement"


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2013)

That wouldn't be the case as Mc.200 evolves into the superior Mc.202. Macchi will need some retooling during 1941 but it's not a completely different aircraft. Rather like Fw-190A evolving into Fw-190D9.


----------



## pattle (Jul 14, 2013)

Syndney Camm said after the war that if he had time he would have built a world beater, but instead he built the Hurricane because there wasn't the time, the Hurricane was a bit old fashioned but it would do. The Macchi 200 was more modern but was built before they had an engine for it which made it look pants, A bit like Fords building the Probe and putting old fashioned 8 valve engine in it.


----------



## CobberKane (Jul 14, 2013)

I wonder if there was a prewar Italian policy of designing fighters with airframes capable of accommodating more advanced engines than were available at the time. The Re.2000, MC.200 and G.50 all proved capable of being re-engined to produce good mid to late war fighters - more so than did contemporary allied designs like the Hurricane or P40, even though those were designed around higher output powerplants. The Italians must have realised engines were their weak point.


----------



## davebender (Jul 14, 2013)

A relatively modern 31 liter twin radial engine. Why can't it be developed to produce a bit more power? Mc.200 fighter was pretty light. Should have decent performance with 1,100hp.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2013)

The Fiat A.74 compares rather well to the early P W R-1830 engines when they were running on 87 octane fuel. The Fiat was a bit larger but ran at around the same speed, it used the same compression ratio and was usually fitted with a bit higher supercharger ( not so much in pressure as in rated altitude, most early R-1830 having a rated altitude of 2000 meters or less). They also weighed about the same, between 1200-1300lbs. 
Using the same fuel and compression ratio you are limited to the boost you can use and so the only route to higher power is more rpm, P&W took that route and bumped the max RPM of the R-1830 from 2550 rpm to 2700rpm. The engine also gained about 100lbs or more at the same time. That 'minor' 150rpm 'bump' increased the stress on the reciprocating parts, crankshaft and crankcase by about 12%.
P&W R-1830s running on 87 octane at 2700rpm could make 1050hp for take off. Some where in here P W apparently fitted a completely new supercharger to the R-1830. The supercharger gear ratio drops from either 10:1, 11:1 or 12:1 (all were used) to 7.15:1 while altitude performance increases. 
However weight is now 1433lbs ( or more). The jump to 1100-1200hp needs 91-100 octane fuel. Especially at altitude where the extra heat of compressing the air really affects the detonation limit. 

Fiat, stuck with 87 octane fuel, has limited options. Redesigning for higher RPM may mean no, some, or all new reciprocating parts, new crankshaft and perhaps new/modified crankcase. There may (or may not) be bearing problems. P&W pioneered silver alloy bearings.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 15, 2013)

davebender said:


> An aircraft shouldn't need replacement two years after prototype first flight.


Is a medical prescription? The topic is about "1939/40 ideal italian fighter", so nothing is required other than an aircraft that could have been put in production in 1940 at the latest. The fact that an aircraft called "C.200" was put in production, or that has ever existed for that matter, isn't necessary in this hypothetical case.

However, the C.205 flown for the first time less than two years after the first flight of the C.202, whose prototype was requested at the same time the C.200 was chosen for the production. The same commission that choosed the first generation Italian fighters, in it's final report, recommended to swich to inlines asap, so reverting the precedent seven years of Regia Aeronautica policy (probably even too abruptly, if a firm "radialist" as Longhi, that probably would have gladly continued to evolve the Re.2000 with more and more powerful radials, had to go to with inlines in the Re.2001). It seems that they believed that the political decision of the years before, had led to the adoption of less than ideal aircrafts.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 15, 2013)

pattle said:


> Sorry Dogwalker I can't read Italian so I am unable to understand what was being said in your last post.


The C.200 came in Albania only in march 1941, and saw little action, since there were far more G.50 and CR.42. The report tells of only two aircraft lost, in excange of a Hurricane and a Gladiator. Maybe it's not complete, but it gives an idea.
The clashes over Malta could be more telling. I believe they gives to the Hurricane an advantage of about 2/1, but it have to be taken into account that the situation over Malta was similar to that of the BoB. A badly damaged Hurricane could land on Malta's airfields, a badly damaged C.200 had only the sea.
All considered, the Hurricane had probably an edge over the C.200, but the outcome was not so fixed.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 15, 2013)

davebender said:


> A relatively modern 31 liter twin radial engine. Why can't it be developed to produce a bit more power?


It was. It's intended developement was the A.76, whose prestations were comparable to the latest 87octane fuelled versions of the R-1830 (R-1830-SC3-G).
It was phased out in june 1940, as, having the licence of the DB601, a slightly less powerful radial was no more considered attractive for fighters.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 15, 2013)

I was reading this book by Piero Baroni, Spigolature di Guerra. He goes on and on about the stall problems (autorotazione) the G.50 and C.200 had. It seems this delayed the operational use of these fighters by some months.
According to Wiki, ir. Stefanutti (from SIAI) found a solution to the problem by looking at the research done for the wing profile of the Bf 109.

If we are thinking of imagining the ideal fighter for 1939/1940, we might need to take this delay into account...

Be that as it may, I believe the best option would be to go for the Caproni-Vizzola F.4 with the inline IF Asso engine. I have only read very confusing accounts on this aircraft. It seems that it flew after the better-known F.5 with the radial engine. I have even read that it may never have existed... In any case, I think a hypothetical F.4 flying in 1938/1939 would have been the best option. I can only assume that the equal power of the IF Asso and Fiat A.74 but the cleaner aerodynamics by the IF Asso would have resulted in a faster aircraft than the F.5. So, speed would have been well over 500 kmh. I have seen maximum speed figures of550 km/h for an F.4 with the DB 601Aa engine, but this seems rather shady.

The test committee considered the F.5, although also suffering from 'autorotazione', to be the winner. But those in charge chose for all metal fighters. This was a mistake as the F.5 was as fast and manoeuvrable as the other fighters, but much superior in climb rate. The mixed contruction method would have allowed production to start sooner and in greater numbers. Both F.4 and F.5 could have been taken into production to maximise the use of engines. 



Dogwalker said:


> About 2380 Ra.1000 and 5120 Ra.1050. There were difficulties at the Alfa Romeo for the tooling of the Ra.1000 (the licence was acquired in dec.1939, but the production started only in mid 1941), as Alfa Romeo did not build big inlines until then, and several tecnologies were totally new (direct ignition, oil driven compressor...) but much less for Fiat, as the base tecnology, at that point, was well known (for example, both the Alfa Romeo Ra.1101 and the Reggiane Re.103 prototypes had the direct injection).


That is amazing information. I assume most of those Ra.1050s were built after the Armistice?

But, what is this Alfa Romeo Ra.1101 you are talking about? Also, I have come across the Alfa Romeo RA.1050 and Fiat Ra.1000. In which way did AR build the DB 605 and Fiat the DB 601 ?

Kris


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 15, 2013)

Civettone said:


> That is amazing information. I assume most of those Ra.1050s were built after the Armistice?


The vast majority. They were used directly by the Germans.



Civettone said:


> In which way did AR build the DB 605 and Fiat the DB 601 ?


In no way, apart for eventual spare parts that were in common.
The Ra.1050 had to be built, other than at Fiat plants, at Alfa Romeo (750 ordered), Isotta Fraschini (3000 ordered) and OMIR (1000 ordered), but none of them had the time to begin the production first than the armistice, that stopped all three.



Civettone said:


> what is this Alfa Romeo Ra.1101 you are talking about?


You can see it's history in brief here.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/en...uid-cooled-engines-best-approach-37001-2.html

We can add that the practical substitution of Vittorio Jano (an "old school" engineer, without university degree) with Ricart (that, on the contrary, had vast theoretical knowledge, but less practical spirit), had created a lot of tension within the Alfa Romeo. Of the engineers that lived that period, Giuseppe Busso has always stated the originality and the quality Ricart's work, while Orazio Satta Puliga nickamed the 1101 "il catorcio vendicatore".


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 15, 2013)

Civettone said:


> The test committee considered the F.5, although also suffering from 'autorotazione', to be the winner.


From what I have read, both the F.5 than the Re.2000 were free from the stall problem (that presented itself as a sudden roll to the left when the aircraft made a too thight turn, especially on the right).
What happened was that the competition took place in two stages.
First, in 1938, were tested the G.50, C.200, the Imam Ro.51 and the Cr.42.
the Ro.51 was rapidly phased out as inferior to the other monoplanes, while, of the other two, both have their edges. The G.50 was more robust and more structurally "logic", apt for mass production. The C.200 had superior prestations. Both suffered from the stall problem, but that was much more apparent in the C.200 and lighter in the G.50 (so that there was no need to correct it in production).
In the end, the C.200 was considered to be potentially superior, but had flaws that needed to be corrected, while the G.50 was ready for the production, so both were ordered, with a further order of CR.42 as a reserve.
Then, in 1939, the two types were again tested with the newly arrived, the F.5, Re.2000 and AUT.18, while the CR.42 was tested against the Ca.165.
Among the monoplanes, the AUT.18 showed less than satisfactory prestations, while the further year of developement was evident in the Re.2000 and the F.5. Both were free from the stall problem, and had superior prestations (the Re.2000 in general, the F5 concentrated them in the exceptional lift, that allowed him to beat of about 30 seconds an already good climber as the C.200 in the climb to 6000m).
However, both have their defects, and their advantages were not considered big enough to revert the original decision.
The same appened in the "biplane" section, where the Ca.165 regularly won the mock-up fight vs. the CR.42, but was more expensive to build.

In the end, if the competition had really took place with all the fighters presented at the same moment, probably the Re.2000 or the F.5 would have won. But, as it was, their defects (the mixed construction of the F.5 and the not self-sealig tanks of the Re.2000) were taken as an excuse not to change earlier decisions.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 16, 2013)

> But, as it was, their defects (the mixed construction of the F.5 and the not self-sealig tanks of the Re.2000) were taken as an excuse not to change earlier decisions.


Can you be sure that was merely an excuse and not a conscientious comcern?


In Mussolin's War author Frank Joseph quotes Kesselring after test flying the CR.42, praising its extremely light controls and excellent manoeuvrability. He also predicts the RAF wiould have its hands full on that little fighter for folliwing couple of years ... 

It kinda reminded me of the Japanese Ki-43. It did not have good speed, armour or armamant either, but it excelled in combat.

I can understand why the Italians still believed in the biplane. Then again, it seemed they were not sure either: why else would they buy a monoplane and a biplane ? I would accept that if there were two sets of requirements, for instance a dogfighter and an interceptor. Again, this was what happened in Japan: the Ki-43 and Ki-44. 

Kris


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 20, 2013)

Surely there was concern, as there was about the stall charateristics and the difficult construction of the C.200 and about the scarce prestations of the G.50. Every of the 4 main fighters in the competition had it's defects, but those were letal for the two with the best prestations, but submitted later.


----------



## pattle (Jul 20, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Can you be sure that was merely an excuse and not a conscientious comcern?
> 
> 
> In Mussolin's War author Frank Joseph quotes Kesselring after test flying the CR.42, praising its extremely light controls and excellent manoeuvrability. He also predicts the RAF wiould have its hands full on that little fighter for folliwing couple of years ...
> ...


My understanding is that the CR42 was only there to bridge the gap between the CR32 and the arrival of the new monoplanes. The CR42 was used against the RAF during the Battle of Britain and I understand that while they were not a success even Spitfire pilots remarked that the CR42 was a tricky plane to fly against. I have also read on a number of occasions that even though the Gladiator far more often than not came away the winner over the CR42 that both planes were very evenly matched, on the other hand the CR42 was more than a match for the poor Blenheim bombers and accounted for quite a lot of them in combat over Albania. 
I find these World War biplane clashes very interesting as they represent the pinnacle of that era and are rarely talked about. The first thing I noticed about the CR42 when I saw it at the RAF Museum was how big and chunky it was, if you have heard war stories telling how agile the CR42 was, then it is in fact a very impressive aircraft when you see it. I think the CR42 lived on because rather like the Swordfish its successors did not live up to expectations.


----------



## davebender (Jul 20, 2013)

CR42 lived on because 1940 Italy could not produce a modern V12 engine which successor aircraft required.

With the benefit of hindsight Italy might have been better to produce a lightweight fighter similar to Japanese A6M which delivered decent aerial performance with a radial engine producing only 950hp. Such an aircraft would not be quite as good as contemporary Me-109 and Spitfire but it's something 1940 Italy could hope to mass produce.


----------



## pattle (Jul 21, 2013)

davebender said:


> CR42 lived on because 1940 Italy could not produce a modern V12 engine which successor aircraft required.
> 
> With the benefit of hindsight Italy might have been better to produce a lightweight fighter similar to Japanese A6M which delivered decent aerial performance with a radial engine producing only 950hp. Such an aircraft would not be quite as good as contemporary Me-109 and Spitfire but it's something 1940 Italy could hope to mass produce.


The Fiat G50 was the Fiat CR42's direct successor.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 21, 2013)

I’m afraid that the situation of the Italian aeronautical industry immediately before WWII is a little bit misunderstood by someone.

Ing. Felice Trojani, after the poor performances of AUT 18, was sacked by the Macchi family who owned the AUSA ( Aeronautica Umbra Società Anonima, a factory not far from Rome, owned by the Macchi) and in 1941 went to the Reggiane as Production manager. Very sadly he reports in his memories : “_Reggiane were a big factory_ ( by Italian standards of those days, of course) _but from that factory did not come out even an aeroplane a day......_”

Poor rate, with a war going on.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 21, 2013)

Of all the major countries involved, Italy probably had the least efffective industrial mobilization, partly, if not mostly, because Italy was less industrialized than any of the other "great powers."


----------



## Elmas (Jul 21, 2013)

pattle said:


> My understanding is that the CR42 was only there to bridge the gap between the CR32 and the arrival of the new monoplanes.
> ................



I do agree with with you but up to a point......

Manoeuvrability was considered, both by the Top Brass of the Regia Aeronautica and by the Pilots in the Stormi da Caccia, the fundamental requirement for a fighter.

Both G50 

http://www.alieuomini.it/catalogo/dettaglio_catalogo/fiat_g_freccia,6.html

Il comportamento di volo del FIAT G.50, Schede tecniche aerei militari italiani e storia degli aviatori

g91

and Macchi 200 first prototipes had serious aerodynamics problems : Giovanni De Briganti, a very experienced Pilot that in the ’20 won an edition of the Schneider Cup, crashed with the second prototipe of the G50. 
More, the Pilots were piloting monoplanes as they used in the biplanes, say moving continuously the stick, and so adding trouble to trouble...... these defects were solved by Ing Stefanutti, who studied some German papers and modified the wings (of the MC 200) with evolving profiles and convenient wash-out incidences.

So, even if these two fighters were faster than CR42, no doubt that both Generals and Pilots required something flyable.....

Certainly, the SS7 family were outstanding planes but the war had demonstrated (even before Pearl Harbor) that aeroplanes could be very strong under the stresses of aerobatics, but very fragile under the bullets: and Italian Pilots, as all Pilots in the world (maybe Japanese excepted, perhaps) were eager to fight but also eager to bring back their necks.

But comparisons simply made between aeroplanes have little sense, by my personal point of view and from what I can understand Gladiator and CR42 were on a parity basis, at least.

And even if the Italian Pilots generally were of outstanding professional skills, not at all were on a parity basis the Ground Control, radars and R/T sistems, that allowed the Allied fighters to be always positioned in a better tactical situation, and the tactics of fighting with modern planes heavily armed and very fast, developed at the beginning of BoB by “Sailor” Malan for the British and Gen. Galland for the Germans.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 22, 2013)

From ”_They gave me a Seafire_” Cmdr R. “Mike” Crosley, Chap. 7, pag. 42







_“There were still two Gladiators at Yeovilton. There was also a captured Italian CR 42. Wiggy and our CO, Rodney Carver, had a doghfight over the airfield and the CR won. That was rather glossed over later, and no one would admit it; but it was true.”_


----------



## pattle (Jul 22, 2013)

I wonder what the loss and kill ratios were between the Gladiator and CR42?


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 22, 2013)

Elmas said:


> Certainly, the SS7 family were outstanding planes but the war had demonstrated (even before Pearl Harbor) that aeroplanes could be very strong under the stresses of aerobatics, but very fragile under the bullets: and Italian Pilots, as all Pilots in the world (maybe Japanese excepted, perhaps) were eager to fight but also eager to bring back their necks.


We do not have elements to say if the S7 family can withstand bullets better or worse than, to say one, a C.202. Nor the Regia Aeronautica can say, since aircrafts were not tested vs. MGs first than their introduction. But we can say what we know.
A SAI 207's cockpit had the same armour than that of a contemporary C.202, heavier than that of a C.200, including the armored windshield that was absent from the C.200, and, in the C.202, was added from the IV series. The 207 has not four tanks, including two wing tanks, but a single, self sealing, 210l tank in the fuselage, behind the pilot, away from the engine hot parts. In respect to a C.202, the 207 was about 1m shorter and had 1.5m less wingspan, making it a smaller target, and there were not water radiators.
It seems to have it's share of advantages.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 23, 2013)

Fly and fight with these machines against a P 47?
No way.....
It seems that it was even difficult to keep this family of airplanes in a single piece just to fly.....

From "Dimensione Cielo":


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 23, 2013)

Elmas said:


> Fly and fight with these machines against a P 47?


Is like asking: "Fly and fight with a BoB Hurricane against a FW190"? 
In 1943 the SAI 207 was outdated, as the "intermediate series" fighter were (but the SAI 403 weren't). But we are talking about an early war fighter, and there weren't P47s around at that time.
All considered, a SAI 207 have prestations and armament comparable to those of an "intermediate series" fighter (worse in climb rate, better range, no fighter-bomber ability, probably better energy retention, ecc...), a SAI 403 have prestations and armament comparable to those of an "5 series" fighter. 
Obviously there werent production SAI 207s in 1940 (the first prototype flown in autumn ot that year). But, as I said, all the key elements were already around in 1938-39. Without the SS.4 project, the Ambrosini firm, in theory, could have built the S.7 (that flown in 1939) directly as a fighter, instead of a racer.



Elmas said:


> From "Dimensione Cielo":


What is often forgotten in the in the list of accidents of the S.7 series, is that the concurrent projects had their fair share of misfortunes too. They were so common that the Regia Aeronautica began to ever ask two prototypes instead of one. You mentioned one accident for the G.50. One of the C.202 prototypes dived straight to the ground, first to discover how to avoid than controls become of pure marble over 750 km/h. Pietro Scarpinelli, Reggiane test pilot, died in a Re.2001 prototype in a accident nearly identical to that that killed SS.4 test pilot Ambrogio Colombo (but only in the SS.4 case, the blame is commonly given to the structure of the aircraft). Unfortunately there is a "if it is unusual, it must have something wrong" rule.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 23, 2013)

I clearly stated that the first Italan monoplanes had serious problems of aerodinamics.

You said:

_“a SAI 403 have prestations and armament comparable to those of an "5 series" fighter.”_

I’m not just talking about “numbers of armchair pilots”: an aeroplane is much more than maximum speed, climb rate, roll rate, guns carried etc. and as it is crearly said in Dimensione Cielo, overall performances of the 403 ( “prestation” has a different meaning in English, by the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 1993 Edition, page 2345: better not to rape a foreign language...) were not as good of those of the earlier members of the family: the formula had been clearly overstretched.

And finally, as a Structural Engineer myself, I cannot but agree with those Italian Pilots that clearly indicated to Regia Aeronautica Top Brass and to some Aeronutical Engineers the best place to shove a fighter with wooden wings built in the last years of ’30s-early ’40s: aileron reversal, compressibility, etc. were in those days strange words just appearing on stage and first to experiment strange things were the Pilots.......

Mosquito was another thing: the epitome of an Era, the exception that proves the rule.....


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 23, 2013)

Elmas said:


> as it is crearly said in Dimensione Cielo, overall performances of the 403 ( “prestation” has a different meaning in English, by the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 1993 Edition, page 2345: better not to rape a foreign language...) were not as good of those of the earlier members of the family


I don't see this "clear" statement in the text you posted, "l'ala ha perso l'attitudine alle alte velocità", besides being a personal remark, does not means that the performances of the 403 were inferior to that of the 207.
Giorgio Apostolo ("SAI Ambrosini 207 e derivati") clearly stated otherwise, and, for that matter, he indicates a max speed of the 207 inferior to that indicated in "Dimensione Cielo", 580 km/h instead of 625, citing original documents.
The SAI 403 had mere 0.6 m2 larger wing surface than the 207. Given that the two aircraft had a nearly identical fuselage section, and that a Delta III engined SAI 207 had 54hp per m2 of wing surface, while a Delta IV engined SAI 403 had 58.8 hp per m2 with a critical altitude 1000m higher, the 403 could have been slower than the 207 only if Ambrosini had made some very big mistake.
On the accident of the 403, the then Major Paolo Moci (after, General, and commander of the Nucleo Sperimentale di Volo at Guidonia), present, stated that the aircraft lost an aileron during the dive, and only after, falling uncontrollably, lost the wings. That's not sufficient to say that "the wing had lost the attitude to high speed". Is like saying that the Re.2005 wing lost the attitude to aerobatic of the Re.2001, cause the undercarriage of the prototype opened up during a looping, breaking the hydraulic system and forcing the pilot to a belly landing.




Elmas said:


> aileron reversal, compressibility, etc. were in those days strange words just appearing on stage and first to experiment strange things were the Pilots.......


And the facts remain that the SAI 207 could whitstand high speed better than a C.202, while other metallic aircrafts where worse than both in this respect. Several Soviet fighters had wooden wings. Maybe there isn't only one exception.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 28, 2013)

I'm not talking about the performances of these airplanes, I’m not particularly impressed by 20 0r 30 km/h more or less in a test: they were not Schneider Cup or Goodyear Races machines.

And very often tests in the Experimental branches of Air Forces were in those times not the best way to judge a plane, lets think to the Ba 88, just to stay in Italy......

I'm talking about these airplanes, in perspective, as effective fighting machines in the early '40: fighting machines that, IMHO, like their ancestors, the Caudron family, the Sai weren't. Of course, if these machines had been produced in late '20 early '30 they would have been the world skies dominators.

That some Soviet fighters had wooden wings do not necessarily imply that these fighters were “good” airplanes: USSR could afford to loose a lot of airplanes and pilots while neither the Germans ( because they could not replace neither the pilots, nor the planes) nor the U.K. or U.S.A. could ( because their public opinions were extremely worried for high losses of airmen). It is well known with what respect the Red Army treated his soldiers.

_Et de hoc satis_, at least by my side.....


----------



## davebender (Jul 28, 2013)

Pilots are expensive to train. Nobody can afford to lose them unnecessarily. That's why most nations went to a lot of effort to protect the pilot with armor and provide him with a parachute in case the aircraft was disabled.

Soviet infantry were a different matter. Soviet doctrine treated soldiers as cannon fodder and that's reflected in Red Army casualty data. They routinely suffered more casualties then the enemy even in battles counted as victories such as Stalingrad and Kursk.


----------



## pattle (Jul 28, 2013)

I don't want to leave the subject of Italian fighters but I have heard of cases where Soviet airmen were actually shot dead by commissars (or some other sadist rif raf) for losing their aircraft in battle. Maybe this is an urban myth but it is in character with the barbaric nature of Stalin's Russia.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 29, 2013)

Elmas said:


> I'm not talking about the performances of these airplanes,


So what are you talking about? If you have an airframe that could go at +900 km/h without problems, how could you say that the formula has reached it's limits at an horizontal speed of about 600 km/h? It seems illogical. 
It seems you have decided that the S7 family could'n be a viable fighter out of nothing.



Elmas said:


> And very often tests in the Experimental branches of Air Forces were in those times not the best way to judge a plane, lets think to the Ba 88, just to stay in Italy......


The tests showed all the problems of the Ba.88. So that it's production was stopped. It was resumed only for political decision.



Elmas said:


> Of course, if these machines had been produced in late '20 early '30 they would have been the world skies dominators.


The known performances of the SAI 207, climb rate included, would make it a top-class fighter in 1939-40. It was outdated in 1943, as a Bf109e was.



Elmas said:


> That some Soviet fighters had wooden wings do not necessarily imply that these fighters were “good” airplanes:


So Soviet fighters were bad airplanes, intended to be slaughtered in droves, cause they had wooden wings, when a little metal could have saved thousands of trained pilot's lives?
If you say so ...



Elmas said:


> It is well known with what respect the Red Army treated his soldiers.


Apart from the bias, that doesn't make sense. Since the Red Army was evil, all of it's equipement was bad? I guess you'd rather spend the winter 1941-42 dressed as a German.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 29, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> So what are you talking about? If you have an airframe that could go at *+900 km/h without problems*, how could you say that the formula has reached it's limits at an horizontal speed of about 600 km/h? It seems illogical.
> ..............



At the threshold of compressibility with a plane with wooden wings?
Not with my a*s inside.......

As I tried, in vain , tried to explain, an aeroplane in much much more than sheer speed.
That's all, Folks.


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 29, 2013)

Elmas said:


> At the threshold of compressibility with a plane with wooden wings?
> Not with my a*s inside.......


I do not think there are much possibilities to have your a*s inside a plane in 1939/40. However, if the aircraft in question has done it, it has done.

I have not many doubts that, thanks to refined aerodynamic and thin wings, a S7 family aircraft can withstand compressibility better than other designs of the time.





Moreover, we are talking about aircrafts that, any material they were done, generally had fabric covered ailerons, and we are worried about plywood?



Elmas said:


> As I tried, in vain , tried to explain, an aeroplane in much much more than sheer speed.


It was "in vain" cause you failed to explain what this "much more" is. What prevent the "Ambrosini 7" series to be a fighter?


----------



## Elmas (Jul 29, 2013)

Dogwalker said:


> It was "in vain" cause you failed to explain what this "much more" is. What prevent the "Ambrosini 7" series to be a fighter?



If you did not understand this by yourself it is very difficult that I can make you understand: but as I don’t want to talk about Young’s modulus, shear modulus or Bredt formula, and many, many other technical matters, I pose just two “minor” questions:

1 st - could in those days (about 1940), the Ambrosini factory to establish a serious quality control for the woods (Italian forests are not Russian forests) and for the glues used ( poor self-sufficient materials, “materiale autarchico” in italian) and, expecially in the bonding process, to guarantee to have thin wings perfectly built to resist to the stresses by the loads of a speed of 900 km/h?
I’m not talking of a single prototipe, perfectly built and lovingly mantained, I’m talking of numbers.

2nd - After one or two weeks of desert climate ( or even Sicily for this matter, more than 120 °F in summer....) or fog and ice in Northern Italy, G’s, poor field maintenance, sand, rough landings, an enemy bullet maybe two, two or three sorties a day, was to be this wooden wing still in its original shape?

If your answers are yes, the Ambrosini 7 had passed just the first examination ( many other would have followed) to be graduated as "fighter".


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 29, 2013)

Elmas said:


> If you...


Interesting...



Elmas said:


> 1 st - could in those days (about 1940), the Ambrosini factory to establish a serious quality control for the woods...


I am very sorry to have you to deal with concepts beyond your reach, but estabilish the quality of a piece of wood only watching and touching it is *much* simpler than estabilish the quality of a piece of light alloy. This way you can make a stradivarius back in the 17th century, while a hairline fracture in an alloy part is difficult to detect even today. In WWII I heard of several problems caused by defective batch of metal parts (even the fixing of the tail section of the Re.2005 was needed firstly cause the metal supplied to the factory was substandard), while I never heard of an accident caused by a defective batch of wood (and there were several wooden aircrafts in Italian inventory).
SAI 207's wing, as C.202 or any other aircraft wing, was not designed to go to +900 km/h, it was simply designed to whitstand a certain stress using a certain kind of material, so it stand a certain stress using that kind of material. It'doesn't need a supermaterial (as autarchic alloys used in metal fighters surely weren't) to do so. The wingspar of the 207 were made of plywood themself. There were nothing extraordinary in the material used.



Elmas said:


> After one or two weeks of desert climate...


Like that one in which stationed the wooden wings of the SM.79s? Or wet as the surface from which took off the CANT Z.506s (you know? Sea is a wet thing)? Do you think Russia is cold enough to test if a wooden wing can whitstand the ice of northern Italy (oh, forget, Soviet pilots were trained only for the joy to see them go to certain death in their wooden aircrafts)? Is there fog in England? As I said, wood was not extraordinary in Italian aircraft inventory of WWII. Strange as it may seems to you, wood was a known thing.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 29, 2013)

Yes, let's go to a war with a Stradivarius in our hands, then......
Why not?
The violin used by Niccolò Paganini, not a Stradivarius but built by Bartolomeo Giuseppe Guarneri (known as Guarneri “del Gesù”) was, and is, called "il Cannone" (the Gun)........

Quality control.... strange words......


----------



## Dogwalker (Jul 31, 2013)

Elmas said:


> Quality control.... strange words......


Inability to understand simple things... known habit...


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2013)

A number of aircraft had significant wood in their structures; it was and remains an excellent structural material for aircraft. 


Wood has its downsides, the primary one being that a wooden structure, especially within a wing, means that more of the wing's volume is lost to structural elements. There are also a different set of skills and technologies required for the construction of wooden, vs aluminum monocoque aircraft or aircraft with steel tube structure and a non-structural skin. One technology is adhesives. In the ww2-era the best wood adhesives were the urea-formaldehyde glues; these replaced casein-based adhesives. Anecdotally, and perhaps surprisingly, Germany seems to have had more problems with aviation glues than any other country; this was, I seem to remember reading, one of the causes of the failure of the Ta154.


----------



## Dogwalker (Aug 3, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Wood has its downsides, the primary one being that a wooden structure, especially within a wing, means that more of the wing's volume is lost to structural elements.


Infact the SAI 207's wing had 5 spars and no space for internal wing tanks.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 3, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Germany seems to have had more problems with aviation glues than any other country; this was, I seem to remember reading, one of the causes of the failure of the Ta154.


That is a myth. Glue problem was fixed, but the Ta 154 was a failed design. Later, the He 162 used the glue. Worked fine, but poor quality control led to problems.

Italian constructors were very good at using wood. So were the Americans: the wood used for the Mosquito was made in the US.
Kris


----------



## Dogwalker (Aug 4, 2013)

One of the charateristics of the plywood covering, being it fabric covered, is the smoothness of the surface. That's particularly evident, for example, in the Mig-3, where there is a steep contrast between the roughly finished and riveted metal parts of the forward fuselage, and the absolutely smooth wooden parts of the aft fuselage and wings.

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/makarov_aleksey/mig-3/images/mig-3_24_of_28.jpg
http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/makarov_aleksey/mig-3/images/mig-3_16_of_28.jpg
http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/makarov_aleksey/mig-3/images/mig-3_28_of_28.jpg
MiG-3 Walk Around Page 1


----------

