# MACCHI C205 Compared to Fiat G.55



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 24, 2013)

I never really looked at the two aircraft side by side and in profile, but it seems they are so similar that I can't help but wonder if there wasn't some kind of common design template for this generation of Italian fighter aircraft. Are they really the result of entirely independent design teams or just an artifact of design driven by sharing essential the same engine?

They might also be compared to the somewhat more distinctly different Reggiane Re.2005

Top: Macchi: 1st flt.: April 19, '42, 262 built in WW2
middle: Fiat: 1st flt.: April 30, '42, 274 built in WW2
bottom: Reggiane 1st flt.: May 9, '42, 48 built in WW2

In general they are pretty good looking a/c.


----------



## pattle (Aug 24, 2013)

Yes they look really great, and they were great. Hard to tell them apart from the pics above, if you look at them other than in profile they look less similar, the wings are quite different. I haven't read up on these three types for a while but I am quite sure that their designers were not working together. Some might say these aircraft were developed from earlier designs, but I'm not prepared to argue the definition of "developed from" with some nit picking know all, I spend enough time on here as it is.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 24, 2013)

pattle said:


> Yes they look really great, and they were great. Hard to tell them apart from the pics above, *if you look at them other than in profile they look less similar, the wings are quite different. *I haven't read up on these three types for a while but I am quite sure that their designers were not working together. Some might say these aircraft were developed from earlier designs, but I'm not prepared to argue the definition of "developed from" with some nit picking know all, I spend enough time on here as it is.



Well that calls for a different perspective then in the same order: Macchi, Fiat and reggiane:


----------



## Readie (Aug 24, 2013)

The Italian design flair shows with these two graceful planes.
Lovely lines, but why were they so ineffective in the real war?


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 24, 2013)

Readie said:


> The Italian design flair shows with these two graceful planes.
> Lovely lines, but why were they so ineffective in the real war?



One reason to consider: look at the production numbers: the total production of all these aircraft barely matches the number of B-17s produced in 8 weeks.


----------



## Readie (Aug 24, 2013)

Yes, but production numbers doesn't make for an effective / ineffective fighter surely.
There must have been a flaw behind the beauty....
Armament?
Power?
Cheers
John


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 24, 2013)

Production numbers are a crucial thing for a weapon of war, along with timing of the weapon. And Italian 5 series fighters were the rare birds, so their effect on the ww2 was a minor one.
As for the 'flaw behind the beauty', they were a good match for other fighters fielded in the ww2, 1943-44, the only things lacking being the true long range capability and carrier compatibility.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Aug 24, 2013)

Macchi C.200, and FIAT G.50 are almost indistinguishable as well.


----------



## pattle (Aug 24, 2013)

Readie said:


> Yes, but production numbers doesn't make for an effective / ineffective fighter surely.
> There must have been a flaw behind the beauty....
> Armament?
> Power?
> ...



They had license built DB engines and canon armament so unlike earlier Italian fighters they were well powered and well armed. It was just that by the time they were ready for production Italy had signed the armistice, after the armistice was signed Italy was occupied by the Germans and the Italians were considered traitors and never allowed the resources to build these planes. The environment after the armistice was generally far from ideal for manufacturing in Italy. Notice the similarity in the reggiane's wing to the P47's, something to do with it's designer working pre-war for Seversky.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 24, 2013)

Despite the small numbers, they apparently made a mark on the minds of at least some allies and opponents. From wiki about the Macchi:

"_Group Captain Duncan-Smith DSO DFC respected both the Macchi 'Veltro' and the Italian airmen: In general the standard of flying of the Italian pilots was very high indeed, and in encounters with Macchi 205s particularly we were up against aircraft that could turn and dog-fight with our Spitfires extremely well.[14] Like its predecessors, the first Veltros were insufficiently armed, but the aircraft often performed well in combat. Guido Carestiato said about the C.205, that it was the "best Italian fighter that he knew" and many pilots like the C.205 "ace" Luigi Gorrini,[15] scored 19 or 24 victories (in return, he was downed four or five times). Gorrini claimed 12 victories in July 1943 and several of them were with the Veltro.[16]_"

Wiki regarding the Fiat G.55:

"_In February 1943, a German test commission was sent in Italy to evaluate the new Italian fighters.[16] The commission was led by Oberst Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officers and pilots and by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz. The Germans also brought with them several aircraft including a Fw 190 A-5 and a Bf 109 G-4 for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights.

The tests began 20 February 1943 with the German commission very impressed by the Italian aircraft, the G.55 in particular. In general, *all the Serie 5 fighters were very good at low altitudes, but the G.55 was also competitive with its German opponents in term of speed and climb rate at high altitudes still maintaining superior handling characteristics. *The definitive evaluation by the German commission was "excellent" for the G.55, "excellent" for the Re.2005 but very complicated to produce and "average" for the C.205. Oberst Petersen defined the G.55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on 22 February 1943 voted to produce the G.55 in Germany._"

also:

"_The interest in the G.55 program was still high after the Armistice. In October 1943, Kurt Tank, who previously personally tested a G.55 in Rechlin, having nothing but praise for the aircraft, was in Turin to discuss G.55 production. However, war events and the not yet optimized production process were the reasons for which the G.55 program was eventually abandoned by the Luftwaffe. Early production of G.55 required about 15,000 man-hours; while there were *estimations to reduce the effort to about 9,000 man-hours*, the German factories were able to assemble a *Bf 109 in only 5,000 man-hours*. The DB 603 were instead to be used in Tank's own Ta-152 C._"

Well armed, fast and reputedly maneuverable, as good as they were, they were evidently hard to assemble and slow to service (fuel and rearm).

The Fiat was armed with there 20mm (1 in each wing and 1 in the engine) and two fuselage mounted 12.7 mm. It had a WEP max speed of 417 mph at 23,000 ft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 25, 2013)

Hi, oldcrow,
Care to elaborate a little bit about the alleged 417 mph speed figure for the G.55?


----------



## Readie (Aug 25, 2013)

Thanks for the info chaps. Interesting to talk about different planes.
Cheers
John


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 25, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi, oldcrow, Care to elaborate a little bit about the alleged 417 mph speed figure for the G.55?



Prior thread on italian fighters: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/macchi-mc-205-veltro-4014.html

Wish I could elaborate, but that's only a quote from wikipedia which says max non-WEP speed is nearly 390 mph. 

According to wiki, the Macchi Veltro topped out at ~400 mph at 24,000' while Macchi MC.205 Veltro Orione | Aviation and Military History Blog | Chris Chant's Blog
shows the following::

"_Performance: maximum level speed 346.5 kt *(399 mph*; 642 km/h) at 23,620 ft (7200 m) declining to 297 kt (342 mph; 550 km/h) at 6,560 ft (2000 m); cruising speed, maximum 270 kt (311 mph; 500 km/h) at optimum altitude and economical 229 kt (264 mph; 425 km/h) at optimum altitude; climb to 16,405 ft (5000 m) in 4 minutes 47 seconds and to 26,245 ft (8000 m) in 9 minutes 9 seconds; service ceiling 36,745 ft (11200 m); typical range 561 nm (646 miles; 1040 km) with standard fuel_"


For the Reggiane Re.2005, wiki claims a top speed at about 23,000 ft of 390 mph, another WW2aircraft thread perhaps provides some additional insight:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/maximum-speed-reggiane-2005-a-3267.html

Supposedly speaking of the Macchi, Eric Brown states is quoted by wiki as saying: 

"_Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight, remembered how they were impressed when they tested the Veltro. “One of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi MC. 205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the *perfect combination of Italian styling and German engineering*. I believe it was powered by a Daimler Benz DB 605. It was really a delight to fly, and up to anything on the Allied programme. But again, it came just before the Italians capitulated so it was never used extensively. And we did tests on it and were most impressed. The cockpit was smallish but not as bad as the Bf 109.”[38]_"

Based upon Luftwaffe's assessment, I wonder if the allies weren't confused about which airplane was being tested.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 25, 2013)

I suspect the similar profiles are due to a combination of manufacturing limits (maybe they could not blow clear-view canopies), air force specifications (seeing out would be important in a fighter), and design personnel moving between companies.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 25, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Maybe the Italians liked the Allied pilots better; my Italian (as in served in Italian Army in WW2 as a liaison with the German Army) detested the Germans (he also detested Mussolini, but was drafted and preferred not to be shot), and the Italian mechanics prepped the planes better.



SW, An interesting but I fear incomplete post. Your Italian? grandparent, father, mother, local baker? I only ask because I am curious and never had the opportunity or the though to ask my own Italian grandparents their opinion of Il Duche or the Germans. Now that I am headed for Italy and the heart of both my ancestral home and Italian aviation, I became more curious about Italian aircraft. I'd always heard RA fighters were beautiful, but underarmed to perform well. 

Then souring the world on Italian aviation was the infamous '60's era send up in Playboy of international ww2 aviation. Photo of the italian entry attached with the accompanying description:

"_CAPRONI-MORONI C2 "SCUD" EXPERIMENTAL FIGHTER
When the tide of war turned against it, Fascist Italy turned with the tide. The C2, or "SCUD," was one direct result. The engineers of *Aeronautico Piccolino Abagano Elari Quattori in Turin *were charged with designing an aircraft of modern fighter type that could, should word come in mid-air of another change in Italian allegiance, instantly reverse course and become part of the now friendly force. Thus the unique two-engine configuration, central cockpit with swivel seat and dual controls facing fore and aft. Time for the SCUD (mean "*Scuderia con curso il travala,*" or "turncoat") to switch directions and sides was set at less than two minutes from a top speed of 265 mph by air force consultants. This performance criterion was never tested, much less met, since pilots refused to attempt it, except on the ground with an ambulance close by. One pilot did take the sole SCUD prototype aloft, but once airborne decided to visit his mother in Salerno and wrecked the craft crash-landing on a nearby beach. The SCUD was painted gold by artisans formerly employed in upkeep of the Sistine Chapel. 

A remarkable feature of the plane, considering its fighter designation, was it total lack of armament. The designers successfully resisted all attempts to ruin its unbroken lines with ugly guns._"

Lest anyone be offended, other national aircraft industries were mishandled with equal, if not quite as farcical, disrespect.


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 25, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Prior thread on italian fighters: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/macchi-mc-205-veltro-4014.html
> 
> Wish I could elaborate, but that's only a quote from wikipedia which says max non-WEP speed is nearly 390 mph.



I cannot see any claim for the 417 mph figure in that thread?
Just theoretically, for the plane to go from ~385 mph to 417 (almost 7% more) should require the HP increase of much more than 7% (difference between it's engine making Steigleistung (~'military power') and Notleistung (WER)).


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 25, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> I cannot see any claim for the 417 mph figure in that thread?
> Just theoretically, for the plane to go from ~385 mph to 417 (almost 7% more) should require the HP increase of much more than 7% (difference between it's engine making Steigleistung (~'military power') and Notleistung (WER)).



Sorry I should have actually posted the Wiki link for the Fiat G.55: Fiat G.55 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"_Maximum speed: 623 km/h (337 kn, 387 mph (*417 mph *with WEP)) at 7,000 m (22,970 ft)_"

Can't confirm the quote's accuracy or defend it, just post it...


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 25, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> SW, An interesting but I fear incomplete post. Your Italian? grandparent, father, mother, local baker? I only ask because I am curious and never had the opportunity or the though to ask my own Italian grandparents their opinion of Il Duche or the Germans. Now that I am headed for Italy and the heart of both my ancestral home and Italian aviation, I became more curious about Italian aircraft. I'd always heard RA fighters were beautiful, but underarmed to perform well.



Ahh...my late Italian father-in-law. He had an interesting life and was, in some ways, more injured by the Allies than the Germans: his family home in Naples was destroyed during an Allied bombing raid, one of his sisters had to give birth in an open field during a bombing raid and his university records were destroyed during the fighting (he was ABD, in English Literature). Later, after the Italian surrender, he ended up having to dodge German patrols in Rome (he told a story that a resident leaned out a window and said "get off the streets! They're rounding people up!"). The main reason he gave for detesting the Germans was that he felt they were _entirely_ responsible for starting the war in Europe.


Everything I've read about the RA fighters (although not all their combat aircraft) is that they pretty universally had good flight characteristics, well-harmonized controls, and were maneuverable, but they were simply not very good combat aircraft as Italian industry could not produced sufficiently powerful engines.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 25, 2013)

With their DB-605 engines, I would guess they had the power but not the serviceability required for a combat a/c. The time to produce one of these thoroughbreds was apparently approaching double that of a Bf-109. I doubt they had the resources to build enough engines or airframes to meet the need in the time before capitulation. I was also curious and not too surprised to find these aircraft performed as well as they did. The french get a lot of credit for their role in aviation history but I am surprised at how under appreciated seems the significant role played by Italy. I also find it interesting that so many of the industries that provded the arms and aircraft for the war effort in every belligerent country exists today as incarnations of their former selves. AeroMacchi, Fiat, even Reggiane (acquired by an american company called Terex) all exist today like their counterparts Mitsubishi, Messerschmitt and so on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 26, 2013)

One problem with the Macchi fighters that isn't mentioned here is their tendency to spin.

One other thing that I find amusing is that when Italians fought on both sides after the surrender in 1943, the Germans supplied them with pretty much the same aircraft they themselves flew. The Allies supplied them with basically second rate equipment that was no longer being used by their own forces.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 26, 2013)

I wouldn't be too surprised at that; the Italian Co-belligerent Army/Navy/Air Force could not have been considered that trustworthy. _I_ certainly wouldn't have placed too much reliance on them nor would I have given them equipment that would otherwise have gone to first-line units. That the Germans were doing was probably done solely due to military necessity; the Germans most assuredly did not treat the Italians with any kind of kid gloves even when it would have cost them nothing to do so.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 27, 2013)

Did the Germans actually have very many 'second rate' aircraft to give?

Short of taking old 109s from the training schools ( or left over 1940 French aircraft) what were these 2nd rate German planes? 

The US may have screwed up by NOT shutting down the P-39/P-40 production lines sooner but since they HAD the 2nd rate fighters who should get them?


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 27, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Did the Germans actually have very many 'second rate' aircraft to give?
> 
> Short of taking old 109s from the training schools ( or left over 1940 French aircraft) what were these 2nd rate German planes?
> 
> The US may have screwed up by NOT shutting down the P-39/P-40 production lines sooner but since they HAD the 2nd rate fighters who should get them?



Probably most of the "second rate" German aircraft had been shot down, although I think a case could be made that the Bf109 was second-rate by late 1943.


----------



## pattle (Aug 27, 2013)

Other than fighters what other first rate aircraft did Germany have in 1944? if the Germans had enough experienced pilots to fly all the fighters that were coming off their production lines then perhaps the Italians would have received less German aircraft than they did.


----------



## lazun (Jul 1, 2015)

Readie said:


> Yes, but production numbers doesn't make for an effective / ineffective fighter surely.
> There must have been a flaw behind the beauty....
> Armament?
> Power?
> ...




Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons. They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph. When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi’s tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi. But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.

RSI Adriano Visconti
Combat sorties: 72
Confirmed kills: 26
Probable: 18

RAF Johnnie Johnson
Combat sorties: 515
Confirmed kills: 34
Probable: 13

Those are astonishing numbers considering they would takeoff with 10 to 12 airplanes against an armada. Or maybe Visconti was just a better pilot or had a superior aircraft or both. Considering he accomplished 26 confirmed kills in 72 sorties being the underdogs shows how effective the series three fighters of Italy were.


----------



## lazun (Jul 1, 2015)

On the Africa front.


----------



## lazun (Jul 1, 2015)

Ivan1GFP said:


> One problem with the Macchi fighters that isn't mentioned here is their tendency to spin.



This was only true for the 200 series. It was fixed with the 202 and 205 series.


----------



## Balljoint (Jul 1, 2015)

lazun said:


> Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons. They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph. When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi’s tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi. But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.
> 
> RSI Adriano Visconti
> Combat sorties: 72
> ...



But he would have a few more target opportunities than an Ally pilot if equal skill.


----------



## lazun (Jul 1, 2015)

Yes as Johnson would have had with the Germans. I guess as long as they're not shooting back at you, have inferior aircraft and are unskilled you could have a point. But I think unlikely from RAF and USA.


----------



## Koopernic (Jul 1, 2015)

lazun said:


> This was only true for the 200 series. It was fixed with the 202 and 205 series.



Wiki says the tendency to spin remained in the 202 and cites Duma 2007, pp. 232–233 (not giving the title though). 

It also cites this situation;
"Some defects appeared similar to those on the early C. 200 version: on 3 August, during a mock dogfight, Sergente Maggiore Antonio Valle – an experienced pilot, credited with two kills in Marmarica and recipient of a Medaglia di Bronzo al Valor Militare (Bronze Medal to Military Valor) – at a height of 4,000 meters entered in a flat spin and could not manage to recover or to bail out, losing his life.[26]"


An Me 109 was actually very difficult to spin, its long tail moment arm and slats probably gave it the gentlest stall and easiest spin recovery of any WW2 fighter and that includes the spitfire. Its vice was a take-off and landing swing. The Fw 190 also had a easy spin recovery as well. The MC 202 doesn't look quite right right, too much nose not enough tail.

The Germans were interested more in the G.56 and Re.2006 which were developments which were adaptable to the DB603 and flown with the DB603 engine, the Me 109 could not accept this vitally important engine. The M.C 205 transformed into the M.C.207 could but apparently required a larger wing.

I believe one other weakness of the serie 5 Italian designs from the German tests was a low roll rate but this could probably be fixed by work on the ailerons such as spring tabs, freis ailerons etc.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 1, 2015)

Readie is currently away from the forum, so, if you don't mind 



lazun said:


> Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons.



Ineffective they were (if we can attribute effectiveness to machines, rather than to organizations), and they were fine fighters in the same time. Post war use of combat aircraft was a thing of countries' budget, not a thing of any piston-engined fighter being that good; people did not make the switch to the jet fighters just because there was no prop attached to them.
1st produced MC 205 fighters were armed with just 2 heavy MGs, the two cannons were not installed until a bigger wing wasn't introduced, with according loss in performance.


> They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph.



Could you please provide a sourced information (not English language Wikipedia article, if possible) that G55 managed 426 mph?



> When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi’s tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi.



The low availability is a part of inefficiency - numbers produced do matter. Do we know what Macchi vs. what Spitfire, who held the initial advantages (current speed height), place time of battle, is it confirmed by both sides? 



> But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.
> 
> RSI Adriano Visconti
> Combat sorties: 72
> ...



The Italian series 5 fighters (and other Axis fighters in second half of the war) were unable to wrestle the air superiority from the Allies, in MTO and on other theaters - hence the series 5 fighters were inefficient?


----------



## GregP (Jul 1, 2015)

I've always liked these planes a lot. Aesthetically they are quite attractive and there IS that old axiom that if it looks right it should fly right. If that's the case, these should fly VERY well.

I particularly like the Re.2005 myself, but all of them are good-looking fighters. I may be stepping on it here, but I like the general look you get with the inverted Vee engines better than the look you get with the upright Vee engines. These planes definitely have some curb-appeal.


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jul 1, 2015)

Readie said:


> Yes, but production numbers doesn't make for an effective / ineffective fighter surely.
> There must have been a flaw behind the beauty....
> Armament?
> Power?
> ...



You might also consider the fact that the Italians didn't believe in Musolini's war against the Allies. Not sure if this was a factor in the air or not but it is worth considering.


----------



## lazun (Jul 1, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Wiki says the tendency to spin remained in the 202 and cites Duma 2007, pp. 232–233 (not giving the title though).
> 
> It also cites this situation;
> "Some defects appeared similar to those on the early C. 200 version: on 3 August, during a mock dogfight, Sergente Maggiore Antonio Valle – an experienced pilot, credited with two kills in Marmarica and recipient of a Medaglia di Bronzo al Valor Militare (Bronze Medal to Military Valor) – at a height of 4,000 meters entered in a flat spin and could not manage to recover or to bail out, losing his life.[26]"
> ...



According to Macchi in Venegono and three interviews with pilots testing, it was solved, mostly having to do with moments and washout. The Macchi 205 was easy to recover from spins as reported from pilots.

All airplanes can be put into a flat spin and very few could actually recover from a flat spin. Not sure if any World War II fighters could actually recover from an incipient flat spin.

The G56 and RE2006 were to be fitted with the Fiat Tifone engine which was a DB605 under license as far as I know. The reason that they were interested more in the Fiat and Reggiane was because the Macchi took too long to build, even though in testing the Macchi came out on top in all aspects.

I have never heard of it being slow in roll. I was considered to be extremely maneuverable and the most well balanced fighter of the war.


----------



## lazun (Jul 1, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Readie is currently away from the forum, so, if you don't mind
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do not see where the inefficiency are at least in combat?

The first series were known as the 202's which had a less powerful engine. Then the 205's with a slightly newer wing and more powerful engine. This did not degrade in loss of performance in the series III 205 fighter.

Of course if you cannot buy a jet you're going to buy one of the best piston aircraft on the market. Countries that could not afford jets bought piston driven airplanes like the Macchi and Fiat.


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2015)

The Italians were quite aware of aerodynamics and of aerobatic flying. They invented the modern Aresti aerobatic system. I don't believe any of the 5-series were especially prone to spinning, but almost any plane can be made to spin if it is pulled into an accelerated stall while in uncordinated flight.

I see the quote above about a spin, but we don't know how it happened from a sentence or two. All we know is what was written in a very SHORT description by somone who probably wasn't a trained aircraft accident investigator. 

I'd LOVE to see a 5-series plane flying. One or more of each would be the best possible outcome, but any of the three would be a welcome addition to flying warbirds around the world.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Jul 2, 2015)

Back to the original point of this thread, the Macchi and Fiat machines shared more then a passing resemblance. The series 5 fighters share an almost identical profile, as do their older siblings in the MC.200 and G.50. I cant think of any other unique manufacturers that produced such similar fighters, even taking the common powerplant into consideration. A Hurricane looks nothing like a Spitfire, a P-39 is obviously different then a P-40, as is a Bf-109 distinct from a He-100. I find it to be quite a coincidence, and somewhat hard to believe they weren't working together. Although despite their similarities, they seemed to have very different flight characteristic . At least the Regianne machines were obiously unique.


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2015)

Their resemblance IS somewhat mystifying if they weren't working together.

I THOUGHT that the basis for the 5-series was an "improved" Re 2000 or Re 2001. I've read that more than once, but have no feeling for the accuracy of the claim. Perhaps starting with the same plane and modifying it for a liquid-cooled powerplant, if that really WAS the case, has something to do with it.

Speculation on my part, though ... I've seen the claim with no references to it's origin such as an issued specification.


----------



## lazun (Jul 2, 2015)

GregP said:


> I'd LOVE to see a 5-series plane flying. One or more of each would be the best possible outcome, but any of the three would be a welcome addition to flying warbirds around the world.



You are soon going to get your wish!! Jerry is currently restoring a G55 to fly with the original DB605!! Jerry said 426mph which comes from Fiat who provided all the drawings to restore his plane!!!


----------



## lazun (Jul 2, 2015)

GregP said:


> Their resemblance IS somewhat mystifying if they weren't working together.
> 
> I THOUGHT that the basis for the 5-series was an "improved" Re 2000 or Re 2001. I've read that more than once, but have no feeling for the accuracy of the claim. Perhaps starting with the same plane and modifying it for a liquid-cooled powerplant, if that really WAS the case, has something to do with it.
> 
> Speculation on my part, though ... I've seen the claim with no references to it's origin such as an issued specification.



They did look similar, however, they where completely different. Larger in size, wings, moments, washout, placements, airfoils, still keeping with the look though.

The p-40, p-47 and Reggiane are based on the Seversky P-35.


----------



## lazun (Jul 2, 2015)

Series 5 tests conclusions.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 2, 2015)

lazun said:


> ...
> The G56 and RE2006 were to be fitted with the Fiat Tifone engine which was a DB605 under license as far as I know. The reason that they were interested more in the Fiat and Reggiane was because the Macchi took too long to build, even though in testing the Macchi came out on top in all aspects.



The G.55 and Re.2005 were already powered by Tifone (with the 1st examples powered by DB 605A), the G.56 was to be powered by DB 603.



> I have never heard of it being slow in roll. I was considered to be extremely maneuverable and the most well balanced fighter of the war.



I'll kindly ask for sources for the last sentence.



lazun said:


> I do not see where the inefficiency are at least in combat?



The question is rather cryptic - care to elaborate?



> The first series were known as the 202's which had a less powerful engine. Then the 205's with a slightly newer wing and more powerful engine. This did not degrade in loss of performance in the series III 205 fighter.



The MC.202 and 205V shared the same wing, the 205N received a bigger wing. The loss in performance between early and later examples was there, some 13-22 km/h (link). 



> Of course if you cannot buy a jet you're going to buy one of the best piston aircraft on the market. Countries that could not afford jets bought piston driven airplanes like the Macchi and Fiat.



I'm afraid it was not that easy. 1st, a country without a world-class aeronautical industry need to be on good terms with a country that produces aircraft. 2nd, you need to have money, but if you have the 1st condition well covered you might even get the aircraft for just a token amount of cash. 
Much more countries bought Spitfire, P-51, or other British or US fighters than it was the case with Italian stuff anyway.



> The p-40, p-47 and Reggiane are based on the Seversky P-35.



Oh boy.


----------



## Just Schmidt (Jul 2, 2015)

First, if efficiency is meassured by the aircrafts ability to win the war, then ultimately all axis aircraft were inefficient while all Allied Aircraft were efficient. I'm not claiming that, just following the logic of only applying one concept of efficiency. An aicraft can be efficient one on one (and that only takes one), it can be efficient in terms of maintenance and it can be efficient in terms of ease of manufacture. I'm sure we can come up with multiple other categories. However, nothing the italians (or other axis) could realistically field in the middle of 43 could have won the war. The difference in resources (also for designing) was to great, and a lot of other factors than Aircraft engineering were in play. One reason Germany supplied her allies With up to date fighterst were that from the middle of the war (and I Count 39 to 45) they didn't lack fighters, they lacked pilotes to fly them. And fuel.

Though industrial espionage by no means can be ruled out, I believe the likenesses of the italian fighters are mostly superficial, at least those not stemming from the use of the same engines. And as shown in the beginning of this thread the resemblance is only apparent in profile. The G 50 had pretty much the same tail as the CR 42 (I find that quite often aircraft manufacturers showed preferrence for the same tail on many of their diffrent designs), and though it is somewhat risky I'll claim that to my eyes the profiles of G 50 and MC 200 are no more alike than the Wildcat and the Buffalo. I choose these cases amongst many other possible, as probably similar considerations of good view over a big radial played a role in all 4 instances. The Re 2000 was very different (and it's usually not considered controversial to claim that it was _inspired_ by the P-35), but the Re 2001 looks like an obvious 'missing link' between the 2000 and the 2005. In profile (as well as in general planform), all the series 5 shares a lot with all of their respective progenitors if you only look from the cockpit to the rear. And even the Ki-61 I shows some (if not that many) basic similarities, which made the allies suspect it wasn't a Japanese design when first they encountered it.

I remember a thread quite a while ago where someone argued that the P-51 was a copy of the P-40. That was pretty much based on similarities in profile between a few of the many quite different profiles of the respective basic designs.

To a cusory look all Japanese fighters look alike in profile, as long as they share a radial and a bubble canopy (which both seem to be connected with national prefereences). On the face of it, it looks like a little easier to give an inline figter distinct personality, as you get all those interesting possibilities of placing the radiators. Then again, as the war progressed the preferrences seemed to be right at the bottom of the fuselage, excepting the annular cowling which began to look like a national preferrence for Germany.

It is to some extent depending on whether one looks for similarities or differences. Supply the He 100 With bubble canopy, a radiator in same position and round the edges off a little, and it could pass for a series 5. All this is of course in the eye of the beholder...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Balljoint (Jul 2, 2015)

Just Schmidt said:


> I remember a thread quite a while ago where someone argued that the P-51 was a copy of the P-40. That was pretty much based on similarities in profile between a few of the many quite different profiles of the respective basic designs.



Or maybe because the UK speced a P-40 and NA talked them into an improved design.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jul 2, 2015)

lazun said:


> According to Macchi in Venegono and three interviews with pilots testing, it was solved, mostly having to do with moments and washout. The Macchi 205 was easy to recover from spins as reported from pilots.
> 
> All airplanes can be put into a flat spin and very few could actually recover from a flat spin. Not sure if any World War II fighters could actually recover from an incipient flat spin.
> 
> ...



Since the wing plan form seems to have changed I would believe you that the aircrafts wing's spin stall was improved.

The Germans were interested in DB603 developments of these fighters. They would have been monsters with these engines; capable of 465mph. (likely with the DB603LA in my view or possibly the DB603EM). Remember the opposition was the Spitfire XIV, XVIII, Spitfire F.22 and P.51H

Although Italy was involved in radar developments struggled to obtain and produce enough advanced radars. The Germans were definitely sharing their best technology: some Italian destroyers had FuMO 26 seetakt a very advanced radar not even found on any German destroyers. It was capable of full blind fire against sea and air targets, including height finding. Lack of ground radar obvioult would have deteriorated the apparent performance of these aircraft.

I'm sure theynwould have been "productionised" something that takes an additional year after production commences.


----------



## GregP (Jul 2, 2015)

Hi lazun,

Thanks for the reply. Who is Jerry?

I have never seen anything that suggests the P-40 design owed anything to the P-35. The P-47 had the same designer, but I'm not sure anything but the general nature of his designs trnsferred. The P-47 was bigger and the bulging belly was there for ductwork to the rear-mounted turbocharger. They DO have similar lines, sort of like a new Mooney is similar in appreanace to a Mooney Mite. Side by side you can see the resemblance as a family, but "similar in appearance" is not the same as "developed from." "Developed from" implies virtually the same airframe with minor changes to replace a piece such as the engine that has to be changed for some reason.

Though similar in appearance at a glance, nothing in a P-47 is interchangeable with a P-35.

I HAVE seen claims that the P-51 owes a lot to the P-40 since North American was given all the P-40 drawings in anticipation of them building it for the British. So I have seen claims that the P-51 design was North American's modification of a P-40.

While it sounds compelling, I have been blessed with the opportunity to work on WWII warbirds. As it happens, our museum has a flying P-40N and three flying P-51s (two P-51Ds and a P-51A). I can tell you that the structure of the two has little in common except they are both made with Aluminum and rivets. The wing structure in particular is nothing close to similar other than both having a spar and skin. The canopies on the P-51A are not very close to a P-40 either. The spinners attach differently. The elevators are treated quite differently. The list goes on.

I can see similar lines and design influence in the Reggianes and the Severskies, and the family lineage of the P-35 extends to the XP-72 as well, and perhaps a few other around the world. Certainly I have seen the Re.2005 described as the "ultimate Seversky development."


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 2, 2015)

The P-35, P-43, and P-47 (as well as XP-41 and XP-44) each had a number of overlapping features, but off the top of my head it was mostly the use of radial engines, elliptical wing planforms, and the low-drag S-3 airfoil section that persisted from the P-35. The P-43 obviously had a great deal more in common with the P-47 given its turbocharged nature and revised canopy among other similarities (the XP-41 had fully retracting gear too, but was a bit closer to an up-engined P-35 than the P-43 I believe) and the XP-44 would have been the closest to a miniature P-47 of sorts using the R-2180 in place of the P-43's 1830 or P-47's R-2800.

The P-43 might have actually made a somewhat decent high altitude fighter if it hadn't been for the fuel tank arrangement. (the basic airframe seems to also have some advantages over the contemporary P-36/P-40 given the XP-41 was a bit faster than the similarly powered P-36/Hawk models, but there might be other reasons for this)

A bit off topic, but this also reminds me of an issue that's failed to come up in some of the recent turbochared fighter related discussions: coupling a turbo with a radial engine tends to complement the design a good deal better than an inline/V, especially for high speed aircraft given the lesser trade-offs of drag, weight, and jet exhaust thrust (with radials already being larger in diameter and less efficient at using exhaust thrust while also usually lighter than similarly performing liquid cooled engines once the cooling system is taken into account -also shorter, and the short/stout geometry tends to give greater options to embed turbos and intercoolers without adding too much drag)


----------



## lazun (Jul 3, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Readie is currently away from the forum, so, if you don't mind
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That came directly from Macchi chief test pilot Franco Brisolini during flight tests in 1980. Also a quote but not complete shows if there was issues, tests would have brought that forward, but apparently it impressed and was one of the finest aircraft he ever flown capable to anything the Allied had: Chief Naval Test Pilot, remembered how they were impressed when they tested the Veltro. One of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi MC. 205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of Italian styling and German engineering. It was really a delight to fly, and up to anything on the Allied program. But again, it came just before the Italians capitulated so it was never used extensively. And we did tests on it and were most impressed.

This is just like everyone thought the wings where the same length not too long ago on the Macchi’s. Anyway, they were different and not many know this unless involved directly with Macchi. Ingegnere Luigi Raggi and Ingegnere Mario Castelli along with CEO at the time Fabrizio Foresio all confirmed the minor differences in the 202 and 205 wings during the restoration at AerMacchi.

It is true with the P-47 and 2005. Can’t confirm for sure on the P-40, Longhi is dead now, I would have asked him!! The designs came from the P-35. This is confirmed by friend Ingegnere Roberto Longhi who worked in the USA along-side many of the prominent engineers of the time. The P-47 and all Reggiane aircraft were derived from the P-35. When he was kidnapped by the fascists in the US, he was brought back to Italy as a prisoner to work on engineering aircraft. He later came back to the US after the war and worked for Boeing for a short time. He was nominated into the American Institute of Aeronautics and awarded by the International Aeronautics Commission for his achievements. 

Jerry is the owner of the Fiat currently being restored to fly.


----------



## GregP (Jul 3, 2015)

Figured that. Jerry who?

Can we know his name?

We don't have a P-35, but we do have a Seversky AT-12, which is a 2-seat trainer version of the P-35. Here is a pic:






It still flies about 2 - 4 times every 2 years or so. According to John Maloney who usually flies it, it is a very good-flying, good-handling aircraft. If you put it next to the Curtiss P-47G we have, the family resemblance is unmistakable.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lazun (Jul 3, 2015)

Jerry Yagen. He hates publicizing his new restorations, keeping them almost secret. I recall when the Mosquito was being restored in New Zealand as word got out and there was a race to get it flying first. Scouring for parts around the world, wouldn't you know it prices were doubling fast!


----------



## lazun (Jul 3, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The low availability is a part of inefficiency - numbers produced do matter. Do we know what Macchi vs. what Spitfire, who held the initial advantages (current speed height), place time of battle, is it confirmed by both sides?



September 8, 1943 73a Squadriglia, belonging to the 9th Gruppo of 4° Stormo, was based at Gioia del Colle from August 28th, 1943 confirmed both sides.


----------



## GregP (Jul 3, 2015)

Thanks lazun,

He was my first guess. Will be very nice to see an Italian warbird flying!

I wish the effort well and wish it were closer, but anywhere is fine when it is done. Will be very nice to hear a DB engine running, too.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 4, 2015)

lazun said:


> That came directly from Macchi chief test pilot Franco Brisolini during flight tests in 1980. Also a quote but not complete shows if there was issues, tests would have brought that forward, but apparently it impressed and was one of the finest aircraft he ever flown capable to anything the Allied had: Chief Naval Test Pilot, remembered how they were impressed when they tested the Veltro. One of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi MC. 205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of Italian styling and German engineering. It was really a delight to fly, and up to anything on the Allied program. But again, it came just before the Italians capitulated so it was never used extensively. And we did tests on it and were most impressed.



Don't think that anyone will say that Italian fighters were bad, German engines and armament (when installed) gave them what was lacking in radial-engined predecessors. (Un)fortunately, styling is bad in winning the wars, and W. Allies moved the goal post from 380 mph 2xHMG-armed fighters to 400 mph, heavy armed fighters already in late 1942, and more as 1943 unfolded. What would the G.55, Re.2005 and MC.205V do with fully rated DB 605A (400 mph?) from late 1943 on was not going to cut it. 
The claim for 426 mph of G.55 with fully rated engine needs a truckload of salt, the G.56 (DB 603A) and Fw 190D-9 were rated for such turn of speed, with some 300 PS more and less guns.


> This is just like everyone thought the wings where the same length not too long ago on the Macchi’s. Anyway, they were different and not many know this unless involved directly with Macchi. Ingegnere Luigi Raggi and Ingegnere Mario Castelli along with CEO at the time Fabrizio Foresio all confirmed the minor differences in the 202 and 205 wings during the restoration at AerMacchi.



If that is the case, would you please be so kind to post the dimensions?



> It is true with the P-47 and 2005. Can’t confirm for sure on the P-40, Longhi is dead now, I would have asked him!! The designs came from the P-35. This is confirmed by friend Ingegnere Roberto Longhi who worked in the USA along-side many of the prominent engineers of the time. The P-47 and all Reggiane aircraft were derived from the P-35. When he was kidnapped by the fascists in the US, he was brought back to Italy as a prisoner to work on engineering aircraft. He later came back to the US after the war and worked for Boeing for a short time. He was nominated into the American Institute of Aeronautics and awarded by the International Aeronautics Commission for his achievements.



For Regianne, perhaps it is true. The P-47 was not based on P-35. P-40 was based on P-36.
Ing. Longhi worked, pre war, until 1936 in the USA, the P-47B emerged years later.



lazun said:


> September 8, 1943 73a Squadriglia, belonging to the 9th Gruppo of 4° Stormo, was based at Gioia del Colle from August 28th, 1943 confirmed both sides.



Thanks for this part of the answer. I'd like to ask the detain for the RAF (unit, types, pilots killed/downed), also for Italian fighter types.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Jul 4, 2015)

426 mph is specified for g.56 with DB 603A (proably not fully rated). En wiki has the G.55 as 371mph (670 km/h) with WEP, this is ~25 km/h faster than the Bf 109G-6 with fully rated engine.
The G.55 has a cleaner airframe, 5m² more wing area but also some 350kg more weight. The cleaner airframe (retractable tailwheel, no bumps/humps/whatever) should be good for 25 km/h, heavier weight may be countered by higher lift wing which results in having max speed at higher alt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 11, 2015)

The G.55 has also a thicker wing than the Bf 109, both in relative and absolute terms. It also has 5 guns, vs, 3 guns for the Bf 109.
The 670 km/h (417 mph) on Notleistung is 50 km/h more than on Kampleistung, an increase of 8%. The difference in power is ~100 PS at rated altitude (1250 to 1350 PS), or 8%. There is someting fishy there - for increase of power of 8% we should get an increase of speed of 2.5 - 3%? Basically, 640 km/h at most? 

The tests of the G.56 were made in spring of 1944 - the DB 603A should be fully rated by then. The G.56 has a comparable power as the P-51D at ~19300 ft (~1540 PS), and both should be equally fast (430-440 mph per English language Wikipedia)? Chances are slim to none.


----------



## SpicyJuan11 (Jul 11, 2015)

How did the G.56 compare the the Fw 190C/D? It seems kinda silly to spend so much effort replacing the 109 with the G.56 when you had everything to just build more 190's.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 19, 2019)

I would think a G.56 would be a lot more maneuverable than a Fw 190D or any late model Bf 109. So that's one reason - if you have two fighters with similar performance and one has a 17 second turn circle and the other has a 21 second turn circle I think I'm going to go with the first one all things being equal.

This is just from English language Wikipedia so needs confirming in another source, but on the surface it looks like the G.55 would be considerably more maneuverable.

*G.55*
Wingspan 38' 
wing area 227.2 
Wing loading 32 lb / sq ft

*Fw 190D*
Wingspan 34' 5" 
Wing area 197 sq ft
Wing loading 47.7 lb / sq ft

The Fw 190D9 is considerably faster than the G.55 (426 mph vs. 390) but that is with MW-50 or water injection and WEP right? English wikipedia claims the G.56 with the DB 603 would equal that speed though I would have some doubts. However it might be close, a Ta -152 was much faster with that engine.

If they were close to the same speed then the edge seems to be with the Fiat.

I assume the DB 603 would make the G.56 heavier than the G.55 but it would still have an edge in turn rate. Roll would be a big question.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 21, 2019)

I don't know if the same thing applies to the Fiat G55 as the Macchi C.202/205, but for the Macchi fighters, although they were reasonably light and strong, their airframes were also VERY labor intensive to build. IIRC it was about 3X the man-hours as a Me 109.

- Ivan.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 23, 2019)

Some of the subtle differences between the C.205 and the G.55 evident when looking at them in photographs.

C.205:




C.205

G.55:




G.55

Most obvious differences in side elevation are the straight fin leading edge and entirely enclosed tailwheel of the Fiat. The biggest visual differences can be seen round their noses.

C.205:




C.205 nose

G.55:




G.55 nose

Most noticeable on the G.55 is the slightly cranked wing and cleaner nose profile reminiscent of a late model Bf 109. The C.205 has a more protruding proboscis in the spinner and those two barrel coolers do nothing for its appearance. Otherwise they both are very similar.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Sep 23, 2019)

G55 also has a much bigger wing ...


----------



## Schweik (Sep 23, 2019)

Is that a Sparviero next to the G.55?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 23, 2019)

Hello Nuuumannn,

The Macchi C.202 Folgore actually had an oil cooler configuration that resembled the G55 / Me 109.
This particular C.205 Veltro appears from the non-retractable tail wheel to be a conversion of a C.202 airframe.
The retractable tailwheel when on C.205 tended to give trouble, so after the war when some of the remaining airframes were converted (re-engine) to C.205 standards for export, this was not something they attempted to alter.
I believe that all surviving C.205 today are actually C.202 conversions.

- Ivan.


----------



## spicmart (Sep 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> I would think a G.56 would be a lot more maneuverable than a Fw 190D or any late model Bf 109. So that's one reason - if you have two fighters with similar performance and one has a 17 second turn circle and the other has a 21 second turn circle I think I'm going to go with the first one all things being equal.
> 
> This is just from English language Wikipedia so needs confirming in another source, but on the surface it looks like the G.55 would be considerably more maneuverable.
> 
> ...



Afaik no Italian fighter excelled at rate of roll (which might be possible to rectify). That is where the Fw 190d is better, which is a factor of agility like turn rate. While the G.56 was said to be as good a turner as the Spitfire, the Dora is no slouch either, at least at high speed combat late war. The Dora should dive better because of higher weight and wing load.
Don't know for sure about climb. The G.56 would be in the vicinity of the Spitfire Mk XIV but the D-9 is also a very good climber, not much behind. 
So I would rate the Fw 190D and G.56 fairly even in a fight.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 23, 2019)

So wait they didnt have those barrel oil coolers?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 23, 2019)

Schweik said:


> So wait they didnt have those barrel oil coolers?



The C.202 Folgore had an oil cooler like a Messerschmitt 109.
The C.205 Veltro had the twin barrel oil coolers a higher rated engine, retractable tailwheel and often carried heavier wing armament than the more typical two rifle caliber MG wing guns on the C.202. I believe the most typical armament was a pair of 20 mm cannon in the wings.
The airframes were basically identical otherwise. An unusual feature of these aeroplanes is that one wing is longer than the other to address engine torque issues.

- Ivan.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 23, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> This particular C.205 Veltro appears from the non-retractable tail wheel to be a conversion of a C.202 airframe.



Thanks for that Ivan, did not know it was a C.202 converted. It certainly is different from the C.202, of which I'll post a few pics, and it is so modified to be externally indistinguishable from an actual C.205. On the C.205 the tailwheel wasn't fully retractable like on the Fiat; it was semi-retractable and protruded from the bottom of the fuse, so on that aircraft, the tailwheel layout is accurate.



Schweik said:


> So wait they didnt have those barrel oil coolers?



The C.205V did have the two barrel coolers.



Schweik said:


> Is that a Sparviero next to the G.55



Yes, it is!


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 23, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Thanks for that Ivan, did not know it was a C.202 converted. It certainly is different from the C.202, of which I'll post a few pics, and it is so modified to be externally indistinguishable from an actual C.205. On the C.205 the tailwheel wasn't fully retractable like on the Fiat; it was semi-retractable and protruded from the bottom of the fuse, so on that aircraft, the tailwheel layout is accurate.



Hello Nuuumannn,

Attached are a couple photographs that sort of show the difference in the tail wheel setup.
The problem with photographs is that there are no original C.205 that survive today and photographs would be from the war.
Note the shape of the fairing in front of the tail wheel on the original C.205 as compared to the C.202 conversion.
If it is longer front to rear than top to bottom, it is probably a C.205. C.202 fairings are longer top to bottom.
The C.205 has a couple doors which partially cover the retracted tail wheel but often the doors are hard to see in photographs.
If it started life as a C.202, it could have a fairing in front or not at all and sometimes they also have a small fairing behind the wheel as well.
The aft fairing is where the wheel well would be for the retracted gear on a C.205, so you should never see an original C.205 with one.
The drawing should give a more clear idea of what the thing SHOULD look like.

- Ivan.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 24, 2019)

Yup. I understand Ivan; taking a look at a book I bought from the museum, it appears that C.202s were converted to resemble C.205s either on the productionline or in service, which is peculiar. Egypt received C.202s, which had been converted to C.205s and thus share the same fairing on the tailwheel, as did the AMI, but I can't find a picture of an AMI one. Here's an Egyptian one with a description:

http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/908/pics/198_3.jpg

So, whilst the museum aircraft might appear to be inaccurate, it isn't, as it is indeed a C.202 converted to a C.205 as it appeared in service, not just a difference brought about by the conversion carried out for the museum. Nonetheless, the C.205's tailwheel was semi retractable, unlike the Fiat's. Here's a Luftwaffe one clearly showing the tail wheel hanging out.

Macchi C.205 - Wikipedia

Here's what Wiki says about these conversions:

"During 1948–1949, Egypt received 62 refurbished C.205Vs, of which 41 were converted from C.202 airframes. In May 1948, eight C.205V and 16 C.202 were upgraded and in February 1949, three brand new and 15 ex-MC.202, and in May another 10 MC.205 and 10 MC.202 were upgraded. This last contract was not finalized and, given the end of the Israeli War of Independence (1948–49), the fighters were delivered to Aeronautica Militare Italiana (AMI). Egypt also ordered 19 G.55s and Syria another 16, all new-built.
The new _Veltros_ were fully equipped, while the _Folgore_ conversions were armed with only two 12.7 mm Breda machine guns. They were the lightest series of the entire production, and consequently had the best performance, but were seriously under-armed. A total of 15 Macchis were delivered to Egypt before the end of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, seeing brief combat against the Israeli Air Force."

Here is the C.202 in the museum. The tail wheel has no fairing!




C.202 tail

From the front it shows the neater nasal features.




C.202 nose

And for you, Schweik, the museum's S.79 - a real beauty.




S.79

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 24, 2019)

Hello Nuuumannn,

Thanks for the details. I have a suspicion that the C.202 Folgore in your photographs was actually pieced together from parts.
The propeller spinner on that aircraft looks like it came from a C.205 Veltro. The original C.202 spinner is a bit more angular and pointy.
I may be incorrect, but that is the way it looks to me.
I don't know if the tail wheel fairings were more or less common in the field, but that is how they came from the factory.
This photograph is of the one in the NASM in Washington DC.

- Ivan.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 24, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yup. I understand Ivan; taking a look at a book I bought from the museum, it appears that C.202s were converted to resemble C.205s either on the productionline or in service, which is peculiar. Egypt received C.202s, which had been converted to C.205s and thus share the same fairing on the tailwheel, as did the AMI, but I can't find a picture of an AMI one. Here's an Egyptian one with a description:
> 
> http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/908/pics/198_3.jpg
> 
> ...



What museum is that, is it in Italy? Magnificent Sparviero, I think I see some other Savoia Marchietti and CANT bombers there too... SM 82, CANT 506?


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 24, 2019)

Schweik said:


> What museum is that, is it in Italy?



It is the one and only Museo Storico Dell'Aeronautica Militare on the shore of Lake Bracchiano north of Rome. Such an awesome museum with a breathtaking collection. You'll have to excuse me photobombing this (and other) thread with images from the museum, it's a great place. And, yes, SM.82 and Z.506 Airone, which, I believe is the largest surviving float plane, as opposed to flying boat, left. Other WW2 stuff on display includes a Fiat CR.42, world's only surviving IMAM Ro.43 ship based recon biplane, Macchi C.200, as well as Fiat G.59, Fiat G.46, Caproni Campini mixed propulsion turbojet... The list goes on. I'll open a thread on the museum soon, but I'm busy with other stuff right now.



Ivan1GFP said:


> This photograph is of the one in the NASM in Washington DC.



Yes, Ivan, you could be right regarding the C.202, although I haven't looked at the two closely. It's common for museums to do this. The RAF Museum's sole surviving complete Hawker Typhoon's spinner is originally from an Avro Shackleton, which has four blades, so the holes were blanked out and new ones cut! I've been to the NASM and seen their Macchi. great place, too.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 25, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Yes, Ivan, you could be right regarding the C.202, although I haven't looked at the two closely. It's common for museums to do this. The RAF Museum's sole surviving complete Hawker Typhoon's spinner is originally from an Avro Shackleton, which has four blades, so the holes were blanked out and new ones cut! I've been to the NASM and seen their Macchi. great place, too.



Hello Nuuumannn,

The main reason why I have been collecting information about the Macchi C.202 and C.205 is that a few years back, I tried to build a couple 3D models of the two aeroplanes for the simulators. I tried to find as many detail shots as I could and finding good photographs of the original C.205 is very difficult. The paint job on my C.202 is based on the one hanging in the Smithsonian with some artistic liberties: Macchi Screenshots

- Ivan.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 26, 2019)

lazun said:


> Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons. They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph. When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi’s tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi. But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.
> 
> RSI Adriano Visconti
> Combat sorties: 72
> ...



All this says was Adriano was got into more intense combat sorties in a short period of time within the range of his fighter.
The war was moving farther away from bases in England and flying into Axis territory.

The Spitfire and Thunderbolt were so short legged that it could not fly far enough to engage in any combat.
Do not know how many times reading about how they ran out of fuel or had to end combat because they would not make it back.
Great combat planes if they could get to the fight.
Which included the short legged Airacobra in Pacific US.
When the 56th Thunderbolt group used European bases their combat record improved.
When air bases were built closer to Rubal the P40s had enough range to engage. 

Just looking at the war records of the planes. 
All of them did well within the range of their airplanes to get to the fight.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 26, 2019)

?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 26, 2019)

Here is some data of G.55 and G.56.



G.55 - 1


G.55 - 2


G.56

IMO, this plane has great potential but DB605A engine has not been enough to pull it out. 
G.56 with DB603A show us great performance even it's engine doesn't used ADI or Take off power.


----------



## Pinin (Sep 26, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Afaik no Italian fighter excelled at rate of roll (which might be possible to rectify). That is where the Fw 190d is better, which is a factor of agility like turn rate. While the G.56 was said to be as good a turner as the Spitfire, the Dora is no slouch either, at least at high speed combat late war. The Dora should dive better because of higher weight and wing load.
> Don't know for sure about climb. The G.56 would be in the vicinity of the Spitfire Mk XIV but the D-9 is also a very good climber, not much behind.
> So I would rate the Fw 190D and G.56 fairly even in a fight.




Argentinians liked much and considered the G.55 a "winner" and superior to Spitfire IX in tests they made in 1950. "su capacidade de trepada y de virage era superior al Supermarine Spitfire Mk.9 como se pudo comprobar en una serie de evaluciones realizadas durente 1950" They also said that the pilots had a sensation of flying in a compact and solid structure that answered well to inputs. The engine had to be taken of each 100hrs of flight for inspection, the inverted V configuration made some components difficult to replace. It had a problem with replacements - Italy was far and still recovering from war - and landing gear was fragile.


----------



## Schweik (Sep 26, 2019)

gomwolf said:


> Here is some data of G.55 and G.56.
> 
> View attachment 554229
> 
> ...



Do you have any information on roll rate?


----------



## gomwolf (Sep 27, 2019)

Schweik said:


> Do you have any information on roll rate?


Only thing I know about it's roll rate is rechlin test on 27 feb 1943 and it seems already mentioned. Germans evaluate roll rate of this plane is little lower than Bf109G-4.

AFAIK, Meier Motors restoring a G.55 since 2012 and I am waiting with huge expectation.

Hmm... I cannot find the page of it now. 
Here is old link - Fiat G.55 - MeierMotors GmbH

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dan Fahey (Sep 29, 2019)

G59 using the Merlin..did it perform better? Like the Spanish Messerschmitt ?


----------



## Pinin (Oct 5, 2019)

That is the G.59 i don't think it performed better. Maximum speed was worse but it wasn't developed to be a combat aircraft. 
But some were sold to Syrians for combat. In Italy both monoposto and biposto versions had only training propose.


----------



## contaxrts (Oct 18, 2019)

Pinin said:


> That is the G.59 i don't think it performed better. Maximum speed was worse but it wasn't developed to be a combat aircraft.
> But some were sold to Syrians for combat. In Italy both monoposto and biposto versions had only training propose.



post war G.59 had 1100 hp derated Merlin
rumors say that Pino Valenti G.59's , with a non-depowered Merlin, has reached 700 km/h
about G.55/56 you can consider that they are the same aircraft, the only difference behind/firewall is the false rootrib nose is open forward by 8°16'18" in order to allow to move the engine (DB603) about 1ft backwards to preserve the balancing occupying the space previously intended for ammunition tanks, this is the reason why machine guns were eliminated... a wing with 4 guns was already planned; modification maintained on g.59 even the weapons were mounted in a single sample...


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> I suspect the similar profiles are due to a combination of manufacturing limits (maybe they could not blow clear-view canopies), air force specifications (seeing out would be important in a fighter), and design personnel moving between companies.


The Italians had a bubble canopy on the Caproni Vizzola F.5. It’s a pre-war design so perhaps they bought the Perspex glass from the UK.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 24, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> As for the 'flaw behind the beauty',


The beauty needs a bubble canopy.

Postwar the Fiat G.55 became the Merlin-powered G.59 with a beautiful bubble canopy. This would have looked the part of Italy’s top fighter in WW2. Looks like a Supermarine Seafang.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 28, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> The beauty needs a bubble canopy.
> 
> Postwar the Fiat G.55 became the Merlin-powered G.59 with a beautiful bubble canopy. This would have looked the part of Italy’s top fighter in WW2. Looks like a Supermarine Seafang.
> 
> View attachment 558055


How did it perform with Merlin?
Did it get the 2 speed 2 stage version?

D


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> How did it perform with Merlin?
> Did it get the 2 speed 2 stage version?
> 
> D



Nope, 1-stage 2 speed supercharged Merlin, from the post-war 500 series (very similar to the later Merlin 20 series). Speed, and probably climb, were decreased vs. the G.55. Italian Wikipedia says 609 km/h for the G.59 vs. 620 km/h for the G.55 - no wonder, the DB 605A was making a bit more power in higher altitudes, even restricted.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 28, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> How did it perform with Merlin?
> Did it get the 2 speed 2 stage version?
> 
> D


I'm not sure. A quick search of Google tells us....

Fiat G.59
Engine: Rolls-Royce Merlin 500/20, Power: 1,420hp


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 28, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Nope, 1-stage 2 speed supercharged Merlin, from the post-war 500 series (very similar to the later Merlin 20 series). Speed, and probably climb, were decreased vs. the G.55. Italian Wikipedia says 609 km/h for the G.59 vs. 620 km/h for the G.55 - no wonder, the DB 605A was making a bit more power in higher altitudes, even restricted.


Makes sense as the G.59 was primarily a dual seat trainer. No need for the fancier Merlins. 

It is nice to see a bubble canopy on what originally was an Italian single seat prop fighter.


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 29, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I'm not sure. A quick search of Google tells us....
> 
> Fiat G.59
> Engine: Rolls-Royce Merlin 500/20, Power: 1,420hp



Thanks for the post and this is what was posted....surprised !
Top Speed only 368 Mph?
Was fairly light so it probably had good maneuverability and climb.

*G.59-4A*
Engine: Rolls-Royce Merlin 500/20
Power: 1,420hp
Crew: 1
Wing span: 38ft 0in
Length: 31ft 0 3/4in
Height: 12ft 0 3/4in
Empty Weight: 6,183lb
Maximum take-off Weight: 7,628lb
Max Speed: 368mph at 20,340ft
Service Ceiling: 37,730ft
Range: 882 miles
Armament: two or four .5in (12.7mm) machine guns


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 29, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Thanks for the post and this is what was posted....surprised !
> Top Speed only 368 Mph?
> Was fairly light so it probably had good maneuverability and climb.



Roughly comparable with Spitfire V - no surprises there.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 29, 2019)

Dan Fahey said:


> Thanks for the post and this is what was posted....surprised !
> Top Speed only 368 Mph?


It’s a post-war trainer, not intended as fighter, with most completing as dual seat aircraft. I imagine half of its justification was keeping the factory employed. I only included it as a demonstration of what the G.55 fighter would have looked like with a bubble canopy. Put the final Bf-109K’s Daimler-Benz DB605 and the bubble canopy on the G.55 and you’ve got one hell of a fighter.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Oct 29, 2019)

I wish the Seafire had the G.59’s wide track undercarriage.






Instead of these narrow legs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

The C.205 had a better speed, turn time, climb rate, power to weight ratio but it was only marginal and the differences are barely noticeable the real difference in my opinion is that the g.55 had an extra 20mm in the nose which gave it a huge boost in firepower. Although it was marginally worse performance-wise, (i mean slightly) it was able to take out an enemy airplane much more efficiently.


----------



## GregP (May 25, 2021)

I have read in several references that Italian fighter pilots thought the answer to aerial combat was aerobatics, and that many an Italian pilot was shot down in the middle of a perfect slow roll. The wording of these so-called references is similar enough to make me believe that someone originally wrote these things and everyone else copied from them. I think I read it first in a William Green book. Doesn't mean he wrote it first.

Personally, I rather doubt the claim, and lean towards the thinking that there were very few Italian thoroughbred fighters (these three) and relatively little radar coverage. So, many were likely destroyed on the ground in raids coupled with few to start with. I've never seen anything claiming these three fighters were an easy foe in combat. They weren't. U.S. pilots who flew them universally liked them a lot.

The G.50, although obsolescent when deployed, actually did a good job in actual combat used by the Finns, but the open cockpit was firmly disliked in winter, as you might expect. Other than the Finns, the G.50 was underarmed and slow and didn't do very well.

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


----------

