# Italy v. England - Air to air



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 25, 2005)

At the point in time when Italy surrendered in September of 1943, did England have combat operational fighter aircraft that were superior to ther best combat operational aircraft of Italy?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 26, 2005)

Short Answer: *NO*

Long Answer: *NO WAY*


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 26, 2005)

The fighters were probably a good match for each other except there weren't too many of the 5 Series around compared to Spits and Tiffies. The Italian bomber force was puny in comparison and all the Italian cities (with the factories in) would have been flattened


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 26, 2005)

I think the Italian fighters could have easily dealt with the bombers.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

But this is just fighter vs. fighter.

Which British planes were better than the Italian Series 5 aircraft?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

before the italian surrender?? the spitfire, hurricane, gloster gladiator, mosquito, and yes, the Skua and the Roc were all better fighters than anything the italians had................


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

While you're at it, you forgot to mention that the Brits are impervious to gingivitis too.


----------



## trackend (Apr 26, 2005)

I thing we had an experimental Halitosis cannon on trial but the barrel kept melting .  
At least none of the British aircraft had reverse gear for pronto pronto escape


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

it was only a metter of time............


----------



## trackend (Apr 26, 2005)

Well. I just had to say it first as I want to be a trend setter Lanc


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

I was merely poking fun at Lanc for the *audacious* statemant that the Hurricane, Goster Gladiator, Skua, etc. were better than the Series 5 fighters.

Halitosis Cannon? Isn't that a cigar?

I thought the Brits had a patent on reverse gear mechanisms that they perfected during their run ins with Rommel. 

Seriously though, did the Brits field anything by September of '43 that was a better air to air machine than the Series 5's?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

yes, pretty much everything............


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 26, 2005)

Nope the english did not.

The Fiat G.55, Reggiane 2005 and the Macchi 202 / 205 we far superior to anything the brits had. As for the old Italians and reverse gear gag, you need to be reminded that that was a piece of propaganda designed for the British Home Front.

Where they were adequately supplied, the Italians were the match for anyone.









> The final Macchi fighter was the ultimate development of this line, the MC.205 Veltro (greyhound). It first flew in April 1942 using the MC.202 airframe with a more powerful Daimler-Benz DB605 engine and also used the 1,475hp Fiat inline engine. Maximum speed was 399 mph, a range of 646 miles and a service ceiling of 37,090 ft. It was armed with 2 12.7mm Breda machine guns in the cowling and 2 wing mounted 7.7mm machine guns which were soon supplanted by 20mm cannon, with additional cannon or 12.7mm machine guns later added.
> 
> The MC.205 reached Italian squadrons in June 1943 and was used over North Africa, Pantelleria, Sicily and Italy. On their first sortie, 25 MC.205s faced a larger number of P-40's and Spitfires. Over Sicily, the MC.205 was used to try and stop the American bombers. The first Stormo to get the MC.205 was the 1st Stormo. The 51st Stormo received their MC. 205 in April 1943 and on 8/2/43, 6 MC.205 attacked 20 P-38 and P-40s destroying 6 of the Allied fighters for the loss of only 1 MC.205.
> 
> ...











> The MC.202 Folgore (lightning) was a direct descendant of the MC.200 that retained the same wing and controls, along with parts of the fuselage, but being powered by the inline Daimler Benz DB601 (later license built by Alfa Romeo). The MC.202 was delivered to operation groups in 1941, after the prototype flew in 1940 and had an enclosed cockpit. The MC.202 was armed with 2 12.7mm Breda machine guns in the cowling and 2 7.7mm machine guns in the wings. Some later versions had the 7.7mm machine guns replaced by 20mm cannon. The MC.202's top speed was 372 mph, range of 475 miles and had a service ceiling of 37,730ft.
> 
> The MC.202 clearly proved superior to the P-40 and Hurricane and met its match with the Spitfire and Mustang. By late 1942, MC.202s outnumbered other fighters in the Regia Aeronautica. The MC.202 saw service in the North Africa campaign, Malta, Sicily, and over Italy. There were 2 main subversions, the AS for tropical service and the CB fighter-bomber. After the armistice in 1943, MC.202s flew with both Italian air forces. This was arguably the best Italian fighter to see large-scale service during the war.
> 
> ...










> The last model in the series was the excellent Re.2005 Sagittario (Archer). The wings were improved and enlarged, with new landing gear and heavy armament of 3 20mm cannon and 2 12.7mm machine guns. The first prototype was ready in December 1941, but lacked the engine for 4 months from Germany (the Daimler Benz inline). The first flight was on 5/9/42 , after the MC.205 and G.55 had both flown. The Re.2005 was fast and maneuverable and used the Fiat 1,475 hp inline license built version of the Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine. Maximum speed was 391 mph, a service ceiling of 40,000 ft and a range of 786 miles. However, only 29 were built.
> 
> The Re.2005's operational career began in May 1943 with the 362nd Squadriglia and used to defend Sicily and Italy against Allied bombers until 8/26/43. After the armistice, the Germans seized 13 and used them to defend the Romanian oil fields.
> 
> ...










> The next in the Reggiane series was the Re.2002 Ariete II (Ram II) fighter-bomber. This went back to a radial engine of 1,175 hp built by Piaggio and had a top speed of 329 mph and a range of 685 miles. The Re.2002 was an agile and sturdy plane and was the best fighter and attack bomber in the Italian Air Force. The Luftwaffe liked the aircraft so much, they decided in 1943 to develop a version with the FW190 radial engine, but the plan was never carried out. A total of 255 planes were built, 149 for the Regia Aeronautica and the rest for the Luftwaffe.
> 
> The Re.2002 was developed in 1940 and used the wing system of the Re.2001 with a remodeled fuselage to accommodate the radial engine. Armament consisted of 2 12.7 mm machine guns in the cowling and 2 7.7mm machine guns in the wings and up to a 1,102lb bomb attached to the belly and 2 352 lb bombs under the wings. The prototype flew in October 1940, but did not reach squadrons until March 1942. The 5th Dive Bomber Group became operational in July 1943 and were used in the defense of Sicily and Italy. 40 Re.2002 continued the war after the armistice on the allied side until the summer of 1944. Germany seized the rest and new production and used them against the French resistance fighters.
> 
> ...










> Between 10/38 and 4/39, Sergio Stefanutti designed the SAI.7 as a high-performance touring plane for the civil market. Undoubtedly one of the best looking aircraft ever designed, the SAI.7 possessed exceptionally clean lines, was of wooden construction with plywood skin. The SAI.7 was the first Ambrosini airplane with retractable landing gear, in this instance of the fully-retractable tailwheel type with wide-track main units that swung inward and upward into the roots of the cantilever low-set wing. The first two aircraft were completed in 7/39 with a windscreen design that extended right to the nose for a very clean entry, and were entered in the Avio Raduno del Littorio competition that started a few days after the machines made their maiden flights. The aircraft were too under developed to win the competition, but nonetheless put in a very credible performance that included a maximum speed of 251 mph with a 280 hp air-cooled Hirth HM 508D inverted-Vee engine. One aircraft took a class closed-circuit speed record over 61.2 miles with a speed of 244 mph.
> 
> The high speed/power ratio of the SAI.7 caught the imagination of the Italian air force which saw considerable possibilities in the concept of a lightweight interceptor that could be built in large numbers without drawing on the country's strategic stockpile of aluminum alloys. Little was done about the military potential of the SAI.7 in the short- term, however, and it was 1941 before Stefanutti began work on a fighter trainer derived from the SAI.7 with the Hirth engine being replaced by a 280 hp Isotta-Fraschini Beta RC.10 inverted-Vee engine. The fuselage and wingspan were increased and the faired racing windscreen was replaced by a conventional stepped windscreen at the front of a more heavily framed cockpit enclosure with two rearward sliding sections for access, and the landing gear was modified with a fixed tailwheel. These changes increased the maximum take-off weight, but the maximum speed was reduced only slightly to 248.5 mph. By the time the first of an eventual 10 SAI.7 fighter trainers appeared, the increasingly difficult military position in which Italy found itself was reflected in the emphasis on combat aircraft rather than trainers; and so further work on the fighter trainer variant was abandoned until after the war when it was revived and led to the S.7 and Supersette trainers.
> 
> ...











> Some aviation experts consider the FIAT G55 Centauro the best single seat fighter produced for the Italian air force in World War Two. The Fiat G55 Centauro was a redesigned version of the G50 Freccia. Differences included a DB 605 A-1 engine, an improved fineness ratio of the fuselage and a redesigned wing, built in 2 sections ,bolted together at the centerline for greater efficiency. Metal stressed skin was used and the metal framed airlerone was fabric covered.
> 
> The first prototype was flown on April 30, 1942 and production started in the beginning of 1943. The initial model was the G55/0 which held a 20mm MG 151 cannon and (4) 12.7mm Breda SAFAT machine guns. The "O" model was succeeded by the "I" model which held three 20mm MG151's and two Breda SAFAT machine guns. Deliveries of the G55 to the 53rd Stormo and the 353rd Squadriglia of the 20th Gruppo just started when Italy surrendered to the Allies on September 8, 1943. Because of Italy's surrender, the G55 did not see combat with the Regia Aeronautica. However, factories which were building the G55's were still under the control of the Republica Sociale Italiana (Salo Republic) in northern Italy, and several thousand were ordered. The G55 became the RSI's standard aircraft for their air force. Shortages began to develope as the DB 605 A-1 engines became scarce and only 105 FIAT G55's were produced by the time the Allies overran all of Italy.
> 
> ...



All photos and infromation from  http://www.comandosupremo.com/Air.html


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

kiwimac said, "_you need to be reminded that that was a piece of propaganda designed for the British Home Front. _"

Kind of like that propoganda about oral hygeine being unnecessary and toothpaste being poisonous.


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 26, 2005)

LOL  I swear you crack me up.


----------



## trackend (Apr 26, 2005)

I don't need reminding Kiwimac  
The British did'nt actually believe the propaganda and thought that of the Italians. (it was tanks anyway 3 forward and 10 reverse), what did become apparent was that large numbers of Italian troops did not favour Mussolini and so where selective in their application of force against the enemy however the Italian mountain troops and their naval divers where amongst the elite units of WW2.
As for the teeth thing Dave that is not propaganda
Imagine the scenario two units one British army commandos one United States Rangers.
Night attack. creepy creepy towards the enemy.
Suddenly  a search light scans the area commandos black and manky teeth blend effortlessly into the night while US gleaming gnashers light up like cats eyes. Bingo position compromised Ranges wiped out all because of dental hygiene


----------



## evangilder (Apr 26, 2005)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2005)

I don't know about you guys, but I think given the chance, this guy would of wiped out the whole Italian AF in 30 days!  

SCREWBALL GEORGE - WHAT A CHARACTER 

Buzz Beurling, Canada's leading WWII ace. His skill in a cockpit was, however, matched with a streak of rebelliousness and disrespect for authority. He had two nicknames: "Buzz" for his habit of unauthorized low-level flying and "Screwball" for his erratic behavior. At one point he even designed his own uniform! 

32 total kills, *In 14 days of combat on Malta against the Italians, he destroyed 27 enemy planes, damaged eight, and probably destroyed three more. *


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

The Italians fielded many really poor, obsolete aircraft like the Fiat CR-42's (a biplane) and Re-2000's.


The "Falcon of Malta" flew a Spitfire. Definitely no contest there. Not that he didn't also shoot down his share of MC-202's. He was a confident and daring pilot. 

From: http://www.constable.ca/beurling.htm

"Beurling waxed hot and cold on his Italian opponents. In a 1943 interview he referred to the Italians as 'ice-cream merchants', saying 

'The Eyeties are comparatively easy to shoot down. Oh, they're brave enough. In fact, I think the Eyeties have more courage than the Germans, but their tactics aren't so good. They are very good gliders, but they try to do clever acrobatics and looping. But they will stick it even if things are going against them, whereas the Jerries will run.'"

He shot down Italy's top ace who was flying a Macchi Mc-202 Veltro depicted below.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 26, 2005)

Shot his head right off with a cannon shell, I read somewhere.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 26, 2005)

as far as i can see he shot down no biplanes but 4 x 190s . 17x 109 8 maachi 202 and 2xju 88 and was probably the best deflection shot of ww2 he was kicked out of rcaf in late 44


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

Nonskimmer said, "_Shot his head right off with a cannon shell, I read somewhere."_

That was actually the pilot of a Cant bomber. The plane actually made it back to base even with its engine taken out. The bomber aimer/observer brought it back!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 26, 2005)

Uh...yeah...I knew that... :-"

Yes, you're right. I read that in a bio not five minutes ago. Oops.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 26, 2005)

i was given to understand it was a maachi 202 and his report read fired 4 rounds thru cockpit and the armorers counted the rounds used and it coincided


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 26, 2005)

Ah. I just reread a couple of different bios. He'd been haunted (supposedly) by a dream in which he blew off an Italian fighter pilot's head with a cannon shot. That's what I was thinking of earlier.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 26, 2005)

The 5 Series weren't available in enough numbers though


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

pbfoot said, "_i was given to understand it was a maachi 202 and his report read fired 4 rounds thru cockpit and the armorers counted the rounds used and it coincided_"

I am relying on the account as set out in the website I referenced. That sortie, as the story goes, clearly involved more than four rounds being fired.

"_On July 6 he got to put into practice what he had learned when 8 Spits were sent to intercept 3 Italian Cant bombers heading for Malta. They were escorted by no less than 30 Macchi 200 fighters. Beurling led the assault diving straight through the Macchi formations and pulling up to fire on a big, Cant bomber. His first burst hit the pilot blowing off his head, the second took out an engine. Despite the damage, it made it back to base in Sicily flown by the bomber aimer/observer. Beurling turned quickly and fired directly into an Italian fighter, knocking it down in flames. He lined up another Italian fighter but it dove sharply to get away. Beurling followed all the way from 20,000 feet to 5,000. The Italian had no choice but to pull up and George caught him square in his sights. The Macchi blew up._"

Perhaps he had a penchant for blowing off pilots heads and you are referring to a different event.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 26, 2005)

Well, they didn't call the man "Screwball" for nothing.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 26, 2005)

He must have been mental!


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

Ninskimmer, is that gentleman on your avatar a relative? What's the story?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 26, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Ninskimmer, is that gentleman on your avatar a relative? What's the story?


My grandfather. He flew Lancasters with RCAF 419 sqn. for a time. He was in Wellingtons before that.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

How interesting that you have a familial connection to the subject matter of this forum.

On another note, it's odd to think that Lanc dreams of being your grandfather. Actually, it conjures up rather disturbing imagery don't you think?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 26, 2005)

I try not to dwell on that.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

So which combat operational model of Spitfire was the very best at September of 1943?

I wish we could get some test data on the Series 5 fighters. I have read that the Germans played around with them quite a bit and were quite impressed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2005)

To my Canadian friends - Could Buelring have been from Newfoundland?!?  Just kidding, I know Scewball was from outside of Montreal. I think the RAF was way better than Italy at this time, although the Italians did have some good pilots.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

On the subject of tests, I came across this.


In December 1942 a technical commission of the Regia Aeronautica was invited by Luftwaffe to test some German aircrafts in Rechlin. The visit was part of a joint plan for the standardization of the Axis aircraft production. In the same time some Luftwaffe officers visited Guidonia where they were particularly interested in the performances promised by the Serie 5's. On December 9 these impressions were discussed in a Luftwaffe staff meeting and rised the interest of Goering itself.

In February 1943 a German test commission was sent in Italy to evaluate the new Italian fighters. The commission was led by Oberst Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officiers and pilots nad by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz. The Germans carried with them also several aircrafts included a Fw190A and a Me109G for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights.

The tests began February 20. The German commission, not without a certain surprise, was very impressed by the Italian aircrafts, the G55 in particular. In general, all the Serie 5's were very good at low altitudes, but the G55 was competitive with its German opponents also 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 G55, "good" for the Re2005 and "average" for the MC205. Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "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 February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany.

The interest of the Germans, apart from the good test results, derived also from the development possibilities they was able to see in the G55 and in the Re2005. For the Re2005 the German interest resulted in the provision of an original DB605 with the new WM injection. This engine and a VDM propeller were installed on the MM495 prototype that was acquired by Luftwaffe and tested in Rechlin. The aircraft reached 700 km/h during a test with a German pilot, but the airframe was not judged sufficiently strong for these performances.

The G55 was bigger and heavier and was considered a very good candidate for the new DB603 engine. Other visits were organized in Germany during March and May 1943 in Rechlin and Berlin. The G55 was again tested at Rechlin at the presence of Milch. Gabrielli and other FIAT personalities were invited to visit German factories and to discuss the evolution of the aircraft. The specifications of the German G55/II included the DB603 engine, five 20 mm guns and a pressurized cockpit. The suggestion of weapons in the wings, limited to one 20 mm gun for each wing, originated the final configuration of the Serie I, while the 603 engine was succesfully installed in the G56 prototypes.

As a concrete results of the German interest in the G55, the Luftwaffe acquired three complete G55 Sottoserie 0 airframes (MM91064-65-66) for evaluations and experiments giving in change three DB603 engines and original machinery for the setup of other production lines of the DB605/RA1050 RC58 I. Two of the Luftwaffe G55's remained in Turin, at the Aeritalia plants, where they were used by German and Italian engineers to study the planned modifications and the possible optimizations to the production process. Later these two were converted to Serie I and delivered to the ANR. The third one was transferred to Rechlin for tests and experiments in Germany. The DB603 engines were used to build the G56 prototypes.

The interest in the G55 program was still high after the Armistice: in October 1943 Kurt Tank, who previously personally tested a G55 in Rechlin, was in Turin to discuss about the G55 production. However, war events and the not yet optimized production process were the reasons for which the G55 program was eventually abandoned by the Luftwaffe. Early produced G55's required about 15000 manhours; while there were estimations to reduce the effort to about 9000 manhours, the German factories were able to assemble a Bf109 in only 5000 manhours.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 26, 2005)

http://www.constable.ca/beurling.htm
excellent site on beurling and i should probably stand corrected


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 26, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> On the subject of tests, I came across this.
> 
> 
> In December 1942 a technical commission of the Regia Aeronautica was invited by Luftwaffe to test some German aircrafts in Rechlin. The visit was part of a joint plan for the standardization of the Axis aircraft production. In the same time some Luftwaffe officers visited Guidonia where they were particularly interested in the performances promised by the Serie 5's. On December 9 these impressions were discussed in a Luftwaffe staff meeting and rised the interest of Goering itself.
> ...



I think you hit the nail on the head on this - *standardization of the Axis aircraft production* Its hard to fight a war with 10 different relatively "good" fighter aircraft, produce them in numbers and keep them supplied. Production manhours are always watched during any aircraft production and that could make or brake a successful design.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 26, 2005)

That's quite the write up you've found there, DAVI. Really quite interesting. To be truthful, I'd never taken enough of an interest in Italian fighters to do much reading on them, but I must say that's beginning to change. I'd known of some German interest in later model Italian designs, but that's really about it.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 26, 2005)

I've been reading some other WWII aviation forums. I have read more than one claim that the Reichsluftfahrtministerium Ministry of Aviation was contemplating the Fiat G.55 as a replacement for the Messerschmitt ME-109.

From: http://www.aldini.it/re2005/history.htm (I'm not posting this as relaible evidence that the Saggitario was superior to the Spitfire ... but we all know it was.  )

In May of 1943, the first Sagittarios entered service with the Regia Aeronautica. The first prototype and several of the zero series aircraft were used operationally by the 362a Squadriglia, 22o Gruppo at Naples-Capodichino starting in May 1943, being used to defend Rome and Naples. The squadron had developed a rather daring method of attacking Allied B-17s which involved diving head-on with all guns blazing, then flipping the aircraft over on its back and diving away at the last minute.The Reggiane had good behaviour in close dogfight and , according to General Minguzzi, who flew both Re 2005 and Spitfire, was even better than the Spit in tight turns and handling.The operative life of the Sagittario was concluded by the Armistice , that came in the September 1943.


----------



## Aggie08 (Apr 27, 2005)

It's interesting to note that Italy receives the least amount of attention in any WW2 conversation and yet it produced such high performing fighters. I have to remind myself not to count them out. True, they had some ground forces issues. But it would have been interesting if the Axis had standardized production of fighters with such heavy Italian influence...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

ok when you say that the germans "played around" with with the later italian designs and were impressed, what do you expect, they've just modified them!! and i am always dubious of test data, it's a test aircraft, it's gonna be modified of made specail in some way.............

and the title of this thread is "Italy v. England - Air to air", not "Italy with German Engines Vs. England- Air to air" surely we should be comparing British planes with British engines to Italian planes with Italian engines??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 27, 2005)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I've been reading some other WWII aviation forums. I have read more than one claim that the Reichsluftfahrtministerium Ministry of Aviation was contemplating the Fiat G.55 as a replacement for the Messerschmitt ME-109.
> 
> From: http://www.aldini.it/re2005/history.htm (I'm not posting this as relaible evidence that the Saggitario was superior to the Spitfire ... but we all know it was.  )
> 
> In May of 1943, the first Sagittarios entered service with the Regia Aeronautica. The first prototype and several of the zero series aircraft were used operationally by the 362a Squadriglia, 22o Gruppo at Naples-Capodichino starting in May 1943, being used to defend Rome and Naples. The squadron had developed a rather daring method of attacking Allied B-17s which involved diving head-on with all guns blazing, then flipping the aircraft over on its back and diving away at the last minute.The Reggiane had good behaviour in close dogfight and , according to General Minguzzi, who flew both Re 2005 and Spitfire, was even better than the Spit in tight turns and handling.The operative life of the Sagittario was concluded by the Armistice , that came in the September 1943.



I saw an interview with Gunter Rall, and many German Pilots did the same thing, he said they could pull high "Gs" and break away more quickly rather than just turning or diving away right side up from a bomber stream.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 27, 2005)

I take it that you don't think the P-51 was an American plane but really an American plane with a British engine built under license which by definition would make it not an American plane. Thus, if we were comparing the best American fighters to the best German fighters, under your analysis, the P-51 could not be included unless we were comparing the best American fighters with British engines to the best German fighters.  

I don't know how to respond to your point about test aircraft necessarily being modified in some way, ostensibly to increase performance figures. I was under the impression that it was German and Italian production aircraft that were tested although I could be wrong. A test designed to capture the performance of production aircraft that does use a representative member is subject to sampling errors.

To err in your favor though, would you not agree that any German Fw-190's and Me-109's that were tested against Italian G.55's would have been modified to enhance performance as well?

You are unwilling to entertain this point or it never occurred to you. Either way, your anti-Italian bias is showing as further evidenced by statements such as, "... the spitfire, hurricane, gloster gladiator, mosquito, and yes, the Skua and the Roc were all better fighters than anything the italians had ..."


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

dude learn to take a joke


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 27, 2005)

I think he was, lanc. Either that or I'm sensing a lot of tension in this room. :-"


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 27, 2005)

No, actually I didn't sense that Lanc's post was meant as a joke. Especially the point about test aircraft being modified. I guess I missed the punchline. My misunderstanding.

All is in harmony with the universe again.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

> Thus, if we were comparing the best American fighters to the best German fighters, under your analysis, the P-51 could not be included



one more point, that would not bother me in the least


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Italian airframes were very good. The earlier planes such as the MC.200 had very good flight characteristics but simply sufered from being underpowered. Marry the Italian airframe to a German engine and you have a superb aircraft.


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 29, 2005)

I take it then that the general consensus is that the British Spitfires were not a match for the five series Italian birds?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

I dont think so. Later version of the Spitfire would have been better than them, but then again if the 5 series Italian fighters had gone on in production and development then they would probably have have kept ahead of the Spits.


----------



## Sal Monella (Apr 29, 2005)

I'm not sure I understand Mr. Cheese. So in September of 1943, were there any Spitfires that could match the 5 series Italian fighters. I think that's the gist of this topic.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

I dont think there were 8) The only slight problem i can see are the Italian pilots


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2005)

that's more than a slight problem.........

but i diss agree, i think the spit would have no problem beating a series 5.........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 29, 2005)

Lanc, you would disagree that a Saggitario could easily take out a Hurricane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2005)

the fact that i have no idea what a Saggitario is, would lead me to say no way ho!! the hurricane could easily take oge of them saggy things out.........


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 29, 2005)

Great fan of the Hurri that I am, by the end of it's carrer in the MTO, the only a/c a Hurri could really take on was the MC.202 (I think Im right on the disgnation, I mean the big tubby one with a radial engine and 2x .50cal MGs). The 5 series would eat the Hurri for luch...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2005)

yes but not the spit...........


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 29, 2005)

No, I think you mean the Macchi MC-200 Saetta







Or, the Fiat G.50 Freccia






The Macchi MC-202 Folgore could quite easily handle a Hurricane. In fact, it was known to hold its own against the P-51 and the Spitfire. (Lanc would obviously disagree but keep in mind that he's been sniffing model airplane glue for some time now  )


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 29, 2005)

Lanc, which was the best combat operational Spitfire model by September of '43. It's not clear to me which Spitfire is being compared to the 5 Series planes.

And for God's sake take that tube of glue out of your nose!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

He uses that stuff with the needle applicator, that way he can just inject it straight into the blood 







lanc, by the Saggitario he means the Re-2005. The Re-2005 could easily deal with a Spit of the same era, as could a Veltro or a Centauro 8)


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2005)

Here's what would happen if a Spitfire and Macchi met each other ! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

Duff link


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Duff link



No no, fixed it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

So I see. However the smoke was an experimental gas being used by the Italians that would cause following pilots to pass out and crash. It is actually the Spitfire crashing, not the MC.202, which is banking off to rejoin is formation 8)


----------



## Soren (Apr 29, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> So I see. However the smoke was an experimental gas being used by the Italians that would cause following pilots to pass out and crash. It is actually the Spitfire crashing, not the MC.202, which is banking off to rejoin is formation 8)



I see, very effective indeed !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

YEs. However one of the factory workers where tha gas was produced farted, and unknown to the Italians at the time this created a vast chemical reaction resulting in a huge explosion. The idea was never pursued  8)


----------



## evangilder (Apr 29, 2005)

That poses an additional hazard for the pilot, or is it a methane auot-destruct?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2005)

No, the pilot was safe from the eminatine of methan gases whilst flying, the tank the gas was contained in was quite small and a long way away. However due the the Italians forgetting to build their machines in factories properly there was a lot of gas leakage, and that was what killed it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Damn im convinicing... 

Ah the beauty of the MC.205


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

yes and you chose one of the most un-flattering pictures i've ever seen of it........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

ITs a great picture...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 30, 2005)

Bellisimo! 

Macchi MC-202 Folgore





Fiat G.55 Centauro





Macchi MC-205 Veltro


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Pretty Pretty Pretty! 8)


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 30, 2005)

Yes they are. Nice pics.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

He did forget the Re-2005 though:






Heres a pic of the Re-2000, getting ready to be launched via catapult off a ship.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2005)

looks no different to the others............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

If you were to look at the profiles you would see a noticable different between the Re-2005 and the other 2, which do look similar.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Apr 30, 2005)

Well, perfection has but one manifestation.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 30, 2005)

Here you can see:


----------



## redcoat (Aug 19, 2006)

Sal Monella said:


> I'm not sure I understand Mr. Cheese. So in September of 1943, were there any Spitfires that could match the 5 series Italian fighters. I think that's the gist of this topic.


The 5 Series were slightly better than the Mk V Spitfire.
However, the Spitfire Mk IX (408mph) which first saw service in the Med during December 42 was better than the any of the 5 Series.

ps
In Jan 44 the XVI Spitfire ( 448mph) entered service


----------



## daishi12 (Aug 25, 2006)

The picture of the MC.205 with the engine fairing off kinda reminds me of a Ju87.

Is it me or do all Italian fighters pay homage to the Julius Ceaser nose?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 25, 2006)




----------



## Jank (Aug 25, 2006)

"Is it me or do all Italian fighters pay homage to the Julius Ceaser nose?"

That ain't homage to an Italian nose but to another Italian appendage.


----------



## Jank (Aug 25, 2006)




----------



## kataphraktoi (Sep 4, 2006)

redcoat said:


> The 5 Series were slightly better than the Mk V Spitfire.
> However, the Spitfire Mk IX (408mph) which first saw service in the Med during December 42 was better than the any of the 5 Series.
> 
> ps
> In Jan 44 the XVI Spitfire ( 448mph) entered service



Not really. G.55&Re2005 were much powerful (MG151/20*3 BREDA*2),and not too slow(385391MPH). C.205 got 399MPH. Germans thought G.55 batter than Bf109, 1943. Besides,BF109F or BF109G better than spit MK V. So I think 5 Series were much better than SPIT MK V, Spitfire MK IX was slightly better than 5 Series. Maybe the same.


----------



## Bullockracing (Sep 6, 2006)

It amazes me that there is this much conjecture over which planes could whip which other air force. I think it has been adequately proven that there is enough room for pilot skill that given the front-line fighter from any WWII air force, the successful pilots would still be successful. That being said, the RAF vs. the Italians (all things being equal) would be a fair match. In reality, the top of the line Italian planes were a little slower, a little less nimble, and available in far fewer numbers, even given the home field advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I love the top three (MC205, RE2005, G.55) but there just wasn't enough of them to stem the Allied tide. The Allies could have swept the Italian AF out of the sky with P-40s if they had to. There just weren't enough skilled Italian pilots... (quantitatively speaking).


----------



## Soren (Sep 6, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> In reality, the top of the line Italian planes were a little slower, a little less nimble, and available in far fewer numbers, even given the home field advantage.



Oh I think you will find that you're very wrong !

With a top speed of 678 km/h (421mph) at just 1,475 HP and a maneuverability described as better than that of the Spitfire, the Re.2005 was certainly not inferior to any RAF fighter. And the firepower of the Re.2005 was better as-well having three 20mm MG151 cannons and two 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns.


----------



## Bullockracing (Sep 12, 2006)

Soren said:


> Oh I think you will find that you're very wrong !
> 
> With a top speed of 678 km/h (421mph) at just 1,475 HP and a maneuverability described as better than that of the Spitfire, the Re.2005 was certainly not inferior to any RAF fighter. And the firepower of the Re.2005 was better as-well having three 20mm MG151 cannons and two 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns.



The Re.2005 was only available starting in 1942, and by then the Griffon-engined Spits were available, capable of over 450 mph, speaking in limited-production numbers. The 11mph advantage over the Merlin-engined Spits is minimal, and while the armament may have been better, this is merely the whopping 37 Re.2005s that were available. The average Spit had a significant advantage over the average Re.2000 series fighter in a number of areas.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2006)

I have to agree. While the Italians were starting to the close the gap for the most part the Italian designed aircraft were behind the top Allied and German fighters of the time.

Having said that though some of the later Italian designs were quite nice and yes in those I think the skill of pilot would come into play.


----------



## Soren (Sep 14, 2006)

Griffon engined Spitfires in 1942 ? Bullockracing, you may want to re-evaluate the reliability of your source, cause there were certainly no Griffon engined Spitfire's around in 42. 

Also show me a Spitfire that can do 678 km/h at 2k with just 1,475 HP please - Thats aerodynamic efficiency!

And about the maneuverability of Re.2005, well according to General Minguzzi, who flew both Re.2005 and the Spitfire, the Re.2005 was even better than the Spitfire in, as he called it, "tight turns and handling".


----------



## Jank (Sep 14, 2006)

With respect to pure dogfighters, on September 8th (when Italy surrendered), if you look at the very best Italian and English fighters in operation, regardless of the numbers in which they were employed (because, as pointed out, Italy fielded these planes in pitifully small numbers), I think the Series 5 fighters were probably equal to the best Spitfire and better than the best Bf-109's and Fw-190's in service. The Americans had nothing that could touch them either in terms of a thoroughbred pure dogfighter.

I don't believe that the Griffon was in use around '42 either.


----------



## Soren (Sep 14, 2006)

I'd say the Fw-190 D-9 and -12 beats them both marginally...


----------



## Jank (Sep 14, 2006)

The post concerns a specific slice in time - Italy surrendering. As memory serves, and I could be mistaken, the D-9 entered service in 1944. At the time Italy surrendered, September 8, 1943, I don't think the top of the line, operational 109's and 190's were as good as the Series 5's. 

The first operational unit of the Regia Aereonautica to be equipped with G.55's was the 353th Squadriglia of the 20th Gruppo of the 51st Stormo. This unit started to receive G.55's in April of 1943.


----------



## Soren (Sep 14, 2006)

Understood and agreed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2006)

I dont know how you can say it was certianly better than a Fw-190A though when it was atleast equal to a Spitfire.


----------



## Soren (Sep 15, 2006)

Well at the higher altitudes the Fw-190A was at a disadvantage. The A-5 introduced in 43 running on C-3 fuel would give the Spitfire and 5 series a serious licking at low alt though, to say the least.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 15, 2006)

Fair eneogh.


----------



## Hop (Sep 15, 2006)

What this debate needs is more concrete information on the Italian 5 series fighters. All that seems to be available at the moment are anecdotes and vague performance claims, rather than results of actual performance trials.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 15, 2006)

The one point i'd like to make and haven't seen here is that the series 5 Italian fighters were close to the best in performance of WW2 prop driven fighters but the point is they were late . by the time any significant amount had been constucted they would have been in the same position they found themselves in the beginning of the war . When WW2 started the Italians were flying what was the pinnacle of biplane technology but because they were behind the technology curve if and when the aircraft came on line in any significant numbers they would have been facing jets


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2006)

I have to agree, by the time they were starting to take to the skies on a larger scale the Allies and the Luftwaffe were putting better aircraft into the air.

How can you call the 5 series of aircraf the pinical of WW2 aviation when the Germans had the Ta-152, The US had the P-51H and K almost ready to take to the skies over Europe, the British had the Spitfire XXI and the the Fury.


----------



## Jank (Sep 16, 2006)

The G.55 and Re.2005 never took to the skies in any apreciable number, and never in any "greater numbers."

At the time of Italy's surrender, September, 8, 1943, the Allies and the Luftwaffe did not have any better aircraft in the skies, period.

Comparing Italy's aircraft to operational designs that came long after her surrender (after which further development was halted) is a bit unfair. Germany's and Japan's fighter development did not continue beyond their surrender either.

DerAdlerIstGelandet, to be fair, I don't think pbfoot said that the 5 series of aircraft were the "pinnacle of WW2 aviation." He said that the Italian biplanes at the start of WWII were the pinnacle of biplane design and that is most certainly true. Pbfoot said that the Series 5's "_were close to the best in performance of WW2 prop driven fighters_" which is a fairly debatable proposition as indicated by your examples of the Ta-152 and the P-51H ad K. IMHO, the Series 5's were not a match for these fighters which were not fielded much later.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 16, 2006)

calling osmething that saw so little service can be called the best in the world i mean whilst i realise they came from a long(-ish) line of fighters from which experience could be gained they saw too little service to be able to realise any faults with them, which all planes had and too little service against less than the most modern opponents to be called the best in the world...............


----------



## Jank (Sep 16, 2006)

Lanc's point is well taken.

The only other thing I would add is that on December 9, 1942, the Luftwaffe's impressions of these new aircraft raised the interest of Goering himself. A commission was formed to evaluate the Italian fighers which was led led by Oberst Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officers and pilots and by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz.

On February 20th, top of the line examples of Bf-109 and Fw-190 were tested in apples to apples performance tests and simulated dogfights against all three Series 5's - the Macchi Mc.205, the Reggiane Re.2005 and the Fiat G.55.

Against the best german fighters, the Mc.205 was judged "average", the Re.2005 was judged "good" and the G.55 was judged "excellent." Oberst Petersen concluded that the G.55 was "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening to the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany.






(Above Picture) First series of G.55 with Luftwaffe markings in Autumn, 1943. Armament was 3 x 20mm cannons and 2 x .50 cal machine guns. 

The G.55 was determined to have greater potential for further development than the Bf-109. (The Fw-190 obviously had further promising design potential) Further study concluded that production of the G.55 could be reduced as low as 9,000 man hours per plane but in light of the fact that the Bf-109 could be churned out in as little as 5,000 man hours, the idea of the G.55 succeeding the Bf-109 was scrapped.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2006)

Jank said:


> The G.55 and Re.2005 never took to the skies in any apreciable number, and never in any "greater numbers."
> 
> At the time of Italy's surrender, September, 8, 1943, the Allies and the Luftwaffe did not have any better aircraft in the skies, period.
> 
> ...



No where did I say that he was calling it the pinnacle of WW2 aviation. I was talking about so many sources that quote the Series 5 as just that. Excuse me if I was misunderstood or not making myself more clear.

However in 1943 there were better aircraft than the Series 5 being flown by the allies and the Germans. Sorry it is true. The Spit marks of 1943 were better and so was the Fw-190A's. Historical proven fact.


----------



## red admiral (Sep 17, 2006)

Summary of report on German tests at Giudonia during 1943


The G-55 was seen as most favourable of the tested Italian planes

G-55:
- Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
- High forces on the aileron.
- Effect of rudder could be better.
- Plane curves very good and narrow.
- Slightly uneasy in "mid position" (shooting position).
- Pitch to any side could not be noticed, similiar to Spitfire.
- Moderate pilot view on take off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Worse pilot view than the German planes.
- Aeronautical not as good as German planes.
- Not useable as fighterbomber with bomb under fuselage.
- Equal to German planes in climb and high altitude performance.
- Inferior in speed by 25 km/h, but Italian produced DB 605 delivered 100 PS less than the German.
- Superior in armament and range to the German planes.
- Ability to install DB 603 without bigger modifications.
- Was evaluated as best Italian plane in the trials.

Macchi 205 V:
- Armament: 4 12.7 mm MG.
- Unstable in lateral axis.
- Very high effect of rudder.
- Tendency to "Überziehen" (stall ?).
- Forces on aileron and rolling good.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Will be only produced in small numbers since it is a temporary solution.

Macchi 205 N:
- Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
- Mass production variant of DB 605.
- Good rudder effect.
- Was smoothly in "mid position" (shooting position).
- Rolling good.
- Rudder forces a little smaller than for Bf 109 G-4.
- Cooler too small for constant climbing and use in tropical environment.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Wing not solid but made of three parts, plane not suited for fighter-bomber use.

Reggiane 2005:
- Armament: 3 MG-151/20 and 2 12.7 mm MG.
- Aeronautical attributes were sufficient.
- Curves well, rolling like Bf 109 G-4 with rudder forces a little less.
- Take-offs and landings easy.
- Pilot seat a little too far away from control stick.
- Not suited as fighter-bomber due to size and location of cooler.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.

The German's suggested that the G.55 become the standard fighter of the axis nations, replacing both the Bf109 and Fw190 because of its superior performance. This was not practical because of the ease of production of the Bf109 mentioned before.

However the reports by Italian pilots give the opposite view with Re 2005 being top and G.55 bottom. Really the G.55 was too heavy for the DB605 and really needed the DB603 and the G.56 to become competitive again. Production was cut short because of the end of the war in September 1943 and the bombing of Fiat and Macchi production lines.

The 5-series compare well with the P-51B and Spitfire IX and XII, having similar speed and the Re2005 and C.205 superior maneuverability. They're also more useful as multi-role types, the Re 2005 being able to carry 1320kg load on 3 hardpoints. Ammunition load for the 20mm cannon is about twice that found on other aircraft.

Even so the 5 series are not the end of the line, the 6-series was next using the DB603 engine. The C.206 prototypes were nearing completion by mid-43 before the factory was bombed. The Re2006 prototype was built, but not flown because of the surrender. The C.206 with 1750hp should go at about 700km/h and the Re2006 at 740kmh. More than competitive with the similar time Mk.XIV and P51D

Although having aircraft that were in many ways individually superior than their RAF counterparts, there was no chance of Italy being able to produce enough of them to make an impact. When GB can build 2-3 times as many aircraft, you need an aircraft 2-3times as good. The 5 or 6 series weren't that aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2006)

Thanks for the info there. That is very interesting.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 17, 2006)

Italy sure had purty aircraft to bad they weren't able to make a number of them an odd fact is that even Canada made more aircraft than Italy in WW2 that certainly does not speak well of the Italian industrial capabilities


----------



## Jank (Sep 20, 2006)

In a little known mission, on August 4, 1944, an Aeritalia test pilot who apparently was an allied spy flew a G.55 across enemy lines. The plane was taken to England and evaluated at the Tangmere test facility. The incident apparently caused the Germans to halt further Aeritalia/Fiat production which ended in September of 1944.

I have never seen any of the test documents but I understand from others who know more about this episode that the Brits were quite impressed (one characterization I heard was "shocked") with it in relation to the Spitfire.

Below is a picture of the captured G.55 with British markings:
http://xoomer.alice.it/g55/images/G55-sI-RAF.jpg

Apparently my pictures aren't loading. Sorry.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 20, 2006)

> Soren
> Soren:
> 
> Griffon engined Spitfires in 1942 ? Bullockracing, you may want to re-evaluate the reliability of your source, cause there were certainly no Griffon engined Spitfire's around in 42.


In 1941, spitfire mk.IV started to enter production with a Griffon motor. True, the weren't available in big numbers, about 250, I think.
One of the sources:
The History of the Spitfire Development


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 20, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Italy sure had purty aircraft to bad they weren't able to make a number of them an odd fact is that even Canada made more aircraft than Italy in WW2 that certainly does not speak well of the Italian industrial capabilities



This is exactly the point. In the '30-40 Italy had some very remarkable peak of technology and research, but no industrial structure to backup a real aeronautical production.

All Italian planes were designed for 'craftsmanship' production, because that was the only available method of construction in the country. 

There was some industrial area that was developing and was on par or better than the rest of the world (cars, with Lancia and AlfaRomeo for instance) but nowhere existed the infrastructure for a true mass production. 

Things were not much improved since 1895, when Marconi invented the radio but had to move to England to find support for the invention.

It must be credited to the marketing skills of 'Big Jaw' to have fooled everybody (Adolf and Churchill in primis) in making them believe that Italy was a real power. 
And that was also the damnation of the Country, because if Hitler had known the real status of the 'Italian power' he would not had wanted Italy as an ally, and maybe we could have spared ourselves that big mess.


----------



## Soren (Sep 20, 2006)

Marcel said:


> In 1941, spitfire mk.IV started to enter production with a Griffon motor. True, the weren't available in big numbers, about 250, I think.
> One of the sources:
> The History of the Spitfire Development




Thats just a prototype design, it never entered service, so you can forget your 250 figure .


----------



## Marcel (Sep 21, 2006)

> Thats just a prototype design, it never entered service, so you can forget your 250 figure .



Well, maybe you're right. I read about 229 actual being build, but this number can also count for the PR.IV which was a Merlin powered photo reconnaisance plane. Bit confusing, two versions with the same mark-number.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 21, 2006)

Here is a site with a comprehensive story of the Fiat G55

G55 - Aircraft History


----------



## 7thphoenix (Apr 6, 2007)

Spitfires and macchi did face off , albeit not often and the macchi often came out the better of the two.

Unfortunately there were not enought Macchi 205s produced in comparison, quite often the allies had numerical superiority in almost all encounters.


----------



## 7thphoenix (Apr 6, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> Italy sure had purty aircraft to bad they weren't able to make a number of them an odd fact is that even Canada made more aircraft than Italy in WW2 that certainly does not speak well of the Italian industrial capabilities



Yeah but the the Canadians weren't having their plants sabotaged by Italian Partisans and bommbed by the allies. also Italy had very few natural iron ore resources and the supply lines were virtually cut off by early 1943.

Having said that, if you dove into the history books you'd know that Italy had not yet reached full industrial capability by the time WWII broke out, if it had another 2-3 years before committing to　a war then things would have been different.

The Allies can be thankful that Mussolini void of any wisdom and deaf to the voices of reason,hurled an unprepared and ill equiped Italy into the war rather prematurely.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 6, 2007)

Italian 5 series was good but like Adler said, they weren't better than the allied and German fighters. It seems Italy was also one step (one year) behind, because it took a long time for them to incorporate the new German engines and get the aircraft into production. The Macchi fighters are clear examples. The MC 202 was mainly a MC 200 with the engine of the Bf 109E. This engine dated back from 1939 but when the MC 202 entered production the Germans had already replaced these engines. The MC 205V was a MC 202 with the new DB 605 engine but it took months to get them in production and they kept their puny armament of 4 MGs until 1943. The MC 205N was to get new wings but this aircraft was still under tests at the time of the armistice.

All of these things have little to do with the Italian production capabilities. The industry had severe problems with were related to social-political problems in Italy. Italian industrialists were mainly interested in keeping their autonomy and were unwilling to make investments to restructure their factories. This is because they were already assured of their income as the Italian government was already ordering more aircraft than could be produced. Germany faced a similar problem until 1943 when industrials were encouraged to produce more and at lower costs. Those firms which managed to produce at the lowest cost were taken as a standard for the entire industry. The other firms had to produce at this cost which forced them to reorganize their production. If they failed to do this, they would lose the order. But off the record, this would have meant that their factories would have been taken away from them as Germany could not afford to have idle factories. 
All these problems hardly existed in the US where this form of competition between companies always pushed them to invest in more efficient production methods. 

Italy definitely had a shortage of raw materials but one can doubt to what extent this mattered. For instance, Italy had large bauxite mines which would have meant they had enough aluminium. Yet it had to turn to Germany for their aluminium, to be exact, for their duraluminium because Italy simply lacked the technology to produce high-grade metals and alloys. 

Now, as to the idea that Italy would have reached this phase in time, I feel this is unrealistic. The facists were in power since 1924 (IIRC) and had changed little in terms of industrialization and its technological status. The facists had to share power with the monarchy, church and capitalist elite. As such they couldn't manage to revolutionize things like the nazis could.

Kris


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 6, 2007)

7thphoenix said:


> Yeah but the the Canadians weren't having their plants sabotaged by Italian Partisans and bommbed by the allies. also Italy had very few natural iron ore resources and the supply lines were virtually cut off by early 1943.
> 
> Having said that, if you dove into the history books you'd know that Italy had not yet reached full industrial capability by the time WWII broke out, if it had another 2-3 years before committing to　a war then things would have been different.
> 
> The Allies can be thankful that Mussolini void of any wisdom and deaf to the voices of reason,hurled an unprepared and ill equiped Italy into the war rather prematurely.


Itlaian partisans is almost as funny as as French Army advancing


----------



## Civettone (Apr 8, 2007)

> Itlaian partisans is almost as funny as as French Army advancing


What do you mean by that PBfoot? 

Kris


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 8, 2007)

I really don't think there was much of a partisan effect in Italy until later in 43/45 so the effect on Italian war production was minimal


----------



## Civettone (Apr 8, 2007)

Of course!

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 8, 2007)

The 'Serie V' was maybe not the 'pinnacle' of aviation, but in 1943 was at least on par with Allied and German machines.

In 1944-45 the other parties progressed while Macchi205 and FiatG55, because of the armistice, did not evolve: so in time they could not keep the pace. 
An example? All the produced series V were fitted with the DB605A, the 109 mounted the new versions of the DB605 as soon as they were available. Of course a 109 G10/AS had more performances than a G55. 
But a G55 wih the 605/AS would had more than matched the 109G10, not to speak that the Fiat frame could easily accept the DB603 (G56)

It is not surprising that the Germans in 1943 picked the G55 for production studies to replace the 109: there you had a fighter that with the same DB605A engine had equal or better performances and, very important but not remarked, carried an armament (3xMG151/22 + 2x12.7) similar to the Fw190A6 (4xMG151/20 + 2x 7.7) , much more powerful than the 109 and any other competitor. The 190 was the best at low/mid altitudes, the G55 was the best at mid/high, both had enough punch to knock down the 4 engine bomber that were the most urgent menace. The 109 simply could not carry this armament without losing too much performance (see external gondolas). 

And with his 3x20mm (one with 380 rounds and 2 with 200 rounds) plus 2x12.7 the G55 was an ideal interceptor: as comparison the Fw190 had 250 rounds for the inner MG and 150 for the outer, the much heavier Typhoon had 120 rounds per gun. 

It is funny that the Italians, always in trouble with the insufficient armament of their fighters, ended up to produce fighters with the best armament of their time.

Even the 'stopgap' Macchi 205V, after a few units with 7.7 mg in the wings, went in production with 2x12.7 and 2xMG151/20 with 400 rpg (.. better than the Dora9 who had only 250 rpg for the same 20mm guns)


----------



## Civettone (Apr 8, 2007)

Parmigiano, don't forget that the Germans were primarily interested in the G.55/II which carried FIVE 20mm cannons!! What a bomber destroyer that must have been! 

However I disagree that the extra underwing guns of the Bf 109 made it much slower. I know Kurfürst has the exact figures but I think it was around 4 km/h worth of drag. The fuselage bulges of the Bf 109G-6 caused a speed loss of 6 km/h. These bulges were overcome by the G-10.

But the main advantage the Bf 109 had was that it could be produced a lot faster than the G.55. The latter required 15,000 manhours which could have been brought back to 9,000. The Bf 109 could be produced in 5,000. I think the G.55 and especially the G.56 was more of an alternative for the Fw 190A and D. 

Kris

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Apr 10, 2007)

red admiral said:


> Summary of report on German tests at Giudonia during 1943
> 
> 
> The G-55 was seen as most favourable of the tested Italian planes
> ...


That's a magnificent post! Does anybody have some more information about these tests??

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 10, 2007)

I think I had already posted somewhere this link 

G55 - Aircraft History

There is a lot of info on the G55 and some more insight of the tests and on the FIAT made DB605

Some small corrections to the above post: the Macchi 205V never had 4x12.7: the first units had 2x12.7 in the cowling and 2x7.7 in the wings, the production 'Serie III' replaced the 7.7 with the MG151/20

I wonder how they could test the MC 205 N: there was only 2 prototypes built, the first (SN 499) with 1x20 and 4x12.7, the second (SN500) with 3x20 and 2x12.7: I never heard of the SN499 tested by Luftwaffe.

The MC206 'nearly complete' was designed for the DB605, Castoldi's fighter design for the DB603 was the MC207


----------



## phouse (Apr 13, 2007)

Fiat, like Civettone described, had a lukewarm at best disposition to Mussolini's government. They had tested an inline engine that had equivocal output to that of the best radial engines at the time but for reasons unknown, it was dropped. Furthermore, and I'm going to quote a great article by James Sabkovich, 



> the Italians failed to develop the radials they were already producing. Radials proved excellent powerplants on non-Italian aircraft ... Even as they existed in 1939, Italian radials were reliable - given that they had to pass a one thousand hour test before they were accepted by the air force - and they were not inferior in performance as given by the similarity in performance of the Gnome et Rhone powered Bloch MB 152 and the Piaggio P.XI powered Re.2000. Nonetheless, Italian industry relied on licenses and one man research and development departments ...



Slightly off topic but the failure of Italy to produce capable aircraft until late in the war seems to be a head scratcher. Thought I'd give some input! If you get an opportunity, Mr. Sabkovich's "The Development of the Italian Air Force Prior to World War II" is an excellent survey of the Italian Air Force's issues leading up to 1940 and gives great indicators on their failure to perform at competitive levels.

*Edit - added Sabkovich's article name.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 13, 2007)

Parmigiano, thanks for the link but I was already aware of that. It's an often quoted text but I haven't been able to find the original reports though I know the reference and where to find them (Bundesarchiv in Germany).

Phouse welcome aboard! 
Note that most Italian radial engines were in fact foreign designs which they licence produced and developed further.
I suppose that inline engine you were talking about is the Isotta Fraschini Zeta engine. It proved to be unreliable and with little advantages towards the Daimler Benz engines. (Though now I'm wondering if it wasn't an air cooled inline engine...)

Phouse can you tell us some more on the findings by Sabkovich? Any remarkable observations?
Kris


----------



## phouse (Apr 13, 2007)

Thanks for the welcome. Friendly lot we have here. 

Other issues that he points out was the mass number of prototypes the Italians produced, with a vast majority of them never seeing production. Again, this is with respect to Italy's limited industrial capacity. It did keep all of Italy's air firms in business during the 30s, a particularly hard time for all, but during WW2 there was more "playing around" with prototypes in the high command and less focus on ensuring the best planes in the most numbers for their air force. Probably why the CR.42 Falco was the plane produced in the highest numbers by Italy. 

The failure of the research and development is particularly instanced with the inability to produce a military version of the Fiat AS6. The AS6 powered the famous Macci MC.72 which held the air-speed record until mid-1939. 

The much mentioned failure to appreciate the need for carrier based aircraft, especially torpedo-bombers was mentioned.

Other very import influences on production was the "wastage" of aircraft during the Ethiopian campaign; approximately 1500 aircraft or 12% of Italy's production.Furthermore, Italy had a need to export aircraft to produce hard currency to build more, you guessed it, aircraft! This created a significant bottleneck in pre-war production. 

The RA made poor doctrinal decisions, mostly based off of trial and error in their military conflicts in the Spanish Civil War and Ethiopia. They failed to take into account the relative weakness of their opponents. The Italians had made a decent amount of progress into a brand of blitzkrieg but they dropped it after the fiasco at Guadalajara. Again, indicative of the trial and error approach the RA took.

The decision not to order more than 12 Re.2000s despite the fact that it bested the ME 109 in mock dogfights and order the transitionary CR.42 and the MC.200 (which had considerable problems with spinning, so much so that it delayed production by four months) is also notable. The RA also ordered a smattering of Ca.165s and G.50s. He notes this behavior as the RA's pattern of rejecting the best model and ordering a "hodgepodge of inferior types". This focus on production of outdated aircraft meant later on an unwillingness to remodel the factories to produce newer aircraft, so the RA continued to order inferior aircraft throughout WW2. Hence why the CR.42 was still in production by the the time the war ended. 

His final assessment is hard to argue with. Despite the blunderings of the RA, the numerical inferiority of Italy's production meant that even if it didn't make stupid doctrinal decisions based off the Spanish Civil War and the Ethiopian campaign and they didn't fool around with prototypes and inferior models, their showing in WW2 would have only been marginally better.


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 13, 2007)

I can only substantially agree with this analisys.

The Italian aviation was technologically among the top in the '30, but the Country industrial backbone was in no way capable to generate the quantitative output necessary for a total war like WW II was.

In the late '30 - early '40 Italy lost also this technological position (blinded by the success in Spanish war? lousy planning? wrong combat strategy based on aerobatics? there are tons of explanations, all of them perfectly logical), and this delay was recovered only in 1943 with the '5' models. 

The 'series 5' addressed wonderfully the performance and armament variables of the equation, but it could have been produced in significant numbers only in Germany (or UK or USA or Russia...)

The Macchi designer Castoldi knew how to design an high performance airplane, but for the '200-205' series he had to take in consideration that there was no industrial capability for 'Ford model' production: his fighters were designed to be built by craftsmen, the only way available in the Country. 
Messerschmitt, Mitchell, Tank, Kartveli, Heinemann, Camm, even Yakovlev and Lavochin could rely on an infrastructure able to deal with serial production, modular construction etc.

That in a nut is why Regia Aeronautica could have never become a powerful air force.


----------



## phouse (Apr 13, 2007)

What parts do you disagree with Parmigiano and why?


----------



## Civettone (Apr 13, 2007)

I also agree with you gentlemen. 

Perhaps you've already seen this spreadsheet: http://www.comandosupremo.com/Airplane_Orders.xls
But it clearly shows how inefficient Italian production was. Instead of ordering hundreds of fighters they continued to order small numbers (anything between 1 and 100 aircraft) at a multitude of little aircraft factories.


Just some nitpicking though: the way I understand it is that the Re.2000 was rejected because of its vulnerable wing tanks. Or at least the decision makes considered them too vulnerable. The Re.2000 showed itself to be more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109 but all in all, most fighters were. The Bf 109 was the best axis fighter because it was so fast and powerful not because it could do aerobatics. 




> In the late '30 - early '40 Italy lost also this technological position (blinded by the success in Spanish war? lousy planning? wrong combat strategy based on aerobatics? there are tons of explanations, all of them perfectly logical), and this delay was recovered only in 1943 with the '5' models.


I think I know why they lagged behind. Up to the thirties you basically needed a good aircraft design and by god the Italians knew how to do that! Their technology wasn't that special but it didn't matter that much. But at the end of the thirties this changed with superior materials, advanced construction techniques and powerful inline engines pushing the designs forward. Italy didn't have this technology because its industry couldn't deliver. No point in designing an aircraft if you can't build it. In short, I disagree that the Italians ever had a leading technology. I think they built aircraft in a time when technology was still basic on not depending on industrialisation. That's why countries like Poland managed to build such good aircraft. The Italians never caught up and the 5 series is proof of that: it was the same C.200 and G.50 but with German engines and cannons. 

Kris


----------



## phouse (Apr 13, 2007)

Yes. I am sure that Italy's lack of industrialization and access to specialized materials wasn't lost on some of Italy's leadership. Italy directly competed for raw materials with Germany and we know who got the lion's share of that! 

At the time, the AS6 held amazing potential as the powerplant of the future. 
Perhaps the decision to drop development of the AS6 as a military powerplant was based off of the realization that Italy lacked the ability to make it happen. I'd be interested in seeing documentation one way or the other.


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 13, 2007)

phouse said:


> What parts do you disagree with Parmigiano and why?



I do agree, it's just that I thought in Italian and translated literally... the phrase 'posso solo essere sostanzialmente d'accordo' means 'I have no other option than substantially agree', my translation in english had an ambiguous meaning...


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 13, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I also agree with you gentlemen.
> 
> I think I know why they lagged behind. Up to the thirties you basically needed a good aircraft design and by god the Italians knew how to do that! Their technology wasn't that special but it didn't matter that much. But at the end of the thirties this changed with superior materials, advanced construction techniques and powerful inline engines pushing the designs forward. Italy didn't have this technology because its industry couldn't deliver. No point in designing an aircraft if you can't build it. In short, I disagree that the Italians ever had a leading technology. I think they built aircraft in a time when technology was still basic on not depending on industrialisation. That's why countries like Poland managed to build such good aircraft. The Italians never caught up and the 5 series is proof of that: it was the same C.200 and G.50 but with German engines and cannons.
> 
> Kris



I disagree with you about leading technology until 1930's. The 1926 Macchi M39 for the Schneider cup was a breaktrough in the high performance design, leading the way to the future Supermarine seaplanes.

The MC72 of 1931 had 2 12V (Fiat AS6) coupled engines and contra-rotating propeller, again a step ahead of the competitors. Was troublesome to setup (mainly because of fuel related problems) and was late for the 1931 competition, but it still holds today the speed record for prop seaplanes.

Both had surface cooling system, not suitable for warplanes but definitely ahead of the competitor's solutions.

About Serie 5, the G55 had nothing to do with the G50, no more than the Tempest had to share with the Hurricane.

The Macchi 205V was not a 'real' series 5, was more a quick solution stopgap, just like the Spit IX was. Both proved good enough to deserve full production (although with substantially different industrial output) 

The fact that the Macchi airframe remained the same from the 200 to the 205V is only a proof that the basic design was good, and could bear double the power and the payload that it was originally designed for.

It happened the same to the Spit:the basic design was excellent, and remained unchanged from MK I to V, IX/XVIII and XIV , just adding a bigger engine, some ballast to compensate the cg and the minimal changes to the frame. 
Do we have then to say that the British were lagging behind because they could not improve the basic Mitchell design?! 

btw, the 1940 Macchi 202/205V had a radiator duct effect similar (although not as perfectioned) to the P51.

In 1943 Italian Serie 5 definitely caught up with the very best in term of performances and armament, Italian industry never did in terms of quantity production.

About using German engines and guns, it was one of the few rational decisions made by Superaereo: there were great engines and weapons available immediately, why waste efforts in trying to develop new ones? 
All in all the Americans (who surely did know how to build a good 12V) did the same by fitting the Merlin on the Mustang.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 13, 2007)

I agree that those race aircraft were phenomenal. But correct me if I'm wrong, weren't they financially supported by the fascist government? The Supermarine had to do with private funding.

I do see several similarities between the G.50 and G.55 (for instance the tail section and those extended wing parts) and I think the missing link is the G.50V/G.52 which had many changes from the G.50 design which were incorporated in the G.55. Or that's how I see it, although I've never seen an image of those designs. I hope you do and you can tell me some more about them. 

But what exactly was technologically better about the G.55 than the G.50 besides the German parts?



> The fact that the Macchi airframe remained the same from the 200 to the 205V is only a proof that the basic design was good, and could bear double the power and the payload that it was originally designed for.


I don't know what to think about that. It seems every fighter of the late thirties were able to be re-engined with more powerful engines. Just look at the Bf 109 which tripled its original power output though it was a much smaller/lighter fighter. So I don't think it's that exceptional for a fighter to double its power. I can't think of a single fighter which was given up because it couldn't handle the extra power.

In any case, I don't think you can say that Italy lost its technological position in the thirties and regained in 1943 as the only thing that changed was importing German guns and licence producing German engines. That doesn't make sense to me. 

And the quality and power output of those engines was less than the original. All design would happen in Germany so the Italians were always behind and had to be instructed by the Germans how to use and improve those engines. I don't think you can call this a technological improvement. 
Kris

edit: found a little picture of the G.50V


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 14, 2007)

The G55 frame and wing were completely redesigned vs the G50, the fact that some parts and subassemblies maintains a 'family feeling' or are the same (i think the landing ear for instance) is perfectly normal: there is no reason to change what was already working. Look at the Spit XIV and Spit 21: many parts are the same, made in the same way or look very similar; you can tell at first glance that both are Spitfires but the 21 was a completely redesigned aircraft.
Gabrielli went for the new design G55 after the tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful, further evidence is that Fiat 'missed' the serie 2 (refit of DB601 on the first generation fighters: Macchi 202 and Reggiane 2001) 

Not every fighter of the late 30 was able to cope with the progress and still perform among the best.
Some did, among them the Spitfire, the 109 (although between E and F series there was some substantial redesign of the wings and the tail section) the Macchis.
Many other designs that were OK in the 35-40 could not be improved: think about the Hurricane, the P40, the Wildcat, the Fiat G50, the Typhoon, the P39, the Zero etc.

To me, it means that the original projects of Spit,109 and Macchi were better designed than the others.

I did not mean that Italy regained the 'top' in research in 1943 like it was around 1930 (Germany, US and UK were far ahead in that), I said the Series 5 regained the position among the top fighters: like it is substantiated by many sources.

Besides, the Bf109 was not 'much smaller' than the MC205V, they were almost identical:
Empty weight : mc205 2.581kg, 109G6 2.670
Wing Area : mc205 16.8 sq/m, 109g6 16.5 sq/m
Wing Span : mc205 10.58 mt, 109g6 9.92 mt 

The more comparable Bf109 G2 was probably around 200kg lighter than the G6, but this does not change the scenario.

And yes, the "Reparto Alta Velocita'" was the brainchild of the Fascist regime who financed it, but how does this impacts on the technologocal achievements? 
The reasons why this expensive projects were nominally private in certain Countries and government managed in others opens a big topic about the socio-economical-historical situation of the Countries...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 14, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Many other designs that were OK in the 35-40 could not be improved: think about the Hurricane, the P40, the Wildcat, the Fiat G50, the Typhoon, the P39, the Zero etc.



Well, the P-40 was a development of the P-36, which was designed in 1934. The design itself was ultimately altered into some reasonable fighters, such as the experimental P-40Q and P-60, but they weren't any improvement over the P-51 and P-47s already being deployed, so weren't produced.

The Typoon was developed into the Tempest V, one of the best medium altitude fighters of the war. The design then incorporated several different engines to produce the Tempest II and VI (both of which just missed wartime service and were phenomenal below 22,000 feet) and ultimately the Fury and Sea Fury.

The P-39 was further refined into the P-63, the 'lend lease fighter' which was much apprecialed by the Soviets as it was essentially adjusted to their specifications.


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 14, 2007)

Jabber, the Typhoon did not 'evolved' in the Tempest: it was just the predecessor of the Tempest.
The structure of the aircrafts was completely different, from the wing airfoil and structure to the positioning of the fuel tanks etc. The Tempest was a whole new project.
Tempest V and II / VI can be defined an 'evolution' of the Tempest airframe.

Same for the P39/P63, I honestly don't know if the P40 was the same airframe of the P36 with an Allison in the nose. 

Spit V and XIV, 109 F and K and Macchi 200 and 205V were the same airframe, many parts were interchangeable. Several Macchi 202 instead of having the engine serviced were transformed in 205V by simply replacing the DB601 with the DB605, I think the same happened for Spit V and IX.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 14, 2007)

Hi Parmigiano!



Parmigiano said:


> The G55 frame and wing were completely redesigned vs the G50, the fact that some parts and subassemblies maintains a 'family feeling' or are the same (i think the landing ear for instance) is perfectly normal: there is no reason to change what was already working. Look at the Spit XIV and Spit 21: many parts are the same, made in the same way or look very similar; you can tell at first glance that both are Spitfires but the 21 was a completely redesigned aircraft.


I find this very interesting but I am still a bit sceptic. You're right about the Spitfire. And another example was the P-51H which was totally different from the P-51D though it looked very similar. 
I think it's difficult to really draw a line between designs. As you know the Spitfire 21 is still an obvious Spitfire, so why wouldn't the G.55 be a G.50 in essence. Yet you say:


> Gabrielli went for the new design G55 after the tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful, further evidence is that Fiat 'missed' the serie 2 (refit of DB601 on the first generation fighters: Macchi 202 and Reggiane 2001)


But this isn't really true as I already talked to you about the G.50V which had the DB 601. And then there was the G.52 which was a G.50V with a more narrow fuselage. And then there's the G.55 with new wings. 



> Not every fighter of the late 30 was able to cope with the progress and still perform among the best.


That's true but it's not what you said at first. You said they couldn't handle the extra power. And I have my doubts about that. It's true that many fighters weren't developed further but were replaced by new designs. But this is the choice one has to make. The Bf 109 was also going to be replaced by the Me 209 or 309 but in the end they chose to stick with it. Many of the fighters you mentioned could have been build with more powerful engines yet they thought a new design would have been better. Yet I can imagine the Hurricane, the P-40, P-39, Zero, ... remaining competitive had they had the latest engines. A Hurricane with a Griffon? A P-40 with a Packard Merlin? A Zero with a Kasei? I think they could have held their own. But in the end, a new design was the best option for the long run. It's typical that the European countries didn't replace most of their fighter designs and chose to upgrade them instead.

But who's to say that a new Fiat design wouldn't have been better than the C.205? For that reason I doubt that the C.200 was a good design because the C.205 turned out to be a good fighter.

Also makes me think of the Romanian IAR.81 which was going to get a BMW 801. 





> I did not mean that Italy regained the 'top' in research in 1943 like it was around 1930 (Germany, US and UK were far ahead in that), I said the Series 5 regained the position among the top fighters: like it is substantiated by many sources.


Sure, the Series 5 was as good as the other fighters of 1943 but you said that the Italians regained their technological position. And that is something which I disagree with.




> And yes, the "Reparto Alta Velocita'" was the brainchild of the Fascist regime who financed it, but how does this impacts on the technologocal achievements?


When given more resources, a technologically less advanced team can still achieve better results. 

Kris


----------



## phouse (Apr 14, 2007)

And what results they achieved! I think Italy was generally regarded as a technological leader in aviation in the 1930s. It'd be hard to counter that assertion. In 1931 though, the AS6 was a top notch inline engine that could have/should have had an analogous military version yet none ever came to be. I think that deserves a huge *pourqoi*?!? I suppose only Fiat knows.

I wouldn't dare claim that it would have made a huge difference in the RA's WW2 showing but I believe that we would have seen Serie 5 aircraft a lot sooner than 1943.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 14, 2007)

Well, I've grown to become suspicious of long-standing assertions... There are so many concerning the German Luftwaffe which are false to anyone who puts a little effort in their research but remain 'facts' to most people.

I think Italy had the best designs but never dominated in terms of technology. I'm thinking of their standard fighter, the CR.20 but also most other aircraft. The thirties were based on the succes of the 20s which resulted in may exports. Yet, their best aircraft weren't all that advanced. For instance, their standard fighter, the CR.32 was based on the CR.20. Their Caproni bombers? Their Savoia-Marchetti flying boats? All great designs but I don't see much reason to contribute this to technology.

The AS.6 was no more than two inline engines coupled together while the engine of the Supermarine racer was a single powerful engine and as such more advanced. 
I also doubt the AS.6 would have made a good engine for a fighter as no warplane ever had success with such a configuration though the Germans and Japanese also tried.

But again, I think the Italians had - together with the French - the best aircraft of the twenties. Yet, I wonder in what way this was a result of superior technology. If I'm wrong, please provide some examples of Italian technology of those days. It's quite possible that I'm wrong, I just can't come up with anything. 
Kris


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 14, 2007)

The Italians pioneered trans Atlantic crossings they flew large formations and airservice across the Atlantic which at the time was quite a feat to this day large formations are called Balbos named after the founder and pioneer Italo Balbo


----------



## phouse (Apr 14, 2007)

Your opinion of the AS6 seems rather low. It certainly was a more reliable engine than the Isotta-Fraschini inline and it performed better! The reality is that a great deal of research went into the engine by Fiat and none of that research went into developing a reliable inline military powerplant for Italy. You can read all about the research here. NASA is hosting a PDF of a copy of National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics' "Italian High Speed Engines" presented at the Volta Meeting in 1935. According to the paper, Fiat had innovated with respect to the supercharger, carburetor, and fuel feed. You dismiss the AS6 because it was a coupled engine but that also discounts the real and applicable research that Fiat made into inline engines that could have been applied into an analogous version. No one would claim that using a coupled engine in a military plane would be a good idea! The maintenance costs alone would be silly. But I also don't see anything that you've said that reaffirms Fiat's decision to drop the AS6 as a good decision. It was a mountain of research that was left as a novelty, not the basis for furthering the state of aviation in Italy which was the entire reason the fascists had funded Fiat in the first place!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 15, 2007)

Parmigiano said:


> Jabber, the Typhoon did not 'evolved' in the Tempest: it was just the predecessor of the Tempest.
> The structure of the aircrafts was completely different, from the wing airfoil and structure to the positioning of the fuel tanks etc. The Tempest was a whole new project.
> Tempest V and II / VI can be defined an 'evolution' of the Tempest airframe.
> 
> ...




The Spitfire Mk V and XIV have less in common with each other than the Typhoon and Tempest do. 

The Mk XIV airframe was actually based on the Mk VII airframe, which was substantially redesigned internally from the Mk V airframe, incorporating a lot of the advances seen in the experimental Mk III. The foward fuselage structure was completely redesigned to take the longer and higher Griffon, seating the engine lower and improving the foward view. The prop was different and was the spinner and the engine mounting. 

The Mk XIV also has different rear fuselage construction, a different tail, a retractable tailwheel, shorter span Frise-type alierons, new fuel tanks in the wings, symmetrical radiators, a new air intake design. The design also deleted the earlier radio mast, added a different gun heating arrangement and completely revised the electrical system. Later on the Mk XIV also got the bubble top canopy and a cut down rear fuselage. The only basic similarity in the two types is the wing structure and even here there are changes, such as the positioning of the Hispano bulges and ammunition stowage.

On the other hand, while the Tempest has a different, thinner wing to the Typhoon, their internal structures are broadly similar, unlike that of the Spitfire Mk V/XIV. The Tempest prototype, orignally called the "Typhoon Mk II", was just a Typhoon Ib airframe from the second production batch fitted with the new wing. 

The Tempest Mk V was essentially a late production bubbletop canopy Typhoon IB airframe with a longer nose and different wings, and had quite a lot of parts commonality with its bluffer looking stable mate. The 'Tempest tail' was even first trialed on a Typhoon and then eventually fitted into later production Typhoons (fourth and fifth production batches), as was the four bladed prop. A Typhoon IB from 1944/1945 had more in common with a Tempest V than a 1941 production Spitfire Mk V does with a 1944/1945 production Spitfire Mk XIV.


----------



## red admiral (Apr 15, 2007)

The similarity between the G.50 and G.55 is purely superficial and comes from the fact that both aircraft used Gabrielli's wing design with a single tubular spar. The wings only look the same. They aren't the same. The G.55 was a whole new design to be built around the Fiat A.38 engine (V16 with contra-props). After much timewasting by Fiat, the A.38 project was cancelled in 1941.

Italy was definitely a world leader in aviation in the late 20s and 30s. The British Schneider Trophy team was part of the RAF and funded by them. For the 1931 race a wealthy Englishwoman was persuaded to donate £100,000 to hold the race (not the development) instead of being investigated for tax evasion. The Macchi C.72 was superior to the S.6b but a fatal crash prevented the aircraft being sent to Britain. Only a few days before the race Bellini set an unofficial speed record of 394mph (i.e. some 15mph faster), this was followed by the fatal crash. The Rolls-Royce R engine was massively boosted and ran on Methanol to achieve its power. The AS.6 was considerably more benign and gave still more power. Adapting this to production engine would be problematic as the engine was 11ft long. With some rearrangement of the supercharger and other devices the length could have been cut to 9ft or less which is manageable. I'd go for coupled V-8s or Flat-8s to further reduce the length.

I'm not sure what you want as proof of Italian technical advances? Remote-control turrets, new flap designs, radio guided rockets, Campini's motorjet (which was massively advanced compared to piston engines. The compressor with variable pitch blades was 20years ahead of its time). The Volta aerodynamics conference in 1935 (where swept wings were discussed). Italy having world's only supersonic wind tunnel. Aeronautical "city" at Guidonia. etc.

It was a massive mistake to simply abandon the tried, tested and reliable inline engines in favour of starting from scratch with radials. Still however Italy managed to produce the world's most powerful radial engine in 1938/39 with the Alfa Romeo 135 of 2000hp withe 100-oct fuel.


----------



## Civettone (Apr 15, 2007)

It's not my intention to downplay the Italian achievement in aeronautics but I cannot help but feel that the Italians were slowly losing ground in the field of technology. The Fiat V-12 was replaced by a coupled engine while the other countries managed to increase their power output by a single engine. 

I would also like to note that there's a difference in building a sole powerful engine which can be upgraded for occasional racing and with building an engine to be used for fighters. Look at the engines their fighters and bombers had. Not more powerful than those of other countries and if they were, they were notoriously unreliable. 

In any case, I don't see the Italians regaining any position they once had, by simply using German guns and engines. 
I absolutely love Italian planes of the 30s and 40s but I wouldn't consider them to be technologically advanced compared to those of other countries.




> For the 1931 race a wealthy Englishwoman was persuaded to donate £100,000


You forgot to mention that this was AFTER the British government stopped funding! 

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Apr 15, 2007)

Oh my goodness, what a beehave !!!

Civettone
"As you know the Spitfire 21 is still an obvious Spitfire, so why wouldn't the G.55 be a G.50 in essence. Yet you say:
Quote:
Gabrielli went for the new design G55 after the tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful, further evidence is that Fiat 'missed' the serie 2 (refit of DB601 on the first generation fighters: Macchi 202 and Reggiane 2001)
But this isn't really true as I already talked to you about the G.50V which had the DB 601. And then there was the G.52 which was a G.50V with a more narrow fuselage. And then there's the G.55 with new wings."

Either I did not express properly or you misunderstood something.

G50V was the prototype of the G50 with a DB601 and G52 should have been the production plane but the project was discarded, and Fiat went for the brand new G55 project. Or do you think more likely that an airframe (G50) that failed with the DB601 could have been successful with the DB605 without a major reengineering?

Spit V and Spit 21 share the outside 'spitfire look', but what I said (and what in effect is) is that they are two completely different aircrafts.
The more obvious differene is that Mitchell's 'magic' monospar wing was replaced by a two spar wing 


"But this is the choice one has to make. The Bf 109 was also going to be replaced by the Me 209 or 309 but in the end they chose to stick with it"

But the choice is never to go with a new design if the old one has equal or better performances. You go for something new if what you have has no further potential: after experimenting 209 and 309 Messerschmitt continued wih the 109, same for the Spit: the so called 'stopgap' MK IX was better than the MK III
Don't you think that if the Hurricane could have been competitive with just the latest Merlin/Griffon available Camm would not had mass produced this super-Hurri instead of investing all that time and money on the Tornado/Typhoon/Tempest? 

"It's typical that the European countries didn't replace most of their fighter designs and chose to upgrade them instead."

No, the two most successful European fighters were the Spit and the 109: those whose original design was so good that the planned replacements were for some reason worse than the original...

"When given more resources, a technologically less advanced team can still achieve better results"

Only if you can buy elsewhere the know-how that you don't have in house. This is the case of today Formula 1 for instance, but was not the case of the 1920-30 air competition. Resources were a key variable, but your statement is in my opinion too 'exclusive'.

Jabber

You're right about the Spit XIV, I knew it too (guess I had posted it also here) but completely forgot: the XIV was the III/VII with a Griffon. Let's limit the 'original' Spit project from MK I to MK IX/XVI. 
Typhoon and Tempest, here I disagree: a completely new wing, lenghtened fuselage, relocation of fuel tanks and related subsystems (Tempest had fuel in the wings, Typhoon behind the engine) means a completely reengineered project. 



EDIT: sorry I'm running to late, will complete the post next time


----------



## Civettone (Apr 16, 2007)

Parmigiano, I have to admit that I'm basing my conclusions on the limited information I have. According to my sources, the G.52 was not the same as the G.50V but had a more narrow fuselage. Although I often read that the G.55 was a completely new design, I have my doubts about this. As I've never seen an image of the G.52 I cannot rule out that the G.55 was based on the G.52. As such I see a clear descendence from the G.50 to the G.55 which would also explain why they still look alike. 



> tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful


The prototype did manage to get 580 km/h which was more than a 100 km/h faster than the original. Compare with the MC.202: about 85 km/h faster than the original MC.200.
And the G.52 would have been even faster with its more streamlined fuselage.




> But this is the choice one has to make. The Bf 109 was also going to be replaced by the Me 209 or 309 but in the end they chose to stick with it"


Yet this was not because of the reasons you mentioned. Due to the stronger engine the Me 209 and 309 had better performance than the Bf 109, yet they weren't put into production. So it seems there are more factors than the one you mentioned.
The Me 209 and 309 were not going to be ready in time, so they didn't want to cut production and decided to skip this generation and continue with the Bf 109 until the jet fighter would appear. 
Likewise, the Spitfire was going to be replaced in the early 40s but because of production reasons the Spitfire was developed further. 
The Italians hardly built new planes during WW2 and preferred to continue production of outdated aircraft for the same reasons. They based their new planes on existing ones to save time and resources. For that reason, I believe the G.55 was related to the G.50 like the Spitfire 14 was related to the Spitfire 1.

Kris


----------



## red admiral (Apr 16, 2007)

> It's not my intention to downplay the Italian achievement in aeronautics but I cannot help but feel that the Italians were slowly losing ground in the field of technology. The Fiat V-12 was replaced by a coupled engine while the other countries managed to increase their power output by a single engine.



Fiat increased the power of the AS.5 from 1000hp to 1550hp giving the coupled engine 3100hp total. The AS.5 was small at 25L and could not give the required 2300hp itself so another solution was needed, i.e. the AS.6 coupling two engines.

What advancements in aeronautics in other countries are there? I can't think of (m)any that you haven't discounted for Italy?

The Ali D'Italia booklet on the Fiat G.55 by P. Vergnano and G. Alegi has the story of the G.55. It was not related to the G.50 but was a new design built around the Fiat A.38 V16 engine.


----------



## GADGET (May 31, 2007)

These videos might sound interesting to you:

P40 Warhawk v. Macchi.202 Folgore Part. I, P40 Warhawk v. Macchi.202 Folgore Part. II y P40 Warhawk v. Macchi.202 Folgore Part. III


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKE1fa6PyqI_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XkX1nAS-WA_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkekkAI7KNg_


----------



## SLAAKMAN (Jun 18, 2007)

I will have you all know that I, The Mighty Slaakman assumed the role of Il Duce in the great WWII Global Campaign of ADG's World in Flames and utilizing the magnificent fighters of the Regio Aeronautica, the G55 Centauro's, the Re-2005 Sagitario's and Macchi c202' Veltro's we conquered the known world!! The Allies capitulated in Jan 1945 as a result of suffering heinous losses at Gibralter, in Spain, France, Suez, Romania, Minsk and the North Atlantic to combined Axis forces which delivered crushing blows to the enemy and consistenly held their positions.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2007)

SLAAKMAN said:


> I will have you all know that I, The Mighty Slaakman assumed the role of Il Duce in the great WWII Global Campaign of ADG's World in Flames and utilizing the magnificent fighters of the Regio Aeronautica, the G55 Centauro's, the Re-2005 Sagitario's and Macchi c202' Veltro's we conquered the known world!! The Allies capitulated in Jan 1945 as a result of suffering heinous losses at Gibralter, in Spain, France, Suez, Romania, Minsk and the North Atlantic to combined Axis forces which delivered crushing blows to the enemy and consistenly held their positions.



This thread was a discussion about reality - REAL AIRPLANES. Please keep your delusional wet dreams in the gaming threads...


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 18, 2007)

SLAAKMAN said:


> I will have you all know that I, The Mighty Slaakman assumed the role of Il Duce in the great WWII Global Campaign of ADG's World in Flames and utilizing the magnificent fighters of the Regio Aeronautica, the G55 Centauro's, the Re-2005 Sagitario's and Macchi c202' Veltro's we conquered the known world!! The Allies capitulated in Jan 1945 as a result of suffering heinous losses at Gibralter, in Spain, France, Suez, Romania, Minsk and the North Atlantic to combined Axis forces which delivered crushing blows to the enemy and consistenly held their positions.



You are an idiot. Since when was the virtual world real


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 18, 2007)

Oh man the mighty SLAAKMAN???? Dude get into the real world please. This is not about video games...


----------



## Civettone (Nov 14, 2007)

Does anyone have some more information on certain Italian engines, especially the Piaggio ones?

I'm thinking of the Piaggio P.XII, P.XIX, P.XV, P.XXII but also the Fiat A.82 and Alfa Romeo 135 Tornado. I know about their power but I especially would like to know what engines they were derived from, their reliability and in case of the P.XV and P.XXII their projected use.

Kris


----------



## Glider (Nov 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh man the mighty SLAAKMAN???? Dude get into the real world please. This is not about video games...



I would like to make very clear to everyone that although my surname is SLACK he is nothing to do with me or family.

We all have our cross's to bare, seems like I picked up another one


----------



## The Basket (Nov 14, 2007)

I guess the Italians did have some good fighters...maybe some of the best....but....

The Spitfire was built in huge numbers and performed with capability from the first day to the last of the war. Name an Italian fighter that can match that.


----------



## Marcel (Nov 14, 2007)

SLAAKMAN said:


> I will have you all know that I, The Mighty Slaakman assumed the role of Il Duce in the great WWII Global Campaign of ADG's World in Flames and utilizing the magnificent fighters of the Regio Aeronautica, the G55 Centauro's, the Re-2005 Sagitario's and Macchi c202' Veltro's we conquered the known world!! The Allies capitulated in Jan 1945 as a result of suffering heinous losses at Gibralter, in Spain, France, Suez, Romania, Minsk and the North Atlantic to combined Axis forces which delivered crushing blows to the enemy and consistenly held their positions.



To bad I missed this post a few months ago. This place gets funnier every day


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 15, 2007)

Slaakman, don't be that proud.

many years ago, when I was 17 I played one of those Avalon-Hill wargames (Stalingrad) on the Russian side against my cousin and his friends (who were 9 years older and very seasoned players) and by June 1944 I was already in Berlin with my troops and tanks. Then they decided to stop the game when I was ready to launch my T34s in direction of Brest (I was also planning to invest a week or two to blast Switzerland, this guys are too arrogant...)


----------



## plan_D (Nov 15, 2007)

Just go to the Hearts of Iron II thread; that's a proper world war II *GAME*.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2007)

Agreed I love that game!


----------



## red admiral (Nov 24, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Does anyone have some more information on certain Italian engines, especially the Piaggio ones?
> 
> I'm thinking of the Piaggio P.XII, P.XIX, P.XV, P.XXII but also the Fiat A.82 and Alfa Romeo 135 Tornado. I know about their power but I especially would like to know what engines they were derived from, their reliability and in case of the P.XV and P.XXII their projected use.
> 
> Kris



The Piaggio ones, the earlier ones at least, were based on the Gnome-Rhone Mistral series. They suffered a bit from reliability issues and were a larger diameter than the comparative Fiat A.74 (but gave more power). An interesting sub type was the two speed RC.100 supercharger used on the XI and XII (750 and 1000hp) which maintained power up at 10,000m. The P.XV and P.XXII were to be used for various large Piaggio designs, transatlantic airliner, high altitude bomber etc.

The Alfa-Romeo 135 Vortice was essentially a doubled up version of the A.126 which was itself a near copy of the Bristol Pegasus.

Not sure about the Fiat A.82, I seem to remember that it was meant to be plug compatible with the earlier models so it be simply retrofitted to existing G.50s and C.200s


----------



## Civettone (Nov 25, 2007)

Yeah, that pretty much confirms my own research. Thanks Admiral!
It seems all of those powerful engines suffered from the same problem. A lack of suitable metals which I suppose were essential to the more demanding requirements of these more powerful engines.

Kris


----------



## HellToupee (Nov 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> Griffon engined Spitfires in 1942 ? Bullockracing, you may want to re-evaluate the reliability of your source, cause there were certainly no Griffon engined Spitfire's around in 42.



Yes there was, the Spitfire XII was rolling off the production lines in october 1942, but they wern't really pressed into service till 1943 or produced in large numbers due to per alt performance with the lack of 2 stage supercharger.


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jun 30, 2009)

cheddar cheese said:


> I think the Italian fighters could have easily dealt with the bombers.



Italian fighters are notoriously underpowered when it comes to firepower, I disagree.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 30, 2009)

TenGunTerror said:


> Italian fighters are notoriously underpowered when it comes to firepower, I disagree.



Hmmmmmm...........

G.55 Serie 0:

1 × 20 mm Mauser MG 151/20 cannon, engine-mounted (250 rounds) 
4 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns, two in the upper engine cowling, two in the lower cowling/wing roots (300 rpg)


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 1, 2009)

Macchi MC.205V

2 x 12.7mm in the upper engine cowling
2 x 20mm cannons in the wings.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 1, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hmmmmmm...........
> 
> G.55 Serie 0:
> 
> ...


''
I confess that I have not read all the posts to this thread. However,, in reference to the G-55, which would not have entered large scale service until 1944, you have to compare apples to apples. Whilst the heat they were packing was impressive compared to the early war Italian fighters, compared to the 1944 RAF fighters they were actually rather light in armament.. A Tempest for example was carrying 4 x 20mm Hispano Cannon. The Spitfire was more lightly armed with generally 2 x 20mm and 2 x 0.5 in MG.

There is one area that the italians definately lagged and that was in the area of the long ranged twin engined fighters, particulalry the Long Range Twin Night Fighters. In this the British held a clear advantage with their Mosquitoes and Beafighters. I dont believe the Italians had anything in their inventory that could compare to these aircraft


----------



## lingo (Jul 1, 2009)

It was a trick question all along! The English were not involved in World War 2. They did not have an Air Force and even to this day there is no English Air Force. There hasn't been an English Army for hundreds of years - and the same goes for the Navy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 1, 2009)

Commander Thatch said something to the effect when some of his men complained about the Wildcat's 4 guns in lieu of 6 - "you can't hit anything with 4 guns, what makes you think you'll do better with two more."


----------



## red admiral (Jul 1, 2009)

Italy entered the war with 2x12.7mm as the main armament, which wasn't that bad compared to contemporaries. These aircraft were then upgraded with later series including 7.7mm or 20mm wing guns as well. The 5 series fighters introduced in 1943 had a much greater armament, typically with 3x20mm cannon and 2x12.7mm machine guns and very large ammunition capacities (400,250rpg in C.205). Later designs (e.g. C.207) had 4x20mm in the wings.

Long ranged twin engined fighters didn't really exist apart from the Ro.57 and Ro.58 produced in very small quantities. There was no airbourne radar for AI duties and so no real night fighters apart from some Caproni-Vizzola F.5s and Fiat CR.42s. The only night fighter design I'm aware of is the Breda-Zappata BZ.303 which was a development of the CANT Z.1018 with Lichenstein radar and 8x20mm cannon. 

It's worth noting that development of Italian types essentially ended in mid 1943.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2009)

Parsifal, the posted question was:

*At the point in time when Italy surrendered in September of 1943, did England have combat operational fighter aircraft that were superior to the best combat operational aircraft of Italy?*

So what were the very best British fighters in use in September 1943 and what were the very best Italian fighters in use in September 1943.

In examining these fighters on a one to one basis, were the British models superior or were the Italian models superior?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 1, 2009)

a that point i think Spit VIII, IX, XII and Typhoon for RAF and serie 5 for R.A. (Macchi 205V, G. 55, Re 2005 (not 100% sure the last was in sevice)


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2009)

I believe the Re-2005 saw its first combat in April of 1943.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 1, 2009)

so all serie 5 saw combat in the spring of '43 (for 205 talking of V not N)


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 1, 2009)

My understanding is that all had indeed seen combat (in pitifully small numbers) prior to September of 1943. The Re-2005 saw its first combat in April of 1943.


----------



## Glider (Jul 3, 2009)

The normal weapon load of the G55 was 3 x 20mm ( 1 x 380rds 2 x 200rds) and 2 x HMG (300rpg) which is equal to most aircraft and more than most.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2009)

I would note that the Italian Aircraft engines did offer fair power for weight which may have been part of the problem later on. They were light in relation to displacement which is OK if you are using low octane fuel and moderate boost and RPM. It doesn't leave much room to grow or increase either BMEP or RPM without a major redesign. 
Fiat AS6 engine was a non-starter for WW II development. Half an AS6 would have been 25.12 liters which is a bit small especially with 87 octane fuel. Engine construction was seperate cylinder with welded on sheet steel water jackets. A lack of strength compared to cast block construction. While this type of construction was commen in the 1920s it had faded from use in the aircraft field by WW II. 
Could the Italians make large aluminium castings of the type required for V-12 engine construction in quantity? 
What seems to be somewhat surpising is the performance claimed by these "5" series fighters considering that they are a good 200hp down on power from the SPitfire while carring a very impressive armament. Granted the German guns are lighter in weight but the ammunition loads are rather large.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 4, 2009)

G55 - Aircraft History


In December 1942 a technical commission of the Regia Aeronautica was invited by Luftwaffe to test some German aircrafts in Rechlin. The visit was part of a joint plan for the standardization of the Axis aircraft production. In the same time some Luftwaffe officers visited Guidonia where they were particularly interested in the performances promised by the Serie 5's. On December 9 these impressions were discussed in a Luftwaffe staff meeting and rised the interest of Goering itself.

In February 1943 a German test commission was sent in Italy to evaluate the new Italian fighters. The commission was led by Oberst Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officiers and pilots nad by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz. The Germans carried with them also several aircrafts included a Fw190A and a Me109G for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights.

The tests began February 20. The German commission, not without a certain surprise, was very impressed by the Italian aircrafts, the G55 in particular. In general, all the Serie 5's were very good at low altitudes, but the G55 was competitive with its German opponents also 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 G55, "good" for the Re2005 and "average" for the MC205. Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "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 February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany.

The interest of the Germans, apart from the good test results, derived also from the development possibilities they was able to see in the G55 and in the Re2005. For the Re2005 the German interest resulted in the provision of an original DB605 with the new WM injection. This engine and a VDM propeller were installed on the MM495 prototype that was acquired by Luftwaffe and tested in Rechlin. The aircraft reached 700 km/h during a test with a German pilot, but the airframe was not judged sufficiently strong for these performances.

The G55 was bigger and heavier and was considered a very good candidate for the new DB603 engine. Other visits were organized in Germany during March and May 1943 in Rechlin and Berlin. The G55 was again tested at Rechlin at the presence of Milch. Gabrielli and other FIAT personalities were invited to visit German factories and to discuss the evolution of the aircraft. The specifications of the German G55/II included the DB603 engine, five 20 mm guns and a pressurized cockpit. The suggestion of weapons in the wings, limited to one 20 mm gun for each wing, originated the final configuration of the Serie I, while the 603 engine was succesfully installed in the G56 prototypes.

As a concrete results of the German interest in the G55, the Luftwaffe acquired three complete G55 Sottoserie 0 airframes (MM91064-65-66) for evaluations and experiments giving in change three DB603 engines and original machinery for the setup of other production lines of the DB605/RA1050 RC58 I. Two of the Luftwaffe G55's remained in Turin, at the Aeritalia plants, where they were used by German and Italian engineers to study the planned modifications and the possible optimizations to the production process. Later these two were converted to Serie I and delivered to the ANR. The third one was transferred to Rechlin for tests and experiments in Germany. The DB603 engines were used to build the G56 prototypes.

The interest in the G55 program was still high after the Armistice: in October 1943 Kurt Tank, who previously personally tested a G55 in Rechlin, was in Turin to discuss about the G55 production. However, war events and the not yet optimized production process were the reasons for which the G55 program was eventually abandoned by the Luftwaffe. Early produced G55's required about 15000 manhours; while there were estimations to reduce the effort to about 9000 manhours, the German factories were able to assemble a Bf109 in only 5000 manhours.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 5, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> What seems to be somewhat surpising is the performance claimed by these "5" series fighters considering that they are a good 200hp down on power from the SPitfire while carring a very impressive armament. Granted the German guns are lighter in weight but the ammunition loads are rather large.


People also tend to forget that the Italian DB 605s had 100 HP less than the original German engines. 

One of my main intrests is Italian aircraft and aircraft engines and it's a rather sad story all in all: a lot of great designs but the problem was the industrial capacity, especially when it comes to engines. Almost all of the 900+ HP engines were copies from the British/Americans/French/German and all of these were inferior to the original both in power as in reliability. 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jul 5, 2009)

red admiral said:


> Long ranged twin engined fighters didn't really exist apart from the Ro.57 and Ro.58 produced in very small quantities. There was no airbourne radar for AI duties and so no real night fighters apart from some Caproni-Vizzola F.5s and Fiat CR.42s. The only night fighter design I'm aware of is the Breda-Zappata BZ.303 which was a development of the CANT Z.1018 with Lichenstein radar and 8x20mm cannon.


The Italians did manage to develop an airborne radar called the Lepre. Never used operationally though...

Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 6, 2009)

Civettone said:


> People also tend to forget that the Italian DB 605s had 100 HP less than the original German engines.
> 
> One of my main intrests is Italian aircraft and aircraft engines and it's a rather sad story all in all: a lot of great designs but the problem was the industrial capacity, especially when it comes to engines. Almost all of the 900+ HP engines were copies from the British/Americans/French/German and all of these were inferior to the original both in power as in reliability.
> 
> Kris



italians were the same of germans, only they were limited to 1.30 ata, same that luftwaffe, the clear of 1.42 came too late for the Regia Aeronautica


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2009)

It's my impression that the Italians would not have been able to get a higher ata in their RA 1050s because the higher pressure would need better alloys and the Italians were already hard pressed to produce the RA 1050 for that reason.

Was RA 1050 production continued after the armistice and during the German occupation. I believe it wasn't. 

Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 7, 2009)

afaik production continued and also ANR get clear 1.42 on him fighter, (more late of luftwaffe)


----------



## red admiral (Jul 7, 2009)

The Ali D'Italia booklet on the G.55 states that the power from the RA.1050 (DB 605) was limited to 1350hp because the rpm was limited to 2650rpm instead of the full 2800rpm setting. Equipped with later developments of the DB 605 giving up to 2000hp the performance of these aircraft would have been awesome.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 7, 2009)

Vincenzo, I think that's quite possible but I've never seen any material referring to Italian made DB 605s after 1943...
Perhaps it makes sense to stop production: Germany could produce them faster and with less manpower and material. Perhaps they felt that continuing the production over there simply was inefficient.



red admiral said:


> The Ali D'Italia booklet on the G.55 states that the power from the RA.1050 (DB 605) was limited to 1350hp because the rpm was limited to 2650rpm instead of the full 2800rpm setting. Equipped with later developments of the DB 605 giving up to 2000hp the performance of these aircraft would have been awesome.


I recall that story of the Re.2005 being tested with a German made engine and prop and achieving higher speed. Of course the given speed in that story is unlikely - we've been through that before - but it's clear that the 5 series had a lot of potential, as shown by the G.56 with a German engine.

For the moment I'm actually fascinated by the Re.2006: with the radiators moved to the wings it would have become the faster fighter in the axis inventory, and in fact of the world with a guaranteed speed of well over 700 kmh. 
Kris


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 7, 2009)

as i remember the fighter production, in occupied italy or RSI, was with "italian" engine


----------



## red admiral (Jul 8, 2009)

> I recall that story of the Re.2005 being tested with a German made engine and prop and achieving higher speed. Of course the given speed in that story is unlikely - we've been through that before - but it's clear that the 5 series had a lot of potential, as shown by the G.56 with a German engine.



678km/h -> 700km/h doesn't strike me as unlikely given the 175hp extra and a larger more efficient prop. For this flight regime, power has a cubic relationship with speed, meaning that it is possible to estimate the speed with different power levels. V^3 = k * Power. We use the existing data for V=678 and P=1350hp to find k=61.35. Then we can find the likely speed with 1475hp, which is 698km/h, exactly in line with the reported results.

I like the wing radiators as well, when tested on Re.2001 MM.438 they gave a 70km/h increase in speed.


----------



## Civettone (Jul 8, 2009)

red admiral said:


> 678km/h -> 700km/h doesn't strike me as unlikely given the 175hp extra and a larger more efficient prop. For this flight regime, power has a cubic relationship with speed, meaning that it is possible to estimate the speed with different power levels. V^3 = k * Power. We use the existing data for V=678 and P=1350hp to find k=61.35. Then we can find the likely speed with 1475hp, which is 698km/h, exactly in line with the reported results.
> 
> I like the wing radiators as well, when tested on Re.2001 MM.438 they gave a 70km/h increase in speed.


I'm glad you mentioned those wing radiators. What I've read is that it gave the Re.2001 a speed increase from 540 to 600 km/h. Not 70 but 60 but doesn't matter that much. I have never seen the primary documents on it so ...
But you know what I think, Admiral? The Re.2001 could actually fly 560 km/h not 540 km/h. So I think the speed increase was probably 40 km/h. This also seems much more logical. A 60 or 70 km/h increase by simply changing the radiators seems a bit off. So I'm going for the 40 km/h increase. Now I was thinking what this would have meant for the Re.2006. Do aerodynamical refinements matter more for a more powerful and faster aircraft ? Or less ? Or would it be the same? 

A safe assumption would be to give the Re.2005 a maximum speed of 640 km/h with a DB 605 and VDM prop. If we look at the G.56 we can safely assume that the Re.2006 with chin radiator would have a maximum speed of at least 690 km/h. Even with the safe assumption of a let's say 30 km/h increase it would have given the Re.2006 a maximum speed of 720 km/h, faster than any prop fighter of 1944. 

Oh yeah, the 678 km/h speed was achieved by diving and then levelling the aircraft. That does not count as a real maximum speed because it's not continuous. Also, you'll probably have those speed figures of the Re.2005 at different altitudes: it shows 678 km/h at IIRC 6000 m but also at SEA LEVEL which shows that the figures are bogus.

Kris


----------



## Airbone Bunny (Jul 8, 2009)

TenGunTerror said:


> Italian fighters are notoriously underpowered when it comes to firepower, I disagree.



During the first part of WWII it is true. Hard to shoot something down with just two 12.7 gun machines 

However, that changed with the last italian fighters. All the 5 series planes carried a very decent punch.

My impression is that by 1943 italians fighters had reached (in the design and technical area) at least parity with the english fighters, if not a net superiority.

The problems with italian fighters in 1943 were not because they were faulty products... it was just a new episode of "too few, too late"


----------



## Civettone (Jul 21, 2009)

And what about fighter tactics? 

I know that they emphasised acrobatics, much in the same line as having fighter aircraft which were as manouvrable as possible. I have my doubts if training and tactics changed that much during the war.

As such, it's quite possible that the Italians still trained pilots with excellent flying abilities but not always the best tactics... just an assumption there...

Kris


----------



## Daviducus2 (Jul 21, 2009)

George Beurling had a great deal of experience fighting the Italians.

Beurling, George: Bio

"*The Eyeties are comparatively easy to shoot down. Oh, they're brave enough. In fact, I think the Eyeties have more courage than the Germans, but their tactics aren't so good. They are very good gliders, but they try to do clever acrobatics and looping. But they will stick it even if things are going against them, whereas the Jerries will run*."


----------



## Civettone (Jul 22, 2009)

ok thx


Kris


----------



## Saetta66 (Apr 11, 2011)

The only slight problem i can see are the Italian pilots :wink:[/QUOTE said:


> This is false, not fair and offensive, imho.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2011)

Saetta, I am sure whoever posted that was only kidding. That is why they included the  smiley...


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 21, 2011)

Too late for the show 
September 1943: Italians have the 'series 5' fighters on hand, decent machines, in pretty low numbers. Speed circa 390-400 mph, fair climb punch, decent combat range.
RAF has Spitifires, most notably Mk.V, VIII, IX, and small number of XII. Mk.V is almost a match for Italians, while three other ones are better in speed climb. Mk.VIII has much better range than others from both sides. The Typhoon has most of it's bugs ironed out, so it's a good fighter by standards of second half of 1943.
RAF has the edge here, both in quality and in quantity of it's machines. 
Luckily, the Germans conceded war is over back in 1940, choosing not to invest in a factory or two of DB 601s/605s. Just imagine IAR-80 with 601, or a real quantity of Italian fighters sporting 601/605 early enough, or Avia B-135/601 built for allies, or Ki-61 with healthy ~1400 HP in 1943... Or simply more 109s.


----------



## SLAAKMAN (Apr 30, 2011)

> _Oh man the mighty SLAAKMAN???? Dude get into the real world please. This is not about video games..._



Now calm yourselves gentlemen, calm yourselves. No need to get kneejerk over-react here. Few appreciate the glory of Regia Aeronautica more than I do;


----------

