1939/40: ideal Italian fighter?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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

there was as much chance of the itslians accepting german engine techs prewar, as there was the germans accepting the CR42 as the main LW operational type
 
CobberKane said:
I Those lumps and bumps on the engine cowling covered the cylinder heads of course, so the only way to eliminate them would be to increase the diameter of the entire cowling, which would be a bad option.
Click to expand...

On the surface that may seem true but keep in mind that a cowling is just a ribbon of aluminum and doesn't add mush frontal area. Both surface area and form drag would be less. The additional space between the rockerboxes would likely allow better control of cooling air over the cylinder heads. If the cowling and fuselage were properly fairied and a proper ejector exhaust fitted, top speed could have easily been increased by 15 mph.
 
Ejector exhausts are a lot harder to fit on a radial. They do help but not to the extent as a V-12.

As understood at the time the little bumps over the rocker boxes were streamlining vs a bigger cowling, the smaller cowling was also supposed to offer a better view.
 
Another interesting airplane the Italians designed was the diminutive SAI-Ambrosini 403, powered by a 1000 HP version of Isotta Frashini Delta (air cooled V-12), featuring 2 HMGs. Almost an 'Italian Yak-3', speed was claimed to be almost 650 km/h.
The Delta was capable for 750-770 HP in late 1930s, so the speed should be under 600 km/h for a 403 with such an engine?

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

*1000 HP was the 'rated power', ie. max continuous for the P.XI. For 'Swedish' R-1830?
 
Last edited:
How? It ended production during July 1938.

If Italy requests the DB600 they will get DB601s. Just as Italy will get Jumo 211 if they order out of production Jumo 210.
 
It is interesting to compare the evolutions of the MC.200 and Re.2000, when fitted with DB-601 engines (or copies). The MC.202 was some 50 km/h faster than the Re.2001, the Macchi doing almost 600 km/h! Regianne was featuring the wing with extra 20% of area; probably also thicker wing?
Interestingly enough, the Regianne was tested with IS Delta engine, the version with 840 HP. Speeds were in 460-480 range, so that version quickly lost favor.

added: the Re.2001 was some 10% heavier in 'loaded' condition, that also tends to kill speed
 
Last edited:
Genshagen DB601 factory required a year to build and another 18 months to achieve design capacity of 220 engines per month. 2 1/2 years. About as long as it takes to design a fighter airframe from scratch.

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

Here's a good place to find funding. What was Italy thinking when they built a major naval base at Massawa, Eritrea? This naval installation would almost certainly result in war with Britain as it threatened commerce passing through the Red Sea. Yet Italy could not supply the place during wartime without first seizing control of Suez Canal.
Comando Navale Africa Orientale Italiana, 10.06.40
 
GregP said:
If we concentrate on things available in 1939, I'd pick the Aeronautica Umbra Trojani AUT.18, Caproni - Vizzola F.5, or the Macchi C.200

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

In the case of the MC200, if you are including a new ingine as a prerequisite for improvement, I agree. The MC202 proved it. But I remain sceptical of the previous posts suggesting there was significant extra performance to to be had from the Saetta by simply polishing up the aerodynamics and bolting on a few extras. Castoldi was no slouch as a designer - in the MC200 he produced an 870 hp fighter that was ruggedly built, could out climb and out turn the Hurricanes and P 40s it faced, at least equal them in the dive and was within 15 - 20 mph of their top speed. How much more can you reasonably expect to get from a fighter that had only 40 hp more than a Gloster Gladiator?
I actually think the MC200 was underrated. It was a solid aircraft that mat the most of an obsolescent engine, performing creditably against opposition with more advanced power plants.
One final plug for Castoldi - how about the asymmetrical wings of the MC202; a simple and elegant feature for compensating for the extra torque of the DB engine.
 
You may be right, Cobber. I was thinking of hanging a higher-power engine in the MC.200 along with the general cleanup. A radial could have been made to perform quite well, I think. Maybe not quite as fast as the inline ... but it depends on the pwoer of the new engine. Put ona 1,500 HP radial and you have a new animal ... even 1,250 HP would make for a leap in performance. Depends on how the new engine would fit and the amount of extra weight ... fuel consumption, etc.

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

They didn't do that, but could have.
 
Last edited:
Unlike DB601, late 1930s Germany spared no expense building Jumo 211 engine production facilities. Consequently they had a large surplus Jumo 211 production capacity by 1942. Italy should have been able to purchase 1,340hp Jumo 211 engines in large numbers.

I realize most fighter aircraft designers preferred Daimler-Benz engines but beggers cannot be too picky. Would Macchi C.202 or some other Italian airframe benefit from the Jumo engine?
 
What if....Italy had gotten hold of the P&W R-1830, either legally or by ripping it off like everyone else did. The P&W was about the same weight as the Fiat donk in the Saetta but produced another 330hp. The Folgore was proof that the Saetta was well up to the extra power. It was competitive against second tier fighters like the Hurricane and P-40 with 870hp - with 1200 hp it might have been giving Spitfires a fright.
 
well, the Re2001 wqas essentially a redesigned P-35, so i guess that might be a possibility....but still not getting over the hump that the italians did not want any sort of energy fighter....they were all for manouvre at any price
 
The AUT 18, by sheer admission of his designer, Ing. Felice Trojani, was a failure: it had the same defect of some other Italian planes of that era, too strongly built (main spar and other parts in steel etc....) thence expensive and slow, even if it was a reasonable climber.
The G. 50 had wing profiles that made it very unstable, as the necessity of evolving profiles from wing root to wing tips and wash out were then not fully understood (the AUT 18 had some of these problems too). Not only: the Pilots were piloting early monoplane fighters as biplanes, say continuously moving the stick, thence adding problems, and making the early monoplane fighters rather dangerous.
The Caproni Vizzola, to the contrary, had a very stable and safe flying behaviour but the structure of the airframe, even if economical (it costed about 1/3 less than a MC 200) was obsolete.
But, but above all, the F5 was too late and the War had shown the necessity of other kind of fighters.
 
Quickly, from Wiki (Italian, my translation):

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

MC 200 flew late 1937, and entered service in 1939.
Briefly, the Caproni factories were not very well seen by the technical Staff of the Regia Aeronautica, so the F5 was not seen too favourably, for a number of reasons.
In the days of "Co-belligerance" the experience of the War has shown that airplanes were needed in very large numbers, and that Italy could not afford the use huge quantities of a strategical raw material as aluminium. So the necessity of a kind of "repechage" of plane tipes using less aluminium.
 
Last edited:
The Jumo 211 is an interesting idea though the Germans refused to sell any to Rumania when they wanted to experiment with upgrading the IAR 80.

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

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

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Italian series 5/6 fighters really better?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GregP
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
604
spicmart
S
Making better Italian aircraft, 1933~1945
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
4K
Shortround6
S
A
Italian Nicobar Islands
Replies
1
Views
563
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register