1939/40: ideal Italian fighter?

[Dogwalker]

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

 

[l'Omnivore Sobriquet]

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

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

 

[davebender]

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

C.202 prototype first flight was August 1940.

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

 

[Dogwalker]

C.202 prototype first flight was August 1940.

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

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

 

[davebender]

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

 

[Dogwalker]

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

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

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

 

[davebender]

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

 

[Shortround6]

I am just wondering where all these hundreds of extra Jumo 211s are coming from?

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

 

[Dogwalker]

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

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

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

 

[l'Omnivore Sobriquet]

Interesting all this.

 

[Dogwalker]

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

 

[Civettone]

The SAI.207 had some structural problems.

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

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

Kris

 

[Dogwalker]

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


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

 

[davebender]

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

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

 

[Dogwalker]

It's pointless for Italy to ask for DB603 engines

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

 

[davebender]

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

 

[Dogwalker]

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

 

[davebender]

Nothing wrong with those engines provided quality control is maintained.

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

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

 

[Dogwalker]

1940 Italy

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

 

[davebender]

Macchi MC.202 Folgore

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

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

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