1939/40: ideal Italian fighter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kris
 
Civettone said:
That is amazing information. I assume most of those Ra.1050s were built after the Armistice?
Click to expand...
The vast majority. They were used directly by the Germans.

Civettone said:
In which way did AR build the DB 605 and Fiat the DB 601 ?
Click to expand...
In no way, apart for eventual spare parts that were in common.
The Ra.1050 had to be built, other than at Fiat plants, at Alfa Romeo (750 ordered), Isotta Fraschini (3000 ordered) and OMIR (1000 ordered), but none of them had the time to begin the production first than the armistice, that stopped all three.

Civettone said:
what is this Alfa Romeo Ra.1101 you are talking about?
Click to expand...
You can see it's history in brief here.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/en...uid-cooled-engines-best-approach-37001-2.html

We can add that the practical substitution of Vittorio Jano (an "old school" engineer, without university degree) with Ricart (that, on the contrary, had vast theoretical knowledge, but less practical spirit), had created a lot of tension within the Alfa Romeo. Of the engineers that lived that period, Giuseppe Busso has always stated the originality and the quality Ricart's work, while Orazio Satta Puliga nickamed the 1101 "il catorcio vendicatore".
 
Last edited:
Civettone said:
The test committee considered the F.5, although also suffering from 'autorotazione', to be the winner.
Click to expand...
From what I have read, both the F.5 than the Re.2000 were free from the stall problem (that presented itself as a sudden roll to the left when the aircraft made a too thight turn, especially on the right).
What happened was that the competition took place in two stages.
First, in 1938, were tested the G.50, C.200, the Imam Ro.51 and the Cr.42.
the Ro.51 was rapidly phased out as inferior to the other monoplanes, while, of the other two, both have their edges. The G.50 was more robust and more structurally "logic", apt for mass production. The C.200 had superior prestations. Both suffered from the stall problem, but that was much more apparent in the C.200 and lighter in the G.50 (so that there was no need to correct it in production).
In the end, the C.200 was considered to be potentially superior, but had flaws that needed to be corrected, while the G.50 was ready for the production, so both were ordered, with a further order of CR.42 as a reserve.
Then, in 1939, the two types were again tested with the newly arrived, the F.5, Re.2000 and AUT.18, while the CR.42 was tested against the Ca.165.
Among the monoplanes, the AUT.18 showed less than satisfactory prestations, while the further year of developement was evident in the Re.2000 and the F.5. Both were free from the stall problem, and had superior prestations (the Re.2000 in general, the F5 concentrated them in the exceptional lift, that allowed him to beat of about 30 seconds an already good climber as the C.200 in the climb to 6000m).
However, both have their defects, and their advantages were not considered big enough to revert the original decision.
The same appened in the "biplane" section, where the Ca.165 regularly won the mock-up fight vs. the CR.42, but was more expensive to build.

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


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

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

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

Kris
 
Surely there was concern, as there was about the stall charateristics and the difficult construction of the C.200 and about the scarce prestations of the G.50. Every of the 4 main fighters in the competition had it's defects, but those were letal for the two with the best prestations, but submitted later.
 
My understanding is that the CR42 was only there to bridge the gap between the CR32 and the arrival of the new monoplanes. The CR42 was used against the RAF during the Battle of Britain and I understand that while they were not a success even Spitfire pilots remarked that the CR42 was a tricky plane to fly against. I have also read on a number of occasions that even though the Gladiator far more often than not came away the winner over the CR42 that both planes were very evenly matched, on the other hand the CR42 was more than a match for the poor Blenheim bombers and accounted for quite a lot of them in combat over Albania.
I find these World War biplane clashes very interesting as they represent the pinnacle of that era and are rarely talked about. The first thing I noticed about the CR42 when I saw it at the RAF Museum was how big and chunky it was, if you have heard war stories telling how agile the CR42 was, then it is in fact a very impressive aircraft when you see it. I think the CR42 lived on because rather like the Swordfish its successors did not live up to expectations.
 
Last edited:
CR42 lived on because 1940 Italy could not produce a modern V12 engine which successor aircraft required.

With the benefit of hindsight Italy might have been better to produce a lightweight fighter similar to Japanese A6M which delivered decent aerial performance with a radial engine producing only 950hp. Such an aircraft would not be quite as good as contemporary Me-109 and Spitfire but it's something 1940 Italy could hope to mass produce.
 
The Fiat G50 was the Fiat CR42's direct successor.
 
I'm afraid that the situation of the Italian aeronautical industry immediately before WWII is a little bit misunderstood by someone.

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

Poor rate, with a war going on.
 
Of all the major countries involved, Italy probably had the least efffective industrial mobilization, partly, if not mostly, because Italy was less industrialized than any of the other "great powers."
 
pattle said:
My understanding is that the CR42 was only there to bridge the gap between the CR32 and the arrival of the new monoplanes.
................
Click to expand...

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

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

Both G50

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

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

g91

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

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

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

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

And even if the Italian Pilots generally were of outstanding professional skills, not at all were on a parity basis the Ground Control, radars and R/T sistems, that allowed the Allied fighters to be always positioned in a better tactical situation, and the tactics of fighting with modern planes heavily armed and very fast, developed at the beginning of BoB by "Sailor" Malan for the British and Gen. Galland for the Germans.
 
Last edited:
From "They gave me a Seafire" Cmdr R. "Mike" Crosley, Chap. 7, pag. 42



"There were still two Gladiators at Yeovilton. There was also a captured Italian CR 42. Wiggy and our CO, Rodney Carver, had a doghfight over the airfield and the CR won. That was rather glossed over later, and no one would admit it; but it was true."
 
Last edited:
We do not have elements to say if the S7 family can withstand bullets better or worse than, to say one, a C.202. Nor the Regia Aeronautica can say, since aircrafts were not tested vs. MGs first than their introduction. But we can say what we know.
A SAI 207's cockpit had the same armour than that of a contemporary C.202, heavier than that of a C.200, including the armored windshield that was absent from the C.200, and, in the C.202, was added from the IV series. The 207 has not four tanks, including two wing tanks, but a single, self sealing, 210l tank in the fuselage, behind the pilot, away from the engine hot parts. In respect to a C.202, the 207 was about 1m shorter and had 1.5m less wingspan, making it a smaller target, and there were not water radiators.
It seems to have it's share of advantages.
 
Fly and fight with these machines against a P 47?
No way.....
It seems that it was even difficult to keep this family of airplanes in a single piece just to fly.....

From "Dimensione Cielo":








 
Last edited:
Elmas said:
Fly and fight with these machines against a P 47?
Click to expand...
Is like asking: "Fly and fight with a BoB Hurricane against a FW190"?
In 1943 the SAI 207 was outdated, as the "intermediate series" fighter were (but the SAI 403 weren't). But we are talking about an early war fighter, and there weren't P47s around at that time.
All considered, a SAI 207 have prestations and armament comparable to those of an "intermediate series" fighter (worse in climb rate, better range, no fighter-bomber ability, probably better energy retention, ecc...), a SAI 403 have prestations and armament comparable to those of an "5 series" fighter.
Obviously there werent production SAI 207s in 1940 (the first prototype flown in autumn ot that year). But, as I said, all the key elements were already around in 1938-39. Without the SS.4 project, the Ambrosini firm, in theory, could have built the S.7 (that flown in 1939) directly as a fighter, instead of a racer.

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




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

You said:

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

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

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

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


Elmas said:
aileron reversal, compressibility, etc. were in those days strange words just appearing on stage and first to experiment strange things were the Pilots.......
Click to expand...
And the facts remain that the SAI 207 could whitstand high speed better than a C.202, while other metallic aircrafts where worse than both in this respect. Several Soviet fighters had wooden wings. Maybe there isn't only one exception.
 
Last edited:
I'm not talking about the performances of these airplanes, I'm not particularly impressed by 20 0r 30 km/h more or less in a test: they were not Schneider Cup or Goodyear Races machines.

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

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

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

Et de hoc satis, at least by my side.....
 
Last edited:
Pilots are expensive to train. Nobody can afford to lose them unnecessarily. That's why most nations went to a lot of effort to protect the pilot with armor and provide him with a parachute in case the aircraft was disabled.

Soviet infantry were a different matter. Soviet doctrine treated soldiers as cannon fodder and that's reflected in Red Army casualty data. They routinely suffered more casualties then the enemy even in battles counted as victories such as Stalingrad and Kursk.
 
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
605
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