Best radial fighter of '42

[HoHun]

Hi Elvis,

>In post #73, Ju Ha wrote the following as part of that post...

>That works out to 25.7+ deg./sec.

>Why the differences in those figures compared to yours?

I guess that the higher figure is for a combat turn that sustains altitude, but not speed.

I calculate a sustained turn speed of about 240 km/h TAS, while 350 km/h IAS (calibrated, I assume) works out to 386 km/h TAS. At that speed, the F2A according to my calculations is capable of a 40 degrees per second turn, pulling 7.7 G and decelerating with 6.6 m/s^2. (The deceleration of course reduces G rate, turn rate and further deceleration, so I'd say like my calculations are in the same ballpart for a decelerating turn as those Juha quoted.)

In my opinion, the figure of 350 km/h is what we'd consider "corner speed" in modern technology - the speed at which the F2A can generate the highest instantaneous Gs that can be usefully employed to combat, limited by airframe strength or by the pilot's ability to resist G forces. That's probably the reason it's listed for 180 degrees of turn - if attacked by an enemy from astern, you could make such a turn from corner speed to spoil his attack, and after 180 degrees you'd probably be facing him head-on (depending on the timing of the turn, of course).

A sustained turn at 350 km/h IAS would be much tamer and have a much wider radius - I calculate 14.5 degrees per second compared to the 23.3 degrees per second at 240 km/h TAS for highest sustained turn rate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Vincenzo]

Hi
i can't use search engine, almost until they not accept my registration, I hope they accept me in short times

after they accepted me i look in many info on Aces High II forum but i don't found nothing on the italian planes in this challenge

 

[HoHun]

Hi Vincenzo,

>after they accepted me i look in many info on Aces High II forum but i don't found nothing on the italian planes in this challenge

Hm, maybe your best bet is to ask Gatt directly then (if he's still active on that forum - I at least am not).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Gatt]

Hi Vincenzo,

>HoHun can explain me why italian fighter climb speed are so different from italian test?

No idea. At which flying weights were the figures you quoted achieved?

I know that over on Aces High forum, Italian forum member Gatt and Aces High's Hitech discussed climb rate figures for some Italian fighter (of a later generation, I believe) that were too high to be realistic. Gatt had contact to a retired Macchi engineer (I believe - maybe it was an other company), and I seem to remember that after much research, lower figures were accepted as probable.

Maybe this was not type-specific, but systematic for Italian ratings and procedures?

Regards,

Henning (HoHuN)

Hello HoHun and Vincenzo,

I'll be back home on tuesday. I'll try to post some hard data about the G.50, the C.200 and the Re2000. I mean data from official tests and/or performance data from the flight manuals.

Gatt

 

[HoHun]

Hi Gatt,

>I'll be back home on tuesday. I'll try to post some hard data about the G.50, the C.200 and the Re2000. I mean data from official tests and/or performance data from the flight manuals.

Hey, I'm glad to see you here on this board! I'm looking forward to your input - Italian aircraft are a fascinating topic, but compared to other types, there is so little data on them that we really need your expert input here!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Gatt]

Italian aircraft are a fascinating topic, but compared to other types, there is so little data on them that we really need your expert input here!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)

Hi HoHun, I dont play AcesHigh 2 anymore. So, instead of shooting down bombers and Spitfire dweebs with my Macchi C.205, I have been searching for italian aircraft documents
Jokes apart, actually I'm helping the guys of Targetware's "Target Tobruk" mod providing them stuff to build those flight models.
I'll try to dig out a C.200 official report (speed and climb performance at different altitudes). About the G.50 and the Re.2000, so far the only hard data are those provided by the flight manual.
BTW, you are right, we have very few data about our aircraft. But the more we search the more stuff we find: like the original 1944 flight manual of the Fiat G.55 "Centauro". This is the first Series 5 fighters flight manual which shows full power for the license built Fiat-DB605, i.e.: 1.42ata at 2.800rpm ...

See you next week!

Gatt

 

[HoHun]

Hi Gatt,

>BTW, you are right, we have very few data about our aircraft. But the more we search the more stuff we find: like the original 1944 flight manual of the Fiat G.55 "Centauro". This is the first Series 5 fighters flight manual which shows full power for the license built Fiat-DB605, i.e.: 1.42ata at 2.800rpm ...

Wow, sounds like your research is really paying off there! I remember the discussion about the Italian-built DB 601A engines, pretty hard to tell which power levels they achieved!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Gatt]

Ok, here is a comparative study of the performance of different versions of the G.50. Figures are from official Flight and Manteinance Manuals.

G.50 1a Serie:



G.50 2a Serie:



and G.50 Bis

 

[Vincenzo]

beautiful info Gatt, thanks

the info that i posted for I serie (the only with closed cockpit) from '39 Guidonia Test (almost so classified from a my friend) are a bit more conservative, i add and repeat here
empty weight 1900 kg
load weight 2330 kg (test weight)
max speed 483 km/h at 4,5 km 451 km/h at 6 km
climb at 4 km in 4'14'', at 6 km in 7'3''
take off 200 meters
landing 323 meters (no words on w or w/o brakes)

 

[Gatt]

Hello Vincenzo, do you have a scan of the Guidonia trials document?

Regards,
Federico

 

[Vincenzo]

no i've only a my friend e-mail it reported the data i give

p.s. but this are the same of reggiane reggiane web pages

 

[starling]

hawker typhoon or beaufighter,cheers.

 

[Vincenzo]

hawker typhoon or beaufighter,cheers.

Typhoon it's not in challenge, obviously, Beaufigher imho was not good for fighter vs fighter, also if it can match with some of more old design

 

[Juha]

Gatt
Thank You very much for the documents on Fiat G.50.
Greatly appreciated.

Juha

 

[Waynos]

How many Typhoons you seen with a radial engine? I can think of only one so a prototype hardly qualifies.

 

[Gatt]

This is from a february 1940 Guidonia official C.200 test. As you can see they took the average figures from two tests:




BTW, as usual, you have to check carefully for take-off weights and boost pressures before judging these figures.

 

[HoHun]

Hi Gatt,

>Ok, here is a comparative study of the performance of different versions of the G.50. Figures are from official Flight and Manteinance Manuals.

Thanks a lot, that looks very interesting indeed!

Not without the usual problems of first-hand data of course ... did you notice that there is no increase in the quoted "autonomia" of the G-50bis despite the weight data shows it has an increased fuel capacity?

What is the "motorino" mentioned in some of the documents?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Gatt]

Hi Gatt,

What is the "motorino" mentioned in some of the documents?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

"Motorino d'avviamento" means engine starter.

Regards,
Federico

 

[Vincenzo]

Not without the usual problems of first-hand data of course ... did you notice that there is no increase in the quoted "autonomia" of the G-50bis despite the weight data shows it has an increased fuel capacity?

need know how many fuel there was in range test, imho it's not the test was done at max fuel

 

[Gatt]

To better judge what kind of data the official manuals have, here is the performance page from the C.200 official manual (Series I-V from Breda, 1940). As you can see climb data figures are the same from the above post, which are the average of two tests. I find it quite interesting.