Italian Aircraft of WWII

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

I am afraid that I must disagree with parts of this posting.

Re the handleing of the 109 at high speed, I have read a number of reports detailing how heavy the control forces become on the 109 at high speed and have never read one that says that it is easy or even acceptable at speeds over 400mph. I am happy to be proved wrong if you can supply an example.

one example is as follows - These air battles took place at high altitude and very high speed, and at these speeds the control forces of the Gustav grew very heavy, the responsiveness and effectiveness of the control surfaces became very poor as did directional stability. Maneouverability was lost and the Gustav became a poor gun platform. There are others as well.

Re the preference for the G55 my sources state
i) Two pre production examples were delivered to Guidonia in spring 1943and flown against the 109G and 190A proving superiour in most respects and better manoeuvrability than either aircraft.
ii) The ANR unit equipped with G55 and 109 the pilots universally preferred the G55 and the decision to stop production was extreamely unpopular
iii) The G56 with the DB603 was tested against the 109K-4 and late model 190A and shown to be superior. Max speed was 436mph and climb to 1000m in 48 seconds, 4000m in 3min 33 sec and 7000m in 7min with better manoeverability than either German aircraft. However, production was expressly forbidden by the German authorities. Again a decision that was not well received.

Re the ground attack role. I don't have information about this specifically but I do know that a G55 was fitted with a 2050lb torpedo, carried this at 354mph, dropped it accurately at a target and proceded to demonstate what a German observer decribed as 'an astonishing low level aerobatic display that illustrated forcibly that the modifications had in no way impared its capabilities as a fighter.'
The aircraft (M.M.91194) also climbed to a height of 6000m in 8min 15sec carrying the torpedo. There can be little doubt that this would have been a very effective strike plane. The germans forbade the future development of this version as well.

Spot the trend

PS you keep saying that the G55 only had 1 x 20mm and 4 x HMG as standard. Where do you get this idea from?
 
Kurfürst said:
The 109 was perfectly controllable at high speeds, there are tests showing 900kph dive recoveries from vertical dives in about 1000 meter altitude..
Click to expand...
I have read of some Finnish pilots who came out of high speed dives which they thought they would not have. 'By the Grace of God' comes to mind.

We don't hear about the pilots who did not come out of high speed dives because they didn't survive.

Dive: Adjust trim in such a way that the airplane can be held in a dive. The elevator forces and tailplane loads become great at high speeds. The tailplane adjustment must work perfectly; otherwise shifting of the tailplane is impossible.
Sturzflug: Trimming so einstellen daß das Flugzeug durch Drücken im Sturzflug gehalten werden kann. Die Höhenruderkräfte und Flossenbelastungen werden bei hoher Fahrt sehr groß. Hemmung der Flossen verstellung muß einwandfrei arbeiten; sonst ist Selbst verstellung der Flosse möglich.

Maximum diving speed 750 km/h (under 3000m). Hard aileron manipulation while diving leads to failure, particularly when pulling out. Höchstzulässige Sturzfluggeschwindigkeit 750 km/h. Harte querruder betätigung im Sturz und besonders beim Abfangen führt zum Bruch.

How much altitude did it take a Ju-87 to pull out of its vertical dive of 350mph (563kph)?
 

There are dozens of such, Hanna, Southwood, Lukas`s dive trials could be and were quoted dozens of times... you can read the 109G TTs on my site in the Middle East.

As for the relative control forces of the G-55, the report notes the G-55 aileron forces are higher and it`s roll rate is lower compared to the test 109G.


I don`t know where this comes from, nor do I believe it has much basis - the logic seems flawed since control forces are generally less and less of a problem on any aircraft as altitude increases..

Re the preference for the G55 my sources state
i) Two pre production examples were delivered to Guidonia in spring 1943and flown against the 109G and 190A proving superiour in most respects and better manoeuvrability than either aircraft.
Click to expand...

Why don`t you just read the actual test report itself and see how much wishful thinking this description has, ie. 'superior on most respects'.. I have already posted some translation...

ii) The ANR unit equipped with G55 and 109 the pilots universally preferred the G55 and the decision to stop production was extreamely unpopular
Click to expand...

See JG 77 war diary. I have not seen those pilots myself (I presume they are in Italian books, I've never read one myself). Perhaps you can share some?



I have never heard about these tests, and frankly, I am sceptical about there has been a test performed at all (at least not in Germany). Perhaps specs were compared - and BTW these specs shown with the 'DB 603' (which?) do not look superior to me at all. Competitive, yes, superior, no.


Sorry, based on simple physics, I am sceptical about such descriptions.. I am sure the G55 was modified later to carry a torpedo, and I am sure it could pull out nice stunts with it - uneffected after being added a ton of extra weight and drag, no way in our physical world. I agree it would have been an excellent strike plane, based on this description. As for German decision, it would be interesting to see the reasonig behind it - perhaps that they already had a FW 190 torpedo variant capable of carrying an 1400 kg aerial torpedo? Why run two similiar projects at the same time?

PS you keep saying that the G55 only had 1 x 20mm and 4 x HMG as standard. Where do you get this idea from?
Click to expand...

Read the Guidonia test report. The G 55 tested had this much armament. I don`t say it`s standard, merely that all conclusions of that report are based on an aircraft with this much armament.
 
Kurfürst said:
There are dozens of such, Hanna, Southwood, Lukas`s dive trials could be and were quoted dozens of times... you can read the 109G TTs on my site in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
Glad you mentioned Hanna. I did read his full report on a comparision between the 109 and the Mustang. He summed it up as below 250mph, the 109 had a clear advantage, between 250 and 350 there was nothing in it, but above 350 the Mustang had a clear advantage because of the control forces on the 109.

Another example follows:- The rudder is fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so. As there is no rudder trimming device, it is necessary to apply right rudder for take-off and left rudder at high speeds. The ailerons become increasingly stiff with the increase in speed especially at speeds in excess of 350 I.A.S. At speed below 180 I.A.S. the ailerons are not positive and as the stall is approached they are almost non-effective. The elevators also become increasingly difficult to operate as the speed increases. Above 350 I.A.S. this unpleasantness is accentuated as the elevator trim is practically impossible to operate.

I am awaiting any example from yourself about how easy it is to handle the 109 at high speed.

The details are in an article from Air Enthusiast a number of years ago. The tests were undertaken by the Germans and I don't know why you should doubt them. The aircraft serial numbers are M.M.536/7 and two prototypes were used. You have the plane numbers, performance details and the other changes to the aircraft are as follows (compared to a standard G55). Length increased by 19cm. Additional weight was 340lb and the two engine mounted MG's were removed and internal fuel was increased to 131Imp Gallons.

Again you have the details of the planes performance and the the airframe number. Why you are sceptical I don't know, it happened, I have a poor photo of the aircraft which will not prove anything and a quote from an official observer. A lot more has been claimed with less to support it than that.
The point was to prove that the G55 could easily have been a very effective strike aircraft which was one of the key reasons why the Germans said development should be stopped.
 
I can't speak to the validity of the matter discussed but I can spot a misunderstanding as good as the next chap.

Kurfurst said, "Sorry, based on simple physics, I am sceptical about such descriptions. I am sure the G55 was modified later to carry a torpedo, and I am sure it could pull out nice stunts with it - uneffected after being added a ton of extra weight and drag, no way in our physical world."

You misread. Glider said, "I do know that a G55 was fitted with a 2050lb torpedo, carried this at 354mph, dropped it accurately at a target and proceded to demonstate what a German observer described as 'an astonishing low level aerobatic display that illustrated forcibly that the modifications had in no way impared its capabilities as a fighter.'"

Where did he mention an aerobatic display with the torpedo present (with the added ton of extra weight)? Note that the claim is that the torpedo was dropped and then the aircraft "proceeded" to perform the aerobatic display.
 

As a matter of fact Hanna does not say anything like that, it`s entirely your fabrication or you have misread it. I advise you to re-read it.


What plane is this about and from whom ? I don`t quite see how it supports your claims that the 109 was 'near impossible' to control at high speed.

I am awaiting any example from yourself about how easy it is to handle the 109 at high speed.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. After I've answered your quesion and pointed you to a sources about a matter that had been discussed hundreds of times, you keep pretending you have not seen anything and keep repeating the same claim.

Sorry, I don`t play this kind of game. You`re welcome to actually read the sources I have gave. They are all available online.

The details are in an article from Air Enthusiast a number of years ago. The tests were undertaken by the Germans and I don't know why you should doubt them.
Click to expand...

Because no author mentioned them so far, which is quite odd don`t you think..?


You said it was tested against the 109K and the 190A, why no WNr. for the LW planes then...? Could it be the G-56 was tested alone and then the author of the article claimed it was superior to this and that aircraft?

I`d like to see the article itself or the details. Does the article state reference to that test?


You answered it with the last sentence. See what has been claimed about the Guidonia trials and what`s actually stated in that report in comparison... lots of wishful thinking there. It`s always good to be careful with such statements.

The point was to prove that the G55 could easily have been a very effective strike aircraft which was one of the key reasons why the Germans said development should be stopped.
Click to expand...

I don`t quite get it then.. why would the Germans object having an effective strike aircraft - apart from having two effective strike aircraft, complicating matters...?

Sorry but that sounds like a lame conspiracy theory.
 
Jank said:
Where did he mention an aerobatic display with the torpedo present (with the added ton of extra weight)? Note that the claim is that the torpedo was dropped and then the aircraft "proceeded" to perform the aerobatic display.
Click to expand...

Oh I see then the misunderstanding... but then I don`t quite get what does it prove, a clean fighter G-55 was capable of nice aerobatic manourvers...?
 
Kurfürst said:
As a matter of fact Hanna does not say anything like that, it`s entirely your fabrication or you have misread it. I advise you to re-read it.
Click to expand...
Actually yes he did and I stick to it.

What plane is this about and from whom ? I don`t quite see how it supports your claims that the 109 was 'near impossible' to control at high speed.
Click to expand...
Do you recognise this one (its from your site) The elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the trim wheel hardens up and becomes almost sold in a dive. Some force is needed on the stick at high speeds, but accelerations as great as the pilot can stand can be put on.
The ailerons are satisfactory up to a moderate dive, and after that were used charily owing to the warning in the handbook of their weakness. Comparative combat trials are needed to complete this section of the report.



. Give me the link and I will read them. I have tried your 109 site and couldn't find them but I did find the one mentioned above. There are other examples I can give.


.
You said it was tested against the 109K and the 190A, why no WNr. for the LW planes then...? Could it be the G-56 was tested alone and then the author of the article claimed it was superior to this and that aircraft?.
Click to expand...
I don't have that detail (and don't make that type of thing up) it was an article in a magazine and I quoted what I had, no more, no less. Its good detailed information and I have no reason to doubt it.
 
As a result of this and the fact that the high altitude performance was much better than that of the Fw 190, the Gustav primarily took on the american and british escort fighters. These air battles took place at high altitude and very high speed, and at these speeds the control forces of the Gustav grew very heavy, the responsiveness and effectiveness of the control surfaces became very poor as did directional stability. Maneouverability was lost and the Gustav became a poor gun platform.
The Luftwaffe page , Daimler-Benz DB 605

If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.
Ailerons:
At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:
(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
The Best of the Breed: The Me-109 and Fw-190A

"A shortcoming was the lack of any rudder trimming device. This meant that is was necessary to apply moderate right rudder during the climb and considerable left rudder during a dive. Thus, although the Bf-109G pilots tended to bunt into a steep dive as an escape manoeuvre in dogfights, they had some very heavy rudder and elevator control forces to contend with as speed built up and pull-outs at low level had to be made with considerable circumspection
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/bf109-ruder-trim-9866.html

I truely am looking, but have yet to find one posting that says the 109 handled well at high speed. As mentioned earlier I am happy to change my position if evidence is supplied
 
"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."

Oberst Edgar Petersen was the Chief Officer of the Luftwaffe's experimental aircraft testing facility at Rechlin and he was there for the testing.

The 65 year later armchair quarterbacking from a bunch of WWII nerd/geek pansies with P.C.'s is amusing to say the least.


Here's Kurfurst being awarded the "Oberst Petersen didn't know jack. I know what really happened" merit badge:
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 
Glider said:
Actually yes he did and I stick to it.
Click to expand...

If Mark Hanna would say anything you claim, you`d simply quote him.

In fact this what Hanna tells :

Pitch tends to be heavy above 400km/h, but it is still easy to manage up to 500km/h, and the aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 550km/h and below. Above 550km/h, one peculiarity is a slight nose-down trim change as you accelerate. This means that when you run in for an airshow above 500km/h, the airplane has a slight tucking sensation-a sort of desire to get down to ground level. This is easily held on the stick, or it can be trimmed out, but it is slightly surprising initially.

When you maneuver above 500km/h, two hands are required for a more aggressive performance. Either that or get on the trimmer to help. Despite this heavying up, it is still quite easy to get 5G at these speeds.

The rudder is effective and of medium feel up to 500km/h. It becomes heavier above this speed, but regardless, the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with this airplane.

So where`s the problem...? It seems you can impose high G loads on the plane without particular problems.



"the trim wheel hardens up and becomes almost solid in a dive."


"Some force is needed on the stick at high speeds, but accelerations as great as the pilot can stand can be put on."

"The ailerons are satisfactory up to a moderate dive"

I don`t see a problem here either. It seems to say the ailerons are satisfactory and you are not limited at all by the stick forces in pitch but the pilot`s (in)ability to sustain the G-loads the aircraft can impose on him in dive.

Not quite the story you were telling before about the 'lawn dart 109s'...?

I don't have that detail (and don't make that type of thing up) it was an article in a magazine and I quoted what I had, no more, no less. Its good detailed information and I have no reason to doubt it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can translate the relevant part for us? I do not speak/read Polish.
 

You`re not serious about this page..? I mean, it`s a fine page, but certainly not presenting someone`s view who had flew the plane. See Erich Brown below.


Glider said:
The Best of the Breed: The Me-109 and Fw-190A
Click to expand...

The Carson article; it has been debunked a 1000 times already.


This is Erich Brown being quoted. It`s a bit strange, since he also comments this (solidity of control) :

"However, things were very different at high altitude, and providing the Gustav was kept where it was meant to be (ie. above 25,000 ft / 7 620 m) it performed efficiently both in dogfighting and as an attacker of bomber formations."

It`s a bit funny though, since Brown flew the same 109G-6/U2 as was tested earleir by CENTRAL FIGHTER ESTABLISHMENT.. it`s funny to compare their comments :

Brown mentions 'the rudder being light, the ailerons moderately light'
CFE : 'The rudder is fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so. '

Again, exactly the same plane.

I truely am looking, but have yet to find one posting that says the 109 handled well at high speed. As mentioned earlier I am happy to change my position if evidence is supplied
Click to expand...

This is what a UK 109F test has to say :



Frankly, I do not see what the problem is, if even at such extreme speeds they comment that 'fairly tight turns are possible'. It certainly does not seem the plane is limit the pilot`s manouveribility, quite the contrary, the pilot can`t sustain the high G loads the plane can pull.
 
BTW I don`t quite understand why this is so important in a Italian fighter aircraft thread.. Perhaps Adler can move this to the 109 thread...?

After all, whatever the control forces the 109 were, the Guidonia report is quite clear that the G-55 aileron forces were higher than the 109, as well as the roll rate lower, for example, and the plane tested there was found turnining 'somewhat better' than the 109G-4(/trop? given the weight) tested.
 
Jank, I don't think there was much reason to insult Kurfürst...

Perhaps it's difficult to accept things of which you have always been told that they were different. The Bf 109G flew like a pig at high speeds. Right? No!

You need some more accounts? Well, let's check out this virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

Me 109 G:
- How difficult was it to control the 109 in high velocities, 600 kmh and above?
The Messerschmitt became stiff to steer not until the speed exceeded 700kmh. The control column was as stiff as it had been fastened with tape, you could not use the ailerons. Yet you could control the plane."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

Me 109 G:
"Sarantola recalled that the MT was a very stable plane, but not the most maneuverable. The stick forces were quite large and elevator trim was used quite frequently while maneuvering.
MT was easy to fly and overall a safe plane. Flying and landing was easy."
- Olli Sarantola, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Blitz '01 - Meeting With The Veterans by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.

109 G:
"The roll rate is very good and very positive below about 250 mph. Above 250 mph however the roll starts to heavy up and up to 300 or so is very similar to a P-51. After that it's all getting pretty solid and you need two hands on the stick for any meaningfull roll rates. Pitch is also delighful at 250 mph and below. It feels very positve and the amount of effort on the control column needed to produce the relevant nose movement seems exactly right to me. The aircraft is perfectly happy carrying out low-level looping maneuvers from 300 mph and below. Above 300 mph one peculiarity is a slight nose down trim change as you accelerate. The rudder is effective and if medium feel up to 300. It becomes heavier above this speed but regardless the lack of rudder trim is not a problem for the type of operations we carry out with the aeroplane."
- Mark Hanna of the Old Flying Machine Company flying the OFMC Messerschmitt Bf 109 G (Spanish version).

Me 109 G:
"-Many claim that the MT becomes stiff as hell in a dive, difficult to bring up in high speed, the controls lock up?
Nnnooo, they don't lock up.
It was usually because you exceeded diving speed limits. Guys didn't remember you shouldn't let it go over.
The controls don't lock up, they become stiffer of course but don't lock. And of course you couldn't straighten up (shows a 'straightening' from a dive directly up) like an arrow."
- Väinö Pokela, Finnish fighter ace and Me 109 trainer. 5 victories. Source: Interview of Väinö Pokela by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.


Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- How heavy did the Me controls get at different speeds?
"It got heavy, but you could use the flettner. It was nothing special, but a big help.
Once in '43, there was a Boston III above the Gulf of Finland. I went after it, and we went to clouds at 500 meters. Climbing, climbing, climbing and climbing, all the way to seven kilometers, and it was just more and more clouds. It got so dark that I lost sight. I turned back down, and saw the Russkie diving too. Speed climbed to 700 km/h. I wondered how it'd turn out. I pulled with all my strength when emerging from the clouds, then used the flettner. I was 50 meters above sea when I got it to straighten out. "
- Did the roll capabilites change?
"Not so much. It got stiffer, but you still could bank. "
- Were you still in full control at high speeds, like at 600-700 km/h?
"Yes. "
- How about slow and medium speeds, could you do stunts?
"Yes, but it was heavier than the earlier planes (Fokker D.XXI, Curtiss Hawk 75). But better in combat. I got to fly the Hornet simulator last summer. That stick moved only little. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.

Me 109 G-6:
Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

There also used to be an article called "Why Col Kit Carson was an idiot". Couldn't find that one anymore. Now I see it's because the author changed the title into "Why Col Kit Carson was wrong."
Why Carson was an idiot
He makes it clear that the rudder and aileron forces were similar to the Spitfire which no one would claim was difficult to handle...

Here's a translation of that Polish G.56 site. I used poltran.com for it but translation is horrible. So I'm just summarizing it. And do remember that I love the G.56. Until a month ago I had a G.56 in my signature

Prototype of the G.56 showed good result during the tests. Indeed it was less responsive than the G-55 production series, but it has turned out with a maximum speed of 685 km/h the fastest fighter aircraft of Italian construction.

Training battles with german fighters Messerschmitt Bf 109G, Bf 109K-4 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190A show superiority of the Italian aircraft. Expected is a further correction in performance after the employment of a new 4 bladed VDM propellor. But tests had been interrupted because of heavy allied air raids on the plants in northern italy carried out on 25 april 1944.
I think it says then that there was damage to the first prototype but that the second prototype, the MM 537 would continue flight in October 1944. This aircraft was later taken by Fiat to fly test different engine types.
It also goes on by saying that Speer and Saura ordered further work on the G.56 and production of the G.55 to be stopped.

This makes perfect sense to me as Speer wanted to concentrate on fewer types of aircraft to increase overall production, and succeeded in doing just that.
So it's not that the Germans were unwilling to accept a non-German aircraft, it was the rationalisation of the German war economy which led to its cancellation. The G.56 was definitely an amazing aircraft.

Kris
 
Training battles with german fighters Messerschmitt Bf 109G, Bf 109K-4 and Focke-Wulf Fw 190A show superiority of the Italian aircraft. Expected is a further correction in performance after the employment of a new 4 bladed VDM propellor. But tests had been interrupted because of heavy allied air raids on the plants in northern italy carried out on 25 april 1944.

There were no flying Bf 109Ks in April 1944... perhaps they tested against an /AS aircraft...?

Thanks for the translation. And BTW, I don`t think any of us doubts the G-55/56 series were wonderful aircraft with high potential.
 
Civittone
Many thanks for the link, its what I have been looking for. Re the Hanna observation, considering I was going from memory I had it pretty close.

So how does the aeroplane compare with other contemporary fighters ? First, let me say that all my comments are based on operation below 10,000 feet and at power settings not exceeding +12 (54") and 2700 rpm. I like it as an aeroplane, and with familiarity I think it will give most of the allied fighters I have flown a hard time, particularly in a close, hard turning, slow speed dog-fight. It will definitely out-maneuver a P-51 in this type of flight, the roll rate and slow speed characteristics being much better. The Spitfire on the other hand is more of a problem for the '109 and I feel it is a superior close in fighter. Having said that the aircraft are sufficiently closely matched that pilot abilty would probably be the deciding factor. At higher speeds the P-51 is definitely superior, and provided the Mustang kept his energy up and refused to dogfight he would be relatively safe against the '109
 
Hello. I am quite interested by this online community's commitment to exploring the answers to questions of eras that we often take for granted, having been so accustomed to secondary sources. I am familiar with the heated debates involving Kurfurst and the relative performance of the BF-109 versus contemporary fighters. However, I just would like to make a few observations of my own. Upon perusing the Guidonia technical evaluations of the Italian fighters versus the German, from the file that Kurfurst has posted on his site, I am struck by various details that I think were overlooked regarding the Centauro G.55 in particular and the Italian fighters in general.
A) All of the Italian fighters Re. 2005, MC 205, and G.55 carried heavier armament and fuel loads than did the FW-190a-4 and Bf-109g-4. Yes, the G.55 was not superior to the Bf-109g in most ways (from the German point of view) but it was carrying a substantially heavier load. Comparing it with the Bf-109g-4 is like comparing the Bf-109f-4 with the Bf-109g-6/R6 "gunboat" or "three-pointer."
B) Despite how Bf-109g partisans argued that the Italian and German engines would have had exactly the same power as the Bf-109g in Feb. 1943 was not flying with as much power as it would that summer in terms of a.t.m. boost, I notice that the German translation DOES indeed state that the G.55 was slower but had a weaker engine by 100 h.p. Yes, Kurfurst is quite right about many things, that we would have assumed they had equivalent engines, but it was the PROTOTYPE that was tested: a production Centauro would have had an even heavier armament. So, if it had been manufactured in Italy in May 1942 no wonder its engine was inferior to that of a Bf-109g-4 that was manufactured at the start of 1943.
C) It does indeed say that the G.55's rate of roll was apparently inferior to the BF-109g-4. The German expression used is unknown to me, but it suggests "smaller" rather than "slower." However, one would assume the German fighter was being flown to its peak performance with its wing slats deployed.
D) In summary, the report does indeed suggest to me that the G.55 was a superb design. Carrying 40% more fuel and twice the munition load of the Bf-109g-4, its speed and maneuverability was almost as good. Its take-off and landing behavior was benign, unlike that the Bf-109g. I suppose you could have filled up the P-51B/D to the brim of its fuselage tank and put on a few rocket tubes and found out that it, too, was inferior to a lightly-loaded Messerschmitt.
 
Last edited:
What is more striking to me is that the C.205 and Re.2005 seem to get a better evaluation but in the end the G.55 is considered to be the best. It seems to me that the easier production was the main reason for this...


Kris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The last dogfight of WWII
Replies
5
Views
2K
Gnomey
Superlative Performance of Japanese Aircraft with Uprated Engines
Replies
17
Views
4K
NeilStirling
N
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
bf109xxl
Earlier employment of merchant aircraft carriers
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register