pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I really don't think there was much of a partisan effect in Italy until later in 43/45 so the effect on Italian war production was minimal
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That's a magnificent post! Does anybody have some more information about these tests??Summary of report on German tests at Giudonia during 1943
The G-55 was seen as most favourable of the tested Italian planes
G-55:
- Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
- High forces on the aileron.
- Effect of rudder could be better.
- Plane curves very good and narrow.
- Slightly uneasy in "mid position" (shooting position).
- Pitch to any side could not be noticed, similiar to Spitfire.
- Moderate pilot view on take off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Worse pilot view than the German planes.
- Aeronautical not as good as German planes.
- Not useable as fighterbomber with bomb under fuselage.
- Equal to German planes in climb and high altitude performance.
- Inferior in speed by 25 km/h, but Italian produced DB 605 delivered 100 PS less than the German.
- Superior in armament and range to the German planes.
- Ability to install DB 603 without bigger modifications.
- Was evaluated as best Italian plane in the trials.
Macchi 205 V:
- Armament: 4 12.7 mm MG.
- Unstable in lateral axis.
- Very high effect of rudder.
- Tendency to "Überziehen" (stall ?).
- Forces on aileron and rolling good.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Will be only produced in small numbers since it is a temporary solution.
Macchi 205 N:
- Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
- Mass production variant of DB 605.
- Good rudder effect.
- Was smoothly in "mid position" (shooting position).
- Rolling good.
- Rudder forces a little smaller than for Bf 109 G-4.
- Cooler too small for constant climbing and use in tropical environment.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Wing not solid but made of three parts, plane not suited for fighter-bomber use.
Reggiane 2005:
- Armament: 3 MG-151/20 and 2 12.7 mm MG.
- Aeronautical attributes were sufficient.
- Curves well, rolling like Bf 109 G-4 with rudder forces a little less.
- Take-offs and landings easy.
- Pilot seat a little too far away from control stick.
- Not suited as fighter-bomber due to size and location of cooler.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
The German's suggested that the G.55 become the standard fighter of the axis nations, replacing both the Bf109 and Fw190 because of its superior performance. This was not practical because of the ease of production of the Bf109 mentioned before.
However the reports by Italian pilots give the opposite view with Re 2005 being top and G.55 bottom. Really the G.55 was too heavy for the DB605 and really needed the DB603 and the G.56 to become competitive again. Production was cut short because of the end of the war in September 1943 and the bombing of Fiat and Macchi production lines.
The 5-series compare well with the P-51B and Spitfire IX and XII, having similar speed and the Re2005 and C.205 superior maneuverability. They're also more useful as multi-role types, the Re 2005 being able to carry 1320kg load on 3 hardpoints. Ammunition load for the 20mm cannon is about twice that found on other aircraft.
Even so the 5 series are not the end of the line, the 6-series was next using the DB603 engine. The C.206 prototypes were nearing completion by mid-43 before the factory was bombed. The Re2006 prototype was built, but not flown because of the surrender. The C.206 with 1750hp should go at about 700km/h and the Re2006 at 740kmh. More than competitive with the similar time Mk.XIV and P51D
Although having aircraft that were in many ways individually superior than their RAF counterparts, there was no chance of Italy being able to produce enough of them to make an impact. When GB can build 2-3 times as many aircraft, you need an aircraft 2-3times as good. The 5 or 6 series weren't that aircraft.
the Italians failed to develop the radials they were already producing. Radials proved excellent powerplants on non-Italian aircraft ... Even as they existed in 1939, Italian radials were reliable - given that they had to pass a one thousand hour test before they were accepted by the air force - and they were not inferior in performance as given by the similarity in performance of the Gnome et Rhone powered Bloch MB 152 and the Piaggio P.XI powered Re.2000. Nonetheless, Italian industry relied on licenses and one man research and development departments ...
I think I know why they lagged behind. Up to the thirties you basically needed a good aircraft design and by god the Italians knew how to do that! Their technology wasn't that special but it didn't matter that much. But at the end of the thirties this changed with superior materials, advanced construction techniques and powerful inline engines pushing the designs forward. Italy didn't have this technology because its industry couldn't deliver. No point in designing an aircraft if you can't build it. In short, I disagree that the Italians ever had a leading technology. I think they built aircraft in a time when technology was still basic on not depending on industrialisation. That's why countries like Poland managed to build such good aircraft. The Italians never caught up and the 5 series is proof of that: it was the same C.200 and G.50 but with German engines and cannons.In the late '30 - early '40 Italy lost also this technological position (blinded by the success in Spanish war? lousy planning? wrong combat strategy based on aerobatics? there are tons of explanations, all of them perfectly logical), and this delay was recovered only in 1943 with the '5' models.
What parts do you disagree with Parmigiano and why?
I also agree with you gentlemen.
I think I know why they lagged behind. Up to the thirties you basically needed a good aircraft design and by god the Italians knew how to do that! Their technology wasn't that special but it didn't matter that much. But at the end of the thirties this changed with superior materials, advanced construction techniques and powerful inline engines pushing the designs forward. Italy didn't have this technology because its industry couldn't deliver. No point in designing an aircraft if you can't build it. In short, I disagree that the Italians ever had a leading technology. I think they built aircraft in a time when technology was still basic on not depending on industrialisation. That's why countries like Poland managed to build such good aircraft. The Italians never caught up and the 5 series is proof of that: it was the same C.200 and G.50 but with German engines and cannons.
Kris
I don't know what to think about that. It seems every fighter of the late thirties were able to be re-engined with more powerful engines. Just look at the Bf 109 which tripled its original power output though it was a much smaller/lighter fighter. So I don't think it's that exceptional for a fighter to double its power. I can't think of a single fighter which was given up because it couldn't handle the extra power.The fact that the Macchi airframe remained the same from the 200 to the 205V is only a proof that the basic design was good, and could bear double the power and the payload that it was originally designed for.
Many other designs that were OK in the 35-40 could not be improved: think about the Hurricane, the P40, the Wildcat, the Fiat G50, the Typhoon, the P39, the Zero etc.
I find this very interesting but I am still a bit sceptic. You're right about the Spitfire. And another example was the P-51H which was totally different from the P-51D though it looked very similar.The G55 frame and wing were completely redesigned vs the G50, the fact that some parts and subassemblies maintains a 'family feeling' or are the same (i think the landing ear for instance) is perfectly normal: there is no reason to change what was already working. Look at the Spit XIV and Spit 21: many parts are the same, made in the same way or look very similar; you can tell at first glance that both are Spitfires but the 21 was a completely redesigned aircraft.
But this isn't really true as I already talked to you about the G.50V which had the DB 601. And then there was the G.52 which was a G.50V with a more narrow fuselage. And then there's the G.55 with new wings.Gabrielli went for the new design G55 after the tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful, further evidence is that Fiat 'missed' the serie 2 (refit of DB601 on the first generation fighters: Macchi 202 and Reggiane 2001)
That's true but it's not what you said at first. You said they couldn't handle the extra power. And I have my doubts about that. It's true that many fighters weren't developed further but were replaced by new designs. But this is the choice one has to make. The Bf 109 was also going to be replaced by the Me 209 or 309 but in the end they chose to stick with it. Many of the fighters you mentioned could have been build with more powerful engines yet they thought a new design would have been better. Yet I can imagine the Hurricane, the P-40, P-39, Zero, ... remaining competitive had they had the latest engines. A Hurricane with a Griffon? A P-40 with a Packard Merlin? A Zero with a Kasei? I think they could have held their own. But in the end, a new design was the best option for the long run. It's typical that the European countries didn't replace most of their fighter designs and chose to upgrade them instead.Not every fighter of the late 30 was able to cope with the progress and still perform among the best.
Sure, the Series 5 was as good as the other fighters of 1943 but you said that the Italians regained their technological position. And that is something which I disagree with.I did not mean that Italy regained the 'top' in research in 1943 like it was around 1930 (Germany, US and UK were far ahead in that), I said the Series 5 regained the position among the top fighters: like it is substantiated by many sources.
When given more resources, a technologically less advanced team can still achieve better results.And yes, the "Reparto Alta Velocita'" was the brainchild of the Fascist regime who financed it, but how does this impacts on the technologocal achievements?