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
Italy v. England - Air to air
- Thread starter DAVIDICUS
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Of course!
Kris
Kris
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
The 'Serie V' was maybe not the 'pinnacle' of aviation, but in 1943 was at least on par with Allied and German machines.
In 1944-45 the other parties progressed while Macchi205 and FiatG55, because of the armistice, did not evolve: so in time they could not keep the pace.
An example? All the produced series V were fitted with the DB605A, the 109 mounted the new versions of the DB605 as soon as they were available. Of course a 109 G10/AS had more performances than a G55.
But a G55 wih the 605/AS would had more than matched the 109G10, not to speak that the Fiat frame could easily accept the DB603 (G56)
It is not surprising that the Germans in 1943 picked the G55 for production studies to replace the 109: there you had a fighter that with the same DB605A engine had equal or better performances and, very important but not remarked, carried an armament (3xMG151/22 + 2x12.7) similar to the Fw190A6 (4xMG151/20 + 2x 7.7) , much more powerful than the 109 and any other competitor. The 190 was the best at low/mid altitudes, the G55 was the best at mid/high, both had enough punch to knock down the 4 engine bomber that were the most urgent menace. The 109 simply could not carry this armament without losing too much performance (see external gondolas).
And with his 3x20mm (one with 380 rounds and 2 with 200 rounds) plus 2x12.7 the G55 was an ideal interceptor: as comparison the Fw190 had 250 rounds for the inner MG and 150 for the outer, the much heavier Typhoon had 120 rounds per gun.
It is funny that the Italians, always in trouble with the insufficient armament of their fighters, ended up to produce fighters with the best armament of their time.
Even the 'stopgap' Macchi 205V, after a few units with 7.7 mg in the wings, went in production with 2x12.7 and 2xMG151/20 with 400 rpg (.. better than the Dora9 who had only 250 rpg for the same 20mm guns)
In 1944-45 the other parties progressed while Macchi205 and FiatG55, because of the armistice, did not evolve: so in time they could not keep the pace.
An example? All the produced series V were fitted with the DB605A, the 109 mounted the new versions of the DB605 as soon as they were available. Of course a 109 G10/AS had more performances than a G55.
But a G55 wih the 605/AS would had more than matched the 109G10, not to speak that the Fiat frame could easily accept the DB603 (G56)
It is not surprising that the Germans in 1943 picked the G55 for production studies to replace the 109: there you had a fighter that with the same DB605A engine had equal or better performances and, very important but not remarked, carried an armament (3xMG151/22 + 2x12.7) similar to the Fw190A6 (4xMG151/20 + 2x 7.7) , much more powerful than the 109 and any other competitor. The 190 was the best at low/mid altitudes, the G55 was the best at mid/high, both had enough punch to knock down the 4 engine bomber that were the most urgent menace. The 109 simply could not carry this armament without losing too much performance (see external gondolas).
And with his 3x20mm (one with 380 rounds and 2 with 200 rounds) plus 2x12.7 the G55 was an ideal interceptor: as comparison the Fw190 had 250 rounds for the inner MG and 150 for the outer, the much heavier Typhoon had 120 rounds per gun.
It is funny that the Italians, always in trouble with the insufficient armament of their fighters, ended up to produce fighters with the best armament of their time.
Even the 'stopgap' Macchi 205V, after a few units with 7.7 mg in the wings, went in production with 2x12.7 and 2xMG151/20 with 400 rpg (.. better than the Dora9 who had only 250 rpg for the same 20mm guns)
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Parmigiano, don't forget that the Germans were primarily interested in the G.55/II which carried FIVE 20mm cannons!! What a bomber destroyer that must have been!
However I disagree that the extra underwing guns of the Bf 109 made it much slower. I know Kurfürst has the exact figures but I think it was around 4 km/h worth of drag. The fuselage bulges of the Bf 109G-6 caused a speed loss of 6 km/h. These bulges were overcome by the G-10.
But the main advantage the Bf 109 had was that it could be produced a lot faster than the G.55. The latter required 15,000 manhours which could have been brought back to 9,000. The Bf 109 could be produced in 5,000. I think the G.55 and especially the G.56 was more of an alternative for the Fw 190A and D.
Kris
Kris
However I disagree that the extra underwing guns of the Bf 109 made it much slower. I know Kurfürst has the exact figures but I think it was around 4 km/h worth of drag. The fuselage bulges of the Bf 109G-6 caused a speed loss of 6 km/h. These bulges were overcome by the G-10.
But the main advantage the Bf 109 had was that it could be produced a lot faster than the G.55. The latter required 15,000 manhours which could have been brought back to 9,000. The Bf 109 could be produced in 5,000. I think the G.55 and especially the G.56 was more of an alternative for the Fw 190A and D.
Kris
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
That's a magnificent post! Does anybody have some more information about these tests??
Kris
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
I think I had already posted somewhere this link
G55 - Aircraft History
There is a lot of info on the G55 and some more insight of the tests and on the FIAT made DB605
Some small corrections to the above post: the Macchi 205V never had 4x12.7: the first units had 2x12.7 in the cowling and 2x7.7 in the wings, the production 'Serie III' replaced the 7.7 with the MG151/20
I wonder how they could test the MC 205 N: there was only 2 prototypes built, the first (SN 499) with 1x20 and 4x12.7, the second (SN500) with 3x20 and 2x12.7: I never heard of the SN499 tested by Luftwaffe.
The MC206 'nearly complete' was designed for the DB605, Castoldi's fighter design for the DB603 was the MC207
G55 - Aircraft History
There is a lot of info on the G55 and some more insight of the tests and on the FIAT made DB605
Some small corrections to the above post: the Macchi 205V never had 4x12.7: the first units had 2x12.7 in the cowling and 2x7.7 in the wings, the production 'Serie III' replaced the 7.7 with the MG151/20
I wonder how they could test the MC 205 N: there was only 2 prototypes built, the first (SN 499) with 1x20 and 4x12.7, the second (SN500) with 3x20 and 2x12.7: I never heard of the SN499 tested by Luftwaffe.
The MC206 'nearly complete' was designed for the DB605, Castoldi's fighter design for the DB603 was the MC207
phouse
Airman
Fiat, like Civettone described, had a lukewarm at best disposition to Mussolini's government. They had tested an inline engine that had equivocal output to that of the best radial engines at the time but for reasons unknown, it was dropped. Furthermore, and I'm going to quote a great article by James Sabkovich,
Slightly off topic but the failure of Italy to produce capable aircraft until late in the war seems to be a head scratcher. Thought I'd give some input! If you get an opportunity, Mr. Sabkovich's "The Development of the Italian Air Force Prior to World War II" is an excellent survey of the Italian Air Force's issues leading up to 1940 and gives great indicators on their failure to perform at competitive levels.
*Edit - added Sabkovich's article name.
Slightly off topic but the failure of Italy to produce capable aircraft until late in the war seems to be a head scratcher. Thought I'd give some input! If you get an opportunity, Mr. Sabkovich's "The Development of the Italian Air Force Prior to World War II" is an excellent survey of the Italian Air Force's issues leading up to 1940 and gives great indicators on their failure to perform at competitive levels.
*Edit - added Sabkovich's article name.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Parmigiano, thanks for the link but I was already aware of that. It's an often quoted text but I haven't been able to find the original reports though I know the reference and where to find them (Bundesarchiv in Germany).
Phouse welcome aboard!
Note that most Italian radial engines were in fact foreign designs which they licence produced and developed further.
I suppose that inline engine you were talking about is the Isotta Fraschini Zeta engine. It proved to be unreliable and with little advantages towards the Daimler Benz engines. (Though now I'm wondering if it wasn't an air cooled inline engine...)
Phouse can you tell us some more on the findings by Sabkovich? Any remarkable observations?
Kris
Phouse welcome aboard!
Note that most Italian radial engines were in fact foreign designs which they licence produced and developed further.
I suppose that inline engine you were talking about is the Isotta Fraschini Zeta engine. It proved to be unreliable and with little advantages towards the Daimler Benz engines. (Though now I'm wondering if it wasn't an air cooled inline engine...)
Phouse can you tell us some more on the findings by Sabkovich? Any remarkable observations?
Kris
phouse
Airman
Thanks for the welcome. Friendly lot we have here. 
Other issues that he points out was the mass number of prototypes the Italians produced, with a vast majority of them never seeing production. Again, this is with respect to Italy's limited industrial capacity. It did keep all of Italy's air firms in business during the 30s, a particularly hard time for all, but during WW2 there was more "playing around" with prototypes in the high command and less focus on ensuring the best planes in the most numbers for their air force. Probably why the CR.42 Falco was the plane produced in the highest numbers by Italy.
The failure of the research and development is particularly instanced with the inability to produce a military version of the Fiat AS6. The AS6 powered the famous Macci MC.72 which held the air-speed record until mid-1939.
The much mentioned failure to appreciate the need for carrier based aircraft, especially torpedo-bombers was mentioned.
Other very import influences on production was the "wastage" of aircraft during the Ethiopian campaign; approximately 1500 aircraft or 12% of Italy's production.Furthermore, Italy had a need to export aircraft to produce hard currency to build more, you guessed it, aircraft! This created a significant bottleneck in pre-war production.
The RA made poor doctrinal decisions, mostly based off of trial and error in their military conflicts in the Spanish Civil War and Ethiopia. They failed to take into account the relative weakness of their opponents. The Italians had made a decent amount of progress into a brand of blitzkrieg but they dropped it after the fiasco at Guadalajara. Again, indicative of the trial and error approach the RA took.
The decision not to order more than 12 Re.2000s despite the fact that it bested the ME 109 in mock dogfights and order the transitionary CR.42 and the MC.200 (which had considerable problems with spinning, so much so that it delayed production by four months) is also notable. The RA also ordered a smattering of Ca.165s and G.50s. He notes this behavior as the RA's pattern of rejecting the best model and ordering a "hodgepodge of inferior types". This focus on production of outdated aircraft meant later on an unwillingness to remodel the factories to produce newer aircraft, so the RA continued to order inferior aircraft throughout WW2. Hence why the CR.42 was still in production by the the time the war ended.
His final assessment is hard to argue with. Despite the blunderings of the RA, the numerical inferiority of Italy's production meant that even if it didn't make stupid doctrinal decisions based off the Spanish Civil War and the Ethiopian campaign and they didn't fool around with prototypes and inferior models, their showing in WW2 would have only been marginally better.
Other issues that he points out was the mass number of prototypes the Italians produced, with a vast majority of them never seeing production. Again, this is with respect to Italy's limited industrial capacity. It did keep all of Italy's air firms in business during the 30s, a particularly hard time for all, but during WW2 there was more "playing around" with prototypes in the high command and less focus on ensuring the best planes in the most numbers for their air force. Probably why the CR.42 Falco was the plane produced in the highest numbers by Italy.
The failure of the research and development is particularly instanced with the inability to produce a military version of the Fiat AS6. The AS6 powered the famous Macci MC.72 which held the air-speed record until mid-1939.
The much mentioned failure to appreciate the need for carrier based aircraft, especially torpedo-bombers was mentioned.
Other very import influences on production was the "wastage" of aircraft during the Ethiopian campaign; approximately 1500 aircraft or 12% of Italy's production.Furthermore, Italy had a need to export aircraft to produce hard currency to build more, you guessed it, aircraft! This created a significant bottleneck in pre-war production.
The RA made poor doctrinal decisions, mostly based off of trial and error in their military conflicts in the Spanish Civil War and Ethiopia. They failed to take into account the relative weakness of their opponents. The Italians had made a decent amount of progress into a brand of blitzkrieg but they dropped it after the fiasco at Guadalajara. Again, indicative of the trial and error approach the RA took.
The decision not to order more than 12 Re.2000s despite the fact that it bested the ME 109 in mock dogfights and order the transitionary CR.42 and the MC.200 (which had considerable problems with spinning, so much so that it delayed production by four months) is also notable. The RA also ordered a smattering of Ca.165s and G.50s. He notes this behavior as the RA's pattern of rejecting the best model and ordering a "hodgepodge of inferior types". This focus on production of outdated aircraft meant later on an unwillingness to remodel the factories to produce newer aircraft, so the RA continued to order inferior aircraft throughout WW2. Hence why the CR.42 was still in production by the the time the war ended.
His final assessment is hard to argue with. Despite the blunderings of the RA, the numerical inferiority of Italy's production meant that even if it didn't make stupid doctrinal decisions based off the Spanish Civil War and the Ethiopian campaign and they didn't fool around with prototypes and inferior models, their showing in WW2 would have only been marginally better.
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
I can only substantially agree with this analisys.
The Italian aviation was technologically among the top in the '30, but the Country industrial backbone was in no way capable to generate the quantitative output necessary for a total war like WW II was.
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.
The 'series 5' addressed wonderfully the performance and armament variables of the equation, but it could have been produced in significant numbers only in Germany (or UK or USA or Russia...)
The Macchi designer Castoldi knew how to design an high performance airplane, but for the '200-205' series he had to take in consideration that there was no industrial capability for 'Ford model' production: his fighters were designed to be built by craftsmen, the only way available in the Country.
Messerschmitt, Mitchell, Tank, Kartveli, Heinemann, Camm, even Yakovlev and Lavochin could rely on an infrastructure able to deal with serial production, modular construction etc.
That in a nut is why Regia Aeronautica could have never become a powerful air force.
The Italian aviation was technologically among the top in the '30, but the Country industrial backbone was in no way capable to generate the quantitative output necessary for a total war like WW II was.
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.
The 'series 5' addressed wonderfully the performance and armament variables of the equation, but it could have been produced in significant numbers only in Germany (or UK or USA or Russia...)
The Macchi designer Castoldi knew how to design an high performance airplane, but for the '200-205' series he had to take in consideration that there was no industrial capability for 'Ford model' production: his fighters were designed to be built by craftsmen, the only way available in the Country.
Messerschmitt, Mitchell, Tank, Kartveli, Heinemann, Camm, even Yakovlev and Lavochin could rely on an infrastructure able to deal with serial production, modular construction etc.
That in a nut is why Regia Aeronautica could have never become a powerful air force.
phouse
Airman
What parts do you disagree with Parmigiano and why?
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I also agree with you gentlemen.
Perhaps you've already seen this spreadsheet: http://www.comandosupremo.com/Airplane_Orders.xls
But it clearly shows how inefficient Italian production was. Instead of ordering hundreds of fighters they continued to order small numbers (anything between 1 and 100 aircraft) at a multitude of little aircraft factories.
Just some nitpicking though: the way I understand it is that the Re.2000 was rejected because of its vulnerable wing tanks. Or at least the decision makes considered them too vulnerable. The Re.2000 showed itself to be more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109 but all in all, most fighters were. The Bf 109 was the best axis fighter because it was so fast and powerful not because it could do aerobatics.
Kris
Perhaps you've already seen this spreadsheet: http://www.comandosupremo.com/Airplane_Orders.xls
But it clearly shows how inefficient Italian production was. Instead of ordering hundreds of fighters they continued to order small numbers (anything between 1 and 100 aircraft) at a multitude of little aircraft factories.
Just some nitpicking though: the way I understand it is that the Re.2000 was rejected because of its vulnerable wing tanks. Or at least the decision makes considered them too vulnerable. The Re.2000 showed itself to be more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109 but all in all, most fighters were. The Bf 109 was the best axis fighter because it was so fast and powerful not because it could do aerobatics.
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
phouse
Airman
Yes. I am sure that Italy's lack of industrialization and access to specialized materials wasn't lost on some of Italy's leadership. Italy directly competed for raw materials with Germany and we know who got the lion's share of that!
At the time, the AS6 held amazing potential as the powerplant of the future.
Perhaps the decision to drop development of the AS6 as a military powerplant was based off of the realization that Italy lacked the ability to make it happen. I'd be interested in seeing documentation one way or the other.
At the time, the AS6 held amazing potential as the powerplant of the future.
Perhaps the decision to drop development of the AS6 as a military powerplant was based off of the realization that Italy lacked the ability to make it happen. I'd be interested in seeing documentation one way or the other.
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
I do agree, it's just that I thought in Italian and translated literally... the phrase 'posso solo essere sostanzialmente d'accordo' means 'I have no other option than substantially agree', my translation in english had an ambiguous meaning...
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
I disagree with you about leading technology until 1930's. The 1926 Macchi M39 for the Schneider cup was a breaktrough in the high performance design, leading the way to the future Supermarine seaplanes.
The MC72 of 1931 had 2 12V (Fiat AS6) coupled engines and contra-rotating propeller, again a step ahead of the competitors. Was troublesome to setup (mainly because of fuel related problems) and was late for the 1931 competition, but it still holds today the speed record for prop seaplanes.
Both had surface cooling system, not suitable for warplanes but definitely ahead of the competitor's solutions.
About Serie 5, the G55 had nothing to do with the G50, no more than the Tempest had to share with the Hurricane.
The Macchi 205V was not a 'real' series 5, was more a quick solution stopgap, just like the Spit IX was. Both proved good enough to deserve full production (although with substantially different industrial output)
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.
It happened the same to the Spit:the basic design was excellent, and remained unchanged from MK I to V, IX/XVIII and XIV , just adding a bigger engine, some ballast to compensate the cg and the minimal changes to the frame.
Do we have then to say that the British were lagging behind because they could not improve the basic Mitchell design?!
btw, the 1940 Macchi 202/205V had a radiator duct effect similar (although not as perfectioned) to the P51.
In 1943 Italian Serie 5 definitely caught up with the very best in term of performances and armament, Italian industry never did in terms of quantity production.
About using German engines and guns, it was one of the few rational decisions made by Superaereo: there were great engines and weapons available immediately, why waste efforts in trying to develop new ones?
All in all the Americans (who surely did know how to build a good 12V) did the same by fitting the Merlin on the Mustang.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I agree that those race aircraft were phenomenal. But correct me if I'm wrong, weren't they financially supported by the fascist government? The Supermarine had to do with private funding.
I do see several similarities between the G.50 and G.55 (for instance the tail section and those extended wing parts) and I think the missing link is the G.50V/G.52 which had many changes from the G.50 design which were incorporated in the G.55. Or that's how I see it, although I've never seen an image of those designs. I hope you do and you can tell me some more about them.
But what exactly was technologically better about the G.55 than the G.50 besides the German parts?
In any case, I don't think you can say that Italy lost its technological position in the thirties and regained in 1943 as the only thing that changed was importing German guns and licence producing German engines. That doesn't make sense to me.
And the quality and power output of those engines was less than the original. All design would happen in Germany so the Italians were always behind and had to be instructed by the Germans how to use and improve those engines. I don't think you can call this a technological improvement.
Kris
edit: found a little picture of the G.50V
I do see several similarities between the G.50 and G.55 (for instance the tail section and those extended wing parts) and I think the missing link is the G.50V/G.52 which had many changes from the G.50 design which were incorporated in the G.55. Or that's how I see it, although I've never seen an image of those designs. I hope you do and you can tell me some more about them.
But what exactly was technologically better about the G.55 than the G.50 besides the German parts?
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.
In any case, I don't think you can say that Italy lost its technological position in the thirties and regained in 1943 as the only thing that changed was importing German guns and licence producing German engines. That doesn't make sense to me.
And the quality and power output of those engines was less than the original. All design would happen in Germany so the Italians were always behind and had to be instructed by the Germans how to use and improve those engines. I don't think you can call this a technological improvement.
Kris
edit: found a little picture of the G.50V
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
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.
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)
Not every fighter of the late 30 was able to cope with the progress and still perform among the best.
Some did, among them the Spitfire, the 109 (although between E and F series there was some substantial redesign of the wings and the tail section) the Macchis.
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.
To me, it means that the original projects of Spit,109 and Macchi were better designed than the others.
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.
Besides, the Bf109 was not 'much smaller' than the MC205V, they were almost identical:
Empty weight : mc205 2.581kg, 109G6 2.670
Wing Area : mc205 16.8 sq/m, 109g6 16.5 sq/m
Wing Span : mc205 10.58 mt, 109g6 9.92 mt
The more comparable Bf109 G2 was probably around 200kg lighter than the G6, but this does not change the scenario.
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?
The reasons why this expensive projects were nominally private in certain Countries and government managed in others opens a big topic about the socio-economical-historical situation of the Countries...
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)
Not every fighter of the late 30 was able to cope with the progress and still perform among the best.
Some did, among them the Spitfire, the 109 (although between E and F series there was some substantial redesign of the wings and the tail section) the Macchis.
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.
To me, it means that the original projects of Spit,109 and Macchi were better designed than the others.
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.
Besides, the Bf109 was not 'much smaller' than the MC205V, they were almost identical:
Empty weight : mc205 2.581kg, 109G6 2.670
Wing Area : mc205 16.8 sq/m, 109g6 16.5 sq/m
Wing Span : mc205 10.58 mt, 109g6 9.92 mt
The more comparable Bf109 G2 was probably around 200kg lighter than the G6, but this does not change the scenario.
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?
The reasons why this expensive projects were nominally private in certain Countries and government managed in others opens a big topic about the socio-economical-historical situation of the Countries...
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Well, the P-40 was a development of the P-36, which was designed in 1934. The design itself was ultimately altered into some reasonable fighters, such as the experimental P-40Q and P-60, but they weren't any improvement over the P-51 and P-47s already being deployed, so weren't produced.
The Typoon was developed into the Tempest V, one of the best medium altitude fighters of the war. The design then incorporated several different engines to produce the Tempest II and VI (both of which just missed wartime service and were phenomenal below 22,000 feet) and ultimately the Fury and Sea Fury.
The P-39 was further refined into the P-63, the 'lend lease fighter' which was much apprecialed by the Soviets as it was essentially adjusted to their specifications.
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
Jabber, the Typhoon did not 'evolved' in the Tempest: it was just the predecessor of the Tempest.
The structure of the aircrafts was completely different, from the wing airfoil and structure to the positioning of the fuel tanks etc. The Tempest was a whole new project.
Tempest V and II / VI can be defined an 'evolution' of the Tempest airframe.
Same for the P39/P63, I honestly don't know if the P40 was the same airframe of the P36 with an Allison in the nose.
Spit V and XIV, 109 F and K and Macchi 200 and 205V were the same airframe, many parts were interchangeable. Several Macchi 202 instead of having the engine serviced were transformed in 205V by simply replacing the DB601 with the DB605, I think the same happened for Spit V and IX.
The structure of the aircrafts was completely different, from the wing airfoil and structure to the positioning of the fuel tanks etc. The Tempest was a whole new project.
Tempest V and II / VI can be defined an 'evolution' of the Tempest airframe.
Same for the P39/P63, I honestly don't know if the P40 was the same airframe of the P36 with an Allison in the nose.
Spit V and XIV, 109 F and K and Macchi 200 and 205V were the same airframe, many parts were interchangeable. Several Macchi 202 instead of having the engine serviced were transformed in 205V by simply replacing the DB601 with the DB605, I think the same happened for Spit V and IX.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Hi Parmigiano!
I think it's difficult to really draw a line between designs. As you know the Spitfire 21 is still an obvious Spitfire, so why wouldn't the G.55 be a G.50 in essence. Yet you say:
But who's to say that a new Fiat design wouldn't have been better than the C.205? For that reason I doubt that the C.200 was a good design because the C.205 turned out to be a good fighter.
Also makes me think of the Romanian IAR.81 which was going to get a BMW 801.
Kris
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.
I think it's difficult to really draw a line between designs. As you know the Spitfire 21 is still an obvious Spitfire, so why wouldn't the G.55 be a G.50 in essence. Yet you say:
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.
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.
But who's to say that a new Fiat design wouldn't have been better than the C.205? For that reason I doubt that the C.200 was a good design because the C.205 turned out to be a good fighter.
Also makes me think of the Romanian IAR.81 which was going to get a BMW 801.
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.
When given more resources, a technologically less advanced team can still achieve better results.
Kris
