MACCHI C205 Compared to Fiat G.55

[swampyankee]

I wouldn't be too surprised at that; the Italian Co-belligerent Army/Navy/Air Force could not have been considered that trustworthy. I certainly wouldn't have placed too much reliance on them nor would I have given them equipment that would otherwise have gone to first-line units. That the Germans were doing was probably done solely due to military necessity; the Germans most assuredly did not treat the Italians with any kind of kid gloves even when it would have cost them nothing to do so.

 

[Shortround6]

Did the Germans actually have very many 'second rate' aircraft to give?

Short of taking old 109s from the training schools ( or left over 1940 French aircraft) what were these 2nd rate German planes?

The US may have screwed up by NOT shutting down the P-39/P-40 production lines sooner but since they HAD the 2nd rate fighters who should get them?

 

[swampyankee]

Did the Germans actually have very many 'second rate' aircraft to give?

Short of taking old 109s from the training schools ( or left over 1940 French aircraft) what were these 2nd rate German planes?

The US may have screwed up by NOT shutting down the P-39/P-40 production lines sooner but since they HAD the 2nd rate fighters who should get them?

Probably most of the "second rate" German aircraft had been shot down, although I think a case could be made that the Bf109 was second-rate by late 1943.

 

[pattle]

Other than fighters what other first rate aircraft did Germany have in 1944? if the Germans had enough experienced pilots to fly all the fighters that were coming off their production lines then perhaps the Italians would have received less German aircraft than they did.

 

[lazun]

Yes, but production numbers doesn't make for an effective / ineffective fighter surely.
There must have been a flaw behind the beauty....
Armament?
Power?
Cheers
John

Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons. They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph. When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi's tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi. But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.

RSI Adriano Visconti
Combat sorties: 72
Confirmed kills: 26
Probable: 18

RAF Johnnie Johnson
Combat sorties: 515
Confirmed kills: 34
Probable: 13

Those are astonishing numbers considering they would takeoff with 10 to 12 airplanes against an armada. Or maybe Visconti was just a better pilot or had a superior aircraft or both. Considering he accomplished 26 confirmed kills in 72 sorties being the underdogs shows how effective the series three fighters of Italy were.

 

[lazun]

On the Africa front.

 

[lazun]

One problem with the Macchi fighters that isn't mentioned here is their tendency to spin.

This was only true for the 200 series. It was fixed with the 202 and 205 series.

 

[Balljoint]

Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons. They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph. When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi's tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi. But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.

RSI Adriano Visconti
Combat sorties: 72
Confirmed kills: 26
Probable: 18

RAF Johnnie Johnson
Combat sorties: 515
Confirmed kills: 34
Probable: 13

Those are astonishing numbers considering they would takeoff with 10 to 12 airplanes against an armada. Or maybe Visconti was just a better pilot or had a superior aircraft or both. Considering he accomplished 26 confirmed kills in 72 sorties being the underdogs shows how effective the series three fighters of Italy were.

But he would have a few more target opportunities than an Ally pilot if equal skill.

 

[lazun]

Yes as Johnson would have had with the Germans. I guess as long as they're not shooting back at you, have inferior aircraft and are unskilled you could have a point. But I think unlikely from RAF and USA.

 

[Koopernic]

This was only true for the 200 series. It was fixed with the 202 and 205 series.

Wiki says the tendency to spin remained in the 202 and cites Duma 2007, pp. 232–233 (not giving the title though).

It also cites this situation;
"Some defects appeared similar to those on the early C. 200 version: on 3 August, during a mock dogfight, Sergente Maggiore Antonio Valle – an experienced pilot, credited with two kills in Marmarica and recipient of a Medaglia di Bronzo al Valor Militare (Bronze Medal to Military Valor) – at a height of 4,000 meters entered in a flat spin and could not manage to recover or to bail out, losing his life.[26]"


An Me 109 was actually very difficult to spin, its long tail moment arm and slats probably gave it the gentlest stall and easiest spin recovery of any WW2 fighter and that includes the spitfire. Its vice was a take-off and landing swing. The Fw 190 also had a easy spin recovery as well. The MC 202 doesn't look quite right right, too much nose not enough tail.

The Germans were interested more in the G.56 and Re.2006 which were developments which were adaptable to the DB603 and flown with the DB603 engine, the Me 109 could not accept this vitally important engine. The M.C 205 transformed into the M.C.207 could but apparently required a larger wing.

I believe one other weakness of the serie 5 Italian designs from the German tests was a low roll rate but this could probably be fixed by work on the ailerons such as spring tabs, freis ailerons etc.

 

[tomo pauk]

Readie is currently away from the forum, so, if you don't mind

Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons.

Ineffective they were (if we can attribute effectiveness to machines, rather than to organizations), and they were fine fighters in the same time. Post war use of combat aircraft was a thing of countries' budget, not a thing of any piston-engined fighter being that good; people did not make the switch to the jet fighters just because there was no prop attached to them.
1st produced MC 205 fighters were armed with just 2 heavy MGs, the two cannons were not installed until a bigger wing wasn't introduced, with according loss in performance.

They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph.

Could you please provide a sourced information (not English language Wikipedia article, if possible) that G55 managed 426 mph?

When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi's tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi.

The low availability is a part of inefficiency - numbers produced do matter. Do we know what Macchi vs. what Spitfire, who held the initial advantages (current speed height), place time of battle, is it confirmed by both sides?

But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.

RSI Adriano Visconti
Combat sorties: 72
Confirmed kills: 26
Probable: 18

RAF Johnnie Johnson
Combat sorties: 515
Confirmed kills: 34
Probable: 13

Those are astonishing numbers considering they would takeoff with 10 to 12 airplanes against an armada. Or maybe Visconti was just a better pilot or had a superior aircraft or both. Considering he accomplished 26 confirmed kills in 72 sorties being the underdogs shows how effective the series three fighters of Italy were.

The Italian series 5 fighters (and other Axis fighters in second half of the war) were unable to wrestle the air superiority from the Allies, in MTO and on other theaters - hence the series 5 fighters were inefficient?

 

[GregP]

I've always liked these planes a lot. Aesthetically they are quite attractive and there IS that old axiom that if it looks right it should fly right. If that's the case, these should fly VERY well.

I particularly like the Re.2005 myself, but all of them are good-looking fighters. I may be stepping on it here, but I like the general look you get with the inverted Vee engines better than the look you get with the upright Vee engines. These planes definitely have some curb-appeal.

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Yes, but production numbers doesn't make for an effective / ineffective fighter surely.
There must have been a flaw behind the beauty....
Armament?
Power?
Cheers
John

You might also consider the fact that the Italians didn't believe in Musolini's war against the Allies. Not sure if this was a factor in the air or not but it is worth considering.

 

[lazun]

Wiki says the tendency to spin remained in the 202 and cites Duma 2007, pp. 232–233 (not giving the title though).

It also cites this situation;
"Some defects appeared similar to those on the early C. 200 version: on 3 August, during a mock dogfight, Sergente Maggiore Antonio Valle – an experienced pilot, credited with two kills in Marmarica and recipient of a Medaglia di Bronzo al Valor Militare (Bronze Medal to Military Valor) – at a height of 4,000 meters entered in a flat spin and could not manage to recover or to bail out, losing his life.[26]"


An Me 109 was actually very difficult to spin, its long tail moment arm and slats probably gave it the gentlest stall and easiest spin recovery of any WW2 fighter and that includes the spitfire. Its vice was a take-off and landing swing. The Fw 190 also had a easy spin recovery as well. The MC 202 doesn't look quite right right, too much nose not enough tail.

The Germans were interested more in the G.56 and Re.2006 which were developments which were adaptable to the DB603 and flown with the DB603 engine, the Me 109 could not accept this vitally important engine. The M.C 205 transformed into the M.C.207 could but apparently required a larger wing.

I believe one other weakness of the serie 5 Italian designs from the German tests was a low roll rate but this could probably be fixed by work on the ailerons such as spring tabs, freis ailerons etc.

According to Macchi in Venegono and three interviews with pilots testing, it was solved, mostly having to do with moments and washout. The Macchi 205 was easy to recover from spins as reported from pilots.

All airplanes can be put into a flat spin and very few could actually recover from a flat spin. Not sure if any World War II fighters could actually recover from an incipient flat spin.

The G56 and RE2006 were to be fitted with the Fiat Tifone engine which was a DB605 under license as far as I know. The reason that they were interested more in the Fiat and Reggiane was because the Macchi took too long to build, even though in testing the Macchi came out on top in all aspects.

I have never heard of it being slow in roll. I was considered to be extremely maneuverable and the most well balanced fighter of the war.

 

[lazun]

Readie is currently away from the forum, so, if you don't mind



Ineffective they were (if we can attribute effectiveness to machines, rather than to organizations), and they were fine fighters in the same time. Post war use of combat aircraft was a thing of countries' budget, not a thing of any piston-engined fighter being that good; people did not make the switch to the jet fighters just because there was no prop attached to them.
1st produced MC 205 fighters were armed with just 2 heavy MGs, the two cannons were not installed until a bigger wing wasn't introduced, with according loss in performance.


Could you please provide a sourced information (not English language Wikipedia article, if possible) that G55 managed 426 mph?



The low availability is a part of inefficiency - numbers produced do matter. Do we know what Macchi vs. what Spitfire, who held the initial advantages (current speed height), place time of battle, is it confirmed by both sides?



The Italian series 5 fighters (and other Axis fighters in second half of the war) were unable to wrestle the air superiority from the Allies, in MTO and on other theaters - hence the series 5 fighters were inefficient?

I do not see where the inefficiency are at least in combat?

The first series were known as the 202's which had a less powerful engine. Then the 205's with a slightly newer wing and more powerful engine. This did not degrade in loss of performance in the series III 205 fighter.

Of course if you cannot buy a jet you're going to buy one of the best piston aircraft on the market. Countries that could not afford jets bought piston driven airplanes like the Macchi and Fiat.

 

[GregP]

The Italians were quite aware of aerodynamics and of aerobatic flying. They invented the modern Aresti aerobatic system. I don't believe any of the 5-series were especially prone to spinning, but almost any plane can be made to spin if it is pulled into an accelerated stall while in uncordinated flight.

I see the quote above about a spin, but we don't know how it happened from a sentence or two. All we know is what was written in a very SHORT description by somone who probably wasn't a trained aircraft accident investigator.

I'd LOVE to see a 5-series plane flying. One or more of each would be the best possible outcome, but any of the three would be a welcome addition to flying warbirds around the world.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Back to the original point of this thread, the Macchi and Fiat machines shared more then a passing resemblance. The series 5 fighters share an almost identical profile, as do their older siblings in the MC.200 and G.50. I cant think of any other unique manufacturers that produced such similar fighters, even taking the common powerplant into consideration. A Hurricane looks nothing like a Spitfire, a P-39 is obviously different then a P-40, as is a Bf-109 distinct from a He-100. I find it to be quite a coincidence, and somewhat hard to believe they weren't working together. Although despite their similarities, they seemed to have very different flight characteristic . At least the Regianne machines were obiously unique.

 

[GregP]

Their resemblance IS somewhat mystifying if they weren't working together.

I THOUGHT that the basis for the 5-series was an "improved" Re 2000 or Re 2001. I've read that more than once, but have no feeling for the accuracy of the claim. Perhaps starting with the same plane and modifying it for a liquid-cooled powerplant, if that really WAS the case, has something to do with it.

Speculation on my part, though ... I've seen the claim with no references to it's origin such as an issued specification.

 

[lazun]

I'd LOVE to see a 5-series plane flying. One or more of each would be the best possible outcome, but any of the three would be a welcome addition to flying warbirds around the world.

You are soon going to get your wish!! Jerry is currently restoring a G55 to fly with the original DB605!! Jerry said 426mph which comes from Fiat who provided all the drawings to restore his plane!!!

 

[lazun]

Their resemblance IS somewhat mystifying if they weren't working together.

I THOUGHT that the basis for the 5-series was an "improved" Re 2000 or Re 2001. I've read that more than once, but have no feeling for the accuracy of the claim. Perhaps starting with the same plane and modifying it for a liquid-cooled powerplant, if that really WAS the case, has something to do with it.

Speculation on my part, though ... I've seen the claim with no references to it's origin such as an issued specification.

They did look similar, however, they where completely different. Larger in size, wings, moments, washout, placements, airfoils, still keeping with the look though.

The p-40, p-47 and Reggiane are based on the Seversky P-35.