MACCHI C205 Compared to Fiat G.55

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

Pinin said:
That is the G.59 i don't think it performed better. Maximum speed was worse but it wasn't developed to be a combat aircraft.
But some were sold to Syrians for combat. In Italy both monoposto and biposto versions had only training propose.
Click to expand...

post war G.59 had 1100 hp derated Merlin
rumors say that Pino Valenti G.59's , with a non-depowered Merlin, has reached 700 km/h
about G.55/56 you can consider that they are the same aircraft, the only difference behind/firewall is the false rootrib nose is open forward by 8°16'18" in order to allow to move the engine (DB603) about 1ft backwards to preserve the balancing occupying the space previously intended for ammunition tanks, this is the reason why machine guns were eliminated... a wing with 4 guns was already planned; modification maintained on g.59 even the weapons were mounted in a single sample...
 
swampyankee said:
I suspect the similar profiles are due to a combination of manufacturing limits (maybe they could not blow clear-view canopies), air force specifications (seeing out would be important in a fighter), and design personnel moving between companies.
Click to expand...
The Italians had a bubble canopy on the Caproni Vizzola F.5. It's a pre-war design so perhaps they bought the Perspex glass from the UK.

 
Dan Fahey said:
How did it perform with Merlin?
Did it get the 2 speed 2 stage version?

D
Click to expand...

Nope, 1-stage 2 speed supercharged Merlin, from the post-war 500 series (very similar to the later Merlin 20 series). Speed, and probably climb, were decreased vs. the G.55. Italian Wikipedia says 609 km/h for the G.59 vs. 620 km/h for the G.55 - no wonder, the DB 605A was making a bit more power in higher altitudes, even restricted.
 
Makes sense as the G.59 was primarily a dual seat trainer. No need for the fancier Merlins.

It is nice to see a bubble canopy on what originally was an Italian single seat prop fighter.
 
Admiral Beez said:
I'm not sure. A quick search of Google tells us....

Fiat G.59
Engine: Rolls-Royce Merlin 500/20, Power: 1,420hp
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post and this is what was posted....surprised !
Top Speed only 368 Mph?
Was fairly light so it probably had good maneuverability and climb.

G.59-4A
Engine: Rolls-Royce Merlin 500/20
Power: 1,420hp
Crew: 1
Wing span: 38ft 0in
Length: 31ft 0 3/4in
Height: 12ft 0 3/4in
Empty Weight: 6,183lb
Maximum take-off Weight: 7,628lb
Max Speed: 368mph at 20,340ft
Service Ceiling: 37,730ft
Range: 882 miles
Armament: two or four .5in (12.7mm) machine guns
 
Dan Fahey said:
Thanks for the post and this is what was posted....surprised !
Top Speed only 368 Mph?
Click to expand...
It's a post-war trainer, not intended as fighter, with most completing as dual seat aircraft. I imagine half of its justification was keeping the factory employed. I only included it as a demonstration of what the G.55 fighter would have looked like with a bubble canopy. Put the final Bf-109K's Daimler-Benz DB605 and the bubble canopy on the G.55 and you've got one hell of a fighter.
 
The C.205 had a better speed, turn time, climb rate, power to weight ratio but it was only marginal and the differences are barely noticeable the real difference in my opinion is that the g.55 had an extra 20mm in the nose which gave it a huge boost in firepower. Although it was marginally worse performance-wise, (i mean slightly) it was able to take out an enemy airplane much more efficiently.
 
I have read in several references that Italian fighter pilots thought the answer to aerial combat was aerobatics, and that many an Italian pilot was shot down in the middle of a perfect slow roll. The wording of these so-called references is similar enough to make me believe that someone originally wrote these things and everyone else copied from them. I think I read it first in a William Green book. Doesn't mean he wrote it first.

Personally, I rather doubt the claim, and lean towards the thinking that there were very few Italian thoroughbred fighters (these three) and relatively little radar coverage. So, many were likely destroyed on the ground in raids coupled with few to start with. I've never seen anything claiming these three fighters were an easy foe in combat. They weren't. U.S. pilots who flew them universally liked them a lot.

The G.50, although obsolescent when deployed, actually did a good job in actual combat used by the Finns, but the open cockpit was firmly disliked in winter, as you might expect. Other than the Finns, the G.50 was underarmed and slow and didn't do very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
RAF Fighter Pilots Wounded/Injured Compared to US Pilots
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
5K
GrauGeist
J
fiatG.55 combat history
Replies
0
Views
699
Jerrybandit67
J
M
NAA P-64 Compared to Commonwealth CA-12 Boomerang
Replies
11
Views
2K
NZTyphoon
N
How does Ural bombers(Ju-89/Do-19) compared to stuff luke B-17 or Lancaster?
Replies
1
Views
887
GregP
M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
9
Views
660
Dimlee
Menu
Log in
Register