Macchi MC200 V Gloster F.5/34

[merlin]

A poll with a 'twist' - while both aircraft have similar sized radial engines - only one goes into production!

So assuming that the Gloster fighter was in RAF service in the Med./North Africa which is likely to come out on top?

Macchi MC200

or

Gloster F.5/34

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_C.200

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34

 

[tomo pauk]

It's really a close call.

(not affecting the poll: )
The Gloster with Twin Wasp would eat Zeros for breakfast, had Aussies decided to build those. Sort of 'Colonial fighter' thing, being faster then Hurricane with same power.

 

[Civettone]

Close call indeed. The Macchi may have been more manoeuvrable (though that is by no means certain) but the Gloster would have had better radio, armament and (after a while) armour.

So slight edge for the Gloster.

Kris

 

[teiresiasx]

The speed performance of the Gloster (316 mph) seems too optimistic. With the same engine (Mercury IX) and despite being smaller and far lighter (4599 lb vs 5400), the Bristol 146 fighter could achieve a top speed of only 287 mph, which sounds reasonable to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Type_146#refBristol1978

 

[MacArther]

The speed performance of the Gloster (316 mph) seems too optimistic. With the same engine (Mercury IX) and despite being smaller and far lighter (4599 lb vs 5400), the Bristol 146 fighter could achieve a top speed of only 287 mph, which sounds reasonable to me.

Bristol Type 146 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could be, but the speed listed for both or either could be the speed given in a slight or high dive. Also, one could possibly assume that the Gloster had better aerodynamics to make up for the heavier weight (a stretch, but possible).

Personally, I'd take the Gloster over the MC200, although that has more to do with more guns at my disposal (probably more firing time/ammo as well), as well as possibly being more damage resistant that the MC200 (I think I saw something about Durilium, which is pretty hard to beat up if memory serves).

 

[merlin]

The speed performance of the Gloster (316 mph) seems too optimistic. With the same engine (Mercury IX) and despite being smaller and far lighter (4599 lb vs 5400), the Bristol 146 fighter could achieve a top speed of only 287 mph, which sounds reasonable to me.

Bristol Type 146 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Speed of the Gloster aircraft isn't an estimate, it is as a result of prototype flight testing; moreover it is comparable with the speed of the Macchi fighter - with a similar sized engine.
Curious the low speed of the '146'!

 

[Shortround6]

Aerodynamics was by no means the science it is now. HIgh speed and/or full sized wind tunnels were few and far between.
I beleive the Brewster Buffalo picked up around 20mph after a visit to the full size tunnel at Langley, the only one in the US at the time and the P-39 was suffled of to Langley in almost indecent haste after just a few weeks of test flying.

The British may not have a had a full sized wind tunnel at the time making each desgn more of an inspired guess than an acurately caculated prediction.

Berhaps a couple of dozen hours in such a tunnel could have gained 15-20mph for the Bristol.

 

[merlin]

It's really a close call.

(not affecting the poll: )
The Gloster with Twin Wasp would eat Zeros for breakfast, had Aussies decided to build those. Sort of 'Colonial fighter' thing, being faster then Hurricane with same power.

Yes I agree, with the latter comment, have posted elsewhere. Interesting about the engine - during the late thirties the h.p. output steadily increased.

 

[snafud1]

Aerodynamics was by no means the science it is now. HIgh speed and/or full sized wind tunnels were few and far between.
I beleive the Brewster Buffalo picked up around 20mph after a visit to the full size tunnel at Langley, the only one in the US at the time and the P-39 was suffled of to Langley in almost indecent haste after just a few weeks of test flying.

The British may not have a had a full sized wind tunnel at the time making each desgn more of an inspired guess than an acurately caculated prediction.

Berhaps a couple of dozen hours in such a tunnel could have gained 15-20mph for the Bristol.

Totally disagree. Aerodynamics got a big boost from the scientific community in the early '30's. NACA(now NASA) improved radial engine cowling design for aerodynamic airflow around the engine and fuselage in 1933. The first production plane to use that design was the Lockheed Vega. This just one example of what scientists and Aero-engineers were working on in the thirties. granted, wind tunnel testing was just getting started but aerodynamic studies were wel underway in the '30's.

 

[Civettone]

True. I especially know it was like that in the US. I was also thinking of the P-35 cowling. But I suppose Britain cannot have been too far behind. Same for Germany. And Italy ? I don't know but they were always rather good in racing aircraft ...


Kris

 

[Shortround6]

Totally disagree. Aerodynamics got a big boost from the scientific community in the early '30's. NACA(now NASA) improved radial engine cowling design for aerodynamic airflow around the engine and fuselage in 1933. The first production plane to use that design was the Lockheed Vega. This just one example of what scientists and Aero-engineers were working on in the thirties. granted, wind tunnel testing was just getting started but aerodynamic studies were wel underway in the '30's.

Disagree with what? that we know more now, in 2009, than they did in either 1930 or in 1939? Or that they knew a lot more in 1940 than they did in 1930?

As for the NACA cowling, yes it was a tremendous improvement when introduced in the early thirties but it wasn't introduced in it's final form was it?
Early versions used a fixed area exit slot between the rear of the cowl and fuselage. This was fine at the 180-200mph speeds of the early thirites but an exit slot that provided for good engine cooling at max climb allowed way to much airflow (and drag) at higher speeds ,like 250-300mph and above in level flight. This is why cowl flaps were developed, to be able to adjust the airflow and drag for various flight conditions.

Without full sized and/or high speed tunnels a number of other details could not be tested without extensive flight tests. things like airscoops, windscreen angles, landing gear doors and radio antennas did not model well in small scale tunnels or in low speed tunnels.

 

[snafud1]

OK. They did what they could with what they had then. The way you come across is that they were not considering aerodynamics then. You can't put todays standards on something that wasn't around then. The focus on this pol is which (iyo) was better from THAT time.

 

[teiresiasx]

True. I especially know it was like that in the US. I was also thinking of the P-35 cowling. But I suppose Britain cannot have been too far behind. Same for Germany. And Italy ? I don't know but they were always rather good in racing aircraft ...


Kris

As far as I know, Italy had a state-owned wind tunnel in Guidonia (picture here Guidonia (Roma): Storia, l'aeroporto Barbieri), while the first private-owned wind tunnel was built in 1928 by Piaggio in Finale Ligure: it was called "Hangar Sperimentale" ("Experimental Hangar") and nowadays it risks to be demolished (despite its historical importance: patrimonio sos: in difesa dei beni culturali e ambientali ).

 

[Civettone]

Interesting.

I admit that I don't know that much about the history of wind tunnels. I can imagine that the first wind tunnels were quite rudimentary. Was the Guidonia wind tunnel also the most advanced they had during the war ?
Is it a coincidence that the main test centre was also in Guidonia?

Kris

 

[teiresiasx]

I am not a wind tunnels expert. The Polytechnic University of Turin inaugurated its own wind tunnel August 1918: at this university G. Gabrielli (the "father" of G 12, G 50, G 55, G 91, G 222) graduated July 1925. The wind tunnel in Guidonia existed since the Twenties, yet a futuristic wind tunnel had been built in Rome in 1914 and generated a 200 km/h wind. The Research Center of the Royal Italian Air Force (DSSE, Direzione Superiore Studi ed Esperienze) was created in Guidonia in 1935, because there already existed many advanced facilities. Eventually Guidonia had three wind tunnels (one hypersonic and a special one capable of testing bombs, torpedos, trains, ships, aircraft and even parts of them), a 500 meter long hydrodynamic pool for flyingboat tests, a void simulator, a centrifuge and other facilities for aeronautic (later astronautic) medicine etc. The Italians claim their equipment in Guidonia was among the most advanced in the world, and that should explain why Italy held 33 out of 84 aviation world records in 1939, at the eve of the war.

Direzione Superiore Studi ed Esperienze - Wikipedia
varia et alia
http://w3.uniroma1.it/sdia//OrdineDegliStudi2008-2009.pdf
http://www2.polito.it/strutture/cem..._STO_INGE/MARCHIS_Laboratorio_Aeronautica.pdf

 

[Civettone]

Impressive.

But what do you mean by eventually? When?

Kris

 

[teiresiasx]

"Eventually" means "early Forties". The facilities were destroyed in 1943 and abandoned.

 

[Civettone]

This little niitbit is in fact quite important information for all those (including me) who like to indulge ourselves in what-if scenarios for the Italian military. It seems that the Italians were somewhat catching up in terms of technology. Only the industry sector itself needed to be reorganized. But that was a political matter.

Kris

 

[teiresiasx]

According to MacGregor Knox (Hitler's Italian Allies, 2000, Chapter 2: Society, politics, regime, industry), even during the war the Fascism favoured the long-term investments in infrastructures, plants, heavy industry and autarchic production of synthetic commodities, a policy which was detrimental to the short-term development of firepower. In other words: more plants, less planes. Italy allocated to military expenditures no more than 21% (1943) of her GNP, while Germany was at 70%, USSR 61%, UK 55%, Japan 43% and USA 42%. This policy would have produced the post-war "economic miracle" of the Fifties.

 

[Civettone]

That seems like a book I would like to get my hands on

What are the other chapters about?
Kris