Macchi MC200 V Gloster F.5/34

Discussion in 'Polls' started by merlin, Nov 10, 2009.

?

Macchi MC200 V Gloster F.5/34

  1. Macchi MC200

    16 vote(s)
    53.3%
  2. Gloster F.5/34

    14 vote(s)
    46.7%
  1. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    #1 merlin, Nov 10, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2009
  2. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,988
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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.
     
  3. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  4. teiresiasx

    teiresiasx New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    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
     
  5. MacArther

    MacArther Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Junior Historian, Paintballer, Student
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Home Page:
    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).
     
  6. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    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'!
     
  7. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    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.
     
  8. merlin

    merlin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Customer Service Manager
    Location:
    Cardiff
    Yes I agree, with the latter comment, have posted elsewhere. Interesting about the engine - during the late thirties the h.p. output steadily increased.
     
  9. snafud1

    snafud1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Factory sloth
    Location:
    Mattoon, IL
    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.
     
  10. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  11. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    793
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    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.
     
  12. snafud1

    snafud1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2006
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Factory sloth
    Location:
    Mattoon, IL
    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.
     
  13. teiresiasx

    teiresiasx New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #13 teiresiasx, Nov 16, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
    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 ).
     
  14. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  15. teiresiasx

    teiresiasx New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    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
     
  16. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    Impressive. :)

    But what do you mean by eventually? When?

    Kris
     
  17. teiresiasx

    teiresiasx New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    "Eventually" means "early Forties". The facilities were destroyed in 1943 and abandoned.
     
  18. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    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
     
  19. teiresiasx

    teiresiasx New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #19 teiresiasx, Nov 17, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
    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.
     
  20. Civettone

    Civettone Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    London, UK
    Home Page:
    That seems like a book I would like to get my hands on :)

    What are the other chapters about?
    Kris
     
Loading...

Share This Page