- Thread starter
- #21
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
LOL! His mother????
Reggiana 2005 Vs. Bf 109F
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Glider
Captain
Obviously she didn't drop him hard enough
- Thread starter
- #23
Soundbreaker Welch?
Tech Sergeant
Now, that's not nice! 
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
RE-2005:
the flying abilities are (just or better nearly) statisfying. The plane curves well, rolling comparable to BF 109G4 with a lighter stick. Start landing easy and free from problems altough visibility is mediocre. Cannot be used as fighter bomber due to details of cooler installment.
trial comparison flight between Fw-190A5 and Re-2005:
During climb both planes do show equal performances (it is said that the RE-2005 did not utilize it´s max. power). In level flight at 6000m the Fw-190 appears to be faster, both planes do curve equally well.
Summerized on RE-2005. The G55 comes out favourably but still doesn´t show superiority. It seems that there is some notable softness as a weapon platform common for italian planes.
the flying abilities are (just or better nearly) statisfying. The plane curves well, rolling comparable to BF 109G4 with a lighter stick. Start landing easy and free from problems altough visibility is mediocre. Cannot be used as fighter bomber due to details of cooler installment.
trial comparison flight between Fw-190A5 and Re-2005:
During climb both planes do show equal performances (it is said that the RE-2005 did not utilize it´s max. power). In level flight at 6000m the Fw-190 appears to be faster, both planes do curve equally well.
Summerized on RE-2005. The G55 comes out favourably but still doesn´t show superiority. It seems that there is some notable softness as a weapon platform common for italian planes.
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
Hi Parmigiano,
>Here an english summary of the German evaluation test from the G55 site.
Thanks!
I'd add that English readers should be aware that it is not a summary of exactly the report reproduced on Kurfürst's site.
Here is a translation of some comments from the German report:
"General
The exterior form and the overall impression of the aircraft displayed there was good. The achieved performance is partially owed to the very small radiators. This applies especially to the Macchi 205 V and the Reggiane 2005."
Note: The Macchie 205 N overheated in the climb, so it seems obvious that "small" is used in the sense of "insufficiently dimensioned" here.
On the Fiat G 55:
"As a summary one has to state:
The Fiat G 55 is equal to the German fighters in climb and altitude performance, superior in armament and range, inferior in speed (currently 25 km/h), though it has to be considered that the Italian DB 605 yields 100 HP less.
Since according to the statement of the designer the DB 603 can be mounted without major changes, the aircraft greatly gains in attractiveness - considering the current performance -, as it with the DB 603 would be superior in any regard to all current fighters."
Note: The report is ambiguous about the supposed climb rate superiority at high altitude which would be a result of the Fiat's lower wingloading, noting a poorer power loading compared to the Bf 109 G-4 as counter-acting factor.
With regard to the characteristics of the Fiat G 55:
"The flying characteristics are not as good as those of the Bf 109 G-4 and the Fw 190 A-5."
The German interest in the G 55 was clearly motivated by the hope to be able to install the DB 603 with a 30 mm MK 108 engine cannon in addition to the two 12.7 mm machine guns in the cowl and to the two 20 mm wing cannon (that apparently were projected at the time the report was written).
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Here an english summary of the German evaluation test from the G55 site.
Thanks!
I'd add that English readers should be aware that it is not a summary of exactly the report reproduced on Kurfürst's site.
Here is a translation of some comments from the German report:
"General
The exterior form and the overall impression of the aircraft displayed there was good. The achieved performance is partially owed to the very small radiators. This applies especially to the Macchi 205 V and the Reggiane 2005."
Note: The Macchie 205 N overheated in the climb, so it seems obvious that "small" is used in the sense of "insufficiently dimensioned" here.
On the Fiat G 55:
"As a summary one has to state:
The Fiat G 55 is equal to the German fighters in climb and altitude performance, superior in armament and range, inferior in speed (currently 25 km/h), though it has to be considered that the Italian DB 605 yields 100 HP less.
Since according to the statement of the designer the DB 603 can be mounted without major changes, the aircraft greatly gains in attractiveness - considering the current performance -, as it with the DB 603 would be superior in any regard to all current fighters."
Note: The report is ambiguous about the supposed climb rate superiority at high altitude which would be a result of the Fiat's lower wingloading, noting a poorer power loading compared to the Bf 109 G-4 as counter-acting factor.
With regard to the characteristics of the Fiat G 55:
"The flying characteristics are not as good as those of the Bf 109 G-4 and the Fw 190 A-5."
The German interest in the G 55 was clearly motivated by the hope to be able to install the DB 603 with a 30 mm MK 108 engine cannon in addition to the two 12.7 mm machine guns in the cowl and to the two 20 mm wing cannon (that apparently were projected at the time the report was written).
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Glider
Captain
This makes sence as the standard G55 had 3 x 20 plus the 2 x HMG and the centre 20mm had a huge amount of ammunition (up to 380 rds) so weight and space wouldn't have been a problem
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
You're right in your criticism.
I don't recall the details as I got an article on that on my other computer, which is out of order, rotten thing!, but in it it becomes apparent that the 678 km/h was not a standard speed and one which was attained once with a modified Re.2005 but ever since it has been taken as a standard speed in most literary. The Re.2005 had a maximum speed of around 640 km/h and at a medium just like with all the other DB 605A powered engines.
Kurfürst, I am happy to see that report on your website. Great stuff, thanks!
Kris
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
... The report notes the following guns for the G - 55 they tested :
1 x 20 mm (Mauser MG 151/20) with 200 rounds
4 x 12.7 mm with 380 rounds
Correct me if I am wrong, I don`t know much at all about Italian fighters, but this is not at all that different from what LW fighters had at the time (ie. the G-6 was just being introduced at the time with 1x20mm/200rpg + 2x13mm/300rpg). In fact they note a new G-55 version in development, with 3x20mm (1 in engine, 2 wings) and 2 12.7mm guns in the fuselage.
Note though that this is exactly the same armament as a G-6 with gondies - and that is 'off the shelves' and not just on paper yet in February 1943 ...
It appears to me that the Germans were rather interested in potential developments of the G 55 with a massively increased armament AND a DB 603 engine rather than it`s actual form. It puzzles me otoh why they would need one, if they wanted a heavily armed aircraft with a DB 603... well there`s the FW 190, already in production.
I think the 'German interest' is a bit overstated - alternate 'Plan B's were constantly considered in the Luftwaffe, they had the Bf 109K-14 and the DB 605L in works just in case the Ta 152 / Jumo 213E fails to deliver - and you shouldn`t make too much of a conclusion from those rather regular 'brainstorming' meetings in the RLM. But, I haven`t seen any the other papers about those meetings myself telling about what Goering, Milch and Galland had on mind about the 'Italian connection'. I`d love to see those.
Oh, and I happy that could contribute my bit to this story, it`s always the best to reach down to the 'source'. I am glad you found it interesting.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Kurfürst, the licence production of the G.55 is explicitly mentioned in the biography of Milch. It is clear that Milch was clearly counting on it and it was more than just a possibility. It would have happened had Italy not surrendered.
Also, the Germans were not interested in the G.55 with a 20mm gun and four MGs but in the G.55/II. That bird had the amazing armament of 5 - that is FIVE - 20 mm guns! Later the motor engine cannon would have been replaced by a MK 108. That would have made an amazing bomber destroyer for 1944.
Kris
Also, the Germans were not interested in the G.55 with a 20mm gun and four MGs but in the G.55/II. That bird had the amazing armament of 5 - that is FIVE - 20 mm guns! Later the motor engine cannon would have been replaced by a MK 108. That would have made an amazing bomber destroyer for 1944.
What do you mean, already in production??
Kris
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
Kurfust,
My info says that the G55 was armed with 3xMg151/20 + 2x Breda 12,7.
One possibility is that they tested one of the 4-5 pre-production models (so called series zero) that sported 4x12,7mm in the nose + 1x20mm engine mounted.
But in that case, also consider that the first DB605 made in Fiat were restricted to 2600rpm instead of 2800, and the performances were directly impacted by that.
The normal production G55 (about 200 produced, 110 delivered) had 380 rounds for the engine cannon, 200 rounds each for the wing-mounted 20mm and 300 rounds each for the 12,7.
Anyway, even 2 x12,7 extra is a good 30% more firepower vs the 109G6, that also had the 12,7 pasted in a 'band-aid' way requiring the infamous bulges to accomodate the weapons.
Besides, this would be the same armament of the P38, that is generally considered 'extremely potent'.
FW190 with DB603: can you give more detail? I know only the 190C prototype that was discarded for the 190D, and was anyway 1944.
.. sorry, have to run , will be back later
My info says that the G55 was armed with 3xMg151/20 + 2x Breda 12,7.
One possibility is that they tested one of the 4-5 pre-production models (so called series zero) that sported 4x12,7mm in the nose + 1x20mm engine mounted.
But in that case, also consider that the first DB605 made in Fiat were restricted to 2600rpm instead of 2800, and the performances were directly impacted by that.
The normal production G55 (about 200 produced, 110 delivered) had 380 rounds for the engine cannon, 200 rounds each for the wing-mounted 20mm and 300 rounds each for the 12,7.
Anyway, even 2 x12,7 extra is a good 30% more firepower vs the 109G6, that also had the 12,7 pasted in a 'band-aid' way requiring the infamous bulges to accomodate the weapons.
Besides, this would be the same armament of the P38, that is generally considered 'extremely potent'.
FW190 with DB603: can you give more detail? I know only the 190C prototype that was discarded for the 190D, and was anyway 1944.
.. sorry, have to run , will be back later
Glider
Captain
The prototype G55 had 1 x 20 and 4 x HMG two in the nose and the two in the wing later replaced by 2 x 20 giving the normal load of 3 x 20 and 2 x HMG.
Hi Kris,
>Kurfürst, the licence production of the G.55 is explicitly mentioned in the biography of Milch. It is clear that Milch was clearly counting on it and it was more than just a possibility. It would have happened had Italy not surrendered.
Hm, in any procurement decision involving Messerschmitt aircraft, one has to take into account that Milch was a personal enemy of Messerschmitt.
Obviously, a DB-603-engined Fiat fighter would be a direct competitor to the DB-603-engined Me 209 ...
Here is a timeline I based on Irving's Milch biography (so be cautious about its accuracy):
xx.02.1943 German comparison report is prepared
xx.04.1943 Milch considers Me 209 and Me 410 to be the most important next-generation aircraft
22.05.1943 Galland test-flies a Me 262 prototype and reports to Milch
25.05.1943 Milch decides to cancel the Me 209 in favour of the Me 262, and not to build a new generation of piston-engined fighters at all
02.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims high fuel usage and doubtful altitude performance as disadvantages of the jet fighter
27.06.1943 Messerschmitt repeats comment on jet fighter fuel usage to Hitler
xx.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims Me 209 is 95% production-ready
xx.08.1943 Me 209 cancellation is revoked
07.09.1943 Messerschmitt suggests to Hitler to produce the Me 209 as fighter and the Me 262 as bomber
xx.09.1943 RLM staff and Galland oppose Me 209 after asked for opinion by Milch
27.09.1943 US troops occupy Foggia, Milch regrets that this ends his hopes of building the Fiat G.55
21.11.1943 Me 209 cancelled by Göring.
I wouldn't be surprised if the report on Italian fighters was at least partially motivated by Milch's desire to collect arguments for stopping the Me 209. If he thought it was best to skip the next generation of piston-engined fighters entirely, why his continued interest in the Fiat G.55 as next-generation piston-engined fighter just when he was battling Messerschmitt over Me 209 production?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Kurfürst, the licence production of the G.55 is explicitly mentioned in the biography of Milch. It is clear that Milch was clearly counting on it and it was more than just a possibility. It would have happened had Italy not surrendered.
Hm, in any procurement decision involving Messerschmitt aircraft, one has to take into account that Milch was a personal enemy of Messerschmitt.
Obviously, a DB-603-engined Fiat fighter would be a direct competitor to the DB-603-engined Me 209 ...
Here is a timeline I based on Irving's Milch biography (so be cautious about its accuracy):
xx.02.1943 German comparison report is prepared
xx.04.1943 Milch considers Me 209 and Me 410 to be the most important next-generation aircraft
22.05.1943 Galland test-flies a Me 262 prototype and reports to Milch
25.05.1943 Milch decides to cancel the Me 209 in favour of the Me 262, and not to build a new generation of piston-engined fighters at all
02.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims high fuel usage and doubtful altitude performance as disadvantages of the jet fighter
27.06.1943 Messerschmitt repeats comment on jet fighter fuel usage to Hitler
xx.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims Me 209 is 95% production-ready
xx.08.1943 Me 209 cancellation is revoked
07.09.1943 Messerschmitt suggests to Hitler to produce the Me 209 as fighter and the Me 262 as bomber
xx.09.1943 RLM staff and Galland oppose Me 209 after asked for opinion by Milch
27.09.1943 US troops occupy Foggia, Milch regrets that this ends his hopes of building the Fiat G.55
21.11.1943 Me 209 cancelled by Göring.
I wouldn't be surprised if the report on Italian fighters was at least partially motivated by Milch's desire to collect arguments for stopping the Me 209. If he thought it was best to skip the next generation of piston-engined fighters entirely, why his continued interest in the Fiat G.55 as next-generation piston-engined fighter just when he was battling Messerschmitt over Me 209 production?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Milos Sijacki
Senior Airman
I choose Bf-109F because it was combat proven. That's it.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Nice summary Henning but you have to admit that it's pure conjecture. I also recall Göring and Galland all approving the licence production of the Italian aircraft.
Also by your summary the hatred of Milch towards Messerschmitt is not that black and white. Milch does support the Me 262, just not the Me 209. If he really was against the Me 262 he would have gone for the He 280 or Fw 190. Yet there is no mention of this in Irving's biography.
I do agree however that the licence production of the Fiat was not top priority. There are only a very few projects which can have top priority and I can understand why planes like the Me 262 or He 177 would have gotten this instead.
Kris
Also by your summary the hatred of Milch towards Messerschmitt is not that black and white. Milch does support the Me 262, just not the Me 209. If he really was against the Me 262 he would have gone for the He 280 or Fw 190. Yet there is no mention of this in Irving's biography.
I do agree however that the licence production of the Fiat was not top priority. There are only a very few projects which can have top priority and I can understand why planes like the Me 262 or He 177 would have gotten this instead.
Kris
Hi Kris,
>Nice summary Henning but you have to admit that it's pure conjecture.
If you're dealing with historical accounts, critical assessment of sources is standard operating procedure. Milch was no disinterested observer, and his account would require caution even if it were published by a historian with a better track record than Irving
>I also recall Göring and Galland all approving the licence production of the Italian aircraft.
Do you have more details? That might be interesting ...
>Also by your summary the hatred of Milch towards Messerschmitt is not that black and white. Milch does support the Me 262, just not the Me 209.
Oh, but it still was a battle for the control over Messerschmitt's plants and engineering capacity. Would Messerschmitt get it his way, or would Milch prevail?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Nice summary Henning but you have to admit that it's pure conjecture.
If you're dealing with historical accounts, critical assessment of sources is standard operating procedure. Milch was no disinterested observer, and his account would require caution even if it were published by a historian with a better track record than Irving
>I also recall Göring and Galland all approving the licence production of the Italian aircraft.
Do you have more details? That might be interesting ...
>Also by your summary the hatred of Milch towards Messerschmitt is not that black and white. Milch does support the Me 262, just not the Me 209.
Oh, but it still was a battle for the control over Messerschmitt's plants and engineering capacity. Would Messerschmitt get it his way, or would Milch prevail?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Critical assessment for sure but that's not really what you were doing if I may say so. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Milch wasn't serious about the 5-series and that it was just to obstruct Messerschmitt. It's conjecture to me.
And my source for Galland, Göring and Milch voting for the licence production comes from that text which has been quoted so many times. And particularly this part:
Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany.
And don't forget that Milch actually came to Rechlin to see the tests of the G.55.
Kris
And my source for Galland, Göring and Milch voting for the licence production comes from that text which has been quoted so many times. And particularly this part:
Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany.
And don't forget that Milch actually came to Rechlin to see the tests of the G.55.
Kris
Hi Kris,
>Critical assessment for sure but that's not really what you were doing if I may say so.
I'm afraid critical assessment is exactly what I'm doing. You have to understand that I'm not saying that the G.55 production scheme was a tactical move against Messerschmitt's Me 209 production scheme for certain - I'm just saying the possiblity exists and cannot be ruled out. You have to consider Milch's motivation for a critical assessment, and he certainly was not impartial towards Messerschmitt.
This is not a consideration that leads to a definite conclusion, it's a consideration that warns against drawing conclusions.
>And my source for Galland, Göring and Milch voting for the licence production comes from that text which has been quoted so many times.
Hm, I have to ask: where did that text come from? (If the source was already posted, I fear I have missed it.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Critical assessment for sure but that's not really what you were doing if I may say so.
I'm afraid critical assessment is exactly what I'm doing. You have to understand that I'm not saying that the G.55 production scheme was a tactical move against Messerschmitt's Me 209 production scheme for certain - I'm just saying the possiblity exists and cannot be ruled out. You have to consider Milch's motivation for a critical assessment, and he certainly was not impartial towards Messerschmitt.
This is not a consideration that leads to a definite conclusion, it's a consideration that warns against drawing conclusions.
>And my source for Galland, Göring and Milch voting for the licence production comes from that text which has been quoted so many times.
Hm, I have to ask: where did that text come from? (If the source was already posted, I fear I have missed it.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
