Report on fighter aircraft comparisons at the Italian Guidonia Test Centre

Discussion in 'Flight Test Data' started by krieghund, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. krieghund

    krieghund Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    Avionics Engineer Advisor to RSAF
    Location:
    Riyadh
    From Kurfurst's site; in German and Google xlate into English

    German tactical trials comparing the Luftwaffe`s Bf 109G-4 and FW 190A-5 to contemporary Italian types Macchi 205 V, macchi205 N, Reggiane 2005 and Fiat G 55.

    Summary of report on German tests at Guidonia


    The G-55 was seen as most favorable of the tested Italian planes

    G-55:
    - Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
    - High forces on the aileron.
    - Effect of rudder could be better.
    - Plane curves very good and narrow.
    - Slightly uneasy in "mid position" (shooting position).
    - Pitch to any side could not be noticed, similar to Spitfire.
    - Moderate pilot view on takeoff, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
    - Worse pilot view than the German planes.
    - Aeronautical not as good as German planes.
    - Not useable as fighter-bomber with bomb under fuselage.
    - Equal to German planes in climb and high altitude performance.
    - Inferior in speed by 25 km/h, but Italian produced DB 605 delivered 100 PS less than the German.
    - Superior in armament and range to the German planes.
    - Ability to install DB 603 without bigger modifications.
    - Was evaluated as best Italian plane in the trials.

    Macchi 205 V:
    - Armament: 4 12.7 mm MG.
    - Unstable in lateral axis.
    - Very high effect of rudder.
    - Tendency to "Überziehen" (stall ?).
    - Forces on aileron and rolling good.
    - Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
    - Will be only produced in small numbers since it is a temporary solution.

    Macchi 205 N:
    - Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
    - Mass production variant of DB 605.
    - Good rudder effect.
    - Was smoothly in "mid position" (shooting position).
    - Rolling good.
    - Rudder forces a little smaller than for Bf 109 G-4.
    - Cooler too small for constant climbing and use in tropical environment.
    - Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
    - Wing not solid but made of three parts, plane not suited for fighter-bomber use.

    Reggiane 2005:
    - Armament: 3 MG-151/20 and 2 12.7 mm MG.
    - Aeronautical attributes were sufficient.
    - Curves well, rolling like Bf 109 G-4 with rudder forces a little less.
    - Take-offs and landings easy.
    - Pilot seat a little too far away from control stick.
    - Not suited as fighter-bomber due to size and location of cooler.
    - Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.

    All Italian planes had an armored pilot seat with 11 mm armor thickness and an 11 mm thick headrest armor.

    I also found this;

    "The day of 2 aug 1943 6 Mc 205V of 155° Gr. "Black Panthers" sub-unit of 51° St.Caccia "Black Cats" faced 24 NZ P40 and killed 11 of them"

    and this;

    "I can refer about the opinions of some pilots who drove them in battle: dad drove only Fiat G-55, probably not the exploiter among those but probably the most advanced and easy to ride. As macchi 205 it was produced also after the end of the war and serviced as Fiat G-59, a nice evolution powered with a Merlin. Dad said that the pitch roll rate were higher than Spits and Mustangs, in the while the DB605 engine provided an extra kinetic energy boost after sudden dives than the Merlin equipped versions. G55 (G= ing.Gabrielli the father of G91 and G222) was a masterwork: easy to ride, extremely reactive, highly aerobatic was really tough to die. Dad was wounded while attacking a B-24 box in summer 1944: the wind shear hit by a .50 round exploded punching his face with a lot of glass-shrapnel and the hot oil blowed out the DB engine suctioned deeply all those tiny wounds on his face. When he landed there were more holes in his own wings than a Swiss gruviere, at least 50.50 rounds drilled his G55. The day after the FIAT was combat ready another time, dad not at all."


    This was cut and pasted from a web source by Davidicus on another thread about the Series 5 fighters:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 1942 a technical commission of the Regia Aeronautica was invited by Luftwaffe to test some German aircrafts in Rechlin. The visit was part of a joint plan for the standardization of the Axis aircraft production. In the same time some Luftwaffe officers visited Guidonia where they were particularly interested in the performances promised by the Series 5's. On December 9 these impressions were discussed in a Luftwaffe staff meeting and raised the interest of Goering itself.

    In February 1943 a German test commission was sent in Italy to evaluate the new Italian fighters. The commission was led by Obverts Petersen and was formed by Luftwaffe officiers and pilots nad by technical personnel, among them the Flugbaumeister Malz. The Germans carried with them also several aircrafts included a Fw190A and a Me109G for direct comparison tests in simulated dogfights.

    The tests began February 20. The German commission, not without a certain surprise, was very impressed by the Italian aircrafts, the G55 in particular. In general, all the Serie 5's were very good at low altitudes, but the G55 was competitive with its German opponents also in term of speed and climb rate at high altitudes still maintaining superior handling characteristics. The definitive evaluation by the German commission was "excellent" for the G55, "good" for the Re2005 and "average" for the MC205. 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.

    The interest of the Germans, apart from the good test results, derived also from the development possibilities they was able to see in the G55 and in the Re2005. For the Re2005 the German interest resulted in the provision of an original DB605 with the new WM injection. This engine and a VDM propeller were installed on the MM495 prototype that was acquired by Luftwaffe and tested in Rechlin. The aircraft reached 700 km/h during a test with a German pilot, but the airframe was not judged sufficiently strong for these performances.

    The G55 was bigger and heavier and was considered a very good candidate for the new DB603 engine. Other visits were organized in Germany during March and May 1943 in Rechlin and Berlin. The G55 was again tested at Rechlin at the presence of Milch. Gabrielli and other FIAT personalities were invited to visit German factories and to discuss the evolution of the aircraft. The specifications of the German G55/II included the DB603 engine, five 20 mm guns and a pressurized cockpit. The suggestion of weapons in the wings, limited to one 20 mm gun for each wing, originated the final configuration of the Serie I, while the 603 engine was succesfully installed in the G56 prototypes.

    As a concrete results of the German interest in the G55, the Luftwaffe acquired three complete G55 Sottoserie 0 airframes (MM91064-65-66) for evaluations and experiments giving in change three DB603 engines and original machinery for the setup of other production lines of the DB605/RA1050 RC58 I. Two of the Luftwaffe G55's remained in Turin, at the Aeritalia plants, where they were used by German and Italian engineers to study the planned modifications and the possible optimizations to the production process. Later these two were converted to Serie I and delivered to the ANR. The third one was transferred to Rechlin for tests and experiments in Germany. The DB603 engines were used to build the G56 prototypes.

    The interest in the G55 program was still high after the Armistice: in October 1943 Kurt Tank, who previously personally tested a G55 in Rechlin, was in Turin to discuss about the G55 production. However, war events and the not yet optimized production process were the reasons for which the G55 program was eventually abandoned by the Luftwaffe. Early produced G55's required about 15000 manhours; while there were estimations to reduce the effort to about 9000 manhours, the German factories were able to assemble a Bf109 in only 5000 manhours.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    For a late war (may '43 or late) italian air force doc "Caratteristiche velivoli italiani" the Re 2005 had capability of use as fighter bomber with 2x50or100or160kg wing bombs and 1 near central (from draw it's a bit on the right) for 100-630 kg bombs (max load is 630 kg, if you had 160 kg bombs on wing the max central is 250 kg, if 100 kg bombs on wing max central is 420 kg, if 50 kg bombs max central is 500 kg) same capability of olders 20012002
     
  3. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    So was the Fw-190 and I suspect the Focke-Wulf would have priority.

    RLM crippled the DB603 engine program during 1937. After that it's pointless to dream about how nice an aircraft would perform when powered by the DB603.
     
  4. jim

    jim Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G55 was vastly superior to the Fw 190. Being much lighter , even with 1300ps of the italian 605s ,it had only slightly lower speed and much grater agility, and range
    Actually ,g55 did not need Db 603 to be great. Even with DB605ASM would be a winner at both west and east
     
  5. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The performance of the Italian series 5 fighters seem to be as much a mystery as the performance of the late war Japanese fighters.
    Some questions: when, in the test, Germans say 'DB-605', is that DB-605, or the Alfa-Romeo “Tifone”? When were the 1st examples of the Tifone delivered and flight tested? What were the maximum power ratings of the Bf-109G-4 in the Guidonia test? When the Italian fighters were able to use 'Notleistung' of their Tifones/DB-605s in the service? What were the performance levels with Notleistung? Were the Italian fighters suffering the same issues as the Bf-109Gs, considering the allowed use of 'Notleistung'? How much (if any) DB-605s ended up in Italian fighters?
     
  6. jim

    jim Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The performance measures were done with 1300ps and italian propellers. Later,in 1944, propably some aircrafts recieved full power cleared engines , but no performance is officially known. However i have seen ,in italian forums, claims for G55 of 417mph with later engines. I just mentiome it. It s not confirmed
    However we do know that G55 had superb wing loading , very sreamlined fuselage, good power loading despite the 1300 ps engine, good fuel capacity, heavy internal armament , amazing ammo supply , and huge development potentional
    ANY german late war engine with MW50 would create a winner G55.
    G55 airframe, in my opinion, is clearly superior as air superiority fighter even to 190D . It offered everything the dora had with 500kgr less weight and bigger wing
     
  7. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    I suspect a Fw-190 variant powered by 1,800hp DB605ASM engine would also have been an excellent aircraft. However you need to design the airframe for the DB605 engine rather then using larger and heavier airframe designed for BMW801 and Jumo 213 engines.
     
  8. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    The problem with the 1,800hp DB605ASM engine is that it is a "sprint" engine. It is good for about the same power as a DB 605A for the 30 min climb rating and about the same power for max cruise. To be fair the Merlin had much the same problem, while the max boost went way up the climb and cruise ratings stayed pretty much the same for all the engines after the MK XII or XX.

    The BMW801 and Jumo 213 engines offered cruise powers 15% or more greater than the DB 605 engines.
     
  9. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    That's fine for a bomber where high cruise speed with payload equals survivability but what does faster cruise speed do for a lightweight fighter aircraft such as Me-109 and Fw-190?
     
  10. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    Not much for the 109 but the 190 wasn't as much of a light weight. It weighed empty about what a late 109 did full of fuel, ammo and either a bomb or drop tank underneath.

    Normal loaded (clean) the 190 was about 2000lbs ( give or take a few hundred depending on exact model) heavier than the 109 with under fuselage store.

    But it needs just the same climb and cruise power as the, right???
     
  11. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Blame it on the BMW 801 engine.

    Fw-190 V2 prototype weighed 3,125kg complete with weapons and radio. About the same as Me-109G.

    RLM ordered conversion to BMW 801 engine and the next Fw-190 prototype was about 25% heavier. This required a larger wing which increased weight some more. Fw-190A5 moved the engine forward to improved cooling air flow, further increasing aircraft weight.

    A Fw-190 designed for DB605ASM engine should weigh about the same as Me-109G powered by the same engine. But we will never know for certain since no such aircraft was built.
     
  12. Shortround6

    Shortround6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,770
    Likes Received:
    801
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired Firefighter
    Location:
    Central Florida Highlands
    It would if it was caught at the right time in design.

    Once the wings, fuselage, landing gear, etc were made to operate at the higher weights needed by the 801 engine you can't really go backwards. Also the Fw-190 V2 prototype had crap for weapons, a single MG 17 in each wing root is NO improvement over the armament of a He51 biplane. Once you get to the later A series ( or the D) trying to take out the heavy engines and replace them with a lighter engine still leaves you with the heavy airframe, landing gear etc.

    You don't get the firepower of the 190 ( two mgs and two to four cannon) for the weight of 2 MGs and one cannon. The increase in payload calls for an increase in wing area and structural weight.
     
  13. JtD

    JtD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    But there was a 109 powered by a BMW 801.
     
  14. jim

    jim Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The main problem of the Fw190 was the poor power to weight ratio of the BMW 801, and even worse had to use C3 fuel to achieve it

    But the airframe was also too heavy for air superiority missions . Especially after A5.But even the earlier versions were heavy. Tank chose to build his new fighter exceptionaly strong for good behavior on rough airfields. Thats good on theory, but cost weight. And germany did not have the engines to overcome this additional weight.

    What fascinates me in all italian series 5 fighters is that had all the ingredients ( armament, armour, fuel,) and additionaly had excellent wing loadings and the size for future engine upgrades
     
  15. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Me-109 performed well in Russia where most airfields were rough. Otherwise it most likely would have been replaced as Russia was Germany's primary theater of operations during 1941 to 1945.
     
  16. JtD

    JtD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    80
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Not wanting to derail the topic much further, but the Fw 190 with the BMW 801D offered a 30min rating of 1300+ hp at altitude in a 4 ton plane, armed with four 20mm cannons, in 1942. That's a lot of power with a lot of guns per weight, pretty early in the war. If you were to look for more powerful contemporaries, you'll likely end up with two engined aircraft, which certainly were heavier.
     
  17. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Maximum continus powers:
    The BMW 801 was making 1180 PS at 5,5km, same the Jumo 213A at same altitude.
    DB-605A was making 1080 PS at same altitude, the DB-605AS was good for 1050 PS at 7,7km ( Jumo 213A giving there 900 PS). The DB-605ASM was making 1040 ps at 7,1 km, vs. Jumo 213A with ~970 PS there.

    Case could (and should) be made that both BMW and Jumo were also demanding greater drag weight penalty. The weight of the BMW 801D, without the armored oil cooler, is just above 1000 kg, the Jumo-213 was slightly lighter without coolers extras. Weight of the DB-605A was circa 730 kg dry.

    The discussion at Williams' site, the following excerpt found at the article about Fw-190D-9 (FW 190 D-9 Flight Trialspertaining to Jumo 213A) is interesting:

     
  18. davebender

    davebender Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    That doesn't speak well for Jumo 213 supercharger system.
     
  19. tomo pauk

    tomo pauk Creator of Interesting Threads

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    7,995
    Likes Received:
    438
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The DB-605 AS was providing far less power at low altitudes (350 HP less at SL, both engines using the 'Notleistung' engine setting), since the bigger supercharger ('taken' from the bigger DB-603) was also using more power at lower altitude.
    The DB-605 ASM (variation of the DB-605 AS; 'M' means it uses the MW-50 system) was providing 300 PS less than Jumo 213A, both engines on 'Sonder Notlesitung' setting, ie. using MW-50 system.

    Both DB-605 and Jumo 213 were only/mostly using single stage superchargers; once equipped with two stage superchargers (DB-605L, never used in combat, and Jumo 213E/F, used in Ta-152) were far more capable engines.
     
  20. zuperman

    zuperman New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2013
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ohh, 'vastly superior'? Where did you get this statement? This was not that was said about the Guidonia's test. And you are laughable in your statement as even the EARLY FW-190 butchtered the much vaunted Spitfire V, so they weren't definitively the worts of the bunch!

    A 1941 fighter that is rubbish in 1943? NO WAY. Germans already had the FW-190 to take the DB-603. It was their fault to avoid to install it. Even if the G.55 would have been a (slight) better stuff, the FW-190 was already there, in production, and it is ridicolous that only at the end of the war Germans did the FW-190D/ Ta-152 stuff. They could have done it years before.

    And i have already mentioned that, the FW-190, was even able to hold a 1,800/4,000 lb bomb? No, i did not. Try with a Centauro.
     
Loading...

Share This Page