Italy v. England - Air to air

[Civettone]

I agree that those race aircraft were phenomenal. But correct me if I'm wrong, weren't they financially supported by the fascist government? The Supermarine had to do with private funding.



I do see several similarities between the G.50 and G.55 (for instance the tail section and those extended wing parts) and I think the missing link is the G.50V/G.52 which had many changes from the G.50 design which were incorporated in the G.55. Or that's how I see it, although I've never seen an image of those designs. I hope you do and you can tell me some more about them.

But what exactly was technologically better about the G.55 than the G.50 besides the German parts?

The fact that the Macchi airframe remained the same from the 200 to the 205V is only a proof that the basic design was good, and could bear double the power and the payload that it was originally designed for.

I don't know what to think about that. It seems every fighter of the late thirties were able to be re-engined with more powerful engines. Just look at the Bf 109 which tripled its original power output though it was a much smaller/lighter fighter. So I don't think it's that exceptional for a fighter to double its power. I can't think of a single fighter which was given up because it couldn't handle the extra power.

In any case, I don't think you can say that Italy lost its technological position in the thirties and regained in 1943 as the only thing that changed was importing German guns and licence producing German engines. That doesn't make sense to me.

And the quality and power output of those engines was less than the original. All design would happen in Germany so the Italians were always behind and had to be instructed by the Germans how to use and improve those engines. I don't think you can call this a technological improvement.
Kris

edit: found a little picture of the G.50V

[Parmigiano]

The G55 frame and wing were completely redesigned vs the G50, the fact that some parts and subassemblies maintains a 'family feeling' or are the same (i think the landing ear for instance) is perfectly normal: there is no reason to change what was already working. Look at the Spit XIV and Spit 21: many parts are the same, made in the same way or look very similar; you can tell at first glance that both are Spitfires but the 21 was a completely redesigned aircraft.
Gabrielli went for the new design G55 after the tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful, further evidence is that Fiat 'missed' the serie 2 (refit of DB601 on the first generation fighters: Macchi 202 and Reggiane 2001)

Not every fighter of the late 30 was able to cope with the progress and still perform among the best.
Some did, among them the Spitfire, the 109 (although between E and F series there was some substantial redesign of the wings and the tail section) the Macchis.
Many other designs that were OK in the 35-40 could not be improved: think about the Hurricane, the P40, the Wildcat, the Fiat G50, the Typhoon, the P39, the Zero etc.

To me, it means that the original projects of Spit,109 and Macchi were better designed than the others.

I did not mean that Italy regained the 'top' in research in 1943 like it was around 1930 (Germany, US and UK were far ahead in that), I said the Series 5 regained the position among the top fighters: like it is substantiated by many sources.

Besides, the Bf109 was not 'much smaller' than the MC205V, they were almost identical:
Empty weight : mc205 2.581kg, 109G6 2.670
Wing Area : mc205 16.8 sq/m, 109g6 16.5 sq/m
Wing Span : mc205 10.58 mt, 109g6 9.92 mt

The more comparable Bf109 G2 was probably around 200kg lighter than the G6, but this does not change the scenario.

And yes, the "Reparto Alta Velocita'" was the brainchild of the Fascist regime who financed it, but how does this impacts on the technologocal achievements?
The reasons why this expensive projects were nominally private in certain Countries and government managed in others opens a big topic about the socio-economical-historical situation of the Countries...

[Jabberwocky]

Many other designs that were OK in the 35-40 could not be improved: think about the Hurricane, the P40, the Wildcat, the Fiat G50, the Typhoon, the P39, the Zero etc.

Well, the P-40 was a development of the P-36, which was designed in 1934. The design itself was ultimately altered into some reasonable fighters, such as the experimental P-40Q and P-60, but they weren't any improvement over the P-51 and P-47s already being deployed, so weren't produced.

The Typoon was developed into the Tempest V, one of the best medium altitude fighters of the war. The design then incorporated several different engines to produce the Tempest II and VI (both of which just missed wartime service and were phenomenal below 22,000 feet) and ultimately the Fury and Sea Fury.

The P-39 was further refined into the P-63, the 'lend lease fighter' which was much apprecialed by the Soviets as it was essentially adjusted to their specifications.

[Parmigiano]

Jabber, the Typhoon did not 'evolved' in the Tempest: it was just the predecessor of the Tempest.
The structure of the aircrafts was completely different, from the wing airfoil and structure to the positioning of the fuel tanks etc. The Tempest was a whole new project.
Tempest V and II / VI can be defined an 'evolution' of the Tempest airframe.

Same for the P39/P63, I honestly don't know if the P40 was the same airframe of the P36 with an Allison in the nose.

Spit V and XIV, 109 F and K and Macchi 200 and 205V were the same airframe, many parts were interchangeable. Several Macchi 202 instead of having the engine serviced were transformed in 205V by simply replacing the DB601 with the DB605, I think the same happened for Spit V and IX.

[Civettone]

Hi Parmigiano!

The G55 frame and wing were completely redesigned vs the G50, the fact that some parts and subassemblies maintains a 'family feeling' or are the same (i think the landing ear for instance) is perfectly normal: there is no reason to change what was already working. Look at the Spit XIV and Spit 21: many parts are the same, made in the same way or look very similar; you can tell at first glance that both are Spitfires but the 21 was a completely redesigned aircraft.

I find this very interesting but I am still a bit sceptic. You're right about the Spitfire. And another example was the P-51H which was totally different from the P-51D though it looked very similar.
I think it's difficult to really draw a line between designs. As you know the Spitfire 21 is still an obvious Spitfire, so why wouldn't the G.55 be a G.50 in essence. Yet you say:

Gabrielli went for the new design G55 after the tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful, further evidence is that Fiat 'missed' the serie 2 (refit of DB601 on the first generation fighters: Macchi 202 and Reggiane 2001)

But this isn't really true as I already talked to you about the G.50V which had the DB 601. And then there was the G.52 which was a G.50V with a more narrow fuselage. And then there's the G.55 with new wings.

Not every fighter of the late 30 was able to cope with the progress and still perform among the best.

That's true but it's not what you said at first. You said they couldn't handle the extra power. And I have my doubts about that. It's true that many fighters weren't developed further but were replaced by new designs. But this is the choice one has to make. The Bf 109 was also going to be replaced by the Me 209 or 309 but in the end they chose to stick with it. Many of the fighters you mentioned could have been build with more powerful engines yet they thought a new design would have been better. Yet I can imagine the Hurricane, the P-40, P-39, Zero, ... remaining competitive had they had the latest engines. A Hurricane with a Griffon? A P-40 with a Packard Merlin? A Zero with a Kasei? I think they could have held their own. But in the end, a new design was the best option for the long run. It's typical that the European countries didn't replace most of their fighter designs and chose to upgrade them instead.

But who's to say that a new Fiat design wouldn't have been better than the C.205? For that reason I doubt that the C.200 was a good design because the C.205 turned out to be a good fighter.

Also makes me think of the Romanian IAR.81 which was going to get a BMW 801.

I did not mean that Italy regained the 'top' in research in 1943 like it was around 1930 (Germany, US and UK were far ahead in that), I said the Series 5 regained the position among the top fighters: like it is substantiated by many sources.

Sure, the Series 5 was as good as the other fighters of 1943 but you said that the Italians regained their technological position. And that is something which I disagree with.

And yes, the "Reparto Alta Velocita'" was the brainchild of the Fascist regime who financed it, but how does this impacts on the technologocal achievements?

When given more resources, a technologically less advanced team can still achieve better results.

Kris

[phouse]

And what results they achieved! I think Italy was generally regarded as a technological leader in aviation in the 1930s. It'd be hard to counter that assertion. In 1931 though, the AS6 was a top notch inline engine that could have/should have had an analogous military version yet none ever came to be. I think that deserves a huge pourqoi?!? I suppose only Fiat knows.

I wouldn't dare claim that it would have made a huge difference in the RA's WW2 showing but I believe that we would have seen Serie 5 aircraft a lot sooner than 1943.

[Civettone]

Well, I've grown to become suspicious of long-standing assertions... There are so many concerning the German Luftwaffe which are false to anyone who puts a little effort in their research but remain 'facts' to most people.

I think Italy had the best designs but never dominated in terms of technology. I'm thinking of their standard fighter, the CR.20 but also most other aircraft. The thirties were based on the succes of the 20s which resulted in may exports. Yet, their best aircraft weren't all that advanced. For instance, their standard fighter, the CR.32 was based on the CR.20. Their Caproni bombers? Their Savoia-Marchetti flying boats? All great designs but I don't see much reason to contribute this to technology.

The AS.6 was no more than two inline engines coupled together while the engine of the Supermarine racer was a single powerful engine and as such more advanced.
I also doubt the AS.6 would have made a good engine for a fighter as no warplane ever had success with such a configuration though the Germans and Japanese also tried.

But again, I think the Italians had - together with the French - the best aircraft of the twenties. Yet, I wonder in what way this was a result of superior technology. If I'm wrong, please provide some examples of Italian technology of those days. It's quite possible that I'm wrong, I just can't come up with anything.
Kris

[pbfoot]

The Italians pioneered trans Atlantic crossings they flew large formations and airservice across the Atlantic which at the time was quite a feat to this day large formations are called Balbos named after the founder and pioneer Italo Balbo

[phouse]

Your opinion of the AS6 seems rather low. It certainly was a more reliable engine than the Isotta-Fraschini inline and it performed better! The reality is that a great deal of research went into the engine by Fiat and none of that research went into developing a reliable inline military powerplant for Italy. You can read all about the research here. NASA is hosting a PDF of a copy of National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics' "Italian High Speed Engines" presented at the Volta Meeting in 1935. According to the paper, Fiat had innovated with respect to the supercharger, carburetor, and fuel feed. You dismiss the AS6 because it was a coupled engine but that also discounts the real and applicable research that Fiat made into inline engines that could have been applied into an analogous version. No one would claim that using a coupled engine in a military plane would be a good idea! The maintenance costs alone would be silly. But I also don't see anything that you've said that reaffirms Fiat's decision to drop the AS6 as a good decision. It was a mountain of research that was left as a novelty, not the basis for furthering the state of aviation in Italy which was the entire reason the fascists had funded Fiat in the first place!

[Jabberwocky]

Jabber, the Typhoon did not 'evolved' in the Tempest: it was just the predecessor of the Tempest.
The structure of the aircrafts was completely different, from the wing airfoil and structure to the positioning of the fuel tanks etc. The Tempest was a whole new project.
Tempest V and II / VI can be defined an 'evolution' of the Tempest airframe.

Same for the P39/P63, I honestly don't know if the P40 was the same airframe of the P36 with an Allison in the nose.

Spit V and XIV, 109 F and K and Macchi 200 and 205V were the same airframe, many parts were interchangeable. Several Macchi 202 instead of having the engine serviced were transformed in 205V by simply replacing the DB601 with the DB605, I think the same happened for Spit V and IX.

The Spitfire Mk V and XIV have less in common with each other than the Typhoon and Tempest do.

The Mk XIV airframe was actually based on the Mk VII airframe, which was substantially redesigned internally from the Mk V airframe, incorporating a lot of the advances seen in the experimental Mk III. The foward fuselage structure was completely redesigned to take the longer and higher Griffon, seating the engine lower and improving the foward view. The prop was different and was the spinner and the engine mounting.

The Mk XIV also has different rear fuselage construction, a different tail, a retractable tailwheel, shorter span Frise-type alierons, new fuel tanks in the wings, symmetrical radiators, a new air intake design. The design also deleted the earlier radio mast, added a different gun heating arrangement and completely revised the electrical system. Later on the Mk XIV also got the bubble top canopy and a cut down rear fuselage. The only basic similarity in the two types is the wing structure and even here there are changes, such as the positioning of the Hispano bulges and ammunition stowage.

On the other hand, while the Tempest has a different, thinner wing to the Typhoon, their internal structures are broadly similar, unlike that of the Spitfire Mk V/XIV. The Tempest prototype, orignally called the "Typhoon Mk II", was just a Typhoon Ib airframe from the second production batch fitted with the new wing.

The Tempest Mk V was essentially a late production bubbletop canopy Typhoon IB airframe with a longer nose and different wings, and had quite a lot of parts commonality with its bluffer looking stable mate. The 'Tempest tail' was even first trialed on a Typhoon and then eventually fitted into later production Typhoons (fourth and fifth production batches), as was the four bladed prop. A Typhoon IB from 1944/1945 had more in common with a Tempest V than a 1941 production Spitfire Mk V does with a 1944/1945 production Spitfire Mk XIV.

[red admiral]

The similarity between the G.50 and G.55 is purely superficial and comes from the fact that both aircraft used Gabrielli's wing design with a single tubular spar. The wings only look the same. They aren't the same. The G.55 was a whole new design to be built around the Fiat A.38 engine (V16 with contra-props). After much timewasting by Fiat, the A.38 project was cancelled in 1941.

Italy was definitely a world leader in aviation in the late 20s and 30s. The British Schneider Trophy team was part of the RAF and funded by them. For the 1931 race a wealthy Englishwoman was persuaded to donate £100,000 to hold the race (not the development) instead of being investigated for tax evasion. The Macchi C.72 was superior to the S.6b but a fatal crash prevented the aircraft being sent to Britain. Only a few days before the race Bellini set an unofficial speed record of 394mph (i.e. some 15mph faster), this was followed by the fatal crash. The Rolls-Royce R engine was massively boosted and ran on Methanol to achieve its power. The AS.6 was considerably more benign and gave still more power. Adapting this to production engine would be problematic as the engine was 11ft long. With some rearrangement of the supercharger and other devices the length could have been cut to 9ft or less which is manageable. I'd go for coupled V-8s or Flat-8s to further reduce the length.

I'm not sure what you want as proof of Italian technical advances? Remote-control turrets, new flap designs, radio guided rockets, Campini's motorjet (which was massively advanced compared to piston engines. The compressor with variable pitch blades was 20years ahead of its time). The Volta aerodynamics conference in 1935 (where swept wings were discussed). Italy having world's only supersonic wind tunnel. Aeronautical "city" at Guidonia. etc.

It was a massive mistake to simply abandon the tried, tested and reliable inline engines in favour of starting from scratch with radials. Still however Italy managed to produce the world's most powerful radial engine in 1938/39 with the Alfa Romeo 135 of 2000hp withe 100-oct fuel.

[Civettone]

It's not my intention to downplay the Italian achievement in aeronautics but I cannot help but feel that the Italians were slowly losing ground in the field of technology. The Fiat V-12 was replaced by a coupled engine while the other countries managed to increase their power output by a single engine.

I would also like to note that there's a difference in building a sole powerful engine which can be upgraded for occasional racing and with building an engine to be used for fighters. Look at the engines their fighters and bombers had. Not more powerful than those of other countries and if they were, they were notoriously unreliable.

In any case, I don't see the Italians regaining any position they once had, by simply using German guns and engines.
I absolutely love Italian planes of the 30s and 40s but I wouldn't consider them to be technologically advanced compared to those of other countries.

For the 1931 race a wealthy Englishwoman was persuaded to donate £100,000

You forgot to mention that this was AFTER the British government stopped funding!

Kris

[Parmigiano]

Oh my goodness, what a beehave !!!

Civettone
"As you know the Spitfire 21 is still an obvious Spitfire, so why wouldn't the G.55 be a G.50 in essence. Yet you say:
Quote:
Gabrielli went for the new design G55 after the tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful, further evidence is that Fiat 'missed' the serie 2 (refit of DB601 on the first generation fighters: Macchi 202 and Reggiane 2001)
But this isn't really true as I already talked to you about the G.50V which had the DB 601. And then there was the G.52 which was a G.50V with a more narrow fuselage. And then there's the G.55 with new wings."

Either I did not express properly or you misunderstood something.

G50V was the prototype of the G50 with a DB601 and G52 should have been the production plane but the project was discarded, and Fiat went for the brand new G55 project. Or do you think more likely that an airframe (G50) that failed with the DB601 could have been successful with the DB605 without a major reengineering?

Spit V and Spit 21 share the outside 'spitfire look', but what I said (and what in effect is) is that they are two completely different aircrafts.
The more obvious differene is that Mitchell's 'magic' monospar wing was replaced by a two spar wing


"But this is the choice one has to make. The Bf 109 was also going to be replaced by the Me 209 or 309 but in the end they chose to stick with it"

But the choice is never to go with a new design if the old one has equal or better performances. You go for something new if what you have has no further potential: after experimenting 209 and 309 Messerschmitt continued wih the 109, same for the Spit: the so called 'stopgap' MK IX was better than the MK III
Don't you think that if the Hurricane could have been competitive with just the latest Merlin/Griffon available Camm would not had mass produced this super-Hurri instead of investing all that time and money on the Tornado/Typhoon/Tempest?

"It's typical that the European countries didn't replace most of their fighter designs and chose to upgrade them instead."

No, the two most successful European fighters were the Spit and the 109: those whose original design was so good that the planned replacements were for some reason worse than the original...

"When given more resources, a technologically less advanced team can still achieve better results"

Only if you can buy elsewhere the know-how that you don't have in house. This is the case of today Formula 1 for instance, but was not the case of the 1920-30 air competition. Resources were a key variable, but your statement is in my opinion too 'exclusive'.

Jabber

You're right about the Spit XIV, I knew it too (guess I had posted it also here) but completely forgot: the XIV was the III/VII with a Griffon. Let's limit the 'original' Spit project from MK I to MK IX/XVI.
Typhoon and Tempest, here I disagree: a completely new wing, lenghtened fuselage, relocation of fuel tanks and related subsystems (Tempest had fuel in the wings, Typhoon behind the engine) means a completely reengineered project.



EDIT: sorry I'm running to late, will complete the post next time

[Civettone]

Parmigiano, I have to admit that I'm basing my conclusions on the limited information I have. According to my sources, the G.52 was not the same as the G.50V but had a more narrow fuselage. Although I often read that the G.55 was a completely new design, I have my doubts about this. As I've never seen an image of the G.52 I cannot rule out that the G.55 was based on the G.52. As such I see a clear descendence from the G.50 to the G.55 which would also explain why they still look alike.

tests to fit a DB engine on the G50 airframe proved unsuccessful

The prototype did manage to get 580 km/h which was more than a 100 km/h faster than the original. Compare with the MC.202: about 85 km/h faster than the original MC.200.
And the G.52 would have been even faster with its more streamlined fuselage.

But this is the choice one has to make. The Bf 109 was also going to be replaced by the Me 209 or 309 but in the end they chose to stick with it"

Yet this was not because of the reasons you mentioned. Due to the stronger engine the Me 209 and 309 had better performance than the Bf 109, yet they weren't put into production. So it seems there are more factors than the one you mentioned.
The Me 209 and 309 were not going to be ready in time, so they didn't want to cut production and decided to skip this generation and continue with the Bf 109 until the jet fighter would appear.
Likewise, the Spitfire was going to be replaced in the early 40s but because of production reasons the Spitfire was developed further.
The Italians hardly built new planes during WW2 and preferred to continue production of outdated aircraft for the same reasons. They based their new planes on existing ones to save time and resources. For that reason, I believe the G.55 was related to the G.50 like the Spitfire 14 was related to the Spitfire 1.

Kris

[red admiral]

It's not my intention to downplay the Italian achievement in aeronautics but I cannot help but feel that the Italians were slowly losing ground in the field of technology. The Fiat V-12 was replaced by a coupled engine while the other countries managed to increase their power output by a single engine.

Fiat increased the power of the AS.5 from 1000hp to 1550hp giving the coupled engine 3100hp total. The AS.5 was small at 25L and could not give the required 2300hp itself so another solution was needed, i.e. the AS.6 coupling two engines.

What advancements in aeronautics in other countries are there? I can't think of (m)any that you haven't discounted for Italy?

The Ali D'Italia booklet on the Fiat G.55 by P. Vergnano and G. Alegi has the story of the G.55. It was not related to the G.50 but was a new design built around the Fiat A.38 V16 engine.