General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Ed Nash's Military Matters
comments

Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Ed Nash's Military Matters" channel.

What the Caproni Vizzola (not Vizolla) fighters excelled in was climb speed. A quite important feature (since fighters really don't use simple horizontal speed. They continually exchange altitude for speed and vice-versa). The climb time to 6000m among the first generation monoplane Italian fighters was 603 seconds, for the F.5, 623 seconds for the Reggiane 2000, 629 seconds for the Macchi 200 and 703 seconds for the FIAT G.50. The Isotta Fraschini Zeta RC25/60 was not intended to produce 1500hp, but 1250hp at 6000m, that's practically the same power than a DB605a at that altitude. After the first flight, of the F.6Z Ing. Fabrizi (Vizzola's chief designer) was pretty confident the residual cooling problems of the engine could be solved with a simple modification of the annular extractor at the end of the engine cowling, but the armistice blocked any evolution.
8
You can thank the Regia Aeronautica decisions about engines. Traditionally Italian firms designed inline engines (both FIAT and Isotta Fraschini had built over 1000hp inline commercial aerial engines already in the '20s) but at the beginning of the '30s (exactly when DB, Rolls Royce and Allison started the development of the most famous inlines of WWII) the Regia decided to switch to radials, forcing the designers to work on a field they didn't know. They however managed to close the gap, and in 1939 was homologated the radial 1500hp Piaggio P.XII. A world class engine at the time. But at that point the Regia already decided to switch back to inlines, but they didn't want traditional V, only inverted V, so cutting off existing Isotta Fraschini engines and forcing FIAT to redesign the 1400hp A.38. That's why Alfa Romeo had to acquire the licence to produce the DB601.
7
In reality it was an evolution of the Bf109 (that the Japanese had the occasion to examine), but the Japanese used many solutions that were also used on Macchi fighters (large landing gear, NACA five-digit airfoil, positioning of the weapons, positioning of the fuel tanks...) so it was visually much more similar to a Macchi C.202 than to a BF109. An example of convergent evolution. However, some particular (IE the quite complex positioning of the four fuel tanks, that's not obvious, and was identical in the Ki-61 and Macchi C.202) seems to indicate the Japanese had access to the Italian design as well.
6
Simply to have tigher cowlings. If you see the engines, the blisters follow the bulges of the valve covers.
5
For some obscure reason of any fighter engine usually is stated the emergency or takeoff power. For the FIAT A.74 is stated the normal power. The emergency power of the A.74 was 960hp, and it was pretty conservative, since the manual stated it could be mantained for half an hour. The difference between the 960hp of a FIAT A.74 and the 1200hp of a P&W R-1830 (that powered the first line of American fighters still in 1942), was that the P&W engines used 100 octane fuel. The Axis one had to use 87 octane one. More than engines, it was the Regia Aeronautica decisions about engines that "let their WWII aircraft down". Traditionally Italian firms designed inline engines (both FIAT and Isotta Fraschini had built over 1000hp commercial aerial engines already in the '20s) but at the beginning of the '30s (exactly when DB, Rolls Royce and Allison started the development of the most famous inlines of WWII) the Regia decided to switch to radials, forcing the designers to work on a field they didn't know. They however managed to close the gap, and in 1939 was homologated the radial 1500hp Piaggio P.XII. A world class engine at the time. But at that point the Regia already decided to switch back to inlines, but they didn't want traditional V, only inverted V, so cutting off existing Isotta Fraschini engines and forcing FIAT to redesign the 1400hp A.38. That's why Alfa Romeo had to acquire the licence to produce the DB601.
4
@michaeltelson9798 Yet the same Gnome-Rohne wasn't able to evolve their design in something comparable to the P.XII (and later P.XV and P.XXII). The Italian tecnichans DID catch up in radial technology.
4
@smellysam The Asso XI / L.121 was a pretty conventional design, and very apt for large scale production. It ended up being used mainly in the CANT 501 Flying boat because the Regia Aeronautica, during the '30s, considered radial engines to be better suited for fighters. Only in november 1939 the recomendation switched to inline engines (with the effect that a powerful radial like the 1500hp Piaggio P.XV, homologated the same month, never ended up on fighters), but it recommended also to use inverted V engines (for better visibility of the pilot) so excluding the Asso XI again.
4
You can thank the Regia Aeronautica decisions about engines. Traditionally Italian firms designed inline engines (both FIAT and Isotta Fraschini had built over 1000hp inline commercial aerial engines already in the '20s) but at the beginning of the '30s (exactly when DB, Rolls Royce and Allison started the development of the most famous inlines of WWII) the Regia decided to switch to radials, forcing the designers to work on a field they didn't know. They however managed to close the gap, and in 1939 was homologated the radial 1500hp Piaggio P.XII. A world class engine at the time. But at that point the Regia already decided to switch back to inlines, but they didn't want traditional V, only inverted V, so cutting off existing Isotta Fraschini engines and forcing FIAT to redesign the 1400hp A.38. That's why Alfa Romeo had to acquire the licence to produce the DB601.
3
@chriscarbaugh3936 They required a lot of man hours to build compared to the 109 and stop. EVERY WWII fighter required a lot of man hours to build compared to the 109. Man-hours required to build Italian fighters were perfectly comparable to British and American fighters. IE, the FIAT G.55, costed 15.000 man/hours at the start of production, May 1943. It was planned to reduce it to 9000 man/hours with the 1000 sample and at a production rate of 200 samples/month. In Jan 1943, a P-47 costed 22.100 man/hours. In Jan 1944, 9.100 man/hours (at a production rate of over 500 samples/month). In Jan 1943, a P-38 costed 14.800 man/hours (less than the P-47, because it had been in production for more time). In Jan 1944, 9.600 man/hours.
3
No, the pilot could always bail out (by jumping ahead of the main wing's edge), but the test pilot almost always prefers an emergency landing. Also there was a minimum height to bail out.
2
It doesn't work like that. Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
2
@alexvokes Only in the case the aircraft is ascending vertically, and it would be prety weird to leave an aircraft that has the power to do that. In the most likely scenario, whit the aircraft descending nose down, the pilot is even safer. Mind also that often wounded pilots opened the cockpit , released the seatbelt and baield out by rolling the aircraft. Also in this case the pilot would be safe in the SS.4
2
@alexvokes Yeah, I admit it can be dangerous in case of fistfight on the runway or chasing pidgeons, but you have to admit those are not common occurrences...
2
@TheAnxiousAardvark The two radiators are of about the same dimensions of the two of the Bf109E.
2
They did. Piaggio P.XII approved for aeronautical use in 1939 (and fitted the same year on the Cant Z. 1018 Leone prototype), rated at 1500hp. It was top class for that year. Practically no engine using 87 octane fuel could match its performances. At 3500m (critical altitude) it was even a bit more powerful than the 100 octane fuel burning BMW 801D. The 97 octane fuel burning version, the Piaggio P.XV, was rated at 1700hp. When comparing Allied and Axis engines, you have to mind that the Allies had high octane fuel available, up to 100/130 octane (that stand for "100 octane fuel that performs like 130 octane"). That way it was easy to enhance the power just changing the settings of the compressor. IE, no RR Merlin version ever obtained more than 1100 hp on 87 octane fuel. Axis had 97 octane fuel at best, and not much of it. So, if they wanted more power, they had to manufacture new, bigger and heavier engines, that required new, bigger and heavier fuselages.
2
The Vigna di Valle museum of the Air Force, it's even free.
2
The pilot simply bails out ahead of the leading edge of the wing (or by overturning the aircraft with the cockpit open) and, since he's moving at the same speed of the aircraft, he had fallen many meters before the propeller passes over him. Despite looking impressive, it's actually less dangerous than bailing out of a P38.
2
@andrewstrongman305 You can see any parachute jump from the side of a plane. For when the tail of the plane passes over the diver, he's FAR below it. https://youtu.be/MaFP8x2JArU?t=19 In the SS4 the pilot doesn't "crawl from the cockpit to the wing". He doesn't touch the wing at all. The cockpit is already far ahead of the wing, and the pilot jumps ahead of the wing. Problem solved. Bailing form a conventional fighter IS more dangerous. There the pilot bails from the trailing edge of the wing, so he had to crawl over the wing, it's subject to the drag for longer time before leaving the plane, and it's closer to the tailplane. That's why they were sometimes killed from it.
2
@brentdallyn8459 They "mostly" worked. They worked all the times when the aircraft didn't explode or caught fire. And the second contingency had been pretty common. Also, when your engine catches fire, it's better to have it behind you than ahead of you.
2
Only tht this came out four years before the Ascender.
2
Every twin multi-engined italian aircraft had counter-rotating engines.
2
Infact after this incident the Regia Aeronautica started requesting TWO prototypes for any proposed new aircraft, to avoid an incident to one to completely stop the program. One of the prototypes of Reggiane Re.2001 had a very similar incident, but it ended up being a good and appreciated fighter.
2
Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes. As for rear visibility, the early Spits had the mirror.
2
@Simon_Nonymous For the pilot to be dragged above the wing from where the cockpit is, he should be made of feathers. You can see in any WWII parachute jump footage than the paratrooper is several meters below the exit door before being dragged one meter behind it.
2
I never understood why, while for every other engine of WWII is given the EMERGENCY output, for the Fiat A.74 is always given the MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS output. The EMERGENCY output of the Fiat A.74 was 960 HP, and it could keep it for a pretty long time, half an hour (while, IE, the DB601 could keep the emergency power for five minutes).
2
Nowadays single engines are favored. More than enhancing the possibilities of coming back after an engine failure, twin engines are considered more to double the chances of a catastrofic engine failure.
1
No. Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
1
@baystgrp You can see any video of a parachute jump. WWII or later. They fall several meters before being drag a single meter behind the jump door. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA8A3sv7hx8
1
Those are BMW and Mercedes.
1
The M61 takes a shitload of internal space. In reality the Crusader III had the same dedicated space for guns than the Crusader. It could have mounted its quadruple 20mm Colt MK12. They had simply not been mounted on the prototypes. Those were pretty poor guns also. Almost all the foreign F8 customers replaced them with a couple of DEFA or ADEN 30mm cannons. That would have been the ideal setup for the Crusader III also.
1
@SheepInACart The DB601 of this aircraft was the DB601Aa (licence built by Alfa Romeo), 1175 PS at takeoff and 1050 PS at 4100m. The DB605 would have been the DB605A (licence built by FIAT), 1475 PS at trakeoff and 1375 PS at 5700m. So with a quite clear power and altitude advantage, since the critical altitude of the DB 605A was 1700m higher. Also the Ro.58 prototype didn't even had two new engines. Since licence produced DB601 engines were desperately needed for sigle engined fighters, the Regia gave to IMAM two used DB601, retired from first line for major overhaul, on the condition that IMAM would have reconditioned them by itself.
1
@sharizabel2582 It's a kind of "survivor bias". Nowadays single engines are preferred because, more than giving the aircraft a chance to come back after an engine failure, it seems that twin engines tend to double the chances of catastrofic failures.
1
The Piaggio P.XV was already a very good 1700hp engine. The only advantage of the P.XXII was that it would have provided that power using standard 87 octane fuel, while the P.XV needed 97 octane.
1
I never understood why, while for every other engine of WWII is given the EMERGENCY output, for the Fiat A.74 is always given the MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS output. The EMERGENCY output of the Fiat A.74 was 960 HP.
1
The two side radiators are of about the same size than the underwing radiators of the Bf109e or the Reggiane Re.2001.
1
No. The most powerful Italian production engine of the war had been the Piaggio P. XV, rated at 1700 hp. That was a 97 octane fuel burning version of the Piaggio P.XII, that was rated at 1500 hp with 87 octane fuel, that was still more powerful than the licence produced DB 605. When comparing Allied and Axis engines, you have to mind that the Allies had high octane fuel available, up to 100/130 octane (that stand for "100 octane fuel that performs like 130 octane"). That way it was easy to enhance the power just changing the settings of the compressor. IE, no RR Merlin version ever obtained more than 1100 hp on 87 octane fuel. Axis had 97 octane fuel at best, and not much of it. So, if they wanted more power, they had to manufacture new and bigger engines, that required new and bigger fuselages.
1
There was also the Regia Aeronautica conception to use "small engines for fighters" instead of "powerful engines for fighters" (the RAF almost made the same mistake with the Peregrine). The Piaggio P.XII was available in 1939, but was considered a "bomber's engine". The P.XII and P.XV had the same diameter of a Bristol Centaurus. So, If a Sea Fury could do 740km/h with 2480hp, it could do at least 645km/h with a P.XV and 625km/h with a P.XII. Not bad for 1943 and 1941 respectively.
1
Better to not tell what "cacca" means in Italian. Even a not small engine like the RR Griffon seems ridicolusly small compared to that fuselage, but that's understandable, since it was originally made for a massive radial.
1
@sheeplord4976 It's more a joke than else. At that time two J79 were like "infinite power", and the performances were not superior to aircrafts that had half that thrust. But it was only a question of weight and dimensions. The F-14 had overall worse performances with more thrust, and it was not considered a brick.
1
Both the BF109 and the Spitfire had the fuel tank behind the pilot. Better having the engine stopping the bullets and then glide to the ground than explode.
1
Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
1
@fredweller1086 Are you that seem to know much more than the historians and engineers. Infact, to school who designed the SS.4, you have to be ho, so much more prepared than them. Unfortunately, you seem to have overlooked the fact that, bot the XP-55 and the DO 335 had the cockpit placed much further back than on the SS.4. so the pilot bailing out was supposed to slip over the wing like in a conventional aircaft. IN THAT CASE, the propeller was too close. Maybe historians and engineers are less idiot than you believe. You can see in any parachute jump, in WWII and later, than the jumper is several meters below the exit door before being dragged a single meter behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA8A3sv7hx8
1
@fredweller1086 You are very very confused. The cockpit placement is relevant in leaving the aricraft by jumping in front of the main wing, so leaving the aicraft at its same speed, or having to slip over the wing, so loosing speed and approaching the propeller at the same time. Your false equivalency is nonsensical. Unfortunately it seems that understanding physics is not for all.
1
@fredweller1086 One that thinks humans bailing out of an aircraft are dragged behind like sheet of papers shouldn't talk of "math". "jumping forward" Is just an invention of you. Probably something your brain came up with, not being capable of understand the real terms of the question. "magic" is what you want to replace physics with.
1
@fredweller1086 And, when you read "jumping in front of the main wing" your brain translates "jumping forward". To your brain those are the same words. Because obviously you didn't even notice the cockpit of the SS.4 being already well ahead of the main wing, so the pilot has not to "jump forward" to pass in front of it. Or, having seen it, you are unable to understand it, infact, in your magic world "the cockpit placement is not relevant". As already said, unfortunately understanding physics is not for all. Nor is understanding written texts.
1
Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. It was way more dangerous to bail out of a P-38, but the technique of slip along the wing and pass under the tailplane worked anyway.
1
@scootergeorge9576 With a P-38 there space between the wing and the horizontal stabilizer is much tigher for the pilot to pass. Your argument fails.
1
Mind that the subsonic aircraft speed is bound to the cube root law. To double the speed you need eight times the power. The difference in speed between having a 960hp Isotta Fraschini Asso XI and a 1075 hp DB601 would have been 10 miles an hour at best.
1
Licence produced DB601 engines were desperately needed for sigle engined fighters. That's why the Regia Aeronautica never shown much interest in the Ro.58. The Ro.58 prototype didn't even had two new engines. The Regia gave to IMAM two used DB601, retired from first line for major overhaul, on the condition that IMAM would have reconditioned them by itself.
1
Italians produced 1000 hp radials since the mid '30s (1000 hp Piaggio P.XI and 1030 hp Fiat A.80. Also the 960 hp Fiat A.74 and the 950 hp Alfa Romeo 128 were close). In 1939 had been omologated the 1500 hp Piaggio P.XII and the 1600 hp Alfa Romeo 135 (the second never reached a sufficeint reliability, but the first one had probably been the best radial that used standard 87 octane fuel of the war). In 1941 had been homologated the 1700hp Piaggio P.XV (97 octane fuelled version of the P.XII).
1
@paoloviti6156 "modification" in VERY broad terms, since it had double the row and more than double the power. "Hence" means nothing when the engines are so different. The reliability problems were on the first engines produced. Those of well known engines like the BMW 801 or the P&W R2800 lasted for longer before being ironed out. It has to be taken into account that, due to the different productive capability, the "first engines that gave problems" (a common occurrence in WWII era) were an higher percentage of the total production for the Italians, even if they were numerically fewer. The TBO of Italian licenced DB engines was of 60 hours. Packard Merlins rarely lasted 100 hours (and, due to the different mission profiles, most of those hours were at military/emergency power for Italian engines and at cruise speed for Packard Merlins). The P&W R-2800 started service with an expected life of 25 hours (then the 5 cylinders in top rear position had to be replaced without even checking them, while, for the DBs, at the overhaul the cylinders were checked and rebored only if needed). Only some thousands engines later it became of several hundreds hours, then of thousands. The difference between the outstanding P&W R-2800 and the unreliable Alfa Romeo 135 was that the US could afford to put in service an engine that required to toss 5 cylinders every 25 hours of functioning. The RR Merlin had nominally a 240 hours TBO but according to Rolls-Royce, if 30% of engines were reaching overhaul life and, no single cause made-up more than 30% of rejections, then it was time for an increase of maximum engine life.That means that 70% of the RR Merlins didn't even reach TBO, and that was late in the war when, again, much of the time the engine was at cruise speed.
1
It was DB601 powered, and there were no counter-rotating DB601.
1
Italy had better engines than the Jumo 210.
1
Also the Japanese used the FIAT BR.20 bombers in 1938-1939. The Japs had several complains about the aircrafts (mostly range and defensive armament), but, curiously, none about the FIAT A.80 engines, that instead the Italians often considered problematic.
1
@HootOwl513 To be killed by the tailplanes was possible but not normal. Marseille did only because his aircraft was on his back and diving. In the same situation the prop of the SS.4 would be dangerous, so what's the difference? The blow-away prop was needed on the X-55 because in that case the cockpit was placed further back, and the pilot was supposed to slip on the wing, like in a conventional aircraft.
1
Look at where the cockpit is. The pilot leaves the aircraft by jumping AHEAD of the main wing, and, when he jumps, he's going forward at the same speed of the aircraft and falling at gravity acceleration. For when he has slowed down enough his forward speed for the prop to pass over him, he's already several dozens meters below the aircraft. To say that the prop is going to kill him is like saying that who jumps out of a conventional aircraft is normally killed by the tailplanes.
1
This was an heavy twin seater. Also, maximum speed on paper was not the same on the sky. IE, there's an anecdote about a group pf P51 escorting one of Mosquito in a bombing mission over Germany. Once the bombing was done, the bombers greeted the Americans, speeded up, and left the P51 dragging behind. On paper the P51 was way faster than the Mosquito. In reality, the Mosquito could keep its max. speed MUCH longer.
1