Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Military Aviation History" channel.

  1. "The torpedo they used was of British design". Err... No. Whitehead Torpedo had a British name only, it was not a British design. Whitehead Torpedo means that it was made in the "Silurificio Whitehead" of Fiume ( Rijeka), a factory that was estabilished in 1875, when Fiume was in Austria-Hungary, using a torpedo design of Giovanni Lupis. The factory kept on designing original torpedos before and after it was passed to Italy at the end of WWI. Beside that, the torpedos the Italian used were indifferently Whitehead or SI (Silurificio Italiano "Italian Torpedo Factory", of Naples), whose torpedos were of different design than Whitehead, altough of similar performances. "They themself would not probably want to do it" But the same Germans used throughout the war (even in torpedo bombing operations in the Mediterranean, until spring 1943) the Heinkel He 111, another '30s design, that was inferior to the SM79 both in raw performances and ability to absorb punishment. Simply the Germans were trained to believe in the superiority of their technology, and so, for them, the Italian machines had to be inferior, cause they were Italian. Great review anyway! :D
    147
  2. How the tests had been performed. Five comparatives planned, four actually made. N.1: FW190 vs. Macchi C.205N (notice, the C.205N and the C.205V were two completely different aircrafts). An exchange between pilots, with col. Tondi on the Fw 190A-5 (n.1163), and Hptm Behrens on the Macchi 205N (MM.499). First climbing to 8,000 meters, then fighting (with change of positions); then descend to 6,000 meters with a speed and combat test; then fight at 2,000 meters. The Fw 190 climbs better than the C.205N because the Macchi can't use full power due to the too small radiator (an easy fix, but those were still prototypes), In mockup fight at 8000 they were rougly equal. At 6,000 meters the FW190 is faster, and this helps a lot, because when the Macchi is in a good position (starting at the back of the German), the '190 sprints away. The FW190 was faster in sustained dive too. N.2: FW190 vs. Fiat G55. G.55 piloted by Tondi (MM.492) against Hptm Behrens with the same '190. Same protocol. Faster takeoff for the G.55, similar initial climb, then the G.55 climbs better to 5,000 meters, and roughly equal to 8,000 meters. Dog-fight at 8000: the Fiat turns better, while the '190 is superior in roll (it was superior in roll to anything), although, at 8,000 meters, it was clearly lacking in power and lift. At 6,000 meters the '190 is 15km/h faster than the G55 (the FW190 had the max speed exactly at 6000m). N.3: FW190 vs. Reggiane 2005. Ten.col. Baylon with Reggiane 2005, Behrens with Fw 190. In this test the climb to 8,000 meters was omitted. In the climb to 6000m, they were equivalent although the Reggiane couldn't use full power due to the small radiator (same as above); 'equivalent' in dogfight at 6,000 and 2,000 meters; in the speed test at 6000m, the Fw 190 is slightly faster. N.4: Pilots' exchange Maj. Gasperi with the '109G, St. Ing. Beauvais, with the C.205V (MM.9288). The test had to be cancelled due to a problem to the hydraulic system of the Macchi's undercarriage. N.5. Bf109G vs. G.55. This is the only one that sees the '109G-4 (pilot, Beauvais) as protagonist, this time against Gasperi's G.55. Standard protocol apart from the omission of the test at 2,000 meters, being the Germans evidently more interested in the high altitude capabilities of these fighters. The G.55 is faster in the first 2,000 meters of ascent, but not by much; the '109 is faster up to 5,000 meters, then the G.55 took the lead again to 8000m, but the differences were small in all cases. In dogfight, the G.55 was considered 'a little better' at all altitudes, the '109 was 'a little faster' at 6000m, And finally the dive test. Both these two planes and the C.205V of the 'observer' Baylon participated in it: all three planes, proved to be equally fast. So the German interest was justified. The G.55 was easily on par with the best they had, and better at high altitude, despite carrying more guns, ammos and fuel. More. The FW190 required 100 octane C3 fuel, that the Germans had in short supply. The Italians and the Bf109 used more easily available B4, 87 octane, fuel. But the Bf109 fuselage was already stretched by the DB605 engine. It couldn't carry more weight. While, with his larger wings, to install the DB603 in the Fiat G55 was almost plug and play.
    22
  3. the Ambrosini Sagittario (an aerodynamic research aircraft that will led to the Sagittario II, briefly mentioned in this clip) was made in few weeks by stucking a Turbomeca Marboré turbojet into a S.7 propeller-driven, wooden-fuselage, trainer and giving it swept-wings and, by all accounts, it handled superbly. But Sergio Stefanutti, the designer, is what you can call an aerodynamic genius. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6c/c2/98/6cc29890c0b0e26b92d27546d8414164.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/64/e5/f2/64e5f22e4205123988a094b993af14aa.jpg
    18
  4. Good video! The G55 was the winner of the selection, but the C.205 was readily available (it was already in production infact) cause it was simply a C.202 with a "plug & play" DB605 engine in it, while the other two required time to start production, so there was no point in not producing it. For the Reggiane instead was easier to start producing the Re.2005 than retooling to produce the G.55, and the Re.2005 had been already selected to be the "second generation" fighter-bomber of the carrier Aquila after the Re.2001 (the Re.2005 could carry a torpedo from the start, thanks to the offset 1000kg hardpoint).
    17
  5. In WWII wooden construction was not really outdated. Wood was not less sturdy than light alloys for unit of weight (both as mechanical resistance and resistance to bullets), and fabric covered plywood allowed to create very smooth surfaces (no rivets). Many WWII fighters and bombers were at least partly made of wood. The main problem with wood was that wooden constructions were labour-intensive, and damages to wooden parts were more difficult to repair.
    14
  6.  @leonardociupi4177  Close support aircrafts rarely get the spotlight until the shit hits the fan, then everyone searches for them. An example is the A10, that was going ro be retired after a rather uneventful career, then 1991 happened and the thing became mythical.
    9
  7. It was much more dangerous to land a Bf109 (narrow and notoriously weak undercarriage).
    9
  8.  @WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs  In may 1944 (so more than a year after this test), when the Germans reached the peak of their manufacturing ability andf the Bf109g was more than a year old, to assemble a Bf109g in a German plant required 9200 hrs for 50 aircrafts per month. 6500 hours for 200 aircrafts per month, 3800 hrs for 500 aircrafts per month. In early 1943 the Bf109g required 6000hrs to be assembled, at best. The early G.55 required 15000 hrs, but in full scale production (that for Fiat would have been around 200 aircrafts per month), it would have required 9000 hrs. That made it an aircraft VERY SIMPLE to to manufacture, for WWII standards. Infact, the Bf109 had been PARTICULARLY adapted for mass-production, cutting many corners. For a Comparison, the Spitfire required from 13000 to 16000 hrs, depending on the variant. The P-38 required 14800 hrs in jan. 1943, 9600 hrs in jan. 1944. The P-47 required 22200 hrs in jan. 1943, 9100 hrs in jan. 1944. And all those aircrafts were manufactured in very large scale. The man-hours required to assemble a Macchi 202-205, determined contractually for the Breda plant, was of 18000 hours (22000 is an often repeated mistake) and the production was of around 100 aircrafts-month.
    9
  9. The decision to focus on production had been made earlier. Unfortunately that decision made so that, in early 1944, German fighters still had about the same performances they had in 1941 (even a minor evolution like the Bf109k over the "g" was delayed until summer 1944). German plants couldn't stop production to retool to manufacture newer models and so, to increasingly less trained pilots were given increasingly outdated aircrafts.
    8
  10. The man-hours required to assemble a Macchi 202-205, determined contractually for the Breda plant, was of 18000 hours (22000 is an often repeated mistake). The Spitfire varied during the war, up to 16000 hours, depending on the variant. Mind that all those figures varied due to the scale of production and the period. In may 1944 (so more than a year after this test), when the Germans reached the peak of their manufacturing ability, to assemble a Bf109g in a German plant required 9200 hrs for 50 aircrafts per month. 6500 hours for 200 aircrafts per month, 3800 hrs for 500 aircrafts per month. Italian fighters were manufactured in a smaller scale than the Germans or British ones. With Spitfire-like scale of production, a Macchi would have had comparable, or even lower required production times than a Spitfire.
    7
  11. Same engine, same propeller, same specifications for weapons load and no designer was idiot enough to design a narrow undercarriage for them. However, if you see the three-view of the Reggiane 2005 and of the P47 you'll notice how their wings and rudders are similar, because they both derives from the Seversky P35.
    6
  12. The ANR pilots used only "5 series" fighters (only a pair of Re.2005 actually) and Bf109g and k. The production of G.55 was officially stopped in september 1944, but it never completely ended (at the end of the war there were completed aircrafts in the FIAT plant. Simply, if they did not produced them, they had not other things to do). Obviously, for the Germans, it was easier to divert all the resources to the German plants, even at the cost to lose the manufacturing capability of FIAT than to spend resources to surveil another production line.
    6
  13. They didn't use much of German equipment actually. Between Italians and Germans there had been surprisingly few exchanges of war material and supplies during the war (first than sept. 1943). Nothing like the Allies after dec. 1941. Everyone fought with what they had in their own inventory.
    6
  14. Spot on. Add that the Re.2005 had been already selected as the replacement of the Re.2001 as embarked fighter-bomber on the carrier Aquila (since the Re. 2005 could carry a torpedo from the start).
    6
  15. In may 1944 (so more than a year after this test), when the Germans reached the peak of their manufacturing ability andf the Bf109g was more than a year old, to assemble a Bf109g in a German plant required 9200 hrs for 50 aircrafts per month. 6500 hours for 200 aircrafts per month, 3800 hrs for 500 aircrafts per month. In early 1943 the Bf109g required 6000hrs to be assembled, at best. The early G.55 required 15000 hrs, but in full scale production (that for Fiat would have been around 200 aircrafts per month), it would have required 9000 hrs. That made it an aircraft VERY SIMPLE to to manufacture, for WWII standards. Infact, the Bf109 had been PARTICULARLY adapted for mass-production, cutting many corners. For a Comparison, the Spitfire required from 13000 to 16000 hrs, depending on the variant. The P-38 required 14800 hrs in jan. 1943, 9600 hrs in jan. 1944. The P-47 required 22200 hrs in jan. 1943, 9100 hrs in jan. 1944. And all those aircrafts were manufactured in very large scale. The man-hours required to assemble a Macchi 202-205, determined contractually for the Breda plant, was of 18000 hours (22000 is an often repeated mistake) and the production was of around 100 aircrafts-month.
    6
  16.  @michelangelobuonarroti4958  It wasn't able to carry more torpedoes, All the He111 torpedo bombers were from the "H-4" to the H-6" variant, that, as said, was inferior to the SM79 both in raw performances and ability to absorb punishment.
    5
  17.  @ichbins8588  1) Those were statements of the German test pilots AFTER they tested the fighters. They don't represent the general attitude of the Germans towards Italian technology. 2) Even in that report, you can read the tester stating that Italian DB605 engines developed less power than the German ones. First of all, this is incorrect, they were rated at the same power. Then, a test pilot had no way to evaluate that (it's not like he has a dyno on his ass). Third, actually all the three aircrafts they tested in early 1943, used a German built DB605. FIAT begun the production of the licence built DB605 only later. That's an example of German attitude towards Italian technology. Sometimes they changed their minds AFTER having tried it, but it was "inferior until proven otherwise".
    5
  18.  @GG-ir1hw  There was nothing secret. Fiat licence built the F86, like later licence built the F104.
    5
  19. A good way to insult all the Allied pilots that had been shot down by those "targets".
    4
  20. The Luftwaffe version and the G91Y had two 30mm. Mind that the M61 Vulcan had not yet been introduced (it would be only in 1959) when the G91 was selected.
    4
  21. What's sad is that some Re.2001 survived the war, and a couple had been used for some year by the metereological service of the Aeronautica Militare, but after that they had been simply scrapped. At the time preservation was not a thing (even the race plane Macchi M39 currently on display had been recovered in a ditch years later).
    3
  22.  @ichbins8588  It's not a question of country. Countries are not setient beings. Is a question of attitude of the people. Germans tended to believe in the superiority of their technology. To consider themself to be technically more competent than others, to the point of being overconfident, a thing that costed them dearly several times during the war (see the result of the "beam war", or the overconfidence on Enigma). Other than evaluating foreign products higher than their own, or lower than their own, before testing, there is a third option. I'm sure you can find it yourself.
    3
  23.  @allangibson2408  Fiume was in Italy until the end of WWII. Then the Whitehead torpedo manufacturing transfered in Livorno.
    3
  24.  @allangibson2408  And I wrote that in the first post. Did you read it?
    3
  25. +josh hill And, in the best conditions, 1 for hour and 18 a day. The Soviets produced up to 562 Mig-3 for month in a single plant in 1941 and 40 Il-2 a day after having moved the factories to the Urals, but obviously it was far easier to manufacture single engined aircrafts. The Germans could deliver 300 Ju-88 a month, but the production of the parts was distributed throughout Germany, and the assembly was made in four different plants. It has to be said that the Willow Run plant had the same "problem" of the Germans. In between, since when the production line had been estabilished and when it was in full production, several modifications to the B24 design had been approved, but the plant could not stop production to retool, so the brand new aircrafts took off from Willow Run only to be transferred to four modification plants, where the aircrafts were modified to current specs.
    3
  26. No SM79 had been used in the Battle of Britain. The Corpo Aereo Italiano employed 75 Fiat BR20 and 5 Cant Z.1007b bombers, 50 Fiat CR.42 and 48 Fiat G.50 fighters. The CAI lost 11 BR.20 bombers (3 shot down in battle and 8 for flying incidents, mechanical failures or excessive damages) in 315 hours of flight with 54.320 kg of bombs dropped.
    3
  27. Yes. Ironically, the decision to stop it (the Alfa Romeo already obtained the production licence) made so that a wonderful engine had never been used to its full potential. The Germans couldn't stop the production of Bf109s to retool to produce a DB603 engined version (the Bf109 airframe was way too small) so the engine was used only in prototypes and not-so-successfull aircrafts.
    3
  28. Germans used the P40 tank until the last day of the war (IE two German manned P40 had been destroyed by the advancing British on the Pontebbana road on 25 may 1945). Another piece of Italian equipment normally used by Germans were aerial torpedos. The Luftwaffe F5W aerial torpedo, the most used by the Germans in WWII, was imported from Italy, it was the Italian Whitehead 170/450/5,46 torpedo.
    3
  29. They captured several. They even reengined one Spit. V with a DB605 engine.
    3
  30. The Lancaster was an heavy bomber, this is a medium one. The Vikers Wellington is a closer comparison.
    3
  31. The Italian Air Force decided that the three "five series" fighters had to be named after constellations, so the manufacturers gave them the names G.55 "Centauro" (centaur), Re.2005 "Sagittario" (Sagittarius) and C.205 "Veltro" (Canes Venatici, notice that the "real" C.205 should have been the C.205N "Orione", the C.205V was intended to be a stopgap, and the Canes Venatici are the companions of Orion the hunter).
    3
  32. Macchi fighters had the left wing longer, not Fiat ones. The solution was not "extremely costly" at all (the left and right wing are not interchangeable anyway). The solution was effective to counteract torque. Other WWII aircratfs were asymmetrical for the same reason (Spitfire, Mig-3...)
    3
  33.  @NeuKrofta  The Alfa Romeo Ra 1000 RC.41 was the DB601Aa (export version of the DB601) while the Fiat Ra 1050 RC.58 was the DB605A (standard version). Other changes had been introduced by the Italians. IE Italian engines used bronze bearings, while the Germans used ball bearings and, to use Piaggio propellers, that had a slightly larger diameter than the German VDM ones, the Italian engines had a slightly higer reduction ratio.
    3
  34. The roll and dive was more a Spifire thing, since their carburetors can't feed the engine in negative-G. German engines were injected, so they didn't need to roll.
    2
  35. The French air force was transitioning to a newer generation of aircraft (as had the Luftwaffe in 1937-38 and the RAF in 1938-39) . So the French were, having considerable difficulty in equipping squadrons with new aircrafts as well as maintaining operational ready rates. In early 1940, some French squadrons ran in-commission rates of barely 40 percent. In may 1940, the output had reached 619 combat aircraft per month produced in France (and 170 additional produced in the US on French orders). Therefore, France not only was outproducing Germany with modern combat aircrafts in this period but was the number 1 manufacturer in the world, unfortunately, it was too late. Of their 28 Fighter groups: 16 had the obsolete Ms406, of which 8 were re-equipping with the Dewotine D520 4 had Hawk 75s 8 had Bloch 151 and 152s Of those, on paper, only the D520 were able to compete with the Bf109e on equal terms. The Ms406 was manuverable but slow, the Curtiss Hawk was not much faster than the Ms406 and was underarmed and the Bloch 151, altough sturdy and well armed, was a very slow climber and had poor agility. However, even in those conditions the French campaign had been incredibly costly for the Luftwaffe. 28% of its front line strength, 1401 aircrafts, were destroyed 672 were damaged, making 36% of the Luftwaffe strength lost or damaged. Luftwaffe's casualties amounted to 6,653 men, including 4,417 highly trained aircrew. All losses that costed dearly in the subsequent Battle of Britain. The single day in which the Luftwaffe lost more aircrafts in the entire war had been 10 may 1940, with 308 aircrafts lost in 24 hours. At the time of Dunkirk the Luftwaffe was near to exhaustion and the Allied gained air superiority, but the situation on the field was so compromised that it made no difference.
    2
  36. Five comparatives planned, four actually made. N.1: FW190 vs. Macchi C.205N (notice, the C.205N and the C.205V were two completely different aircrafts). An exchange between pilots, with col. Tondi on the Fw 190A-5 (n.1163), and Hptm Behrens on the Macchi 205N (MM.499). First climbing to 8,000 meters, then fighting (with change of positions); then descend to 6,000 meters with a speed and combat test; then fight at 2,000 meters. The Fw 190 climbs better than the C.205N because the Macchi can't use full power due to the too small radiator (an easy fix, but those were still prototypes), In mockup fight at 8000 they were rougly equal. At 6,000 meters the FW190 is faster, and this helps a lot, because when the Macchi is in a good position (starting at the back of the German), the '190 sprints away. N.2: FW190 vs. Fiat G55. G.55 piloted by Tondi (MM.492) against Hptm Behrens with the same '190. Same protocol. Faster takeoff for the G.55, similar initial climb, then the G.55 climbs better to 5,000 meters, and roughly equal to 8,000 meters. Dog-fight at 8000: the Fiat turns better, while the '190 is superior in roll (it was superior in roll to anything), although, at 8,000 meters, it was clearly lacking in power and lift. At 6,000 meters the '190 is 15km/h faster than the G55 (the FW190 had the max speed exactly at 6000m). N.3: FW190 vs. Reggiane 2005. Ten.col. Baylon with Reggiane 2005, Behrens with Fw 190. In this test the climb to 8,000 meters was omitted. In the climb to 6000m, they were equivalent although the Reggiane couldn't use full power due to the small radiator (same as above); 'equivalent' in dogfight at 6,000 and 2,000 meters; in the speed test at 6000m, the Fw 190 is slightly faster. N.4: Pilots' exchange Maj. Gasperi with the '109G, St. Ing. Beauvais, with the C.205V (MM.9288). The test had to be cancelled due to a problem to the hydraulic system of the Macchi's undercarriage. N.5. Bf109G vs. G.55. This is the only one that sees the '109G-4 (pilot, Beauvais) as protagonist, this time against Gasperi's G.55. Standard protocol apart from the omission of the test at 2,000 meters, being the Germans evidently more interested in the high altitude capabilities of these fighters. The G.55 is faster in the first 2,000 meters of ascent, but not by much; the '109 is faster up to 5,000 meters, then the G.55 took the lead again to 8000m, but the differences were small in all cases. In dogfight, the G.55 was considered 'a little better' at all altitudes, the '109 was 'a little faster' at 6000m, And finally the dive test. Both these two planes and the C.205V of the 'observer' Baylon participated in it: all three planes, proved to be equally fast. So the German interest was justified. The G.55 was easily on par with the best they had, and better at high altitude, despite carrying more guns, ammos and fuel. More. The FW190 required 100 octane C3 fuel, that the Germans had in short supply. The Italians and the Bf109 used more easily available B4, 87 octane, fuel. But the Bf109 fuselage was already stretched by the DB605 engine. It couldn't carry more weight. While, with his larger wings, to install the DB603 in the Fiat G55 was almost plug and play.
    2
  37.  @royalanania3306  "The only italian ace recorded?" What about Gorrini? Martinoli? Some other tents of Italian aces? Visconti died at the end of the war, so it's difficult he could have stated something on the aircrafts after it. Gorrini, with a C.205 shot down a P-38 a B-24 and a B-17 in the same mission.
    2
  38.  @royalanania3306  Don't worry about it. Counting "half victories" for kills in cooperation, like for US pilots, Martinoli would be the leading italian ace. Gorrini is the leading one for individual kills, the leading "non-commissioned officer" (he was a Sergeant) and the leading one to survive the war (he died in 2014).
    2
  39.  @NeuKrofta  The P-40 was a poor diver in Europe, but a great one in respect to the Zero. The same big control surfaces that made the Zero a great dogfighter soon locked in dive due to compressibility. At high speed, small control surfaces are required.
    2
  40. The ones in the clip are the opinions of the German test pilots. Mind that some data is actually wrong. The Germans tested the aircrafts for only half a day, and didn't knew all the technical details.
    2
  41. Practically anyone that sat in a Bf109 Italians included, considered the cockpit cramped and the visibility abysmal, but the Germans were used to their aricrafts.
    2
  42. Yes. Some had been destroyed, but many are still available.
    2
  43.  @M4NAH1MEK0  The 960hp Isotta Fraschini Asso XI/L.121 was a good engine that could have easily been evolved further. Simply in 1939, when the Regia Aeronautica reverted the previous decision to rely on radials (that, apart for Isotta Fraschini, stopped the development of powerful inlines in Italy in the early '30s, exactly when the German, Brits and Americans begun the development of the DB601, Merlin and Allison V-1710) they specifically wanted inverted V engines. Infact Fiat had to invert the V of the A.38 engine they were developing. "bribes" are an easy explanation for everything, but not necessarily a correct one. The early '30s decision to rely on radials was absolutely not liked by the engine manufacturers. Until then they only made liquid cooled engines for the higher power outputs, so they had to acquire the licence from foreign manufacturers to make radials. Of the main aircraft designers, nor Castoldi (Macchi) nor Gabrielli (Fiat) liked radials. Only Longhi (Reggiane) was an advocate of radials, but in the early '30s he was not even in Italy.
    2
  44.  @M4NAH1MEK0  As said, the Asso was developed by Isotta Fraschini indipendently, since the Regia Aeronautica didn't requested it, so it's developement had not the priority the DB601 or the Merlin had. Despite this, it had a maximum continuous power of 900 hp at 4000m, that's more than the DB600, while the DB601A had a maximum continuous power of 950 hp at 4500m and an emergency power of 1020hp at 4000m for five minutes. The Isotta Fraschini was slightly less powerful, but not in a different league, they were comparable (due to the "cube root law" rule, the difference in performances of two aircrafts equipped with them would have been negligible, and infact the Dewotine D520, equipped with an engine with similar performances, was perfectly comparable with the early Spitfires and Bf109), and several improvements had been designed (L.122, Reggiane 102) but not developed, because they would have ben only slight improvements over the DB601Aa for which Alfa Romeo acquired the production licence in 1939 and, as said, the Regia Aeronautica specifically requested inverted V engines. Yeah, they DID acquire foreign licences for radial engines. The Piaggo P.XI was the Gnome et Rohne 14K Mistral Major. The Alfa Romeo from the 125 to the 128 were the Bristol Jupiter and Pegasus. The Fiat A.74 and A.80 were P&W R1535 and 1690, altough heavily modified. From that base had been developed the Piaggio P.XII and P.XV, the Alfa Romeo 135 and 136 and the Fiat A.82. Your view of the relationship between higly skilled designers and their employers is quite naif. Guys like Castoldi, Gabrielli, Longhi and Zapata could have worked everywere they wanted, in Italy or abroad, and were higly paid by the respective employers to not do so. Fiat simply manufactured what it had been requested to. It's not like they where happy to produce low cost biplanes instead of more complex, and remunerative, aircrafts. Fact is that the last purchaser of the Cr.42 had been the Luftwaffe (see "evidencies"). You talked about "evidences", but you didn't brought any.
    2
  45.  @M4NAH1MEK0  The Asso XI Rc.40 power chart, and the DB601A power chart, are easily available. If you are unable to find them, let me know. For the licence productions, see Bill Gunston: "World Encyclopedia od Aero Engines". That the CR.42's last purchaser had been the Luftwaffe (200 aircrafts ordered after the Italian armistice) is not exactly a secret either. The Luftwaffe was still operating the Cr.42 in 1945. I'm sorry that facts disturb you so much.
    2
  46. Not really. During the '30s, the developement of Italian radial engines was more or less on par with the British ones. A little later than the SM79 (first flight 1934, three 780hp Alfa Romeo 125) flew the Bristol Blenheim (first flight 1935, two 860 hp Bristol Mercury VIII). Contemporary to the Fiat BR20 (first flight 1936, two 1000 hp Fiat A80) was the Vickers Wellington (first flight 1936, two 1050 hp Bristol Pegasus). in 1939 flew for the first time the Brsitol Beaufighter (two 1,290 hp Bristol Hercules) and The Cant Z1018 (two 1500 hp Piaggio P.XII). The Piaggio P.XII, with 87 octane fuel, was on par with the BMW 801. They chose the three engined layout simply cause it had more power and possibilities to survive to engine failures for relatively little expense.
    2
  47. Two samples of G56 were manufactured (MM.536 and MM.537) and extensively tested. MM.537 even survived the war, but then was stripped of the DB603 engine and served as a test aircraft to adapt the airframe to various kind of available engines (the project ultimately led to the RR Merlin engined G59).
    2
  48. The G.55 carried more guns, ammos and fuel than the Bf109.
    2
  49. That's why the US built 2960 subsonic A-4 Skyhawk and kept them in service into the new millennium (25 years after the F100 was retired form service)?
    2
  50. Italian ANR pilots flew Bf109g-6/10/12/14 and Bf109k4. Generally they preferred the G.55 flying charateristics (and way safer take-off and landing), but appreciated the Bf109 equipment, and obviously the Bf109k4 was way more powerful.
    2