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

  1. Behind the engine there are the receivers of the guns and the magazines of the ammos, Bf109s cockpits were placed about as far back (just a little less, but it was "paid" with the bulges and less ammos). Really the inverted V layout of the engine, with the low placed propeller, gave a better forward view in respect of conventional engined models (and both had a better forward view in respect to radial engined models anyway).
    2
  2. You have to see it from the right angle. From the deck of the HMS Liverpool, just before the torpedo hit it, it was a thing of beauty. http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-11578/ship_photos/town_class/liverpool/sm_79.jpg However, the CANT Z.1007 really had a more "flowing" design
    2
  3. What question? "WHY is the 3rd world literally knocking down our door and invading our borders in droves by the MILLIONS every year?" Do you think it happens only to US? They don't want to go to EU, or Australia, Or Japan? People from low average income countries want to go to higher average income countries. It has little to do with healtcare. Now, since YOU did not answer yet: so you are saying that US healtcare is great cause guys from the third world consider it better than theirs?
    2
  4.  @martijn9568  They could. Simply the Germans gave importnce to the fact that the Italian fighters could't carry bombs the way they did (central bomb in single ventral attachment). It's true that every Reggiane 2005 had the ventral 1000 kg hardpoint (while the Bf109 had just 250 kg), but the ones listed were the impressions of pilots that tested the aircrafts for half a day. They simply could not have known that.
    2
  5. It was not. Only the name sounds British. The aerial torpedo version was developed from the A100/450/5 MAS "light torpedo". Actually the developement of the aerial torpedo version in the '30s was partially funded by the Germans themself.
    2
  6. It's quite evident that you know nothing about this aircraft's design (BTW, It's Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf, and to talk of a mixture between their designs, given their differences, it's quite laughable already).
    2
  7. The opinions of German test pilots that tested the aircrafts for half a day are not "the thruth".
    2
  8. They were pretty similar, but the mounting on the Italian aircrafts was better than that on the Bf109g. On the Bf109 they were kind of an afterthought and needed the "bulges" to carry 600 rounds. In Italian aircrafts the internal magazines carried 700 rounds and there were internal tanks to recover the spent brass.
    2
  9. "generational shift" was not a point. Strike fighters remained subsonic for decades after the introduction of the G91. See the Douglas A-4, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, AMX... Even the Super Etendard, introduced 1978, is not supersonic at low altitude.
    2
  10. All the DB (and licence copies) engined fighters had fuel injection. One of the recognised advantages of the G.55 and Re.2005 was that, thanks to the bigger wings, they had better performances and handling at high altitude in respect of the Bf.109.
    2
  11. Kurt Tank, that tested it, considered it the best Axis' fighter in 1943.
    2
  12. Even the Allied intelligence deemed Italian aerial torpedos to be of superior quality than the German ones, and correctly esteemed that the Germans acquired them (Intelligence Bulletin, January 1943). Infact the aerial torpedoes the Germans used the most was the F5W. "W" stand for "Whitehead", it was infact the Italian Whitehead 170/450/5,46
    2
  13. Actually the Piaggio P.XII compared favourably with the BMW 801 A, B and C (the versions that used 87 octane fuel).
    1
  14. IE? What better allied aircraft they had to copy in early 1943?
    1
  15.  @watchthetriple8224  LOL! In spring 1943 the Allies still had the P-40 in first line use. In it's first operational sortie (two aircrafts had been assigned to the 51° Stormo for operational evaluation) A single G.55 shot down two of them.
    1
  16.  Maxwell Smart  They didn't actually.
    1
  17. Propeller. VDM were constant speed electrically actuated German propellers. Piaggio were constant speed mechanically actuated Italian propellers.
    1
  18. Strike fighters remained subsonic for decades after the introduction of the G91. See the Douglas A-4, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, AMX, SU-25... Even the Super Etendard, introduced 1978, is not supersonic at low altitude.
    1
  19.  @fantabuloussnuffaluffagus  And they are recalled as successful strike... Err... no. No aircraft is supersonic while flying following the ground.
    1
  20.  @fantabuloussnuffaluffagus  Yeah, really. Supersonic flight is little more than "flying in a straight line" and afterburning in a straight line while in full view of enemy radars is not usually considered a safe mission profile. The Thud was an humongous and very expensive aircraft used mostly for deep strike, not close support (also because, due to it's dimensions, it was quite an easy target for anti-air cannons), and whose speed, in the end, didn't prove extremely useful, since it had been shot down even by Mig 17, and SA missiles were already Mach 3.5 capable at the time of its introduction. 334 aircrafts, out of 883 built, lost to enemy actions seems quite the record for a US combat aircraft. Especially thinking that the enemy was Vietnam.
    1
  21. The FW190's forward visibility was abysmal (the Germans selected the weak undercarriage Bf109 as the fighter for the carrier Graf Zeppelin because, with the FW109, landing would have been practically blind) but it had probably the better rear visibility of them all. With the "universal" italian cockpit you could see the tail of the aircraft, with the BF109 cockpit you couldn't, so rear visibility was better on Italian planes. However, on the BF109 the single fuel tank was behind the pilot. In Italian fighters at least part of the fuel was between the engine and the pilot, so the cockpit was placed further back in the fuselage (In the same position than in the Spitfire, but the Spit had the additional problem of the standard V engine). That's why forward visibility was a little better on the Bf109.
    1
  22. 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.
    1
  23. Fiat G.55, three 20mm cannons.
    1
  24. To compare the build time of the Italian fighters with that of late-war Bf.109, like it's always done, it's simply misleading. No oter WWII fighter, not even other German fighters like the FW-190, took so little time to be assembled. That's due both to the different industrial structure (a Bf.109 built in Italy would have required much more man-hours to be assembled, due to the more labour-intensive industrial structure) and due to many "shortcuts" that had made to make the Bf.109 easy to make (some of them even not so safe, see IE the single fuel tank put in the worst location possible). Spitfires were industrially made, but to build one took 16.000 man-hours on average.
    1
  25. The G55 carried in air more guns, more ammos and more fuel (in a safer placement) in respect to the Bf109g.
    1
  26. Actually the Fiat RA.1050 RC.58 "Tifone" engine specs were identical to the DB605A.
    1
  27. Thje false equivalence I see the most is comparing late war Allied designs to early Axis designs. Like, IE, the P51D, that shown up only for few monts at the end of the war, compared to designs as early as 1941.
    1
  28. They were licence produced. Were the US engines so inferior that they had to use British RR engines?
    1
  29. No. They were thinking to buy G.55 fuselages, and install DB603 engines in them.
    1
  30.  @2serveand2protect  You are welcome. That's how things went in the Axis. Every piece of German equipment used by the Italians, and vice-versa, until the armistice, had been paid.
    1
  31. They did. In Italian reports the Finnish G50 were poorly mantained and the engines were set to dangerous settings.
    1
  32. The practice of bending the plates instead of riveting them speeded up the production of the Bf109, but made it more difficult to repair.
    1
  33.  @maximumoccupancy1208  No. Absolutely not. The Macchi fighters had NEVER been designed to be made of wood. Wing ribs and a trellis structure (very similar to that of the Spitfire BTW) that's completely opposite to what you do with wood, and it's exclusively proper of metallic structures. Fuselage had a monocoque structure, that's how they are still made today.
    1
  34. The G91 could, and did, operate fromm grass runways, like a WWII fighter.
    1
  35. The FW190's forward visibility was abysmal (the Germans selected the weak undercarriage Bf109 as the fighter for the carrier Graf Zeppelin because, with the FW190, landing would have been practically blind) but it had probably the better rear visibility of them all. With the "universal" italian cockpit you could see the tail of the aircraft, with the BF109 cockpit you couldn't, so rear visibility was better on Italian planes. However, on the BF109 the single fuel tank was behind the pilot. In Italian fighters at least part of the fuel was between the engine and the pilot, so the cockpit was placed further back in the fuselage (In the same position than in the Spitfire, but the Spit had the additional problem of the standard V engine). That's why forward visibility was a little better on the Bf109.
    1
  36. Yeah, a single sample of Re.2006 was assembled, but never equipped with the engine, and so it never flew. That too survived the war (it was transferred at Taliedo in time to escape the bombardment of the Officine Reggiane), but dismantled shortly after.
    1
  37. The Germans had an exceptional engine (the DB603) and practically no use for it. Italian fuselages would have solved this problem. Unfortunately in 1943 they were completely concentrated on production numbers. that's why, in mid 1944, their fighters still had the performances of 1941.
    1
  38. Yes, they did. The captured planes were tested at Reichlin. some report was lost at the end of the war, others survived.
    1
  39. 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 Macchi 202-205 is normally indicated as an incredibly complex aircraft to assemble, but 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.
    1
  40. There was a problem of spare parts, since the factory that made them was in the North. To the shame of the Allies, the Germans generally treated the Italian pilots far better than the Allies did. Italian fighter pilots of the RSI (the fascist puppet state) used in combat only "5 Series" fighters and, when they were too worn out, they were equipped by the Germans with brand new Bf 109K. The cobelligerant used the fighter aircrafts they flew to the South with (often "intermediate series" Macchi C.202 and Reggiane Re.2001, a generation behind the "5 Series") and, when they were too worn out, they were equipped by the Allies with outdated and overused P39 Airacobra (previously of the 332nd Fighter Group) and third hand Spitfire V tropicalized version, previously used by the British in N.Africa and then passed to the Yugoslavs.
    1
  41. Simply 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).
    1
  42. Infact strike aircrafts remained subsonic for decades after the introdiction of the G91, and mostly still are. See the Douglas A-4, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair II, AMX, SU-25... Even the Super Etendard, introduced 1978, is not supersonic at low altitude. People often fails to realize that even a bisonic aircraft is bisonic only at high altitude in a straight line. It's not even supersonic when it flies at low altitude, following the ground.
    1
  43. especially if it sees you first.
    1
  44. There had never been shortage of alluminium in Italy in WWII, nor real shortage of copper. The canopies were made of cellulose acetate (the material is still used for safety goggles), apart for the small frontal reinforced glass, again, not hard to obtain. Steel was in short supply, but in a completely different scale. It was in short supply for the thousands of tons required for naval constructions, not the few hundreds kg that entered in a fighter. The real shortage had been Alfa Romeo's ability to manufacture the DB601 engine. In its best year, 1942, alfa Romeo manufactured 1466 RA.1000 RC.44, 122 for month. And those should have covered bot the production of new aircrafts and the replacement of worn-out engines. Both Macchi and Reggiane (especially Reggiane) were producing at reduced pace due to that. In 1943, FIAT manufactured 2772 RA.1050 RC.58, 231 for month, in far worse conditions. There would have been enough of them for a decent production of 5 series fighters but, due to the armistice, much of them ended up equipping German aircrafts. Whatever the look is, the G.55 carried more guns, ammo and fuel than the BF109g, with better performances at high altitude.
    1
  45.  @giorgiotoso1039  The first samples of a bomber crashing? What a surprise. The B26 crashed so frequently to originate the expression "one a day in Tampa Bay", and they were not even the first ones. But there were much more B26. Quality is not the problem. Quantity is. As said, the canopies of Italian fighters, apart for the frontal reinforced glass, were made of cellulose acetate. Cellulose acetate is still used for safety goggles. It's stable and durable. Glass was not used, apart for the frontal armoured one, it was too heavy, and shattered. As said, Fiat in 1943, despite the armistice, manufactured doubles the engines of Alfa Romeo in 1942. New mines of chromium, vanadium, manganese and molybdenum had been opened in Italy between 1942 and 1943? Obviously the alloys were not a problem in the quantities required for the engines.
    1
  46. The Bf109 was PARTICULARLY adapted for ease of mass production. The Germans cut many corners to ensure that. The G.55, the easier ot the three Italian, was still easier to build than the Spitfire (whose wing was very complex to make), and probably a bit more than the contemporary US fighters. Probably it was in the same league than the FW190.
    1
  47. Err... no. The FIAT RA.1050 RC.58 Specs were identical to that of the DB605A. Actually Italians evolved the specs of the Gnome et Rhone K14 (Piaggio P.XI) and of the Bristol Jupiter (Alfa Romeo from 125 to 129) well above the originals.
    1
  48.  @lanselithgow5865  Measured power. It's not like there were not test benches in Italy. They were homologated for use on aircrafts like everywere else. It's funny how someone can think that a test pilot that tested a prototype for half a day has a more reliable way to measure the power of the engine it has into the airframe than the manufacturer that did it and the buyer that purchased it.
    1
  49. Italians licence-produced both the DB-601 and the DB-605.
    1
  50. Please... The Mig-17 had the same low level max speed than the G91 WHEN AFTERBURNING. That means that, at best, gaining speed by diving, a Mig-17 had a single strafing passage to try shooting down a G91 before running out of fuel.
    1