Fiat G.55 vs. ___________

[Squeelig]

Italy left the field of combat in September of 1943. At that time, there were Fiat G.55's in service on the front lines, although the number was but a few.

In September of 1943, was there any fighter in service of any nation that was superior to the G.55 in a dogfight?

[Graham Boak]

Italy left the field of combat in September of 1943. At that time, there were Fiat G.55's in service on the front lines, although the number was but a few.

In September of 1943, was there any fighter in service of any nation that was superior to the G.55 in a dogfight?

Well, we could start with the Zero and the Oscar, continue with the Yak 9 and La.5, go on to the Spitfire Mk.5 or Mk.9, and add the Fw.190.

It does rather depend what you mean by a "dogfight", but this normally refers to a close-quarters attempt to outturn the opponent. I know of no reason to suppose that the G.55, nice aircraft though it was, was superior to these contemporaries in such close-quarters manoeuvring combat. Indeed, it would be in trouble trying to classically "dogfight" earlier Italian types such as the MC 200 and CR 42. If you extend the battle arena outside those parameters, to include high-energy tactics, then the Japanese and Russian types drop out as does the Mk.V Spit, but the P-51B, P-47 and Bf 109G would at least equal if not exceed the overall performance of the Fiat.

Such matters do rather tend to be subjective rather than objective, but if you rank contemporaries using parameters such as wing loading (low weight divided by wing area, low = good in turns) and power loading (power over weight, high = good in accelerations/climbs), max. speed (including variation with altitude) and climb rates, you can go some way towards a more objective judgement. If you can find a convincingly unbiased set of performance data for all types.

IMHO, the G.55 was a good fighter for its time, but not exceptional.

[Squeelig]

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

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

The tests began on February 20th. The German commission, not without a certain surprise, was very impressed by the Italian aircraft, the G55 in particular. In general, all the Serie 5's were very good at low altitudes, but the G55 was more than competitive with its German opponents also in terms of speed and climb rate at high altitudes while still maintaining superior handling characteristics. The definitive evaluation by the German commission was "excellent" for the G55, "good" for the Re2005 and "average" for the MC205. Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening to the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22nd voted to produce the G55 in Germany.

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

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

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

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

[Stig Jarlevik]

Dear Squeelig

Pls quote your sources. I doubt you were one of the staff that tested the G.55 :) , so for all our interest, please quote your source(s)

Cheers
Stig

[Squeelig]

I searched for it before I posted it and can't seem to find the link to where it was sourced from. I cut and pasted the above from the ww2aircraft.net forum where a reputable person had it in his post.

I think I may have the link on my computer at work. I seem to recall that it came from a site concerning Italian aircraft. I'll check and provide it if it is there.

Otherwise, you can take it or leave it as unsourced, unverifiable and unreliable information. I understand.

[Squeelig]

With a little searching, I found it. Click on "Serie 5 Fighters" Sources are provided under "References"

http://xoomer.alice.it/g55/G55his.htm

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thank You Squeelig

Cheers
Stig

[Nick Beale]

Italy left the field of combat in September of 1943.

Well actually, Italy didn't leave the field and nor did the G.55. The type fought on with the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana into August 1944: the Iº Gruppo Caccia still had 18 G.55 (9 serviceable) on 31 July.

As for its quality, there's this from the diary of Stab JG 77 (my translation):

"27.5.44 Display for the Luftflotte. Macchi a good plane against fighters, FIAT G.55 a tired ship. Despite that, Macchis are running out and the G.55 will continue to be built!"

[veltro]

Also, if I may add my opinion, this "urge" to determine if a fighter was better or "the best" has little sense. The Fiat G.55 probably - in the right hands - was a good fighter , but certainly not an overall best.

It was built for medium to high quote fighting (see its large wing) but when it entered combat (and I mean serious combat in average quantities, namely in the ANR) it had to dogfight against P-51s, P-47s and P-38s and it was in the hands of pilots who had almost no training in "energy" fighting and which had always been taught that "manoeuvrability" was the key...

This could be a good advice flying a fighter like the Macchi C.205, certainly not for something like the Fiat G.55.

For a certain period, 1° Gruppo Caccia ANR even flew mixed formations of C.205s and G.55s and, although the mix could have been interesting if proper tactics had been developed, none was, so that both were used with the same tasks, a clearly improper use...

So the question will never be answered, because to determine the qualities of a fighter, one has to consider the first and foremost part of it: its pilot, the training he was supplied and his experience. Without taking into consideration this element, the rest is only (when available) a series of tables, datas and numbers which cannot be the key to a solution.

All the above, IMHO, of course...

[Squeelig]

Veltro said, "...certainly not an overall best."

Oberst Petersen said, "the best fighter in the Axis"

It appears that none other than Oberst Petersen himself would disagree with you based on the results of actual tests that were carried out.

To quote Stig Jarlevik, "I doubt you were one of the staff that tested the G.55"

I hope you are not offended if I take Oberst Petersen's word over yours, rendered from the keyboard on your desk.

Nick, that is interesting. There is wide agreement that the Fiat G.55 was a better fighter than the Macchi Mc-205. Could you have mis-translated the word "tired"? Italy ceased to be an axis combatant country in September of 1943. The co-belligerant forces were just that, forces in parts of the country occupied by Germany. Italy was no longer an axis country. Yes, combat by the co-belligerant forces continued.

[yogybär]

If the quotation from Peters is taken from the report 182/43 from 27.02.43, then it is unexact.

In that report, on page 3 it is stated, that

"
The Fiat G55 is on the same level as the german fighters concerning high-alt-climbrate. She is superior in weapons and range, but slower (25km/h at date), where one has to take into account that the italian DB605 provides 100PS less.
As the engineers stated that the DB603 can be installed without bigger modifications, the G55 gets very interesting because it would be superior in every aspect to all german fighters if equipped with DB603.
"

So, just another case of "what-if". And even with DB605 it doesn't play any decisive role, taken into account the little numbers in service.

[Nick Beale]

Veltro said, "...certainly not an overall best."

Nick, that is interesting. There is wide agreement that the Fiat G.55 was a better fighter than the Macchi Mc-205. Could you have mis-translated the word "tired"? Italy ceased to be an axis combatant country in September of 1943. The co-belligerant forces were just that, forces in parts of the country occupied by Germany. Italy was no longer an axis country. Yes, combat by the co-belligerant forces continued.

I think I translated the German "ein müder Schiff" correctly.

As for "Italy ceased to be a combatant country": (1) those were not the words used in the original post; (2) are you saying that the Repubblica Sociale Italiana did not imagine itself a legitimate national government, irrespective of its actual power?

[Ruy Horta]

Small comment from the moderator.

But what is it with these new members writing almost aggressively when they start on this forum?!

Also what is the purpose of the original post. Like the Pe-2 post we have what a question, a proposition or a challenge?

Have you made up your mind or do you want an open discussion?

You did some research online, so what's the next step?

If you like to argue about a/c performance you are better off at a flight sim forum.

[Graham Boak]

Wasn't Oberst Petersen a maritime specialist? Or was that a different Petersen? Not a name otherwise associated with fighter development, to the limits of my knowledge. He did have a command in the Rechlin structure, IIRC, so it probably is the same man.

Once we get to comparisons with DB603 we are in dream land. Each German manufacturer was desperate to get his hands on the DB603, and each believed that his fighter/bomber/zerstorer/aufklarer would be better than those currently in service, if only it had access to the supply of this more powerful engine. Probably correctly, but the engine was not fit for mass production and never reached more than a small fraction of the numbers desired. Had the engine been available in greater numbers there were many German types that would have had higher priorities than the Fiat.

Yes, a G.55 with the DB603 probably could have become a better aircraft than those in service in 1943 (though bear in mind that foreseen improvements often fail to materialise in hard engineering). However, this is hardly surprising, as the aircraft could not have become available in numbers before mid 1944 at the earliest, and has to be compared with aircraft available then or on offer in the same timescale. Particularly the Bf.109G-10 and K, the Me.209 and several options in the Fw.190/Ta.152 development line.

[veltro]

To quote Stig Jarlevik, "I doubt you were one of the staff that tested the G.55"

I hope you are not offended if I take Oberst Petersen's word over yours, rendered from the keyboard on your desk. To be offended? Certainly not. Surprised by your attitude, maybe... amused, perhaphs. I'll take again a discussion with you in twenty years from now hoping that you will spend them researching and maybe writing something interesting.

Until then, enjoy your stay.

[Squeelig]

Nick, the exact words were, "Italy left the field of combat in September of 1943."

I was referring to Italy as a combatant country. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

"are you saying that the Repubblica Sociale Italiana did not imagine itself a legitimate national government, irrespective of its actual power?"

It was not the legitimate Italian government. It was not the government that declared war on Britian and the USA. King Vittorio Emanuele III called Mussolini to his palace and stripped the dictator of his power. Upon leaving the palace, Mussolini was arrested. Mussolini was replaced by Badoglio who quickly signed an armistice with the allies. The co-belligerant force was a puppet regime installed by Hitler. I think you know that.

yogybär, do you know where I can get a hold of that report? Interesting that there appears to be a contradiction. I think it would be a good read and it appears to be highly relevant to this issue.

[Nick Beale]

Nick, the exact words were, "Italy left the field of combat in September of 1943."

It was not the legitimate Italian government ... The co-belligerant force was a puppet regime installed by Hitler. I think you know that.

The point is not what I know but how the RSI saw itself. Many rebel groups in history have firmly believed themselves to be the "real" government irrespective of their actual power.

Returning to aviation for a moment ... There are plenty of 1944 documents in the Bundesarchiv at Freiburg that refer to the ANR, the Hungarian MKHL and others as «verbündete Luftwaffe» which I read as "allied air force", i.e. the air force of a separate country. If you've read "Air War Italy 1944-45" (Beale, D'Amico & Valentini: Airlife 1996) you'll have seen how the Germans tried to incorporate the ANR into the Luftwaffe as an "Italian Air Legion" and failed.

[Squeelig]

Nick, have you read any of the documents (German) concerning replacement of the Bf-109 with the G.56? I wish I had them to scan and post.

Has anyone else seen them?

[Squeelig]

Someone asked who Oberst Petersen was. Oberst Edgar Petersen was the chief officer of the Luftwaffe's experimental aircraft testing facility at Rechlin.

[Nick Beale]

Nick, have you read any of the documents (German) concerning replacement of the Bf-109 with the G.56? I wish I had them to scan and post.

Has anyone else seen them?

I think you mean replacement of the G.55 with the Bf 109 don't you, not the other way around?

This was research that I did with Ferdinando D'Amico and Gabriele Valentini in 1988-1993 (and they had worked on the ANR much earlier than that. I can't remember now what we had on that specific question but I think my friends are more likely to have the relevant material than me.

I remember orders (from September 1944, I think) we found at Freiburg to reconstitute the Italian Gruppi Caccia with Bf 109s. IIRC they didn't mention the G.55, just the Bf 109s. Anyone who has looked through the files of Luftwaffe Führungsstab documents for the months concerned will have seen this material - but they may not have been interested in it.

The Stab JG 77 KTB for 25 July 1944 (also at Freiburg) says:

"From 25 July I./JG77 and I./JG4 are to be withdrawn from operations. The aircraft will be handed over to II./JG77 and II/Ital. Jagdgruppe."

[Graham Boak]

Sqeelig: it was me. Thanks for the description, I can confirm that it was the maritime expert, who was visiting Italy to consult on the establishment of a trials base there. my source is the MCP book on German experimental establishments. It does not say whether or not he had a fighter expert with him.

[Squeelig]

Nick said, "I think you mean replacement of the G.55 with the Bf 109 don't you, not the other way around?"

No. I have seen German manufacturing/production reports on the costs of replacing the production of the Bf-109 with the G.56. In the field, I have no doubt that Bf-109's replaced G.55's for a variety of reasons like supplies of spare parts (production related issues for G.55 parts), familiarity of mechanics with the Bf-109, and so on. Italian production (the only production there was) just wasn't sufficient as were the Italian production problems for everything.

Graham said, "I can confirm that it was the maritime expert, who was visiting Italy to consult on the establishment of a trials base there."

??? This is rather odd because I can confirm that it was indeed Edgar Petersen as his signature was all over the documents which had a Rechlin letterhead. Can you please elaborate on this other Oberst Edgar Petersen, a maritime expert, who was setting up fighter aircraft trials for the Luftwaffe? If it was the same man, then apparently aeronautical engineering was not outside of Edgar Petersens expertise.

[Ruy Horta]

The Petersen report of 27-2 is praiseful of the G.55, puts it on a more or less equal footing to the G-4 and A-5, but certainly not the best axis fighter.

There is an interest in a DB 603 powered version, but for reasons already explained it doesn't really make the G.55 superior.

Why introduce a new type when you can continue mass producing types of equal or superior performance (both Bf 109 and Fw190) with equally promising development potential (especially the Fw 190)?

Back to your original post.

Yes, there were plenty of a/c with equal performance (or better).

It's even stated in that / a Petersen report (Bericht über Jagdflugzeug-Vergleigsfliegen bei der ital. E-Stelle in Guidonia 27-2-1943).

[Andrew Arthy]

Hi,

Here is something I came across while going through some documents. The source is an Air Historical Branch Translation from the Australian War Memorial.

AWM 54 423/4/103 Part 63, Report of a Conference held by Reichsmarschall Goering on 22 February 1943.

Milch: ... Perhaps Petersen can inform us on this question and also about the comparison flights in Italy.

Petersen: ... There will be a further report about comparison flights with all the Italian types ... Against this, the Italian fighter is equal to the German fighter, especially as regards rate of climb. They are also superior in armament. The Fiat 55 aircraft has four cannon and a performance similar to that of the German aircraft, although powered by an engine that
is a hundred horsepower less.

Peltz: Were they series or experimental aircraft?

Petersen: There is an experimental series of ten aircraft, but these trials concerned new aircraft that had been 'titivated up'.

Goering: I'm glad that the Italians at long last have produced a respectable fighter. And I can only say; let them build them to capacity.

Milch: We also should do something in that sphere. It is indeed a disgrace to our own industry.

Goering: The Italians have never built inferior aircraft and have always been competent in the construction of aircraft and engines. I remember the Fiat and Alfa. They have also held the world speed record. The ability of the Italian aircraft industry has always been of the best. They are unable to mass produce however, and there we must help them. We can consider ourselves lucky, if they have produced a good fighter aircraft. It's one in the eye for our own people anyway.

Petersen: We must attend to this at once. The airframe of the Fiat G 55 can accommodate the DB 603 engine, while the Me 109 is unable to do so any longer. The G 55 with the DB 603 would be an ideal fighter aircraft.

Galland: From our experience the Italians have always forgotten something in their fighter aircraft, either the armour or guns.

Goering: It's to be hoped however that for the purposes of these comparison flights, they've been informed about this, otherwise it's a waste of time.

Petersen: The fighter specialist has flown the aircraft. With the exception of the radio it carried complete equipment, and fuel for one and a half hours, whereas we carried fuel for only one hour. We can't ignore the fact that the Italian aircraft has a performance equal to that of our latest types.

Milch: Then please obtain three Italian aircraft at once, and fly them here, in Rechlin. I would have the DB 603 installed in these aircraft that we have been discussing this morning. It would mean a considerable advance towards the Me 209. I can't imagine the FW 190 with the BMW 801 engine as it is today being sufficient for the next two and half years [in the event it had to be!!! - AA] Especially as we don't know what the English and the Americans are building.

...

Goering: I'm also in favour of the proposal. However I consider it more than likely that the English will effect an improvement with their own types. I would like to ask what is our best means of improving our fighters other than the jet propulsion business?
Milch: The Me 209 and especially its engine. ...

...

Goering: If the Italian aircraft is good, then we won't deny the fact, and we'll mass produce them here. We don't want any false pride.

Milch: Thereby we could advance a year.

Galland: And it would also do our designers good.

Goering: On top of that perhaps we could include the Italian pilots as well, in our complete programme. Anyway I'm very pleased to hear this about the Italians.

---- END OF QUOTE



Cheers,
Andrew A.

"You'll never silence the voice of the voiceless" - Rage Against The Machine

[Squeelig]

Petersen: We must attend to this at once. The airframe of the Fiat G 55 can accommodate the DB 603 engine, while the Me 109 is unable to do so any longer. The G 55 with the DB 603 would be an ideal fighter aircraft.

This is consistent with the documentation I have seen as well. Except that I saw a reference to the climb rate at high altitude being better.

Do you have any other gems concerning the flight trials or the performance of the Series 5 fighters (Macchi Mc.205 - Reggiane Re.2005 - Fiat G.55/56)

Thanks

[Graham Boak]

It is the same Petersen: he was with KG40 before being appointed to the head of KdE, Rechlin and the other experimental estabishments. Note the reference in the quoted documents above to the existence of a fighter expert who had actually flown the G.55.

It is very interesting to see that the Luftwaffe High Command actually took this idea seriously, however briefly, and the G.56 is known to have been tested several months later. The key perhaps lies in the comment that the airframe was capable of taking the DB603 without major modification, unlike the more compact Bf.109. Has anyone seen reports of the testing of the G.56 - to this (ex)aerodynamicist it seems obvious that fitting a longer heavier engine would affect the stability and handling, requiring a increase in the tail moment arm - bigger tail or fuselage extension (as on the Fw.190D). I don't think this is visible in the photos of the G.56? Not all promising designs achieve their designers' hopes.

However, think what the German industry could produce in the time it would take to clear production lines and set up for the G.56 (about a year?). A casual ruling from on high rather ignores the practical problems. German industry will not have been set up to the same production methods and tolerances as the Italian: time would have been needed to create new drawings, new tools, new jigs requiring manufacture and assembly. Consider how much production would have been lost in this interregnum. Add the failure of the DB603 to achieve its promise.

[Ruy Horta]

Taktisch – technische Gegenüberstellung.

Von den 4 Flugzeugen, die am Vergleich beteiligt waren, ist die Fiat G 55 in der Beurteilung so gut, dass eine taktisch – technische Gegenüberstellung erforderlich ist:
Die Vorteile der Fiat G 55 sind: Grössere Fläche, besseres Seitenverhältnis, geringere Flächenbelastung (175 kq pro qm). Vergleiche: Bf 109 G 4 = 195 kg pro qm und Fw 190 A 5 = 210 kg pro qm. Hierdurch erhält das Flugzeug bessere Eigenschaften, die sich auswirken in grössere Gipfelhöhe, bessere Kurvenwendigkeit und bessere Steigleistung in der Höhe. Letzteres erscheint nicht ganz zutreffend, da die Leistungsbelastung höher ist als bei der Bf 109 G 4.

Ein weiterer Vorteil ist der Waffeneinbau. Die z.Zt. vorhandene Bewaffnung von 4 12,7 mm MG und 1 151/20 Kanone (200 Schuss),

die zentral in Rumpf angeordnet sind, haben auch einen ausreichenden Munitionsvorrat, je 360 Schuss. Die Bewaffnung der Bf 109 G 4 dagenen mit 1 151.20 Kanone und 2 7,9mm MG mit je 500 Schuss ist a;s viel zu gering zu bezeichnen. In der Weiterentwicklung sind 3 151/20 Kanonen und 2 12,7 mm MG vorgesehen Diese Bewaffnung ist sehr gut und wird erreicht, ohne dass die Fliegerische Eigenschaften und Leistungen so stark beeinträchtigt werden, wie es z.Zt. bei den deutschen Jagdflugzeugen durch Anbau der Rüstsätze der Fall ist.

Die Fliegerische Eigenschaften sind nicht so gut wie bei der Bf 109 G 4 und der Fw 190 A 5. Ein wesentlicher Nachteil der Fiat G 55 gegenüber den deutschen Jagdflugzeugen ist die Ungeeichnetheit für den Jaboeinsatz. Dieses darf nicht ausseracht gelassen werden, da an allen Fronten der Jaboeinsatz in den Vordergrund getreten ist.

Als Vorteil der Fiat G 55 erscheint, dass die Zelle für den Einbau des DB 603 sehr geeichnet ist. Damit tritt eine erhebliche Leistungssteigerung ein und der vorhandene Nachteil, dass sie in der Geschwindigkeit unterlegen ist (ca 25 km pro Stunde langsamer als Bf 109 G 4 and Fw 190 A 5, wird überholt. Es kommt hinzu, dass das Flugzeug zusätzlich eine 3 cm Kanone aufnimmt.


Zusammenfassend ist also festzustellen:

Die Fiat G 55 ist den deutschen Jägern ebenbürtig in der Steig- Höhenleistung, überlegen in der Bewaffnung und Reichweite, unterlegen in der Geschwindigkeit (z. Zt. 25 km/h), wobei zu berücksichtigen ist, dass der ital. DB 605 100 PS weniger leistet.

Da nach Angabe des Konstrukteurs, der DB 603 ohne wesentlichen Umbauen gezw. Änderungen einzubauen geht, gewinnt bereits unter Berücksichtigung der derzeitigen Leistungen das Flugzeug sehr an Interesse, da es mit dem DB 603 allen derseitigen Jägern in jeder Hinsicht ünterlegen wäre.


1.) Fiat G 55. Eingebauter Motor DB 605.

Luftschraube: VDM
Flächergröße: 21,11 qm
Fluggewicht: 3700 kg
Brennstoffvorrat: 625 l
Bewaffnung: 1x 151/20 Motorkanone mit 200 Schuß
4x 12,7mm im Rumpf gesteuert mit je 350 Schuß


Panzerung: 11 mm Panzer – Kopfschutz und gesamte Sitz aus Panzermaterial im gleicher Stärke.


4 Kraftstoffbehälter: gegen 12,7 mm

Flugzeug hat geteilte Flächen.

Beurteilung:

Querruderkräfte sind hoch. Die Ruderwirksamkeit könnte etwas besser sein. Rollwendigkeit etwas geringer als bei Bf 109 G. Flugzeug kurvt sehr gut und eng. In der Mittellage (Schießflug) ist das Flugzeug etwas unruhig und fahrthängig. Abkippmöglichkeit zu einer bestimmten Seite konnte nicht festgestellt werden. Das Abkippverhalten ähnert der Spitfire. Sicht bei Start mäßig. Im Flug nach vorn oben beschränkt – nach der Seite und nach hinten gut. Start und Landung sehr einfach.

Flugzeug ist in Serie

Für Jabo-Einsatz mit Rumpfaufhängung nicht verwendbar, da Bauchkühler und Fahrwerk nach innen einziehbar. Kühler is groß genug und für Tropeneinsatz vorgesehen.

[Squeelig]

Graham said, "However, think what the German industry could produce in the time it would take to clear production lines and set up for the G.56 (about a year?). A casual ruling from on high rather ignores the practical problems. German industry will not have been set up to the same production methods and tolerances as the Italian: time would have been needed to create new drawings, new tools, new jigs requiring manufacture and assembly."

Did you read post #3?

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

I have seen copies of some of the manufacturing/production reports and as you pointed out (and as pointed out in post #3 initially) the cost in man hours was unacceptably high.

[Graham Boak]

I accept the point about the greater production time, however my point above was the penalty/time taken to establish the design in production, rather than cost once in there.

The same or similar penalty would be true for any other new type, of course, which is why the preference was for modifications to established types. These could be brought on-stream with much less disruption. At some stage the penalty has to be paid, and it is no less true for the engine manufacturer than the airframe.

[Squeelig]

Graham, even if there was no penalty/time taken to establish the design in production, the production costs/time of 9,000 man hours for a G.55 would still have been unacceptably high compared to 5,000 man hours for a Bf-109. That's the point.