PYRO: C.205 climb performance

[gatt]

I have been researching C.205 climb performance data since the first version of AH. But it seems they are "more rare than a beer in a miners camp" (as DocDoom says).

Well, I found some books but above all one of the guys of 4th Stormo has talked to an italian WWII fighter pilot, Commander Vezzani. He piloted the C.205.

He said that the "Veltro" took about 7 minutes to climb to 7,000mt (22,960ft). That is 3,280ft/min (average). All books I have say something between 7' and 7'15" to 7,000mt.
 
The AcesHigh C.205, with 100% fuel, 160mph IAS climbspeed, no WEP, 20mm cannons, has an initial rate of climb of about 2,900ft/min and takes about 7'15" only to get to 6,000mt (19,680ft). Moreover he said that the C.205 had no WEP ....

So, can we hope to have our beloved C.205 FM fixed? And yes, even if it means we'll have no WEP ...    


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-12-1999).]

[juzz]

Gatt can you answer me this; what is up with the tiny wing and auxillary fuel tanks on the C.205? Are they correct? I'm finding I can climb at 100% power to 25k, then switch to the main tank to cruise around, leaving the plane a bit more maneouverable with empty wings I guess.    

Hey hey! Try a climb with WEP on - Unfortunately it cuts out after 5 minutes, but with it on you can see it's on the right track to get to 7000m in close-to-correct time.

OK - went back to AH 0.40 - 100% fuel, cannons and 160 IAS climbspeed, Timing from the moment I rolled, I got a time of 7.40 to 23k with WEP on all the way, initial climb rate was showing ~3500fpm.

I guess if they dump the WEP and give the Macchi WEP horsepower at 100%, then it should be fairly OK in performance. Of course then you would never have to worry about frying the engine either, hmmm...

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-11-1999).]

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-11-1999).]

[gatt]

She had four fuel tanks, a main 270lt in the fuselage, an 80lt one in the rear fuselage and two 40lt near the wing roots. All self sealing.
Some armed reconnaissance 205s were equipped with one central 180lt tank or two wing mounted 100/150lt tanks.

 http://members.xoom.com/iwai/mc205pic.html  

And no, I dont think that (unhistorical and limited) WEPPING is the right way to get the proper climb rate. Remember that the 205 has the *same* engine of the 109G-2 with a much better wing. Look, the 109E-3 and the C.202 (same 205 wing) had the *same* engine but the "Folgore" was fast like a 109F and climbed way better. very little is known about those beauties, 202 and 205 that is.

I'm very glad to know that prolly HTC will model the 202 as well. The first sim to model italian fighters ever. I'm sure PYRO will take a look at the 205 climb rate.


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-11-1999).]

[juzz]

You miss the point - the Macchi has no WEP according to your sources. By using the WEP power in AH, it comes closer to the climb performance it is supposed to have. So maybe the FM is OK, it's just that the 100%/WEP horsepower difference is throwing it off?

Ouch! With those fuel tank figures, I calculate the C.205 has an endurance of ~30 minutes at 100% power in AH.   Did fighters ever carry those drop tanks?  

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-11-1999).]

[gatt]

Ok, call it climb-rate and not FM. But I'm note sure that changing the climb-rate will not affect the FM ... hmmmmm

[Fishu]

Juzz: one problem, can't keep WEP on while climbing for more than 5 minutes..

[juzz]

We gotta stop editing our posts, I'm totally confused now!  

Got me thinking, imagine how quick the Macchi's would have gone if they filled that rear 80l tank with MW50!

The E-3 had a DB601Aa engine, IIRC - are you sure this is the engine in the C.202, or is it the more powerful DB601N (fited to Bf109E-4+ and F)? More importantly, the Bf109F had better performance than the (same engine) late E models through better aerodynamics.

So speculating that the C.205 should be better than a Bf109G-2 because the C.202 is better than the Bf109E-3 is a risky assumption. Not to say it wasn't though.  

Dammit Fishu, did you read everything I said? Grrrrrr!  

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-11-1999).]

[v-twin]

The Mc202 had the DB601A engine, but thanks above all to the better wings, the performances matched those of the Bf109F (the Mc202 had a max speed of 600km/h and climbed to 6000m in 5'55").
As to the WEP in the Mc205, AFAIK the plane was not fitted with; the engine could only be throttled between 0 and 100% and it weren't available things like MW50, GM1 or else.
So I think the correct climb rate should be obtained without using wep.

v-twin
4°Stormo Caccia

[juzz]

Argh! THATS MY POINT! With WEP on it comes close to the climb figures - BUT the C.205 didn't have WEP. Sooooooo..... if the AH C.205 WEP horsepower is made to be the 100% horsepower and the WEP ability removed, then the AH C.205 is pretty close to the real C.205 in climb(I think?).  

PS: what's this I hear about the Macchi having unequal-length wings?

[gatt]

The C.202 had a 1,174hp license built DB601Aa (Alfa Romeo RA 1000 RC41), not the newer DB601E. Exactly the same engine of the Bf109E-3. Top speed was 373mph at 18,400ft and time to 19,680ft was 5'55". These are *official* Macchi data. She did pretty well against Hurries, P40, and Spits over North Africa, Malta and Sicily.

The 109E-3 had a max speed of 345mph at about 15,000ft. Time to 19,680 was 7'06". Can you see what streamlining and a good wing can do?

The more powerful C.205 had the same fuselage and wing of the C.202. yes, she had unequal wing lenght to better counteract the strong Daimler-Benz engine torque.

I dont say that the C.205 must climb better than a G-2 (she weights some 350lb more). But certainly not like a dog! Now, 3,300ft/min should be her average climb rate to 20,000ft. Less than a 109G-2 as you can see .... I have only William Green's  figures here, but he reports 5'06" to 19,685ft for the G-2, 3,860ft/min that is (without GM-1).

And yes, the C.205 with the WEP=100% power is close to the real one; we are saying the same thing without understanding each other ... oh well, thats what BBS are up for ....  

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-12-1999).]

[v-twin]

Ok juzz, we need a 205 without WEP, but with the same engine power at 100% throttle as with wep.
Right?
Anyway, the climb rate IS 5'30", so it must be fixed.

v-twin
4°Stormo Caccia

[juzz]

 All's well that ends well Well, except the C.205 needs more climb   Just out of interest, I looked up some performance figures for the Ki-61-1b Hien, the other license-built DB engine fighter: The Kawasaki Ha-40(DB601Aa) engine produced 1175hp on takeoff. Max speed was 368mph at 15,945ft. Climb to 16,400ft in 5'31". Looks like the C.202 airframe was the best one of the lot.  

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-12-1999).]

[gatt]

Well,
to be honest I have to underline that the C.202 had only 2x7,7mm in the wings (and 2x12,7mm in the nose).
Probably with 2x12,7mm or 2x20mm her performance would have been not so good.

Whats interesting is that (AFAIK) no italian pilot ever complained about light armament against tuff fighters like the Hurry and the P40.

[Sorrow[S=A]]

With 7,7 mm high velocity rounds maybe the bullets tore through so well they never had too?

------------------
If your in range, so is the enemy.

[gatt]

Sorrow,

what kind of 7,7mm are you talking about?