PYRO: C.205 climb performance

[Sorrow[S=A]]

I am unsure of what type of machine gun they used for the 7mm that you said were in the wings of the .202 but anything of that small a calibre in a plane I would have to assume is VERY high velocity round. hence the possibility that Italian pilots never complained because their smaller machine guns could tear right through the well armored spits and mustangs like a hot knife through butter?

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

[sparviero]

The fact that italian pilots never complain about the light armament (ok, let say didn't complain THAT MUCH... :-)) is also related to the fact that the 12,7mm Breda SAFAT gun was an excellent design. AFAIK the BREDA was really tough: the ammunition could be "double charged" so having more power and range and the bullets fired were really good (perforing / incendiary and perforing / exploding). This armament was, according to pilot's report, more than enough for fighters and double engined planes: when they started to face the B24 and B17, *than* the lack of more powerful armament started to be a real problem.
The BREDA SAFAT armament had two main disadvantages: the first related to the gun itself: due to the "supercharge" of the bullets, the combustion residues made the gun light jam. So it was unavoidly to fire only short burst: sometimes there was even forseen to let some free spaces in the bullet's chain to make the gun stop every few runs (the re-arming was pneumatic driven).
The second disadvantage was the placing in the cowling of the engine: while having less dispersion, the syncronizer (to fire throug the prop) lowered even more the rate of fire: moreover it was requested to hold the engine rpm constant while shoting and there were a precise rpm-range (min and max) where it was allowed to fire. The first condition was of course very difficult to hold and I don't think that pilots have even cared it a lot...


Ciao

Luigi "falco-" Pacetti
4ŕ Stormo Caccia

[juzz]

Browning .303 - 7.7x56R(11.3g) 1140rpm
745m/s 10.9kg
Breda-SAFAT - 7.7x56R(11.3g) 900rpm
730m/s 12.5kg

Browning .50M2 - 12.7x99(48.5g) 750rpm
870m/s 30kg
Breda-SAFAT - 12.7x81SR(36.7g) 700rpm
760m/s 29kg
Ho-103(Type 1) - 12.7x81SR(38g) 900rpm
796m/s 22kg  
 

The Italian Breda-SAFAT was the main weapon of Italian fighters in the early years of the war, and most (CR.42, G.50, Re.2000, and C.200) carried only two. Unfortunately for them, it was not a very good gun. It fired a Vickers 12.7 x 81SR cartridge, the same as adopted by the Japanese Army for the Ho-103, but the Japanese gun was lighter and fired faster. It was reliable and accurate, however, and its ammunition was considered very effective.

I figure if they loaded alot of incendiaries in the 7.7mm, they could just get in close, punch holes in the enemy plane with the 12.7mm, and set fire to them with the 7.7mm.  

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

[v-twin]

As to the BREDA: as sparviero said the 12.7 cartridges were double charged, allowing the MG to fire high penetrations shells.
AFAIK, the fighters were usually fitted with the three kinds of ammunition together, perforing, perforing/incediary and perforing/explosive, all double charged.
So the armament was very effective against fighter and medium bombers (say Beaufighter, Blenheim ecc).
When Regia Aeronautica was sent in France to join the Luftwaffe in the BoB, the Germans asked for a proove of the effectiveness of th BREDAs: a mechanic placed a gasoline tank behind an armour plate 80 meters away in front of a CR42 biplane, fired a burst with the CR42's BREDA and the tank was immediatly set on fire.
The Germans were satisfied with this "show".
With no doubt all other MGs could do it, this only to say that the BREDA were as good as the MG used by the other belligerents.
The big problem was rather the fact that the italian pilots couldn't shot at all: they were teached to fire only from the 6 of the opponent and to keep the opponent in the gunsight, they had no clue of deflection shot and so on, so it was very difficult for them to shot down something.
Compare this with the 400 hours shoot-training of the US pilots...
This was noticed by the Germans, wich had to teach the italian pilots how to shoot as they  were sent in Germany for the training on the 109s.

v-twin
4°Stormo Caccia

[gatt]

Now I understand why I cant hit anything ...  

Anyway, I cant fly the "Veltro" with the new limited WEP. She's a real dog. I'll fly the Wuerger and the G-10. I'll shut up *till* the next FM fine tuning ...  

[Pyro]

The DB 605A developed 1475 HP at 2800 rpm at 1.42 ata, its takeoff and emergency power rating.  I'm pretty sure that it was rated for 10 minutes at that setting, but I'll have to check.  The German engines didn't exactly have WEP as we think of it on the American planes.  The U.S. planes typically had a further detent on the throttle that was usually held with a breakaway wire.  This setting was only for emergency use.  The Germans didn't call theirs WEP, they called it "Takeoff and Emergency Power" and used it as such.  The U.S. used military power for takeoff power.

When examing the performance of the 205, also keep in mind the difference in weight between armament packages.  Packing on those 20mm's in place of the 7.6mm's doesn't come for free.

Interesting about the armament.  I don't know the accuracy of the statement, but I've seen more than one account state that the wing mounted 7.6mm's were often removed to save weight because they were considered ineffective.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[juzz]

Hey hey! It's more *magic* Macchi movement measuring! Yes, more *magic* Macchi movement measuring! I said, more *magic* Macchi movement measuring! Hehehe...anyway -  

Using WEP() After 7'15" the C.205 was at 23,500ft. The wing guns were the 2x7.7mm though. WEP cut out after 5'20" and around 18k IIRC. The rest of the climb was made at 100% throttle.

Would you be happy with a 10 minute WEP setting for the C.205 gatt? Try to think of it as idiot-proofing the engine so people don't overheat it  

[gatt]

As far as our C.205V is concerned actually I keep in mind the 400-500lb difference between the G-2 and the cannon armed C.205V. But IMHO it cant explain the big difference between their performance up to 19,680ft: 3,800ft/min average (for the real G-2) and 2,714ft/min average (for our AH C.205).

For the real C.205 I have evidence of 4'45" to 16,400ft (3,452ft/min average, that is) and about 7'15" to 23,000ft (3,172ft/min average). Nothing about the time to 6,000mt (19,680ft) .... damnit  

I find these figures *very* reasonable, especially for a DB605 engined fighter with a exceptionally streamlined fuselage and a good wing (see my comparison between the 109E-3 and the C.202; they had weight difference as well).

I'm sure that the 205 will be a fine fighter to drive after the FM fine tuning (I mean the bouncing nose and general instability).
Max speeds look fine, both on the deck and at altitude, I like it. *But* poor climb rate can seriously affect her combat effectiveness.

[gatt]

Oh MY!, the WWW (WEP-Word-War) with Juzz    

Serously, IMHO, since every comparison should be made with other a/c, the gap still persists. I cant imagine the rate of climb of the 109G-2 with the AH WEP.

I mean, the AH G-10, La-5FN, FW ... have a more than reasonable climb rate *without* WEP, this is right IMHO.

Juzz, yes, if we can get WEP=100 power in the future all will be fine ...  

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-13-1999).]

[juzz]

Yes, the bouncing nose - The C.205 really doesn't like flying in straight lines at the moment, it wobbles all over the place like a dingy in a rough sea