Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: gatt on December 11, 1999, 01:49:00 PM
-
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 ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-12-1999).]
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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).]
-
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 (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).]
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif) Did fighters ever carry those drop tanks? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-11-1999).]
-
Ok, call it climb-rate and not FM. But I'm note sure that changing the climb-rate will not affect the FM ... hmmmmm
-
Juzz: one problem, can't keep WEP on while climbing for more than 5 minutes..
-
We gotta stop editing our posts, I'm totally confused now! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif)
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Dammit Fishu, did you read everything I said? Grrrrrr! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-11-1999).]
-
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
-
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?
-
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 .... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-12-1999).]
-
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
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)All's well that ends well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Well, except the C.205 needs more climb (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) 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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-12-1999).]
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sorrow,
what kind of 7,7mm are you talking about?
-
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.
-
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
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-12-1999).]
-
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
-
Now I understand why I cant hit anything ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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 ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
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
-
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(:P) 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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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.
-
Oh MY!, the WWW (WEP-Word-War) with Juzz (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
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 ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-13-1999).]
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)