AHC: Wank the Regia Aeronautica

In alternate history scenarios, almost everything can work :)
From the technical point of wiev, the Wikipedia lists it's engine, the Asso XI RC.40, as capable for amazing 960 HP - some 130 HP more than historically it was the case?!


<snip>
This site http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/ambrosini_ss-4.php also states the HP of the SS.4 was 960. This site http://italianaircraftwwii.blogspot.com/2015/03/ambrosini-ss4.html says the SS.4 was considered for the role of dive-bomber.

Three view drawing.
ambrosini_ss-4.gif


The later sites says the propeller could be blown off with an explosive charge if the pilot needed to bail out. Sleek design and I wonder if it could've been converted into a jet?
 
Quote from Air Forces of the World by Green and Fricker
By 1933 the Regia Aeronautica possessed:
  • 37 squadrons of fighters, mostly with Fiat C.R.20bis and C.R.30 biplanes;
  • 34 squadrons of bombers, including Caprioni Ca.72s and Ca.101s;
  • 37 squadrons of reconnaissance and observation aircraft, such as the Romeo Ro 1s, Caprioni Ca.97s, and Fiat R.22s, and including several squadrons of floatplanes and flying-boats, such as the SIAI S.62bis and S.55M.
  • The first-line strength exceeded 1,200 aircraft, and Italy had emerged as a major air power.
  • The expansion of the Regia Aeronautica continued steadily, and the force played a decisive role when Italian forces invaded Ethiopia, on October 3, 1935.
Sources on the strength of the RAF around that time vary by a few aircraft, but the one I am reading from says the RAF on 31st March 1934 had 971 first-line aircraft and that includes 159 in the FAA, reducing the RAF proper to 812 aircraft or only two-thirds the strength of the Regia Aeronautica.
 

Archibald

Banned
Wow, that italian fighter looks incredibly like the XP-55 Ascender. With similar stability issues, unfortunately.
 
An idea about getting the DB-603 in RA service. Let's say that in this ATL the italians do not go radials only for their fighters in the mid thirties, and they look both in and out for suitable new generation V-12 engines. One of the most promising is the new DB-600 so they negociate with the germans in 1937-38 and get the DB-600 and 601 earlier, powering Fiat and Macchi fighters in 1940 armed with one 20mm Oerlikon cannon and two 12,7mm Breda-SAFAT MGs. Poor Hurricanes are totally outclassed- a period known as the Macchi scurge.

Meanwhile, sensing an oportunity, as the RLM is ignoring their new DB-603 project, DB propose this engine to be co-developed with the italians. And so it is that Isotta-Fraschini /Daimler-Benz DB-603 engines of 1500HP are used in several new Macchi, Fiat, Reggiane and Caproni prototypes. The stunning performance prompts the italians to give top priority to the project, and the first Fiat and Macchi DB-603 powered fighters enter service in late 1941. With a maximum speed of some 650kph and armed with one 20mm Oerlikon cannon (later replaced with a MG151) and four Breda-SAFAT 12,7mm MGs, these machines fly rings around the Spitfire-V, invariably slaughtering them and the non-descript clouds of Tomahawks, Kittyhawks, Hurricanes and Mustang MK1 whenever they are met; this is the second Macchi scurge, adding to the first FW-190 scurge. British Spitfire-IX and the first Griffon powered Spitfire-VII and US P-51B (single stage two speed 1750HP licence built Griffon engine) are able to equal the italian machine in 1942.

Meanwhile in Germany, with a full war on their hands and seeing the sparkling performace of the DB-603 powered italian fighters of 1940, top priority is given to this engine and the competing Jumo-213 to power the Luftwaffe. Among others, the introduction of the DB-603 powered FW-190C in late 1942 wrestles back air superiority in the second FW scurge...

In Italy, later the DB-603 engine power of the Macchi and Fiat machines is raised to 1750HP and even 2000HP with MW-50 boost (speed increasing to over 700kph) and armament increased to 3 cannons and 2 MGs. Only in 1944 the latest P-47, P-51D (V-1650-7/Merlin engine with MW boost) and Griffon powered P-51E and british Spitfire-XIV plus the new Tempest are able to face this machine on equal terms...

:p
 
Last edited:
This might count as an un-wank, but here goes...

AFAIK co-operation between the Regia Aeronautica and the Regia Marina was very poor, which mean that although the RA had a lot of naval co-operation aircraft the RM often didn't receive the sighting reports and vice versa so that the RA didn't turn up to support the RM.

Therefore instead of forming the RA from the Italian equivalents of the British RFC and RNAS just make the Italian RFA the Italian RAF, but keep sea and shore based naval aviation part of the Italian Royal Navy. That might help the Italians create a force of shore based torpedo bombers and even some aircraft carriers between the wars.
 
This site http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/ambrosini_ss-4.php also states the HP of the SS.4 was 960.

Isotta-Fraschini seem to being uprating the Asso XI - Asso RC40 "Spinto" (900 CV at 4000 m) was sold to Peru on the Ca.135 bombers already in early 1937. So by early 1939, 960 CV does not seem like a stretch.
There was alos the Asso XI inteded for endurance races, supposedly good for 987 CV; the related aircraft crashed during the record attempt.
(sorry to drag this around, after all I'm a tech-wannabe)

Hmm - the 'MC.201', with 900-960 HP Asso XI engine gives the RA a fighter comparable to the Bf 109E and Spitfire I; the real MC.202 was equal tot the 109F1/F2 or Spitfire V despite the lower engine power. Though the firepower is light.
 
Imo i wouldn't really put this ATL 960HP Asso fighter on par with Spitfire-I and Bf-109E, but certainly above the Hurricane, which is what the italians faced for the most in 1940 and 1941. Then the 202 is again superior to anything but Spitfire-V imo, finally the MC-205 is superior to anything but Spitfire-IX. And for the maximum wank MC-206 will be superior to anything but Spitfire-XIV, P-51B, P-47D but if we bring it forward in 1941 (!) through the rather fanciful scenario i suggested above, it will be at least equal to FW-190 and have the same effect against the contemporary Spitfire-V.
 
Last edited:
Imo i wouldn't really put this ATL 960HP Asso fighter on par with Spitfire-I and Bf-109E, but certainly above the Hurricane, which is what the italians faced for the most in 1940 and 1941....

The MC.202 was a much more refined aircraft than the Bf 109E - no tail struts, no angular cowling, the radiator layout was also probably better. No protruding cannon barrels (trade-off being lower firepower). Thus, with about the same engine as the 109E, of 1000-1100 HP at altitude, it was much faster, by 30-40 km/h. Hence my suggestion that, with 900-960 HP Asso engine, it will be comparable with 109E.
As for Spitfire - the MC.202 was much smaller, and despite the considerable power deficit, it was as fast as Spitfire V. With, hopefully, 550 km/h, the 'MC.201' would've been slightly slower than Spitfire I - unlike the OTL Italian fighters of 1940 to mid 41, that were much slower. And, more importantly, as fast as P-40, and considerably faster than Hurricane.
 
Fully agree about the Bf-109E, in fact as i have read in other places and came to see it myself, pretty much any other fighter with a DB-601 to be built in series other than the 109E was better and faster! The MC-202, G-50V, Ki-61 etc. Although i think now the Re-2001 was a bit slower, however i have read the prototype was as fast as the 109E but series production was slower because of the poor quality of italian built DB engine. The Bf-109F though finally became what the E could have been in 1938.

A cleaner Bf-109E with a smoother nose more like He-112 or He-100 (or Macchi, Ki-61 etc.) and with some small airframe refinement like no struts for the taiplane, revised wheel wells and other similar stuff would be easily 30kph faster, maybe even more. Still not quite an 109F, but getting closer to it. It's one of ATLs i like to ponder on. Those 30kph plus would make a big difference against the Spitfire.

Anyway, back to the Macchi, indeed 550 kph is the sort of figure i had in mind for the 960HP Asso "MC-201", the 109E has a better engine and the Spitfire-I is a tad faster, hence guesstimating that it would be slighty inferior to both, but still a tough opponent. Could also give it a bit more potent armament, like four 12,7mm Breda-SAFATs, or even just two SAFATs and two 7,7 mm MGs, still an improvement. Most everyone else were still using 7,7 to 7,9mm MGs in 1940-41.
 

Archibald

Banned
I red once that the issue with the 109 was that it was designed as the smallest possible airframe to make good use of the limited hp of the original Jumo engine. Hence when they tried to fit bigger engines the airframe hit its limits. 109E was formidable (in its days) but 109F and 109G started to suffer. No such limitations for the other DB601 machines. The italian fighters started with fatter radials, the Tony was designed around DB-601 from the drawing board.
 
This site http://www.aviastar.org/air/italy/ambrosini_ss-4.php also states the HP of the SS.4 was 960. This site http://italianaircraftwwii.blogspot.com/2015/03/ambrosini-ss4.html says the SS.4 was considered for the role of dive-bomber.

Three view drawing.
ambrosini_ss-4.gif


The later sites says the propeller could be blown off with an explosive charge if the pilot needed to bail out. Sleek design and I wonder if it could've been converted into a jet?

Canard based aircraft have their own sorts of problems, especially with the lack of any type of yaw stiffness taken from the rudders typically being placed on the wings in such a shape. If you note on both the XP-55 and the SS.4 (can't remember about the Shinden), the main engine block serves somewhat as a vertical stabilizer in addition to the one on each wing.

There is also the difficulty in rapidly changing roll; the canard isn't so much used to change pitch as it is to shape the flow of the aircraft across the airfoil. The advantage comes from the lack of impact of the propwash on the entirety of the wings (which does impact the performance of the lifting surface by altering the airflow). Also, by shaping the air, you might be able to increase the attitude at which the aircraft can perform (the airflow is shifted up or down a few degrees by the canard), but this mostly promotes level flight at different angles of attack.

I love the XP-55 and its derivatives, but the stability problem is a major issue. I have theorized that elevating the position of the wings on the XP-55 a few inches to increase the dihedral effect, combined with the inclusion of wing fences a-la the MIG-15 might help. Maybe even some wing twist out to the tips. However, those are issues that only mitigate the larger problems brought about by the configuration; they might be enough to make the aircraft stable.

As for a jet conversion, that isn't likely. Best to use a more stable and tested configuration, rather than risking valuable jet engines on an unstable aircraft.
 
With the POD of 1923 have the Regia Marina convert a suitable merchant ship to an experimental aircraft carrier in 1925. It displaces 20,000 tons and Italy's WNT quota was 60,000 tons.

Use the experience gained with the experimental ship to build a bespoke aircraft carrier displacing 20,000 tons in the first half of the 1930s and an improved ship also displacing 20,000 tons in he second half of the 1930s to use up the 40,000 tons left in the WNT. A third ship would be planned for 1940-45 to replace the experimental carrier.

As they were designed by Italian naval architects the ships would be designed for the highest possible maximum speed and the largest number of aircraft at the expense of protection, endurance and sea keeping. However, they would still be capable of loitering of Alexandria and Gibraltar.
 
Fully agree about the Bf-109E, in fact as i have read in other places and came to see it myself, pretty much any other fighter with a DB-601 to be built in series other than the 109E was better and faster! The MC-202, G-50V, Ki-61 etc. Although i think now the Re-2001 was a bit slower, however i have read the prototype was as fast as the 109E but series production was slower because of the poor quality of italian built DB engine. The Bf-109F though finally became what the E could have been in 1938.

The 109E was 'quick & dirty' installation of a much bigger engine in lieu of a small engine - on schedual, worked reliably, even if it wasn't of very smooth appearance. Sorta when Griffon was installed on Spitfire.

A cleaner Bf-109E with a smoother nose more like He-112 or He-100 (or Macchi, Ki-61 etc.) and with some small airframe refinement like no struts for the taiplane, revised wheel wells and other similar stuff would be easily 30kph faster, maybe even more. Still not quite an 109F, but getting closer to it. It's one of ATLs i like to ponder on. Those 30kph plus would make a big difference against the Spitfire.

Yes - install the retractable tailwheel and reinforced tail (= no externl bracing) an there it is - a 15, if not 20 km/h faster 109. Perhaps a smarter air intake for some extra speed at altitude. Not just a bit faster than Spitfire, but really leaving the Hurricane I in the dust. Once the DB 601N is installed, and DB 601A rated to 2600 rpm - close to 600 km/h?
Shortcoming might be that RAF realizes just how much Hurricane is behind the curve, and install Merlin XX on Spitfire instead = Spitfire III for the later part of BoB and on ...

Anyway, back to the Macchi, indeed 550 kph is the sort of figure i had in mind for the 960HP Asso "MC-201", the 109E has a better engine and the Spitfire-I is a tad faster, hence guesstimating that it would be slighty inferior to both, but still a tough opponent. Could also give it a bit more potent armament, like four 12,7mm Breda-SAFATs, or even just two SAFATs and two 7,7 mm MGs, still an improvement. Most everyone else were still using 7,7 to 7,9mm MGs in 1940-41.

Other people (UK, Ger, SU) were also using cannons, or multiple LMGs in 1940-41. Buy the license FF from Germany or Switzerland in 1938, hopefully with the lighter shell, 90-100 g so the MV is up to 700 m/s, thus compatible with Breda HMG? FF is lighter than Breda HMG.
But then, the weight of 4 Breda set-up in the ballpark with what D.520 carried, even if it is heavier than British 8 Browning battery, or 109E battery.

I red once that the issue with the 109 was that it was designed as the smallest possible airframe to make good use of the limited hp of the original Jumo engine. Hence when they tried to fit bigger engines the airframe hit its limits. 109E was formidable (in its days) but 109F and 109G started to suffer. No such limitations for the other DB601 machines. The italian fighters started with fatter radials, the Tony was designed around DB-601 from the drawing board.

109F have had problems with weak new wing and tail, that tended to depart in mid-air under high G load. Once that was fixed, the fighter was excellent. 109G1/G2 were outstanding with their 400+ mph in second half of 1942.
The armament was light, though, and once they started adding cannon gondolas and heavy MGs in the nose the limitations of a small airframe started to show up. Increasse of engine power was not countered with bigger/longer tails until too late. The ill-trained new pilots were hardly able to extract the best from those 109s.
As for armament - forget about LMGs on the 109F, keep the MG FF/M in the wings, switch to 90 rd drum when available. But that is a new thread :)
 
Again, many thanks for your input Tomo.

Just to touch a bit more the 109 subject, i too was thinking about MG FF wing guns on the F, but only on the F-0/1. Keeping those on all the F and G would make the aircraft too heavy although with formidable firepower. Could the MG151/20 be fitted inside the wing (rather than in pods) as well, replacing the MG FF from 1942? One possibility to keep almost identical performance imo would be to have the DB-601E and DB-605A run on C3 fuel though.

However, they could just do as they did with the FW-190, remove the wing guns to lighten the machine.

Back to the Regia Aeronautica, have been trying to educate myself more on italian aircraft and engines. So as their development started at the right time to be available for our TL (mid to second half of the 1930s), if we somehow get the 1250HP Fiat A.82, 1350HP Alfa Romeo-135 and 1500HP Piaggio P.XII to enter service in 1939-1940, complementing either developed Asso inlines or just plain DB-601s, then the italian machines would be much more formidable. For instance the Ba.88 which had such a sad story might have been a different beast with two 1250 or 1500 HP engines. Probably even two DB-601s (which they were contemplating in OTL) will transform it.
 
I stumbled across this paragraph and while it seems unlikely that Boeing would licence the B17 to the Italians it makes for intriguing speculation.

In 1938 the RA issued a request for proposal for a BGR (Bombardiere a Grande Raggio, long-range bomber); proposals came from Caproni with their Ca.204 and Ca.211 projects, CRDA with Cant. Z.1014 (built only in mock-up form), Piaggio with the P.108B (a private venture project, offered as an additional entry) and the P.112. Also considered was the purchasing of a production license for the Boeing B-17C 'Fortress', but this idea was later discarded for reasons of autarchia (national self-sufficiency).
 
...
Just to touch a bit more the 109 subject, i too was thinking about MG FF wing guns on the F, but only on the F-0/1. Keeping those on all the F and G would make the aircraft too heavy although with formidable firepower. Could the MG151/20 be fitted inside the wing (rather than in pods) as well, replacing the MG FF from 1942? One possibility to keep almost identical performance imo would be to have the DB-601E and DB-605A run on C3 fuel though.

Oh - I'd have three cannons on the Bf 109F as minimum. Meaning two in the wings, one in the fuselage; no cowling MGs.
The MG FF and MG FF/M cannons were featherweights at 25 kg, ie. lighter than the .50 BMG AN/M2. It's ammo was also light, 160 g for the Mine shell (140-150 g for the .50 BMG). The MG 151 was already at 42 kg, Hispano at 60 kg; these two more powerful used a heavier ammo, too. The Spitfire with just two cannons & their ammo carried greater weight than it would've been the case for three MG FF, and, once we add 4 remaining .303 Brownings (~44 kg) + ammo the weight goes obviously further up.
The MG 151 without redesign of the wing won't go easily in the thin & small wing of the Bf 109. The Spanish bite the bullet, so their Buchons were able to carry the big & powerful HS 404, the 20 mm cannon from 1951 on.
C3 fuel should be hefplful under 5-6 km, another option might've been the introduction of intercooling, like the Jumo done on their 211F to create the 211J. Of course, the 2-stage supercharged DB 601/605 or Jumo 211 would've been great, but it wasn't meant to be, at least not for service use.

However, they could just do as they did with the FW-190, remove the wing guns to lighten the machine.

Kinda defeats the purpose - have cannons, will kill ;)
However - once 109 and 190 started having the MG 131s installed under cowling, they lost immediately 10 km/h. So, if something must go, trow away the cowling MGs (tiresome, I know). As it was the case with some Fw 190s that have had MK 108 installed in outer wing.

Back to the Regia Aeronautica, have been trying to educate myself more on italian aircraft and engines. So as their development started at the right time to be available for our TL (mid to second half of the 1930s), if we somehow get the 1250HP Fiat A.82, 1350HP Alfa Romeo-135 and 1500HP Piaggio P.XII to enter service in 1939-1940, complementing either developed Asso inlines or just plain DB-601s, then the italian machines would be much more formidable. For instance the Ba.88 which had such a sad story might have been a different beast with two 1250 or 1500 HP engines. Probably even two DB-601s (which they were contemplating in OTL) will transform it.

Not many countries have had 1250-1500 HP engines available in 1939-40, so the RA ight use anything that capable.
The Ba.88 have had problem with construction methods. It employed the caging, as used on Hurricane's fuselage for example, while around that it sported the ribs, longerons and aluminium skin, just like the modern stressed-skin aircraft. Thus it became to heavy. A new engine might not be able to repair that problem?
 
Well one can endlessly ponder over various Bf-109 mods, just a matter of preferrence/ideas. Overall though, i'd still like it the way it was except with some aerodynamic mods to E like i mentioned earlier, and some slight mods to E and G like full wheel covers, better shaped bulges on the G etc.

Regrading the Ba.88, that is exactly what i read yes, they built it like sort of a plane within a plane resulting in a much too heavy and complicated machine, and RA didn't help by demanding a g-limit of 12 instead of 9. If they'd have built it with a normal monocoque structure, which i presume was used f.e. on MC-200 and G-50, probably things would have been different. It would at least been an acceptable machine with the OTL engines, while with DB-601s or more powerful 1250-1500HP radials would have been quite formidable.

In OTL though, even if it proved to be a complete failure, they also uncomprehendingly wasted many of the existing machines by turning them to airfield decoys in North Africa! They didn't even tried to either recycle them, as they were made of presumably best graded steel and aluminium, or at least try a serious effort to bring them to an acceptable capability, which basically means lightening them, fitting larger wings and fitting more powerful engines. In OTL, they fitted WEAKER (!) A.74 engines and tried to turn it into a dive bomber. Perhaps they could have tried to buy 200 extra DB-601 or Jumo-211 from the germans, or try to use the indigenous engines available like the 1175HP Piaggio P.XIX, or if available (not sure about it) any of those newer 1250-1500HP radials, or even 1100HP GR14Ns from Vichy France.
 
Top