WesWorld

Looking at the CR.36, it's about the same weight and power as the Bf-109 E-4, which had a rate of climb of about 3100 (other sources say up to 3500) fpm, but probably is a bit cleaner aerodynamically. The CR.36 isn't that light, really, for the period, and the FFLs aren't that bad as far as weight goes (we can be sure he's using the lighter-weight version that Oerlikon developed, it weighed 34 kg without the belt-feed capability developed by the Japanese).

The CR.35 and CR.35bis have a reasonably powerful engine, but are extremely lightweight with low wing loading. This makes for a very good rate of climb. Adding armament, equipment and some light armour gives the CR.36, which even with a more powerful engine, the rate of climb drops significantly. Compared to Mexico's C-3I Quetzalcoat interceptor with 5000fpm rate of climb.... would most likely need rockets to get close to that.

The 20mm in use are original Oerlikon FFLs firing 20x101 ammunition with 60 round drums. They're not the greatest of weapons with rate of fire only around 350rpm (raised to around 500 by 1935/36) but light at 30kg. This'll be dropped in favour of an indigenous weapon, probably using 25x87 cartridge, but with different loading to give a higher mv.



Fiat CR.36 with lower aspect ratio wings

So the aircraft buffs here (RA, Kirk, Hrolf and DF) are ok with climb rates roughly equal to a 1941 Mig-3 with half the HP and double the firepower?

It gives up other things in order to have a high rate of climb. Armour, armament, range and bomb-carrying ability. Its also very small which limits future development. You've got to look at it as a whole. If it was the same size/weight etc as a Spitifre or Bf 109 then the climb rate would be inappropriate. But it is smaller, lighter and cleaner.

Original FFLs are 43 kg (see http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/OeFFL.htm), they won't drop to 30 kg until after 1939 when they were further developed by the Japanese.

The 25 x 87 isn't going to give you a lot of velocity, even a lightweight shell (not recommended until and unless Italy can get mine shell technology from Germany) probably won't get you much over 500 m/s (judging by other cartridges of similar dimensions), it's just too short to contain much propellant.


The CR.36 has, according to this thread, has a climb rate of 3850 fpm, not 4300. 3850 fpm is high, but not outrageously so. The MiG-3 is a lot heavier (it's light weight is heavier than the CR.36's loaded weight) and it's engine isn't much more powerful (it's a 1350 hp engine, vs a 1270).

I'm not commenting on the CR.35 at all.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
It gives up other things in order to have a high rate of climb. Armour, armament, range and bomb-carrying ability. Its also very small which limits future development. You've got to look at it as a whole. If it was the same size/weight etc as a Spitifre or Bf 109 then the climb rate would be inappropriate. But it is smaller, lighter and cleaner.

Huh? Armament isn't something it's giving up, at all, to any of those. Armor? OK, a bit (and I don't see any provision for self-sealing tanks). Range isn't specified on the CR.36 design, so can't comment there. Weight is about, as I've said, the same as the Bf-109 E-4, though the /B versions could carry a 250 kg bomb. The E-7 would add drop-tank capability. Size is also about the same as the 109 E-4. the CR.36 has longer wings, the 109 is longer in the fuselage. The 109E IS draggier, though, with the strutted tailplane and the non-retracting tail wheel.

I was talking about the CR.35 versions. The CR.36 is just smaller and cleaner as well as around 1000lb lighter than the Emil. That, and an extra 100hp at low altitude give a higher rate of climb at sea level.

On guns I was thinking along the lines of the VYa-23 but with lower powered cartridge with lower mv. Existing 13.2mm Scotti and FN-Browning guns should be fine for the moment though.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I was talking about the CR.35 versions. The CR.36 is just smaller and cleaner as well as around 1000lb lighter than the Emil. That, and an extra 100hp at low altitude give a higher rate of climb at sea level.

On guns I was thinking along the lines of the VYa-23 but with lower powered cartridge with lower mv. Existing 13.2mm Scotti and FN-Browning guns should be fine for the moment though.

The CR.36 is not anywhere close to 1000 pounds lighter than the Emil, it's light weight is (depending on your source) between 200 pounds heavier and 200 pounds lighter than the Emil. The Emil's normal maximum takeoff weight is approximately 400-500 pounds heavier than the CR.36s.


The VYa's an interesting weapon, but it's 23 x 152B round is a LONG way from the 25 x 87 previously mentioned. It's probably better suited for tank-cracking than other roles, it doesn't fire that fast and doesn't carry that much explosive. You'd probably be better off with the 23mm Madsen, it should be lighter and easier to fit than the VYa (which weighed 66 kg)

I'm not a fan of the 23mm Madsen (or the 20mm), they're heavy at 55kg and have low rate of fire (300rpm for the 20mm, 400rpm for the 23mm) as well as low muzzle velocity. If I was going that way, I'd use the 20x138 cartridge with historical gas operated Breda or Scotti guns, but that limits rate of fire and adds weight.

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
So the aircraft buffs here (RA, Kirk, Hrolf and DF) are ok with climb rates roughly equal to a 1941 Mig-3 with half the HP and double the firepower?

Frankly it makes me a little uncomfortable because it's somewhat of an "out of range" value.

Without the full planebuilder it is a little hard to tell, but from the first go-round I have an idea. I can make planebuilder produce something similar while using a historic engine and "in range" values for various aspects. Much like the Japanese Zero achieved it's performance, a very light structure -i.e. a low max speed rating and minimal G rating- is the key to shaving weight.

So, while it does strike me as high, there seems to be a legitimate mechanism for achieving it, so it would be unreasonable to object.

The user weight is the element I can't evaluate, hence the concern over the 20mm, but using a historically light one at 30kg is both light, and has a lower bracing weight cost.

Though looking at the fighter page, I see the 1932 M.167 is heavier armed than the Eclipse offering we objected to, and has a huge engine, so I'm intrigued by the mechanics/rationale behind that.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
I'm not a fan of the 23mm Madsen (or the 20mm), they're heavy at 55kg and have low rate of fire (300rpm for the 20mm, 400rpm for the 23mm) as well as low muzzle velocity. If I was going that way, I'd use the 20x138 cartridge with historical gas operated Breda or Scotti guns, but that limits rate of fire and adds weight.

Well for my part "googling" madsen autocannons had never gotten me good stats, so what the Dutch use may be branded "Madsen" as a nod to our Danish allies, but they are not the historic guns, as I simply use the default weights 20mm/23mm in planebuilder/springsharp.

Quoted

Though looking at the fighter page, I see the 1932 M.167 is heavier armed than the Eclipse offering we objected to, and has a huge engine, so I'm intrigued by the mechanics/rationale behind that.

Those are the half dozen racing planes that had some available 25mm Revelli cannon strapped on to them in an effort to be able to shoot down Zeppelins.

The information on the Madsen cannons (and others) is available in Flight magazine's online archive.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
Those are the half dozen racing planes that had some available 25mm Revelli cannon strapped on to them in an effort to be able to shoot down Zeppelins.

The information on the Madsen cannons (and others) is available in Flight magazine's online archive.

Ah the limited edition/handwork clause basically
I'll have to browse that archive when I have time, but I think my "Madsens" will likely remain that in name only as I don't want to go back and change from the default weight to the historical.

I'm abit confused here, are we or are we not sticking to the flat 3 year rule for aircraft?, because I can't seem to find any production aircraft with similar stats from 1937.

Overall it's not for me to say.

There are two elements here- the racing seaplane stats and the weaponry :

Was there anything production like this in 1935 (they are listed as 1932)... um no.

Are they being presented as regular production craft... again no.

They are being presented as 6 racing seaplanes (which did exist) with guns strapped to them (which never happened).

So, what I was referring to was the past exception that seemed to have been carved out for Italy on a storyline basis.

There have been several times in the past where discussions of RA's aircraft and engines led to him withdrawing the idea of the plane/engine being regular production, but a limited number of hand built /tweaked planes would be fielded.

So, we know the Macchi racing seaplane was a world beater. It flew, it existed, all within timeline etc.
Basically it was a flying top-fuel dragster.

Now, could you mount a gun on a top-fuel dragster? Well, likely. You might need localized reinforcement and it would take allot of engineers just to keep running...

So Italy, for whatever reasons, wants to strap guns to a handful of it's historic top-fuel dragster aka seaplane. High maintenance, low sortie rate, susceptible to damage, makes limited sense for an allocation of resources... though in this case there is a specialty role.

As such it's hard to win an argument that it's just not possible to have the seaplanes or strap guns to them. Hence why those old discussions faded away when RA specified limited edition handwork runs.

That said, 4 x 25mm seems like twice as many as reasonable and a little large in bore for 1932.

I'd agree, considering that 25/20mm are making their way onto aircaft slowly at this point (1935/36) and mostly on ground attack aircraft.

My question then is why would any airforce accept high maintenance, low sortie rates and susceptiblity to damage even for a specialty role, particularily when as you say it makes limited sense for an allocation of resources?

It seems like a high risk design with little benifit other than being a world leader in certain stats. I'd lump the Mexican clone in here too I might add, 5000 fpm is clearly double that of world beating designs like the Spitfire.

Well I mount twin 23mm on my Jachtkruisers, because that's what the Fokker G-1 had bolted to it in development. In service I believe it was actually 8/1 x7.92mm, but the heavy firepower caused a sensation in the 1936 Paris airshow. Having 4x that (in a larger cannon) in 1932 would appear a little overkill.

As for why, much like the OTL Germans reported the reconn/racing 109's speed as the 109's speed, RA had indicated that some of these were to be prestige pieces, remember Mussolini was in power, practicality was not necessarily the main goal.

As for the Mexican plane, I don't know the one as I haven't browsed the Mexican airforce encyclopedia. DF extrapolates from OTL aircraft and doesn't tend to post for review, so I can't speak to that. For Cordoba, I did make up a sim of his Machape for him, and that worked out ok.

I did post for review but it was a very long time ago.

My stats are not entirely accurate since most are just estimates of what sounds about right. The climb rate for the C-3I is indeed high, but that plane was designed specificlly as a fast climbing interceptor. Only 15 where built and they required highly trained pilots to fly them, and apart from climb rate the C-3I is obsolete in all other respects.

The 25mm is the historical Revelli weapon from the 1920s. Short barrel, low velocity but nice big shell. Recoil operated and clip fed (though I facied a drum for this application) with low recoil as its actually possible to mount them on ring mountings. Why the firepower? To possibly take out Zeppelins, which'll need quite some firepower. Why the speed, to take out Zeppelins, with high climb rate and fast speed to make multiple passes and hopefully not get shot down. Usefulness in real life? Probably very little, but I fancied some attempt at an anti-Zeppelin weapon and SAMs seemed a bit too far in the future.

I'm not at all sure the posted CR.36 (the one just posted in the Italian encyclopedia) is going to be able to get the 3700 fpm it's being quoted at for climb rate. Why? Because, compared to a Bf-109E (which has similar power and weight, but LARGER wing area and a bit more drag), that's between 10-20% better (depending on sources). The -109s larger wing area should probably compensate (in the climb) for the CR.36s smoother aerodynamics, and there's not enough difference in the weight to make up for it.