P-40 vs. Macchi C-200, Fiat G-50. - Aircraft of World War II

V-1710 · 11-16-2005, 01:58 PM

My thinking is that the early Italian fighters were much like the Japanese fighters, light and manoeuverable.

FLYBOYJ · 11-16-2005, 02:00 PM

Against those - P-40 all the way!!!!

cheddar cheese · 11-16-2005, 02:02 PM

Sure, leave out the Re-2000, which would have a P-40 anyday of the week.

carpenoctem1689 · 11-16-2005, 02:07 PM

Yeah i would have to take the P-40. It was faster, thats for sure, much more heavily armed, and it could just take the punishment better than the early italian fighters. But alot would also depend on tactics, because the P-40 wasnt exactly the most manouverable, you might have some serious trouble if your caught in a low speed turning match, the pilots would have to use dive attacks from above, or head on attacks to avoid being shot down. But it may not have been too needed, considering the sad level of training the regia aeronautica gave to its pilots. Overall id still take the P-40.

FLYBOYJ · 11-16-2005, 02:10 PM

Dive and Split S - It's Lunch Time!

FLYBOYJ · 11-16-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheddar cheese

Sure, leave out the Re-2000, which would have a P-40 anyday of the week.

Don't think so CC!

Gnomey · 11-16-2005, 02:15 PM

P-40 for me. It was just was an all around better aircraft.

V-1710 · 11-16-2005, 02:21 PM

Wasn't the RE-2000 beset with mechanical problems? Not many were ever built? I heard it could outfly an Bf-109.

cheddar cheese · 11-16-2005, 02:39 PM

It had a few structural weaknesses. Other than that and a slightly lacking top speed of 324mph, It would probably outfly a 109E.

FLYBOYJ · 11-16-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V-1710

Wasn't the RE-2000 beset with mechanical problems? Not many were ever built? I heard it could outfly an Bf-109.

Top speed of 325mph, I wonder?!?

The Swedes had problems with their engines...

Sal Monella · 11-16-2005, 05:18 PM

How about P-40 vs. Mc-202?

I wouldn't want to be stuck in a P-40 in that furball.

FLYBOYJ · 11-16-2005, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sal Monella

How about P-40 vs. Mc-202?

I wouldn't want to be stuck in a P-40 in that furball.

Actually if flown right I'd give it to the P-40, but a 202 would give it a much better fight than either other aircraft...

Sal Monella · 11-16-2005, 06:47 PM

You're kidding right? What if both the P-40 and Mc-202 are "flown right"?

The only thing going for the P-40 is armament and ability to absorb damage. (Which would definitely come in handy) The Mc-202 holds a performance advantage across the board. In some areas, that advantage is small like in flat out speed but in others, it is massive like in climb, turn radius and acceleration and roll rate. I'm not sure about dive.

I have read accounts from P-51 pilots who considered the Mc-202 a near equal in performance in a low level turning fight. A P-40 would get waxed in two seconds by a 51.

FLYBOYJ · 11-16-2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sal Monella

You're kidding right? What if both the P-40 and Mc-202 are "flown right"?

The only thing going for the P-40 is armament and ability to absorb damage. (Which would definitely come in handy) The Mc-202 holds a performance advantage across the board. In some areas, that advantage is small like in flat out speed but in others, it is massive like in climb, turn radius and acceleration and roll rate. I'm not sure about dive.

I have read accounts from P-51 pilots who considered the Mc-202 a near equal in performance in a low level turning fight. A P-40 would get waxed in two seconds by a 51.

If both are flown right it comes down to tactics and I would still take the P-40. Beyond that it's going to be luck. The point here is don't turn with the 202, the P-40 F weighed almost 3000 pounds more but had more mass and HP. You're hanging on the the "horizontal doctrine" and aircraft like the P-40 fought best in the vertical, using it's dive and zoom ability to gain advantage, and combined that with a high and low "yo-yo" to take the turning advantage away. Italian pilots loved to twist and turn and use basic aerobatic maneuvers while in combat. The P-40 had one of the best roll rates of any WW2 aircraft with the exception of the -190D and could certainly outdive it. Most of the 202s were delivered with only 2 guns.

the -202 was only 9 mph faster than the P-40F, it had the same speed as the P-40N, I don't see no big advantage between the two. The 202 could out-turn and out climb the P-40 from an even plane, the P-40 could out dive and out zoom the -202 and was definitely more heavily armed.

I think the real world WW2 statistics will find the 202 didn't do to well aganist the P-40, I have data somewhere.

Believe it or not, many P-51 aces perfered the P-40 and P-39 over the P-51, one of them being Chuck Yeager.....

Now the MC-205, that's a different story.....

Sal Monella · 11-16-2005, 09:56 PM

Would you similarly favor a P-47D over a P-51D? The Mc-202 vs. P-40 is remarkably similar under your analysis to the P-51 vs. the P-47.

Mc-202 and P-51 have advantage in the horizontal while P-40 and P-47 have advantage in the verticle for dive and zoom.

Mc-202 and P-51 are only about 8 or 9 mph faster than the P-40 and P-47.

Mc-202 and P-51 have better climb and turn than the P-40 and P-47.

P-40 and P-47 have better roll rate than the Mc-202 and P-51.

P-40 and P-47 have superior armament and survivability over the Mc-202 and P-51.

11-16-2005, 01:58 PM	#1
V-1710 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 167	P-40 vs. Macchi C-200, Fiat G-50. My thinking is that the early Italian fighters were much like the Japanese fighters, light and manoeuverable.

11-16-2005, 02:00 PM	#2
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,792	Against those - P-40 all the way!!!! __________________ > I Support Doug Gillis <

11-16-2005, 02:10 PM	#5
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,792	Dive and Split S - It's Lunch Time! __________________ > I Support Doug Gillis <

11-16-2005, 02:15 PM	#7
Gnomey "World Traveller" Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK Posts: 16,450	P-40 for me. It was just was an all around better aircraft. __________________ "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts" Sir Winston Churchill "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today" Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum My Photo Collections on Flickr

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-16-2005, 02:02 PM	#3
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	Sure, leave out the Re-2000, which would have a P-40 anyday of the week.

11-16-2005, 02:07 PM	#4
carpenoctem1689 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 286	Yeah i would have to take the P-40. It was faster, thats for sure, much more heavily armed, and it could just take the punishment better than the early italian fighters. But alot would also depend on tactics, because the P-40 wasnt exactly the most manouverable, you might have some serious trouble if your caught in a low speed turning match, the pilots would have to use dive attacks from above, or head on attacks to avoid being shot down. But it may not have been too needed, considering the sad level of training the regia aeronautica gave to its pilots. Overall id still take the P-40.

11-16-2005, 02:21 PM	#8
V-1710 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 167	Wasn't the RE-2000 beset with mechanical problems? Not many were ever built? I heard it could outfly an Bf-109.

11-16-2005, 02:39 PM	#9
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	It had a few structural weaknesses. Other than that and a slightly lacking top speed of 324mph, It would probably outfly a 109E.

11-16-2005, 05:18 PM	#11
Sal Monella Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Redwood City Posts: 223	How about P-40 vs. Mc-202? I wouldn't want to be stuck in a P-40 in that furball.

11-16-2005, 06:47 PM	#13
Sal Monella Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Redwood City Posts: 223	You're kidding right? What if both the P-40 and Mc-202 are "flown right"? The only thing going for the P-40 is armament and ability to absorb damage. (Which would definitely come in handy) The Mc-202 holds a performance advantage across the board. In some areas, that advantage is small like in flat out speed but in others, it is massive like in climb, turn radius and acceleration and roll rate. I'm not sure about dive. I have read accounts from P-51 pilots who considered the Mc-202 a near equal in performance in a low level turning fight. A P-40 would get waxed in two seconds by a 51.

11-16-2005, 09:56 PM	#15
Sal Monella Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Redwood City Posts: 223	Would you similarly favor a P-47D over a P-51D? The Mc-202 vs. P-40 is remarkably similar under your analysis to the P-51 vs. the P-47. Mc-202 and P-51 have advantage in the horizontal while P-40 and P-47 have advantage in the verticle for dive and zoom. Mc-202 and P-51 are only about 8 or 9 mph faster than the P-40 and P-47. Mc-202 and P-51 have better climb and turn than the P-40 and P-47. P-40 and P-47 have better roll rate than the Mc-202 and P-51. P-40 and P-47 have superior armament and survivability over the Mc-202 and P-51.