 | P-40 vs. Macchi C-200, Fiat G-50.| Aviation Discuss P-40 vs. Macchi C-200, Fiat G-50. in the World War II - Aviation forums; My thinking is that the early Italian fighters were much like the Japanese fighters, light and manoeuverable.... |
|
11-16-2005, 02:58 PM
|
#1 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 152
| 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, 03:00 PM
|
#2 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country:  | Against those - P-40 all the way!!!!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"  | |
| | |
11-16-2005, 03:02 PM
|
#3 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country:  | Sure, leave out the Re-2000, which would have a P-40 anyday of the week.
__________________  with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
11-16-2005, 03:07 PM
|
#4 | | 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, 03:10 PM
|
#5 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | Dive and Split S - It's Lunch Time!
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
11-16-2005, 03:11 PM
|
#6 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | 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! 
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
11-16-2005, 03:15 PM
|
#7 | | World Traveler
Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Royal Deeside/St Andrews, Scotland, UK
Posts: 11,756
Country:  | 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
Moderator WW2 Talk: A WW2 Discussion Forum
My Photo Collections on Flickr
| |
| | |
11-16-2005, 03:21 PM
|
#8 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 152
| 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, 03:39 PM
|
#9 | | Konfused with a 'K'
Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Turin, Italy
Posts: 20,412
Country: | It had a few structural weaknesses. Other than that and a slightly lacking top speed of 324mph, It would probably outfly a 109E.
__________________ with my one last gaping breath id apologise for bleeding on your shirt... | |
| | |
11-16-2005, 03:43 PM
|
#10 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | 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...
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
11-16-2005, 06:18 PM
|
#11 | | 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, 07:05 PM
|
#12 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | 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...
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
11-16-2005, 07:47 PM
|
#13 | | 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, 09:02 PM
|
#14 | | IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 13,588
Country: | 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.....
__________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT" | |
| | |
11-16-2005, 10:56 PM
|
#15 | | 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. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 PM. | | |
