![]() |
| |||||||
| Aviation Discussion on the aircraft of WWII. |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| 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. |
| | |
| | #2 |
| 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 < |
| | |
| | #3 |
| Senior Member | Sure, leave out the Re-2000, which would have a P-40 anyday of the week. |
| | |
| | #4 |
| Senior Member | 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. |
| | |
| | #5 |
| 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 < |
| | |
| | #6 | |
| IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO ![]() Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,792
| Quote:
__________________ > I Support Doug Gillis < | |
| | |
| | #7 |
| "World Traveller" ![]() | 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 |
| | |
| | #8 |
| 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. |
| | |
| | #9 |
| Senior Member | It had a few structural weaknesses. Other than that and a slightly lacking top speed of 324mph, It would probably outfly a 109E. |
| | |
| | #10 | |
| IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO ![]() Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,792
| Quote:
The Swedes had problems with their engines...
__________________ > I Support Doug Gillis < | |
| | |
| | #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. |
| | |
| | #12 | |
| IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO ![]() Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,792
| Quote:
__________________ > I Support Doug Gillis < | |
| | |
| | #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. |
| | |
| | #14 | |
| IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO ![]() Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 16,792
| Quote:
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.....
__________________ > I Support Doug Gillis < | |
| | |
| | #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 | |
| Display Modes | |
| |