# P-40 vs. Macchi C-200, Fiat G-50.



## V-1710 (Nov 16, 2005)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

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


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2005)

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


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 16, 2005)

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 (Nov 16, 2005)

Dive and Split S - It's Lunch Time!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


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



Don't think so CC!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 16, 2005)

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


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 16, 2005)

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


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2005)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

V-1710 said:


> 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 (Nov 16, 2005)

How about P-40 vs. Mc-202?  

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

Sal Monella said:


> 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 (Nov 16, 2005)

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 (Nov 16, 2005)

Sal Monella said:


> 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 (Nov 16, 2005)

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.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

Sal Monella said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



P-47D to a P-51D?!? Personally I'd go with the -47, but the -47 weighs almost 10,000 pounds more than the -51. The biggest advantage is the round engine of the -47...


----------



## Sal Monella (Nov 16, 2005)

The P-47D weighs in at 14,600lbs normal load and the P-51D weighed in at 10,100 lbs normal load. That's 4,500lbs more.

In addition, the P-47D has a 2,530hp engine vs the 1,695hp that the P-51D has. (835 more hp) 

In my opinion, the P-47 could take the P-51 but only at high altitude.

Back to the subject at hand though - In the data I'm seeing on various sites, the weights and hp figures between the P-40N and Mc-202 are as follows:

P-40N - 8,350 loaded
Mc-202 - 6,453 loaded

P-40N - 1,200hp
Mc-202 - 1,175hp

I still don't believe that the P-40 would stand a chance against an Mc-202 where both pilots are of equal skill. The fact that P-40's may have done quite well against Mc-202's is akin in my opinion to F4F pilots doing so well against Zeros. It's attributable to group tactics that expoit the verticle. 

One on one, with pilots of equal skill, I think the Zero would splash the F4F every time.

From the Smithsonian Air Space website:

"The C.202 first flew in August 1940 and the RA initially deployed the aircraft during the summer of 1941 to the 1° Stormo C.T. for conversion training. By November, this unit had transferred to Libya and engaged British forces shortly before the British blockaded Tobruk. Although it was available too late to affect the outcome in North Africa, the new Macchi C.202 proved clearly superior to both the American Curtiss P-40 and the British Hawker Hurricane. The Italian fighter outperformed all opponents except Supermarine Spitfires and North American P-51 Mustangs. Folgore pilots lauded the fighter's finger-light handling and superb agility."


----------



## V-1710 (Nov 17, 2005)

The C.202 was certainly a beautiful and capable fighter, but I was thinking about the earlier radial engined Italian planes. In any event, it is interesting to note that Alfa-Romeo was able to successfully reproduce the Daimler-Benz DB-601 while Kawasaki was unable to manufacture reliable examples.


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 17, 2005)

I thing the G50 and C200 series with Italian radial engines in the 800 hp range were on par or slightly better than the previous generation of US fighters (P35, P36), but outclassed by the P40, having only better engine survivivability in their 'positive' vs the water cooled Allison
The frame design was ok but the engine was just too bad.

The 202 was a much better plane (give a 50% HP increase and more reliability to a good frame and you have a much better thing), and able to tackle any allied fighter of his (her? in Italian an airplane is a 'male') era.
Many 202 fought until '45 in the RSI, and according to the RSI documentation and pilot reports they had their way even with P47, P38 etc.
The only problem of the 202 was the light armament, that was addressed with the '05' series (with some more power too)

I have some doubt about the 'western zero' fame of the 202,205 etc. 
If you look at the wing load of the Macchi's, it is not very different than the contemporary Me109, so it seems unlikely that they had such a dramatic difference in turns etc.

I think the answer might be that Italian pilots were simply more trained and more skilled in aerobatics than the German, US and British pilots, and so able to 'squeeze' more from their mounts in the horizontal plane. (Italian pilot training was really 'old biplane' fashion, basically all centered in aerobatics and nothing in tactics and formation)


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 17, 2005)

I thing the G50 and C200 series with Italian radial engines in the 800 hp range were on par or slightly better than the previous generation of US fighters (P35, P36), but outclassed by the P40, having only better engine survivivability in their 'positive' vs the water cooled Allison
The frame design was ok but the engine was just too bad.

The 202 was a much better plane (give a 50% HP increase and more reliability to a good frame and you have a much better thing), and able to tackle any allied fighter of his (her? in Italian an airplane is a 'male') era.
Many 202 fought until '45 in the RSI, and according to the RSI documentation and pilot reports they had their way even with P47, P38 etc.
The only problem of the 202 was the light armament, that was addressed with the '05' series (with some more power too)

I have some doubt about the 'western zero' fame of the 202,205 etc. 
If you look at the wing load of the Macchi's, it is not very different than the contemporary Me109, so it seems unlikely that they had such a dramatic difference in turns etc.

I think the answer might be that Italian pilots were simply more trained and more skilled in aerobatics than the German, US and British pilots, and so able to 'squeeze' more from their mounts in the horizontal plane. (Italian pilot training was really 'old biplane' fashion, basically all centered in aerobatics and nothing in tactics and formation)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2005)

Sal Monella said:


> The P-47D weighs in at 14,600lbs normal load and the P-51D weighed in at 10,100 lbs normal load. That's 4,500lbs more.



Your're correct on the -47s weights. I was looking at sources that showed a max take off weight between 17,000 and 20,000 pounds for the Jug. That is very high, your numbers seem more correct.



Sal Monella said:


> I still don't believe that the P-40 would stand a chance against an Mc-202 where both pilots are of equal skill. The fact that P-40's may have done quite well against Mc-202's is akin in my opinion to F4F pilots doing so well against Zeros. It's attributable to group tactics that expoit the verticle.
> 
> One on one, with pilots of equal skill, I think the Zero would splash the F4F every time.
> 
> ...



I think we're looking more at tactics than skill. As far as the Smithsonian info - although a great source, I think they paint a very "status quo" picture (the P-51 was the best fighter of the war, etc.) And not denying that the MC-202 was a worthy adversary, I think we're seeing not enough credit being given to the P-40 and Hurricane, that statement being "par for the course," and a situation discussed on another thread.

Oh - GREAT PHOTOS!



Parmigiano said:


> I think the answer might be that Italian pilots were simply more trained and more skilled in aerobatics than the German, US and British pilots, and so able to 'squeeze' more from their mounts in the horizontal plane. (Italian pilot training was really 'old biplane' fashion, basically all centered in aerobatics and nothing in tactics and formation)



My point exactly....

Again I stand by my statement, if flown correctly with the right tactics the P-40 can (and did) defeat the MC-202 as proven by the 325th Fighter Group.....

Victories
Losses 
Ratio

Known air combat 133
12
11.1/1
Effective sortie/Victory ratio 30.2/1

Probable air combat 144
24
6/1
Effective Sortie/Loss ratio 93.3/1

Overall 133
43
3.1/1


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 17, 2005)

Hmmm... FBJ, just a relaxed comment, even if I know I might start a fire now: I have some general concern in taking US kill ratio as granted...

No patriotism or personal issues with USAAF, but if we look at the US stats of any type of their fighters (and bombers, if we believe the claims of their gunners...), the minimum we find is 10:1, 20:1 and so on: if true, I can't understand why it took 3 years and new airplanes to end the war  

As example here is a source of RSI stats, I have translated some data.

http://www.italia-rsi.org/farsianr/anrarena.htm

I don't know about reliability/certification of this numbers, but having more than a few years of experience in analyzing numbers I tend to doubt more of a 15:1 than 1.5:1 victory ratio. 

1 - Losses
Velivoli ANR perduti in azione 
in combattimento 154 (lost in combat)
distrutti al suolo 78 (destroyed on ground)
perduti in addestramento 28 (lost in training flights)
perduti in voli di trasferimento 52 (lost in transfer flights)
perduti per sabotaggi 9 (lost for sabotage)
demoliti o distrutti dai tedeschi 1230 (destroyed by Germans)
trasferiti in Germania (approssim.) 1500 (moved to Germany, approx)


2 - About certified victories the reported numbers are:

velivoli abbattuti in azione 262 (Caccia, aerosiluranti, reparti vari) 
(aircrafts destroyed in action by fighters others)
velivoli abbattuti da reparti vari 19 
(aircrafts destroyed in action by varia, no air force)

velivoli abbattuti dall'AR.CO. 156 
(aircrafts destroyed in action by ARCO - Flak)

The other count in the same document gives a total of 418, but does not significantly change the proportion.

In air-to-air combat the victory ratio is 1.7:1, that clashes too much with the US claims.

It would be interesting to compare the sources of the different sides, unfortunately most of the documents of the axis side are lost.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2005)

And while you bring up a very valid argument, my point was to bring up one very successful squadron who seemed to deal with the MC-202 (As well as the BF-109) very effectively with the P-40. 

Yes the numbers are very skewed and we could just assume that somewhere in the middle makes sense based on the outcome of the war.


----------



## Sal Monella (Nov 17, 2005)

Flyboy, I think the issue here, at least for me, is aircraft as the aircraft as opposed to tactics or pilot skill. Flyboy.

I'm sure you would agree that superior tactics and pilot skill will generally trump an adversary with a better performing aircraft.

That being the case, let's engage in an apples to apples comparison with equal tactical ability and pilot skill so that we can focus on the relative merits of the aitcraft themselves.

In a one on one engagement with mutual awareness on the part of equally skilled pilots and where the aircraft have positional equality, I just don't see how a P-40 could keep from getting flamed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2005)

Sal Monella said:


> Flyboy, I think the issue here, at least for me, is aircraft as the aircraft as opposed to tactics or pilot skill. Flyboy.
> 
> I'm sure you would agree that superior tactics and pilot skill will generally trump an adversary with a better performing aircraft.
> 
> ...



As an old flight instructor once told me - "A plane is as only good as it's pilot," and I believe that applies to a certain point. In essence what were seeing here is a higher performing aircraft (that being the MC-202) being exploited by a less capable aircraft (the P-40). But keeping on the "apples to apples" scenario, does that include the -202 fighting in the vertical where the P-40 has the advantage in the dive or fighting in the horizontal where the -202 surely has the advantage? It seems that regardless of the advantages or limitations of your weapon, you're going to exploit those advantages to your benefit and it seems that's what was done in WW2 by the 325th and the AVG in the Pacific. It boils down to each pilot "suckering" the other into a disadvantage - Tactics, or having one pilot making a mistake - Skill, or just plain luck. This whole thing is 3 dimensional, both in the air and on the tactical blackboard....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## paladin (Oct 18, 2009)

G50 vs P-40 = would be a tough combat if both pilots were aware of the other. the most likly attack from the p-40 would be a diving attack. the G50 has = aileron responce with the P-40 but much better E responce so the most likely responce is bank and yank and extend, the p-40 will have a hard time tracking the move for long because of its speed advantage. I would perfer an out of plain barrel role because it makes the P-40 role while holding elevator with the G50, while accounting for the different aim points all the way through the roll. once the P-40 over shoots the G50 has a brief time while he is still in range to take a snap shot. the G50 does not have the guns to bring the p-40 down, the P-40 does have the guns to bring down the G50. Win for the G50 would be landing enough rounds to discorage the p-40 off or hit the radiator. the p-40 has to play "slash and dash tactics against a pilot that knows he's coming so he will only land afew rounds at best. but the P-40 has the advantage of deciding when the attack ends because of his speed advantage. the P-40 has the advantage but i don't see eithergetting a clear kill without help. 

mc200 vs P-40 = would be a tough combat if both pilots were aware of the other. the most likly attack from the p-40 would be a diving attack. the mc200 has much faster aileron and E responce so the most likely (safe) responce is bank and yank and the p-40 will have a hard time tracking the move from the initial bank because of the A&E advantage. I would perfer an out of plain barrel role because it makes the P-40 role while holding elevator with the mc200, while accounting for the different aim points all the way through the roll. once the P-40 over shoots the mc200 has a brief time while he is still in range to take a snap shot. the mc200 does not have the guns to bring the p-40 down, the P-40 does have the guns to bring down the G50. Win for the G50 would be landing enough rounds to discorage the p-40 or puncture the radiator. the p-40 has to play "slash and dash tactics against a pilot that knows he's coming so he will land no rounds if the mc200 pilot plays it safe, the more he concentrates on getting into position for a snap shot the closer he gets to giving the P-40 a shot. but the P-40 has the advantage of deciding when the attack ends because of his speed advantage. the P-40 has the advantage but i don't see either landing a round without help. 

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2009)

paladin said:


> G50 vs P-40 = would be a tough combat if both pilots were aware of the other. the most likly attack from the p-40 would be a diving attack. *the G50 has = aileron responce with the P-40 but much better E responce so the most likely responce is bank and yank and extend, *the p-40 will have a hard time tracking the move for long because of its speed advantage. I would perfer an out of plain barrel role because it makes the P-40 role while holding elevator with the G50, while accounting for the different aim points all the way through the roll. once the P-40 over shoots the G50 has a brief time while he is still in range to take a snap shot. the G50 does not have the guns to bring the p-40 down, the P-40 does have the guns to bring down the G50. Win for the G50 would be landing enough rounds to discorage the p-40 off or hit the radiator. the p-40 has to play "slash and dash tactics against a pilot that knows he's coming so he will only land afew rounds at best. but the P-40 has the advantage of deciding when the attack ends because of his speed advantage. the P-40 has the advantage but i don't see eithergetting a clear kill without help.
> 
> mc200 vs P-40 = would be a tough combat if both pilots were aware of the other. the most likly attack from the p-40 would be a diving attack. *the mc200 has much faster aileron and E responce so the most likely (safe) responce is bank and yank and the p-40 will have a hard time tracking the move from the initial bank because of the A&E advantage.* I would perfer an out of plain barrel role because it makes the P-40 role while holding elevator with the mc200, while accounting for the different aim points all the way through the roll. once the P-40 over shoots the mc200 has a brief time while he is still in range to take a snap shot. the mc200 does not have the guns to bring the p-40 down, the P-40 does have the guns to bring down the G50. Win for the G50 would be landing enough rounds to discorage the p-40 or puncture the radiator. the p-40 has to play "slash and dash tactics against a pilot that knows he's coming so he will land no rounds if the mc200 pilot plays it safe, the more he concentrates on getting into position for a snap shot the closer he gets to giving the P-40 a shot. but the P-40 has the advantage of deciding when the attack ends because of his speed advantage. the P-40 has the advantage but i don't see either landing a round without help.
> 
> Joe



And how do you confirm these performance claims?


----------



## paladin (Oct 18, 2009)

Research!

when i was young and foolish i read alot of the pilot debriefs. while g50's and mc200 where pretty sparce the mc202 was a mc200 with the german engine. one can assume if the 202 had good habits tey were only better whils slower. the mc202 was the third fastest aileron responce in the war(behind the fw190 and P-47, tied with the corsair).

now i have enough info that i can draw conclutions from the type of wing, the elevator, aileron area vs wing area.

by the way i chose not to enter the p-47 vs p-51 because it is an obsurd comparison (spelling, its late). the typical p-47 tactics were to fly streight into the furbal in a slight dive, shouting at targets of opportunity, then continuing out of the furball to a safe distence climbing to a safe hight then slit s into another furball run. with all that wt once it started to shuck and jive it would loose speed fast and become a target. It was only allowed to be successful because of the P-51, spit, etc.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2009)

paladin said:


> Research!
> 
> when i was young and foolish i read alot of the pilot debriefs. while g50's and mc200 where pretty sparce the mc202 was a mc200 with the german engine. one can assume if the 202 had good habits tey were only better whils slower. the mc202 was the third fastest aileron responce in the war(behind the fw190 and P-47, tied with the corsair).
> 
> now i have enough info that i can draw conclutions from the type of wing, the elevator, aileron area vs wing area.



Do you have proof of that "research?"


----------



## vanir (Oct 18, 2009)

I've heard at least one dissertation presumably from Reggia Aeronautica sources there was a lot to consider about the Daimlers, that initial deliveries installed to the MC202 were from German stockpiles. Locally remanufactured Daimlers under license had finer engineering tolerances and performed more reliably at the high power settings (German 601A could only get a maximum of 2min start u-notleistung at 2400u/min where the Alfa could manage 3-5min at 2500u/min more like the 601Aa of 1939 production, actual rating of the MC202 motor should be closer to 1200hp with a 30min rating of some 1000hp), but the problem here was in the field these finer tolerances were a problem at places like North Africa, even with tropical/sand filters the Alfa had a very poor serviceability rate under forward airfield conditions. They required strict maintenance and careful servicing.

Also that the G.50 and MC.200-series airframes were totally different animals. The G.50 is regarded more traditional in design where the Castoldi was forward looking. With outdated radials the performance margin is only little in favour of the Castoldi but the fact the airframe was largely unchanged for fitment of the Daimler and performance jumped significantly and became quite competitive and contemporary with any front line model is testament.

I've also read the tolerances and boost calibration on the DB605 in MC.205 was similarly altered to Italian specifications locally, in this case slightly derated I believe to 1.35atm (slightly more than the German derating of the previous year until the pistons were cast differently), but that it could hold start u- notleistung all day unlike German models, so its ca.1350hp max rating was available for pretty much the whole sortie. Apparently it had much better oil cooling than a Messer.

Essentially, but this is anecdotal in terms of providing links and references, it appears the Alfa 601A performed slightly better than a German one but was less serviceable in frontal field conditions, whilst the Alfa 605 performed somewhere between the derated German 605A and the late production 605A but was far more reliable at the max power settings.

Any thoughts are welcome.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2009)

From Wiki - sources are noted...

The P-40 was generally superior to early Italian fighter types, such as the Fiat G.50 and the Macchi C.200. Its performance against the Macchi C.202 Folgore elicited different opinions. Caldwell, who had combat experience against the Italian fighters, considered that the Folgore would have been superior to both the P-40 and the Bf 109, except that its armament of only two or four machine guns was inadequate.[19] Other observers considered the two equally matched, or favored the Folgore in aerobatic performance, such as turning radius. Jonathan Glancey wrote that the Folgore was superior to the P-40, noting the difference in turning radius.[20] Walter J. Boyne wrote that over Africa, the P-40 and the Folgore were "equivalent." [21]

^ Ethell and Christy 1979, p. 51. 
^ Glancey 2006, p. 166. 
^ Boyne 2002, p. 406.

When you start talking "aileron response" I suggest you try to tie that into some type of confirmed performance data at a given speed. Here's a 1942 NACA report which compares the roll rate of the P-36, P-40, Spitfire Hurricane.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/rollrate.pdf

"Aileron Response" is meaningless unless that "response" iequates into a sustained roll or turn rate at a given speed and altitude. The MC.200 was a lot lighter than the P-40, but the P-40 had one of the best roll rates of all WW2 aircraft. Additionally the MC.200 was not that stable and tended to spin in tight turns. 

Sounds like you're getting some conclusions from a flight sim.


----------



## vanir (Oct 18, 2009)

> Walter J. Boyne wrote that over Africa, the P-40 and the Folgore were "equivalent."



Damn I hate doing this, I love the P-40 I really do. That F-series Allison was superb and according to documentation was recalibrated for up to 66" Hg among squadrons in the Middle East and North Africa (source Allison Division letterhead). The lead engineer at Allison rated this specification, which was not officially cleared by Allison and was clearly discouraged, translated to some 1740hp at the WEP rating under 5000ft. That's just deadly, I would not like to get in a tussle with a Mediterranean sqn P-40E at low altitude in 1942 no matter what I was flying, Messer or whatever.

But I've sat and watched Walter Boyne state clearly on camera the MC.202 was a Ferrari where the Hurricane and P-40 both were a Ford, and although virtually unserviceable in the North African environment, were easily superior when actually in combat.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2009)

vanir said:


> Damn I hate doing this, I love the P-40 I really do. That F-series Allison was superb and according to documentation was recalibrated for up to 66" Hg among squadrons in the Middle East and North Africa (source Allison Division letterhead). The lead engineer at Allison rated this specification, which was not officially cleared by Allison and was clearly discouraged, translated to some 1740hp at the WEP rating under 5000ft. That's just deadly, I would not like to get in a tussle with a Mediterranean sqn P-40E at low altitude in 1942 no matter what I was flying, Messer or whatever.
> 
> But I've sat and watched Walter Boyne state clearly on camera the MC.202 was a Ferrari where the Hurricane and P-40 both were a Ford, and although virtually unserviceable in the North African environment, were easily superior when actually in combat.



Agree


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 18, 2009)

vanir said:


> Damn I hate doing this, I love the P-40 I really do. That F-series Allison was superb and according to documentation was recalibrated for up to 66" Hg among squadrons in the Middle East and North Africa (source Allison Division letterhead). The lead engineer at Allison rated this specification, which was not officially cleared by Allison and was clearly discouraged, translated to some 1740hp at the WEP rating under 5000ft. That's just deadly, I would not like to get in a tussle with a Mediterranean sqn P-40E at low altitude in 1942 no matter what I was flying, Messer or whatever.
> 
> But I've sat and watched Walter Boyne state clearly on camera the MC.202 was a Ferrari where the Hurricane and P-40 both were a Ford, and although virtually unserviceable in the North African environment, were easily superior when actually in combat.



The last sentence is the crucial part! It makes the P40 a more effective combat plane, even if the MC.202 is a better fighter!


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 18, 2009)

Agree, Watanabe et al.
MC-202 really needed one motor cannon at least to be an efficient war machine.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2009)

One thing to note are the ages of the aircraft we are looking at here.

The Re 2000 was essentially a P-35 cleaned up aerodynaically, and lightened. It was lightedned a little too much, because similar to Japanese types the structural integrity of the wings was a little on the suspect side. Since the fuel tanks were located in the wings, and the wings were moving excessively when under load, the Re-2000 had an unfortunate tendency to leak fuel allover the aircraft whilst in flight. It was literally a flying incendiary, just waiting to burst into flame. 

A report by the Hungarian air force into the 30 or so Itlalian made types delivered to the Hungarian AF was damning about these problems. However the hungarian Re 2000s overcame these problems, I believe by strengthening the wings. The Mavag Hejas (as they were known) were quite successful on the eastern front. But all of the hejas were relatively slow divers, because they remained lightweight.

The MC 200 was good enough to just about follow a Hurricane MkI in a dive. I dont know how this compares to the P-40s, but it does show that some of the italian aircraft could dive

The C202 was heavier faster, a better diver, and could outmanouvre a hurricane (vertical or horizontal. I dont have the numbers to prove this, its just what Ive read.

The G-50 was not a good airacraft. It was described by some of the pilots that flew it as umanouverable and sluggish. It was not well liked by its crews, and the Hurricanes that flew against it did not have much trouble in shooting it down.

I know that the C202 was fitted with armour, I think the C200 may have been (but Im not sure). The G-50 and Re2000 were definately not armoured. The P-40 was definately armoured, and importantlypossessedf longer operational range than the Italian mounts.

A small advantage for Italian aircraft was that they all carried ammunition counters to tell the Pilot how much ammunition was remaining.

If we are comparing apples to apples, then we should note that the C200 and G-50 were delivered from 1939, The C 202 was entereing service from Septemeber 1941, at about the same time as the early marks of Tommahawk in the Desert Air Force. So at this point, even if we compare the earliest marks of the P-40 to the Italian early aircraft we are conceding two years or more of technological development time to the US Type. I thihnk this is worthwhile to note...

And finally if you are fair in the comparison, and you compare the early marks of the Tomahawk, it will become apparent that the Tomahawk was no better armed, and its performance described as "sluggish" by many of the people that flew it. 

On that basis, my non technical assessment finds the following comparisons

The Tomahawk is superior to the G-50.

It is competitive against the C200 and the Heja

It is inferior as a dogfighterto the C202

The P-40s main problems in 1941 were poor armament and a lack of power. And it is a much newer design than any except the C202


----------



## vanir (Oct 18, 2009)

The P-40 experts would have to chime in on this but as far as I know the original USAAC P-40 had no more armour than the P-36, ie. none really, though it was all metal and pretty sturdy. The British ordered the P-40 but requested it be equipped with pilot armour which the RAF were at that time retrofitting to their own a/c. So the P-40B and C (Tomahawk) has some pilot armour, I've no idea of the specifics. With the new F-series Allison the P-40D also got the self sealing fuel tanks, from what I've read this was the first version to have those.
So in Desert Air Force terms, the Tomahawk has some pilot armour, I'm guessing an armoured seat and headrest, whilst the Kittyhawk adds self sealing fuel tanks.
Messers were definitely better armoured by this time, but I think Italian planes were about the same, my random irrational guess would be the Castoldi design had self sealing tanks, the others didn't and whether they had pilot armour is easy to tell by the cockpit, ie. not the early series but say for the MC.200 from the serie 3 onwards when you can see the cockpit glass changes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2009)

parsifal said:


> The P-40s main problems in 1941 were poor armament and a lack of power.



2 .50 and 4 .30 machine guns are "lack of firepower" in 1941 if we're talking a P-40B? Even with 1040 HP you're still looking at 350 MPH and a 3000 FPM climb. Not stellar, but definitely competitive.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2009)

vanir said:


> The P-40 experts would have to chime in on this but as far as I know the original USAAC P-40 had no more armour than the P-36, ie. none really, though it was all metal and pretty sturdy. The British ordered the P-40 but requested it be equipped with pilot armour which the RAF were at that time retrofitting to their own a/c. So the P-40B and C (Tomahawk) has some pilot armour, I've no idea of the specifics. With the new F-series Allison the P-40D also got the self sealing fuel tanks, from what I've read this was the first version to have those.
> So in Desert Air Force terms, the Tomahawk has some pilot armour, I'm guessing an armoured seat and headrest, whilst the Kittyhawk adds self sealing fuel tanks.
> Messers were definitely better armoured by this time, but I think Italian planes were about the same, my random irrational guess would be the Castoldi design had self sealing tanks, the others didn't and whether they had pilot armour is easy to tell by the cockpit, ie. not the early series but say for the MC.200 from the serie 3 onwards when you can see the cockpit glass changes.



For what its worth...

Curtiss P-40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## vanir (Oct 18, 2009)

gulp I've been wikified
I had read that about the P-40C but then read in some publications conflicts about just which model actually featured the proper self sealing (not just oxygen excavating) fuel tanks. Some sources say the P-40D, one book says the P-40E, Wiki says the P-40C. One RAAF document gives a larger fuel tankage for the Tomahawk than the Kittyhawk, of course due to the installation of the self sealing liners, but it doesn't say which model Tomahawk.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 19, 2009)

The book "America's Hundred Thousand" isn't exactly clear on this either. For the P-40, P-40B, and P-40C it gives fuel capacities of 180 gal, 160gal, and 135gals respectivly for fuel system weights of 171lbs, 253.4lbs and 420lbs. 
The D-E versions are listed at 148-9 gals for fuel system weights of 425-437lbs. The weights are supposed to be from individual aircraft and so may reflect production tolerances/variation. 

Armor weights for the P-40,P-40B, P-40C, P-40E are given as 0lb, 93lbs, 93lbs and 111lbs, this includes bullet proof glass. Armor weights for later models is included in the "armament provisions" catagory and so is harder to break out. 

These are for US models and might not truely represent the British/lend lease versions?


----------



## vanir (Oct 19, 2009)

Well based on those figures I'd say indeed self sealing liners were in from the P-40C. Like you said though this might not reflect exports, the RAAF document I was talking about also clearly says no armour at all is installed. These Tomahawks might be redirected Hawk-81A used by NA sqns (RAAF didn't use Tomahawks locally), without specific model designation it's too ambiguous. It'd be nice to see detailed documentation from RAF/RAAF records on the fit of each Tomahawk version.


----------



## billswagger (Nov 2, 2009)

I give the P-40 more credit where a lot of people might dismiss its abilities. 
I think this conception of the -40 being a poor turn fighter stems from its contrast against fighters like the Zero. 

Really, the Zero could out turn every other WW2 plane, and interestingly even Japanese pilots considered the P-40 their most dangerous adversary at lower altitudes, P-38 at high altitudes, and the F4U over all. 

Between the match up of the MC202 or any other Macchi, and any other P-40, would be largely dependent on speed.
At higher speeds the P-40 was one of the tighter turning planes, and had the roll performance to match.

Indeed its always a tactical match up, but in this case i don't see either aircraft having that big of an advantage over each other. They both zoomed similarly and rolled similarly, and at the same speeds could match each other in turn performance. The only real difference is in climb rate, where the Macchi pilot could gain and maintain an advantage.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Nov 4, 2009)

The biggest handicap the P40 had was poor climb rate and poor high altitude performance. At medium and low altitudes it was highly maneuverable and had one of the best roll rates of any US fighter. It was also very rugged.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 4, 2009)

I do tyend to think the p-40 was superior to the Italian types (MC 200, G-50 and Re 2000). However, the MC 200 was judged to be effctive against the Hurricane, and easily able to outmanouvre it in the horizontal. My unscientific opinion is that the hurricane was at least equal to the early P-40s, which I do consider to be underpowered and undergunned (comparatively....compare the eight gun broadside of the Hurricane to the two or four gun broadside of the Tomahawk, and compare the power to weight of the Tomahawk to the Hurricane, and the former comes up lacking) .

Where the P-40 wins out over the italian types is in the dive rates, ruggedness, and comparatively, in the armement 9whilst the Tomahawk was light on compared to the Hurricane, it was superior to the italian armament). 

I think also that the P-40 was easier to develop into more effective subtypes than the Italian aircraft. Whereas the italians had to basically redsign the whole aircraft to develop the superior c202 and G-55 types from these earlier models, the P-40B was failry easily developed into the P-40M and beyond


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 4, 2009)

a note C-202 it's not a redesign of whole planes only the need for install the daimler engine.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 14, 2011)

Incorrect. The fuselage was extensively redesigned between C.200 and C.202. The intermediate aircraft was also radial engined and offered no significant performance gains over the C.200. Observe that the fuselage contours between the Saetta and Folgore are not even close. The C.200 is much more hump backed.

- Ivan.


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As an old flight instructor once told me - "A plane is as only good as it's pilot," and I believe that applies to a certain point. In essence what were seeing here is a higher performing aircraft (that being the MC-202) being exploited by a less capable aircraft (the P-40). But keeping on the "apples to apples" scenario, does that include the -202 fighting in the vertical where the P-40 has the advantage in the dive or fighting in the horizontal where the -202 surely has the advantage? It seems that regardless of the advantages or limitations of your weapon, you're going to exploit those advantages to your benefit and it seems that's what was done in WW2 by the 325th and the AVG in the Pacific. It boils down to each pilot "suckering" the other into a disadvantage - Tactics, or having one pilot making a mistake - Skill, or just plain luck. This whole thing is 3 dimensional, both in the air and on the tactical blackboard....



Would agree with the first portion in particular. Air combat in general seems to even out over time unless one or more variables, including plane comparisons are majorly out of wack. Even the humble but nimble Cr-42 managed to score well initially despite it's archaic look and growing obsolecence. Stat comparisons can be disceiving, especially in light of incomplete or disputed sources.

For what it's worth....I discerned the following from Shores for the 1940-2 fighting:

P-40 (Commonwealth ---aka Tomahawk/Kittyhawk) vs. MC-200 Kills vs. each other.

42:2

ouch. This would on the surface suggest the P-40 runs rings around the MC-200, but from what i've read on the plane, it was decent if a bit no frills. Texts generally credit it with the ability to take on a Hurricane so given that a Hurr is not night and day inferior to a P40, the disperity might be explained from other comments made re: tactics and the variable state of Italian fighter pilot training. Records are spotty though so i'm sure this is not complete.

vs. the MC-202: (same: P40/202 kills vs each other)

23:35

On the surface, the 202 wins the kill contest. The ratio might be more....or even less because a major issue with the NA fighting was that the similarity in looks between it and the 109. It was suggested more than once in Shores' tombs that some combats credited with "109s" were in fact 202's. Specifically it was suggested in more than one place that kills credited to 109's were in fact 202's.

The only real criticism i've read about the 202 was it's armament was sub-par which combined with what is often described as a lack of killer instinct vs. the more kill minded German pilots. Some Italian pilots were credited with a real acrobatic ability but often failed to press home attacks. There was also the prevailing issue of pilot skill variability. Training according to author Chris Dunning was handled by the Gruppo C/O's vs. a set higher policy in the Regia Aeronautica so depending on which Gruppo you faced, you might get neophytes and/or pilots with inferior training or you might get experts who knew their craft. The Germans also tended to assign Italian air units to rear area duties due to integration issues and of course the ever present servicability issues that plauged the Italian AF,


----------



## Dino in Reno (Nov 5, 2011)

Don't count too much on dive speed. Mc200 was suprisingly fast in a dive. "Flight testing of the two MC.200 prototypes was successful, one of them attaining a speed of 500 mph (805 km/h) in a dive, ". I would be supprised by that, but it was fast in a dive.
I'll look through the copy of the Italian manual for the Mc200 that I was most kindly given. Darn useful book  Any questions on, oh, oil return lines?

Dino in Reno


----------



## Juha (Nov 5, 2011)

I must give some defence to Fiat G.50. Actually Finnish fighter pilots liked it as a fighter, mechanics didn’t, it has many serviceably problems and didn’t like Nordic winters. But its flight characters were liked even if it was rather slow with rather poor roc, but it dived well, without controls becoming too heavy. Max diving speed achieved by Finns was 828km/h TAS. It was sturdy, breaking point 14g.
Armament, 2 synchronized Breda-SAFAT heavy mgs, was rather poor, but at least it had reasonable good ammo. The armament was not hopelessly inadequate, a distant relative of mine claimed c. 14 victories in G.50 and actually got c. 7. One was SB, almost unprotected twin, a bit like early Blenheims but one was DB-3, which were fairly well protected medium bombers and one was Pe-2. Of fighters he shot down 2 were MiG-3s.

Juha

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 5, 2011)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Incorrect. The fuselage was extensively redesigned between C.200 and C.202. The intermediate aircraft was also radial engined and offered no significant performance gains over the C.200. Observe that the fuselage contours between the Saetta and Folgore are not even close. The C.200 is much more hump backed.
> 
> - Ivan.



i'm sorry but afaik this is not true, the C. 202 is not a derivative of C. 201, is directly derivate form C. 200.


----------



## krieghund (Nov 5, 2011)

Here is the excerpt from the M.C.200 Flight Handbook stating that "The reservoir front and rear of the fuselage are provided with protection against bullets of caliber 12.7" and a picture of what they look like.

The armor consisted only of an armored seat and no armored glass. I will do the same for the Fiat G.50 shortly.


----------



## Juha (Nov 6, 2011)

Hello Nikademus
very interesting info

Juha


----------



## Juha (Nov 6, 2011)

Hello Krieghund
very interesting info.

The Fiat G.50s Finns got in late 39 - early 40, so early production examples, were unprotected. Even if Finns usually added back armour to their fighters, one of the lessons learned from the Winter War because many Soviet fighters had had back armour for their pilots, that was not done in G.50. Probably because of its already rather poor roc. They designed one for G.50 but in the end didn't install them even if we installed back armour for pilot in our Fokker D.XXIs, Morane MS 406s, Hawk 75As and Brewster B-239s.

Juha


----------



## krieghund (Nov 6, 2011)

Here is the page from the G50 Fight Handbook with pictures of the protected fuel tanks. The G50 was not produced with any armor or protective Glass.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 6, 2011)

krieghund said:


> The G50 was not produced with any armor or protective Glass.



idk for glass, but afaik was add armour after early planes (just i don't remember if with Bis variant or meanwhile block productions in the original variant)


----------



## Juha (Nov 6, 2011)

Hello
according to an article on G.50 in the Air International Jun 88, probably by Green/Swanborough, the G.50bis had armoured seat for the pilot. G.50bis was the main production version.

Juha


----------



## krieghund (Nov 6, 2011)

Juha said:


> Hello
> according to an article on G.50 in the Air International Jun 88, probably by Green/Swanborough, the G.50bis had armoured seat for the pilot. G.50bis was the main production version.
> 
> Juha



Of the 782 G.50's produced my manual (G.50bis) covers the second to the last production batch of 315 aircraft from Nov 40 to Apr 42. The last batch was only 35 aircraft. The detailed weight tables, fuselage, cockpit pictures, drawings and the word picture indicate no armor but I would agree that this was an expedient field modification.


----------



## Vincenzo (Nov 6, 2011)

strange
can you attach the pages with weight? (or if it's in the manual section of forum give the link) thanks


----------



## parsifal (Nov 6, 2011)

I also think that the g-50s in North Africa suffered significant setrviceability issues. I have some figures at home and will post them a bit later. There was nothing wrong with the basic airframe that I know of, but it seems a little slow for a 1939 fighter.


----------



## krieghund (Nov 7, 2011)

Sure here are the detailed itemized weight pages from the FM


----------



## krieghund (Nov 7, 2011)

I was just wondering which version of the P-40 are we comparing to the Italians, the Tomahawk or the Kittyhawk ?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 8, 2011)

If its one of the later marks, theres no contest. 
I thought this had been agreed at the beginning of the thread

Even so, the lower powered less well armed Tomahawks are going to be a handful for any of the Italian aircraft


----------



## Ioshic (Feb 17, 2014)

parsifal said:


> If its one of the later marks, theres no contest.
> I thought this had been agreed at the beginning of the thread
> 
> Even so, the lower powered less well armed Tomahawks are going to be a handful for any of the Italian aircraft




Hello everyone,
newbie here, but a long-time reader of this great forum.

I know this discussion has its roots from... 2005, but I would like to contribute a little with some interesting infos.

I would like to attach here a great article taken from the book "What were they like to fly?" by RAF Pilot P.O. Clarke, who flew also in North Africa with P-40s.

I've read in this thread that so few people considered the Macchi C.200 a good fighter. The reality was that the 200 was a great fighter,
which had a very good weight/power ratio (same as a Spitfire V, better than the Hurricane and the P40F) and could easily outclimb and out-turn either P-40s and Hurricane II.
It had its limits in its low armament, but 12,7mm machinegunes had quite a punch anyway.

It's always nice to read from someone who really flew the plane and not from someone like us who just love aviation but couldn't get the chance to test the real planes (oh... how I would have loved to!! Dreaming...)

Anyway, here's the read. I hope you'll enjoy it.

_"Acid Test"
As soon as Rommel began to retreat from Alamein, nearly every pilot in 239 Wing was determined to find a serviceable German or Italian aircraft to play with. It was not long before a Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 - "Desert Lily" - and later a Heinkel 111, were making regular Cairo runs taking Wing personnel on leave and returning loaded with luxuries of food and drink to share around the five squadrons (Nos. 450,250,3,260 and 112).
Bf.109's,Fiat C.R.42's and Stukas became commonplace; a Bf.108, Fiat G.50, Fieseler Storch and a Henschel 126 were amongst the rare acquisitions; but the one type which everybody wanted to fly remained elusive until the Italian capitulation in 1943 - the exceptional, but to us, accursed, Macchi C.202.

Sleek, supremely fast - the sight of their high, white-crossed fin would have struck fear into our hearts had the Italians pressed home their attacks. The odd pilot proved that the 202 was capable of mixing it in a dogfight - out-turning our P-40s with ease; but the majority would pull away effortlessly into a climbing roll or a roll off the top when things became at all hectic. There is nothing more exasperating, when you are caning fifty-four inches of boost out of an engine, than to see your enemy indulge in carefree aerobatics; but although we did our damnedest to get near enough to shoot at them,we seldom succeeded. Their aircraft was superior to ours on all counts. No wonder we wanted to fly one.

Throughout the advance I made a point of being the first to arrive at any captured airstrip, but the 202's had always been systematically destroyed: axes, sledge-hammers - even acid was used. There were always plenty of other types left in serviceable condition, but the Italians seemed to know that we wanted a 202 and they destroyed the lot! As far as I know only one was found - by the SAAF's - but they kept it to themlselves and I never had a chance to fly it.
Still, I did discover the next best thing - a Macchi C.200.

I found it at Sorman, an attractive palm-surrounded aerodrome on a hard-surfaced salt lake, halfway along the coast between Tripoli and Zuara. There were some 30/40 C.R.42's and Macchi 200's parked around the two white stucco hangars, every one badly damaged; but a 200 stood in solitary splendour, apparently newly delivered, and the only damage was a smashed windscreen, as though the pilot had childishly heaved a spanner at it before fleeing with the rest of the ground staff. Happily I chalked the squadron markings - LD - on its shiny fuselage, organised a fitter and rigger to give it a thorough check, and three days later I ferried it to our temporary airstrip at El Assa: Macchi C.200 MM 5285 was mine!

And what a beauty she was! Although in the end she tried to kill me, it was not her fault, and even now I look back on the few hours I flew in her with considerable pleasure.
The cockpit was roomy and open, with no sliding roof to obstruct vision. Instead, two Perspex flaps closed on each side so that when you were shut in it seemed as if your head was part of the external fittings, and that the rest of you was entirely separate inside.
With only a slim headfairing behind, visibility was perfect: without effort you could see right under the tail - a feat which could only be accomplished in a P-40 by sxcessive weaving or by opening the hood.
There was no bullet-proof windscreen, and although the seat of moulded armour-plate looked pretty it did not give the protection we had in British aircraft. Armament was poor, too: only two machine guns, which were concealed in the fuselage and fired through the airscrew - but ammunition indicators in the cockpit (a useful luxury), registering up to 370 round per gun, showed that a poor shot would have plenty of chances. The finger trigger to fire the guns was on the simple stick-type control column.

There were two airspeed indicators, with a pitot head on each wing-tip; rather confusing, but very interesting during a gliding turn. The rest of the instruments were efficient, but not so elaborate as in our fighters, and the only real peculiarity was the throttle lever which worked in reverse: a difficult point to remember when taxying! The engine, an 840 hp Fiat A.74 RC38 radial, was a joy of a sewing machine. I remember being astonished when, at only 1,700 revs, the indicator speed was 365 kms/h - nearly 230 mph! My impression was, and still is, that she was as fast as a Hurricane I, and certainly more manoeuvrable.
The take-off run was fantastically short after being used to our heavy P-40's. The handling qualities were finger-light under all conditions. I had some practice dogfights with Hurricane IIs, Kittyhawk III's and Spitfire V's and found I could turn inside all of them.
Although they were faster - the Hurricane only just - the Spitfire was the only one which could outclimb the Macchi 200.

The only bad habit I found in her was the way she dropped her starboard wing - suddenly, without warning - just before touch-down. It was odd, because she did not do it when test-stalled in the air. But it was her only vice, and the wide undercarriage prevented damage providing the hold-off was not too high. Otherwise it was best to make a wheel landing - a performance I have never liked.
Summing up, if the 202 bore any resemblance to my 200, then the Eyeties should have been knocking down our Kittyhawks like ninepins; and , earlier on in the war, the 200's should have done much better than they did.
I lost my Macchi on March 5th, 1943.

I taxied out for an exhibition dogfight, turned into wind, pulled the throttle open and eased the stick forward. The tail bumped once, twice, but instead of lifting as it should have done, it suddenly dropped and the nose cocked high into the air. I slammed the throttle forward and switched off, thinking I had hit a soft patch of sand.
But when I scrambled out of the cockpit and saw that the whole tail assembly had broken away from the canted fuselage I knew that I had been very, very lucky.
The Italians HAD used acid after all!_

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 17, 2014)

MC.200 was certainly an useful fighter. Unfortunatelly for it (and for many other, especially Jpanese fighters), the good power to weight ratio is just a part of the equartion. A fighter need to be reasonaboy fast and well armed, if one wants to catch and shoot down enemy bombers. During the Spanish civil war, the SB-2s and other monoplane bombers were almost imune to biplane fighters. WW2 was full with examples when fast bombers were problematic prey for opposing fihters. Fast figher can dictate it's terms in air combat, a maneuverable fighter must use opponents mistake in order to achieve a kill.
With that said, P-40 was a better fighter - better punch, more speed, greter range.


----------



## Ioshic (Feb 17, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> MC.200 was certainly an useful fighter. Unfortunatelly for it (and for many other, especially Jpanese fighters), the good power to weight ratio is just a part of the equartion. A fighter need to be reasonaboy fast and well armed, if one wants to catch and shoot down enemy bombers. During the Spanish civil war, the SB-2s and other monoplane bombers were almost imune to biplane fighters. WW2 was full with examples when fast bombers were problematic prey for opposing fihters. Fast figher can dictate it's terms in air combat, a maneuverable fighter must use opponents mistake in order to achieve a kill.
> With that said, P-40 was a better fighter - better punch, more speed, greter range.



Yes, as a pure fighter plane the P.40 was a generation ahead. And it also was in another category in relation to total weight.
The C.200 was a 1900 kg fighter, the P-40 weighted 2800 kg, almost 1 ton more.

Also we should consider one important aspect: The P-40E was in service in 1942-1943 (The B in 1941), the C.200 starting from 1939.

The good power-to-weight ratio was not the only one. As already written, the C.200 could also either out-climb and out-turn the P.40.

The P.40 had these better assets:
1) Greater armament
2) Greater speed
3) Greater acceleration in a dive
4) Range (even though IMO it is probably less important tactically in a fighter-vs-fighter engagement.)

The C.200 had:
1) It could out-climb the Curtiss (an important characteristic for a fighter)
2) It could out-turn it.
3) It was more maneuverable
4) It had better visibility

If it's true that speed is the most crucial aspect for a fighter plane (I totally agree here), once an enemy is engaged those other qualities
could have potentially a good result in an air battle, which were almost never 1-vs-1 clashes, but had squadron sized teams battling each others.

This RAF P.40 pilot had so many praises for the C.200 he tested after months and tens of missions in the North African desert with the Curtiss.
He flew about 80 different kind of planes, from Bf.109, to P.47D, to Spitfire II ,V,IX, to early biplanes etc, but at the end of the book, he ranked the Macchi C.200 as one of the first three best aircraft he ever flew in all his life (the others being the Hawker Fury and Spitfire II)

Also italian C.200 test pilots found the plane amazingly well built, totally vibration free, and very rugged and sturdy. Dives in excess of 900 km/h were tolerated exceptionally.

[as a comparison: the author also test flew a captured Fiat G.50 and said it was MUCH worse than the Macchi, and nothing special at all]
About the P-40: he stated that it was an ok plane , very good as a fighter-bomber and very sturdy, but that its engine was a little unreliable.

Very probably he's one of the very few pilots (if not the only one) to have flown in all the planes listed in this thread : P-40, C.200 and G.50.

p.s. edited


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 17, 2014)

The P-40 (without suffix) was in service in 1940. Being lighter than P-40E, it was a much better climber, also a tad faster. P-40s before P-40E were not as heavily armed, but were still better armed than MC.200.
There should be no wonder British pilot praised handling characteristics of the MC.200. Allied pilots also praised handling of Ki-43, Zero, but pilots also praised handling of Buffalo, CurtissHawk, CW-21 and other lightweights, yet, in combat, the heavier and faster fighters were preferred. It would be interesting to test the MC.200 and P-40, both with same fuel - P-40 carried between 50 and 90% more fuel onboard.


----------



## GregP (Feb 17, 2014)

The MC.200 was a very good airplane that was rather lightly armed and not overly fast. If someone stuck around to dogfight, the MC.200 would give him a nasty surprise. But most other front-line fighters could engage or disengage at will by dint of superior speed.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 18, 2014)

I think also the P-40 was better protected, and hazarding a guess, probably overall strength and ability to absorb punishment was better. 

The Macchi was very simple and basic in its fitout, thouigh it had a useful feature in having ammunition counters to tell how much ammunition remained. Its my opinion that its 12.7mm MGs were slightly less effective than the the 50 cal in the P-40, though maybe no.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 19, 2014)

parsifal said:


> The Macchi was very simple and basic in its fitout, thouigh it had a useful feature in having ammunition counters to tell how much ammunition remained. Its my opinion that its 12.7mm MGs were slightly less effective than the the 50 cal in the P-40, though maybe no.



Breda-SAFAT was certainly less hard hitting than the .50 cal Browning. Even though both guns were based on the M1919, they used different ammunition and went slightly different design routes.

The SAFAT used 12.7 x 81 ammunition, based on the Vickers .50 cartridge. The rounds weighed about 34 to 38 g and left the barrel at about 730-760 m/sec. Rate of fire was about 700 rounds per sec, dropping to about 550-600/sec when synchronised.

The M2 used 12.7 x 99 ammunition, which weighed about 43-46 grams and left the barrel at about 860-890 m/sec. RoF was 750-850 rpm, dropping down to about 500-540 rps when synched. 

So, for guns that weighed the same and took up roughly similar amounts of space, the M2 fired a bigger, heavier round at a higher muzzle velocity and a higher rate of fire. 

Balancing the equation for the SAFAT a little was its ammunition. The Italians designed a couple of HE rounds, a pure HE and a HE/I/T round, that were considered very effective.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ioshic (Feb 19, 2014)

Yes, the Browning fired a longer, more powerful bullet compared to the Breda. Ballistics were generally better too.

Overall, the Breda SAFAT had the advantage of an excellent reliability (some italian fighter pilots said they never experienced a jam with them throughout the war), even though some fighters had problems with ammunition feed systems (Fiat G.50 had some tendency to snap belts, and some other fighters as well,
but with time these problems were rectified), and with the early sync. system as well .

The HEIT bullet was considered very effective.
There exists a single document, probably the only real one, showing the damage inflicted by the explosive 12,7mm bullet to a Hurricane, and it's quite impressive.

A single 12,7mm HEIT created a hole of about 30 cm in the wing surface and almost ripped open a wingspar.

Here it is.
The action happened on October 22nd 1941, over Malta. One of the first actions of the new Macchi C.202 agaisnt the island.











Some more informations for those interested.

22 October 1941. One of the first action of the Macchi C.202 against the RAF above the besieged fortress-island.
The RA and RAF units that met over Malta that day were: *249th Squadron RAF versus 73a Squadriglia RA*
249th RAF lost 1 Hurricane (Sergeant Dave Owen), who was picked up in the sea. PO Matthews had his Hurricane badly
damaged (and that AAR was his).
73a Squadriglia had 1 C.202 damaged, who landed in Sicily.

The action is also written HERE, in the famous website "Hakans Aviation Page"

We should go down towards the 22nd of October 1941 to read it.
I am attaching the text here:

"_...During the afternoon on 22 October, six 73a Squadriglia MC.202s, escorted by eight more, strafed Luqa twice. Nine Hurricanes of 249 Squadron were sent off to intercepts, the Macchis diving on them as they were climbing up over St. Paul’s Island. Sergeant Dave Owen (‘GN-R’), was shot down in flames, but managed to bale out before the fighter hit the sea. Pilot Officer R. H. ‘Bob’ Matthews (Z3756) was also hit, the wing of his Hurricane and the fuselage near the glycol tank suffering damage. Sergeant Alf Branch (Z4016) noted in his logbook: ”Sgt Owen shot down into sea – circled him until picked up. Gave two short bursts head-on at a 202 – did not claim anything.” 
The 73a Squadriglia pilots claimed heavily; two Hurricanes were credited to Tenente Pietro Bonfatti and one each to Capitano Mario Pluda, Sottotenente Querci (according to some sources he was credited with two victories), Sergente Maggiore Teresio Martinoli and Sergente Mario Guerci, while probables went to Maggiore Antonio Larsimont and Capitano Carlo Ivaldi. One Macchi was damaged in the combat_."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


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


Not entirely, while the g.50s were ok by the beginning of the war the c.200 was actually really good. t\it was able to compete in the climb for altitude but was a slower plane. It however could do a turn so much better than the P-40... it could actually outturn the zero in some cases. It could also handle a dive so much better than the p-40 could


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> Not entirely, while the g.50s were ok by the beginning of the war the c.200 was actually really good. t\it was able to compete in the climb for altitude but was a slower plane. It however could do a turn so much better than the P-40... it could actually outturn the zero in some cases. It could also handle a dive so much better than the p-40 could


Wow - this is an old thread.

The 200 could probably out turn a P-40, but it was way slower (depending on P-40 model, up to 30 mph slower), out-gunned and faster in the dive (I don't know what you mean by "handle a dive so much better". The P-40 had a waaaay better roll rate and range as well. Sorry, but in a match up the P-40 can pick and choose the fight

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 25, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wow - this is an old thread.
> 
> The 200 could probably out turn a P-40, but it was way slower (depending on P-40 model, up to 30 mph slower), out-gunned and faster in the dive (I don't know what you mean by "handle a dive so much better". The P-40 had a waaaay better roll rate and range as well. Sorry, but in a match up the P-40 can pick and choose the fight


The p-40 would fall apart before the c.200 would in a dive. But by the time the P-40 came around they were outperformed by 202s. Also when was the height of this forum?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 25, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> *The p-40 would fall apart before the c.200 would in a dive.* But by the time the P-40 came around they were outperformed by 202s. Also when was the height of this forum?



Can you show proof of this considering you're the one bring this up? The P-40 was one of the sturdiest US fighters built!

And OK - the 202 was a great aircraft, it even did well against the P-51 but in the end it was still out gunned and out performed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> The p-40 would fall apart before the c.200 would in a dive. But by the time the P-40 came around they were outperformed by 202s. Also when was the height of this forum?


So I’ve waited with bated breath for your response. Do you realize at the P 40 was one of the best “boom and zoom” fighters of World War II? Have you read about the tactics of the flying tigers? P 40 squadrons still did quite well against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica in the Mediterranean and over Italy, even though there was better equipment in the area. I think mentioned in another thread, the tactics used by the Italians weren’t the greatest either!


----------



## pops-paolo (May 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So I’ve waited with bated breath for your response. Do you realize at the P 40 was one of the best “boom and zoom” fighters of World War II? Have you read about the tactics of the flying tigers? P 40 squadrons still did quite well against the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica in the Mediterranean and over Italy, even though there was better equipment in the area. I think mentioned in another thread, the tactics used by the Italians weren’t the greatest either!


ik the p 40 was a great boom and zoom but the c.200 had a raidal engine which allows the wings to be stubbier (I think) so I think it would be stronger since there is less leverage on the wings compared to a v style plane 
also I don't know how the italians decided to fly their planes during ww2 so idk how to answer that


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 26, 2021)

pops-paolo said:


> ik the p 40 was a great boom and zoom but the c.200 had a raidal engine which allows the wings to be stubbier (I think) so I think it would be stronger since there is less leverage on the wings compared to a v style plane
> also I don't know how the italians decided to fly their planes during ww2 so idk how to answer that



Errr.... no and no.

Just the appearance of an aircraft doesn't necessarily dictate it's strengths, you have to look at how it was built and what kind of loads it can take. A radial engine can be more robust than an in-line engine and doesn't have coolant flowing through the engine block or around the engine. An in-line design was more streamlined and tended to produce a faster airframe.

There are many good books out there that talk about the Regia Aeronautica and some of the top Italian pilots. Squadron/ Signal Publications have 2 good paperback magazine type books about the history and operation of the Regia Aeronautica.

The designer of the C.200 Mario Castoldi was a brilliant designer and engineer.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pops-paolo (May 26, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Errr.... no and no.
> 
> Just the appearance of an aircraft doesn't necessarily dictate it's strengths, you have to look at how it was built and what kind of loads it can take. A radial engine can be more robust than an in-line engine and doesn't have coolant flowing through the engine block or around the engine. An in-line design was more streamlined and tended to produce a faster airframe.
> 
> ...


yeah makes sense


----------



## Akuma (Jun 3, 2021)

This thread reminded me. Many, many, years ago I knew a USAAF pilot who flew P40s in the North African campaign, early 1943 I think, and I asked if he had ever been in combat. He said he had and that they would have no qualms about mixing it up with the Italians as they were pretty evenly matched in terms of the capabilities of their respective aircraft. He went on to say that if they were in a real good position to catch the Germans unawares they would take the shot. In cases where they were not they would stay away. I then asked him how he could tell the difference between Italian and German aircraft at a distance. He said if the planes were fast movers they were German.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

