# Curtis P-40 or Macchi Mc.202



## Daviducus2 (Sep 9, 2009)

In a face off between the two at low to medium altitude, which would you prefer and why?


----------



## Bernhart (Sep 9, 2009)

macchi was a match for spits so would go with it. course i have va weak spot for the macchis


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 9, 2009)

The P40 was right at home in the lower realms and I would *think* in head to head held the advantage in combats


----------



## B-17engineer (Sep 9, 2009)

With PB, I think the P-40 was better and more rugged than the Mc. 202.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 9, 2009)

I was just reading in _Combat Aircraft of World War II_ and it mentions the Mc 202 as

"..achieving complete superiority over the Hurricane and P-40"

This actually surprises me due to the lite armament the Mc 202 carried.

I'm kinda leaning towards the Mc 202.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Sep 10, 2009)

P-40 for looks alone


----------



## Marcogrifo (Sep 10, 2009)

C.202, despite the weak armament 

Cheers


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 25, 2010)

Were there variants of the Macchi Mc.202 that had 20mm cannons?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 25, 2010)

if i remember right only a prototype


----------



## timshatz (Jan 25, 2010)

P40. Better armament. Other than that, the Macchi probably has it for speed and climb, but it would be close in flat out speed.


----------



## Glider (Jan 25, 2010)

The 202 for me. It had agility, acceleration, climb and in a straight line I don't think there was much in it. No question the P40 was better armed and an excellent GA aircraft but in a dogfight, the 202 has my vote.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 25, 2010)

But 202s armament is really shitty. I mean in a "what were they thinking" kind of way. I don't really get it. It looks as if they could've easily fitted 12.7mm guns instead of rifle calibre mgs in the wings. Or at least fit 4-6 rifle calibre mgs.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 25, 2010)

commonly no mg in the wing, they are only optional since a block (i don't remember what) and i think very rare in operation. the two italian .50 are not the best and the good but i think enough for shoot down a P-40


----------



## billswagger (Feb 10, 2010)

.


----------



## billswagger (Feb 10, 2010)

The P-40 could out turn the Macchi 202 and 205s but not the lighter 200s. I'm not making a power measurement, just simply looking at wing loading although sustained performance at altitude (20k ft +) probably went to the Macchi. 
Macchi 205s had similar wing loading as a moderately loaded P-47 if that gives you any indication. 

The Macchi was a faster plane in level flight and had much better climb characteristics. In the time it takes a P-40 to reach 6000m the Macchi could climb to 8000m. So the high altitude fight would be best avoided in a P-40, where the low altitude fight would be best avoided in the Macchi.
In comparisons at medium altitudes, the 205s probably shared similar zoom performance as the late P-40s (K-N) but roll performance and turn would've underperformed by comparison. The 202s were not far off, but the P-40 would still own it in turns by a small margin. 

The reason i go with the P-40 is the armament of 6 50 calibers over a couple bredas. The 205 had more firepower but was probably better suited for attacking bombers from the looks of things. It simply was not as maneuverable, although faster, as the 202s. 


Bill


----------



## Saetta66 (Feb 11, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> if i remember right only a prototype



The first series were only armed with 2 × 0.50 inch Breda-SAFAT guns in the nose. Starting from Series VI armament was increased with 2 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm) Breda-SAFAT guns in the wings.
Starting from Series XI underwing hardpoints were added to carry either bombs or drop tanks.
An unknown series (or a prototype ?) had 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in underwing gondolas.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 26, 2010)

The MC-202, despite having the same problem as all the Italian fighter's, those pitiful SAFAT 12.7mm's. But look at the 202, shes a sports car. Fast, agile, just sexy to look at. It has style.


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 26, 2018)

Macchi Mc.202 Folgore Definitely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 26, 2018)

This!!!!!!!thread!!!!!!!!!!is!!!!!!!! 8!!!!!!!!freakin!!!!!!!!years!!!!!!!!!!!old!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 27, 2018)

Oh!


----------



## MACHIA (Sep 10, 2018)

Low altitude and in the hands of a pilot who really knew her .....Curtiss P-40 .


----------



## CORSNING (Sep 11, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> This!!!!!!!thread!!!!!!!!!!is!!!!!!!! 8!!!!!!!!freakin!!!!!!!!years!!!!!!!!!!!old!!!!!!!!!



Fubar is right this is old. But I do see that the matchup was only
lightly covered. Desert 1942 P-40F vs. MC.202. The Maximum
speed at most altitudes was comparable I believe. Lateral maneuverability
was very close. Vertical maneuverability goes to the 202 upward and the -40
downward. Armament is definitely in the P-40's favor. The P-40 is at its best
low and medium but the 202 could generally match the P-40.
I have seen it said that when the MC.202 arrived on the scene the P-40
was totally outclassed. Performance wise I would say mostly yes. The
P-40 was infinitely more rugged. It was not until March-June when the
P-40N-1 appeared (not in the desert) that the P-40 could begin to match
the M.C.202's performance.


----------



## fubar57 (Sep 11, 2018)

It was more about the excessive exclamation marks he uses in every post he makes. I think it's great to dig up old threads as new blood joins the forum and there may be new information that has been found and shared

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

