# Best early Italian Monoplane fighter?



## cheddar cheese (Oct 7, 2005)

What do you think the best early Italian monoplane fighter was? (Or 'Series 0's as I like to call them, dont know if thats true or not)

Despite some structural problems, Id say the Reggiane Re-2000. It was the fastest of the 3 and highly manoeverable, more so than the CR.42 and Bf-109E. Looking at the 3, it also looks the most modern with its enclosed cockpit, largely due to the fact it was heavily based on the Seversky P-35. Not many were built, and a lot were sold off to Sweden and Hungary. 

The G.50, whilst highly manoeverable, was far too slow. The MC.200 was slightly faster and similarly manoeverable, and was used more than both the other two.

*REGGIANE RE-2000 FALCO*
Role: Single-seat fighter and fighter bomber 
Engine: 1 x Piaggio P.IX RC 40 radial engine; 1000 hp
Bis, GA and Cat.: 1 x Piaggio P.IX Bis RC 40; 1000 hp
Length: 26,21 ft
Height: 10.49 ft
Wing span: 36,08 ft
Wing area: 219,58 sq/ft
Empty weight: 5573 lbs
Useful Load: 2009 lbs
Loaded weight: 7606 lbs
Max. Speed: 329 mph at 17,388 ft.
GA and Cat.: 323 mph
Service ceiling: 36754 ft.
GA and Cat.: 32808 ft
Range (at 19,685 ft and 267 mph):
GA: 1243 miles
Cat.: 802 miles
Climb to 19,685 ft: 6'10"
GA and Cat.: 7'45"
Armament: 2 x 12,7mm Breda SAFAT MG with 300 rounds each. The "Intercettore", "Bis" and "GA" versions had the possibility to attach a "Spezzoniera Automatica Nardi" under the fuselage, consisting of two launchers each composed of two lines of twenty-two 2 kilos frag-bombs, for a total of 88 frag-bombs.
Crew: 1
In Service: 1941
Countries in Service: Italy, Hungary Sweden
Aircraft built: 158 (28 for RA - 70 for Hungary - 60 for Sweden)
http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Reggiane.html



*FIAT G.50 FRECCIA*
Model: Fiat G50bis single seat fighter 
Max Speed: 293 mph 
Ceiling: 32,480 Ft 
Range: 620 miles 
Horsepower: 840 hp 
Length: 27' 2 1/3" 
Height: 9' 2 1/4" 
Weight: 5,560 lbs (Loaded) 
Engine: Fiat A74 R.C.38(DB605 A-1) 
Armament: 2x 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun (300 r.p.g)
http://www.comandosupremo.com/G50.html

*MACCHI MC.200 SAETTA*
Tipo: 
Caccia Intercettore Monoposto 
Progettista: 
Ing. Mario Castoldi 
Primo Volo nel: 
dicembre 1937 
In servizio nel: 
1939 
Equipaggio: 
1 
Dimensioni:
Lunghezza: 8,19 m 

Apertura Alare: 10,58 m 

Peso Max.: 2540 kg 

Armamento: 
2 mg da 12,7 mm 
Carico bellico: bombe fino a 320 kg (Mc.200 CB) 
Motore: 
Fiat A.74 R.C.38 da 649 Kw (882CV) 
Vel.Max.: 
503 km/h a 4500m 
Autonomia: 
870 km 
Esemplari: 
1784 
http://www.regiaaeronautica.it/home.htm
Apologies for the Italian, im sure you can work it out


----------



## JCS (Oct 7, 2005)

I went with the Re.2000 in the poll, although my favorite of the three is the Freccia.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

SAETTA for me - I think she was more manuevable than the other 2....


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 7, 2005)

I went with the Mc.200 saetta, because though it may have not been the best in terms of speed, it wa sequal in armament, and i always considered it to be the most manouverable, adaptable, and the best aircraft to fly into combat that italy posessed at the time. Although i would have voted for the Cr.42 if it were in the poll, for near equal speed, reliabilty, and survivabiilty.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 9, 2005)

I agree with what you say about the CR.42 carp...Much safer bet than their early monoplanes...

The Re-2000 was I think more manoeverable than the MC.200, and it did make for a good ground attack aircraft...Also popular with other countries as was the G.50. I dont know if the MC.200 was exported or not though. Of the 3 companies I think Macchi had the highest amount of production capacity, which was probably a large factor in the Saetta's wide use.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

I go Re-2000 because the name sounds advanced. Anyway it is said that the Italian aircraft suffered from a lack of powerful engines. If you put in better engines they were quite good planes.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 6, 2005)

My vote goes to the Saetta. The reasons why have already been stated by FBJ and carpenoctem.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2005)

The Re-2000 is actually superior to the others in terms of just about everything...The only downfall is structural intergrity...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> The Re-2000 is actually superior to the others in terms of just about everything...The only downfall is structural intergrity...



That's comforting!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2005)

I know


----------



## book1182 (Nov 16, 2005)

I voted for the Macchi because I think it is the one that could of survived the longest against allied fighters. Non of these planes are outstanding World War 2 planes. But they would probably be a match for the P-39 or a Hurricane. I give the Italians a lot of guts for going into combat flying these type of airplanes.

They all could have used better guns. 2x12.7mm that's the same as the SBD.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2005)

I think a reasonably good pilo could hold his own against a Hurricane, but as you said the armament was shoddy.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 20, 2005)

Yeah, armament was pretty horrid on the things, seemed the Italians and the Japanese both at the start of the war thought a few, as low as two machine guns would still be enough to fight effectively. But a decent pilot could take a hurricane in the Macchi i would guess, on equal terms, or near equal, but you have to consider the ruggedness of the hurricane, and those eight .303 guns in the wings, with which a short burst of would send the poor italian flaming right into the ground. The CR.42, would be a decent match against a hurricane, if the pilot of the falco was really good. The great manouverability, good climb characteristics, generally rugged contruction, would make for a near equal match, even though the falco is again, much more lightly armed, slower, and a damn bi-plane. But considering just how poor and unsafe it could be to be in one of those monoplane fighters, id want the Falco. It didnt have those nast characteristics that were present in all the monoplane series 0 fighters, with nasty stall instances, spins, and structural weakness. The Cr.42 also outlasted its competitors, into 1944 when used by the germans, and was produced all the way into 1943, after the series 0 fighters had been replaced by series 2 and 5.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2005)

I agree. The Italians were very good at their biplanes but their early monoplanes left a lot to be desired.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 22, 2005)

Yeah, i wouldnt want to be caught in a series O monoplane fighter in italy, because they'd find the flaming wreck across whichever border you crossed to fight. At least in a Cr.42 you could expect reliability, and ruggedness.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2005)

Agreed. The CR.42 was developed from an established line of excellent Fiat biplanes and was just about identical to/better than the 0-serie monoplanes in everything barring speed, when even then wasnt that far off, as the CR.42 was, I think, the fastest biplane of WW2.


----------



## JCS (Nov 22, 2005)

And one of, if not the most manueverable plane of the war....


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 22, 2005)

It might not have been the most manouverable aircraft, the Ki-27 was pretty damn agile. But it might have been. Certainly the most agile in the ETO/MTO and a contender for all around. It was the best biplane in my opinon, faster than anything the british had (gladiator) and the earlier italian aircraft (Cr.32) or the chinese I-15'a, i think some were still in service in 1940, but as i am not sure, just confident there were, i cant say for sure. What it would have been to see a gladiator and Cr.42, with equal pilots facing off in the skies above malta, that would have been a spectacular thing to see.


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2005)

CC, it is the 2000 I think that was the best, but the MC 200 was used the most I think, yes? So, that meens somthing, but really these were being replaced rather quickly and then the 5s were the best if the Italians could ever get an gengine they did not destroy in flight.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2005)

Yes I agree, the only reason that the MC.200 was used the most as due to the fact that Macchi had better production capabilities and could produce it cheaper. The Re-2000 was by far the most advanced and modern, as it was based on the Seversky P-35 and it was the only 0-serie to have an enclised cockpit althrough its life. Structural wekness was one of the only problems, as well as poor armament like the other 0-serie fighters.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 12, 2006)

hit a Re.2000 wing and set it on fire, fuel was in the wings, right?
the Re2000 was not as durable as the Macchi, and it looks fat, so does the Re-2001, while the 2002 looks like it is in better shape, while a Re2005, in my opinion, the Re2005 was one of the nicest-looking axis aircraft.

what WAS so good about the Freccia over the other monoplanes.
i think their engines were a copy of the R-1830 i think, but without the good gas


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 13, 2006)

The Macchi MC200 was the best (or less worse...)

The Fiat G50 was just a wrong aircraft, with a tricky flight behaviour not compensated by better performances vs the competitors

The Reggiane was a kind of 'improved' copy of the Seversky P35 (later 'Republic') and like this the frame had no development potential (the Seversky/Republic P47 was a brand new design)

The frame of the Macchi fighters (btw designed by Castoldi, the same guy who designed the Schneider Cup Macchis) was basically the same for the MC 200, MC 202 and MC 205V. Only the engine, weapons and some other things changed, but the modifications were less extensive than those, for instance, implemented on the Spit I-V-IX or Bf 109E-F-G

This fact accounts for the good design of the aircraft and, in my opinion, ranks it at the top of the 3 fighters in discussion.

There is a bit of confusion about the MC 205: the original Castoldi project (later identified as MC 205N) was a major redesign (wings, armament etc.) but necessity pressed to put into service a MC202 re engined with the DB 605 and a couple of wing mounted MG151 that was called MC205V and is the plane that is commonly known as MC205.
The new MC205N remained little more than a prototype, production priority being assigned to his competitor Fiat G55.


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 13, 2006)

The Macchi MC200 was the best (or less worse...)

The Fiat G50 was just a wrong aircraft, with a tricky flight behaviour not compensated by better performances vs the competitors

The Reggiane was a kind of 'improved' copy of the Seversky P35 (later 'Republic') and like this the frame had no development potential (the Seversky/Republic P47 was a brand new design)

The frame of the Macchi fighters (btw designed by Castoldi, the same guy who designed the Schneider Cup Macchis) was basically the same for the MC 200, MC 202 and MC 205V. Only the engine, weapons and some other things changed, but the modifications were less extensive than those, for instance, implemented on the Spit I-V-IX or Bf 109E-F-G

This fact accounts for the good design of the aircraft and, in my opinion, ranks it at the top of the 3 fighters in discussion.

There is a bit of confusion about the MC 205: the original Castoldi project (later identified as MC 205N) was a major redesign (wings, armament etc.) but necessity pressed to put into service a MC202 re engined with the DB 605 and a couple of wing mounted MG151 that was called MC205V and is the plane that is commonly known as MC205.
The new MC205N remained little more than a prototype, production priority being assigned to his competitor Fiat G55.


----------



## namvet68 (Jul 22, 2008)

This is my choice of the best Reggiane Re-2000. It also had very nice lines.


----------



## namvet68 (Jul 22, 2008)

This beautiful aircraft could and did meet the American Mustang and the best German fighters on equal footing. On Aug 2, 1943 6 MC.205's did attack 20 American P-38's and P-40's shooting down 6 of them with a loss of only 1 MC.205.

Now that is a plane.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2008)

I read an article some years ago about the RE 2000s received by the hungarian Air force directly from italy. They were scathing in their assessment of them, the guns suffered continual jams, the wings fluttered very badly in a high speed dive, but the thing that I remember most were the desription of the fuel tanks. they apparently leaked profusely, allover the wings, so the craft were forced to fly into combat, covered in fuel.

MAVAG, the Hungarian aircraft concern, eventually undertook extensive modificatiuons, and produced the lions share of "Hejas" (the Hungarian equivalent of the RE 2000. This modified and re-equipped version was actually quite effective.

I dont know if the duds were just those 30 or so sent to Hungary, or if the type was generically suffering from poor QA. However, on the assumption that it was a generic problem, I would not support it as being better than the MC200, which I have also read had very high production standards.

BTW is it true that the RE2000 was basically an upgraded and re-designed P-35????


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 23, 2008)

Interestingly the P-35 (the inspiration for the Re.2000) and P-43, both of which had wet wings, had similar, if not more prominant problems with fuel leaks.

The Re.2000, while resembling the P-35, was an original aircraft. (and had somewhat better performance)

And (similar to the developments of the 2 contemporaries) it evolved into the more sucessful Re.2001, 2002, and the excellent Re.2005.


----------



## Juha (Jul 26, 2008)

I voted for Macchi MC 200, after all it was the choice of the Italian AF. G.50 was a back-up in case there would have been some development problems in Saetta.

RE.2000 main problem was IMHO the fuel tanks.

Juha


----------



## Oreo (Jul 26, 2008)

book1182 said:


> But they would probably be a match for the P-39 or a Hurricane. .



Hurricane I, yes. Hurricane IIC or P-39, never, if the pilots were experienced and knew how to exploit their advantages.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 26, 2008)

off topic:

cheddar cheese, do they still using the AMX in italy air force ?


----------

