Best Italian early war fighter.

[Nodeo-Franvier]

I have found conflicting information, some source say Re.2000 is better than macci c.200.
In the end which R series fighter is the best overall?

 

[Vincenzo]

For practical purpose the Macchi C. 200, the Re.2000 became operational only in april '41 in a trial's flight.

 

[wlewisiii]

Fiat G.50 (and especially the later G.55) was far superior to either by my reading.

 

[Vincenzo]

Fiat G.50 was better for the production but not as fighter
the G.55 and the other Serie 5 are not early war fighter

 

[gomwolf]

The G.55 and C.205 were the best Italian fighters to fought front. The G.56 showed impressive performance, but produced only two aircraft.

 

[tomo pauk]

It might be a good idea to 'declare' the end-date for the 'early war' time frame.

 

[gottschs]

The biggest issue with 1939 Italian fighters was there were 3 of them from 3 different manufacturers and 2 (Fiat G.50/Macchi C.200) shared the same engine. With the relatively terrible manufacturing capacity of Italy and limited resources, the government should have down selected to 1 airframe and had the other 2 manufacturers make that airframe.

The mind blowing thing is the open cockpit and then thinking they could export it more northern countries. I know Finland used the G.50 but I wouldn't want to be a pilot flying in an open cockpit around the Baltic.

 

[GregP]

The G.50 was exported to several overseas customers, small numbers being flown by the Croatian Air Force while 35 G.50 fighters were shipped to Finland, where they served with distinction during both the Winter War of 1939-1940 and the Continuation War of 1941–1944 against the Soviet Union. In Finnish service, the type reportedly achieved an unprecedented kill/loss ratio of 33 : 1.

The ultimate version of the fighter was the G.50/V (Veloce – fast) built in mid-1941 by CMASA and equipped with a Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine of 1,075 CV. During tests at Fiat Aviazione's airfield in Turin, it reached a top speed of 350 mph in level flight and climbed to 20,000 ft in 5 minutes 30 seconds. By this time, however, Gabrielli had already designed the Fiat G.55, and Fiat had obtained the license to build the 1,475 CV Daimler Benz 605, so the G.50/V was used to test new equipment and then scrapped.

In total, production of the G.50 reached 784 aircraft; 426 of which having been manufactured by Fiat Aviazione and another 358 being built by CMASA. There were 58 fighters that were recorded as export sales: 13 G.50s had been sold to Spain, along with 35 aircraft to Finland and a final 10 to Croatia. A solid airplane, well-liked by any pilots and crew.

 

[tomo pauk]

The biggest issue with 1939 Italian fighters was there were 3 of them from 3 different manufacturers and 2 (Fiat G.50/Macchi C.200) shared the same engine.

And the engine used was well past it's selling date by 1939. The Fiat's switch from V12 engines to the radials in 1930s didn't help, either.

With the relatively terrible manufacturing capacity of Italy and limited resources, the government should have down selected to 1 airframe and had the other 2 manufacturers make that airframe.

The mind blowing thing is the open cockpit and then thinking they could export it more northern countries. I know Finland used the G.50 but I wouldn't want to be a pilot flying in an open cockpit around the Baltic.

Very true.

 

[Vincenzo]

The biggest issue with 1939 Italian fighters was there were 3 of them from 3 different manufacturers and 2 (Fiat G.50/Macchi C.200) shared the same engine. With the relatively terrible manufacturing capacity of Italy and limited resources, the government should have down selected to 1 airframe and had the other 2 manufacturers make that airframe.

The mind blowing thing is the open cockpit and then thinking they could export it more northern countries. I know Finland used the G.50 but I wouldn't want to be a pilot flying in an open cockpit around the Baltic.

if you are talking of the winning fighters they were 3 but from 2 manufacturers, the FIAT, the G.50 and the C.R.42, and the Macchi, the C.200, and all shared same engine.
The fighters design presented to reply the RA specifications* were much more, there were the Caproni Vizzola F.5, AUT.18, Caproni Ca.165, IMAM Ro.51, and lesser known type like the AVIS CO.2, Breda Ba.100, Caproni Ca.175, Nardi FN.530, variants of Macchi C.200 and of the Fiat G.50.

the fighters specification were two one on the '36 and an other in '38

 

[gottschs]

I feel bad for the Regia Aeronautica Italiana personnel office and the training commands trying to setup maintenance standards for so many different airframes and aviation components.

 

[GregP]

It's hard for Italian aircraft to get recognition when you can't find out ANYTHING about them, Try the Breda Ba.100, Nardi FN.530, and Caproni Ca.175.

Zip can be found online except for somebodys very basic sketches, and you can't even find THAT for some of them.

 

[Vincenzo]

The Breda Ba.100 was rejected already as design like the AVIS CO 2, the Breda Ba.100, the Caproni Ca.175 and Nardi FN.530 get the prototype ordered but actually not built
all afaik

 

[Dimlee]

The biggest issue with 1939 Italian fighters was there were 3 of them from 3 different manufacturers and 2 (Fiat G.50/Macchi C.200) shared the same engine. With the relatively terrible manufacturing capacity of Italy and limited resources, the government should have down selected to 1 airframe and had the other 2 manufacturers make that airframe.

The mind blowing thing is the open cockpit and then thinking they could export it more northern countries. I know Finland used the G.50 but I wouldn't want to be a pilot flying in an open cockpit around the Baltic.

Several Soviet types in that period were with open cockpits and operated everywhere including Arctic. Some of them were in Finnish service.

 

[pops-paolo]

Fiat G.50 was better for the production but not as fighter
the G.55 and the other Serie 5 are not early war fighter

No it was not the c.200 has superior in every way besides a slightly better turn radius for the g.5o

 

[Vincenzo]

No it was not the c.200 has superior in every way besides a slightly better turn radius for the g.5o

i don't understand you

 

[pops-paolo]

i don't understand you

the c.200 was superior in every way besides a slightly better turn radius for the g.50

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Vincenzo is from Italy. English is not his native language.

 

[pops-paolo]

Vincenzo is from Italy. English is not his native language.

oohhh ok makes sense

 

[Vincenzo]

the c.200 was superior in every way besides a slightly better turn radius for the g.50

i wrote that the G-50 was better for production, it was a better industrial product it was more easy to built and more cheap
and was not a better fighter. i hope now is clear