Macchi C.205 Vs. A6M5

[FLYBOYJ]

Data from The Complete Book of Fighters the Macchi had 2 20mm
i could probably find the source but Wikipedia says 20m/s(3,900 ft per second)

Well you better check both sources because that data was not necessarily put together by the operator or pilots. You're going to learn that there's a lot of data and books out there written by people with a limited aviation background or Wikipedia that gets some things very wrong. Flight test reports and the actual flight manuals for some of the best sources of information.

 

[pops-paolo]

Well you better check both sources because that data was not necessarily put together by the operator or pilots. You're going to learn that there's a lot of data and books out there written by people with a limited aviation background or Wikipedia that gets some things very wrong. Flight test reports and the actual flight manuals for some of the best sources of information.

but you can also but it together from your lesson about wing lift it had a big wing area plus it had hydraulic flaps and an elliptical wing and good air foil

 

[GregP]

This is worse than the great P-39 debate, and it hasn't even gotten very far by comparison.

Paolo, if you want to make a claim, don't use "insane" or "much better," post the value you are using from a performance report. It is not very factual to compare something like 1,000 m per minute to "insane climb rate." So, please use the numbers. Nobody cares much if you use feet or metres, but use the real numbers. We can all convert from one unit to another one.

 

[Vincenzo]

?

what is not clear?

 

[pops-paolo]

This is worse than the great P-39 debate, and it hasn't even gotten very far by comparison.

Paolo, if you want to make a claim, don't use "insane" or "much better," post the value you are using from a performance report. It is not very factual to compare something like 1,000 m per minute to "insane climb rate." So, please use the numbers. Nobody cares much if you use feet or metres, but use the real numbers. We can all convert from one unit to another one.

i did a couple of chats up

 

[pops-paolo]

what is not clear?

paolo i think corsning just reported the italian evaluation of the prototypes (with the 205 Orione variant)
all the prototypes had the same armament
what was this supposed to mean which prototypes didn't he talks bout all of the planes

 

[FLYBOYJ]

but you can also but it together from your lesson about wing lift it had a big wing area plus it had hydraulic flaps and an elliptical wing and good air foil

Hydraulic flaps are not quick movers, they take time to move up or down unless the hydraulic system is really high pressure. Again, look at the wing loading of the Zero and look up what they were for your Italian fighters

 

[Vincenzo]

the RA evaluation, in the december '42, was did using the prototypes of the new serie 5 fighters,
previously there were other evaluations, but not with all 3 the new serie 5 fighters, the 205 Veltro was considered a interim model

 

[Shortround6]

To avoid picking on the Italian fighters I will use a commonly quoted performance level for an American experimental fighter.

Initial climb rate was 3600 feet per minute, and an altitude of 9000 feet could be attained in 3.7 minutes.

Now, even 2.7 minutes to 9,000ft means an average climb rate of about 2430fpm so something is way out of wack.

If something seems "insanely good" compared to other planes of similar size and power then there is probably a mistake in the reported figure of some sort.

BTW, wing loading has very little (nothing?) to do with rate of climb. Climb rate is dependent on surplus power at the climbing speed which is usually just above the cross over point between parasitic drag and induced drag. Look them up.

Edit, sorry guys, math error. 3.7 minutes to 9,000ft is 2430fps, 2.7 minutes to 9,000ft is 3,333fpm.

SO is it 3,600 fpm initial and a typo in the 3.7 minutes or is it really 3.7min to 9,000ft and there is an error in 3600fpm number?

The Plane in question had a 520hp engine (for one minute, not 5 minutes) and a design gross weight (clean) of 3,672lbs.

 

[Milosh]

Data from The Complete Book of Fighters

I have that book and it is FULL of errors.

 

[pops-paolo]

Hydraulic flaps are not quick movers, they take time to move up or down unless the hydraulic system is really high pressure. Again, look at the wing loading of the Zero and look up what they were for your Italian fighters

202.9 kg/m^2 for the c.205

 

[FLYBOYJ]

202.9 kg/m^2 for the c.205

41.6 lb/sq ft

The Zero's wing loading is 22.0 lb/sq ft. So what do you think that tells you?

 

[Shortround6]

Italian pilots should lay off the Cannoli's?

 

[CORSNING]

Re.2005 (OFF TOPIC?) tidbits:

"The first pilot to use the Re.2005 in combat was Maggiore Vittoria Minguzzi,
commander of 22* Gruppo. The unit was based at Napoli-Capodichino air-
field for the defense of the city. Minguzzi received the prototype of the Re.-
2005 (MM.494)- after flight evaluations in Guidonia-and made the first flight
with this aircraft on 7 March 1943."

Minguzzi was impressed by the aircraft and following its combat debut on
2 April 1943 he wrote:
"The aircraft is in ideal flying condition at an altitude of 7,000m and can make
repeated attacks on American heavy bombers in all positions and from all
directions...I can therefore say that the speed and handling qualities are excellent
even at 7,000m and that compared to the Macchi 202, the Sagitario made two
attacks in the time required by the Macchi C.202 for a single pass."

" The production Fiat R.A. 1050 Tifone engines, licensed produced DB 605a, were
limited to 2,650 rpm instead of the usual 2,800 rpm with a corresponding drop in
power from 1,475hp to 1,350hp. The MM.494 prototype fitted with a DB 605 had
a recorded speed of 678km/h (421mph) when flown fully equipped, but this speed
was attained by levelling the aircraft after a dive. The official maximum speed was
628km/h/6,950m (390mph/22,800ft). The Re.2005 had good handling in dogfights
and according to General Minguzzi, who flew both the Re.2005 and the Spitfire,
the Re.2005 was even better than the Spitfire in tight turns and handling."

Keep in mind that the Spitfire comparison was Minguzzi's opinion and not from
direct comparison trials.

OK then, that is enough of the off topic Re.2005.
I have some honeydos to do for my wife, but if I get a chance I will post comparison
performance figures of the A5M5a vs M.C.205V.

 

[pops-paolo]

41.6 lb/sq ft

The Zero's wing loading is 22.0 lb/sq ft. So what do you think that tells you?

I don't use freedom units I use metric
it means the aircraft is light so there is less pressure on the wings so probably more menuverable

 

[GregP]

Whether you use English units or not, you can see that 22 lbs/ sq ft (107.4 kg/m2) is just more than half of the 41.6 lbs/sq ft for the M.C. 205. So, the A6M is WAY more maneuverable than the M.C. 205.

In combat, it would mean that the A6M would likely be much better at speeds below about 280 mph (450 km/h) and the M.C. 205 would come into its own at speeds above about 300 mph (483 km/h). So, if the fight is fast, the M.C. 205 would be a better choice and if the fight is slow, the A6M would be a better choice. It likely comes down to what they were doing and how fast they were going when combat was joined.

Typically, a wing loading of half the opposition means that lighter wing loaded aircraft could likely get on the tail of the heavier wing loaded aircraft within 2 turns or better, from comparative testing that went on during the war, especially with the A6M Zero.

 

[CORSNING]

Maximum level speeds km/h - mph:
Mitsubishi A6M5a (Aeronautica-Macchi C.205V)
S.L.......475 - 295
1km....497 - 309
2km....520 - 323 (550 - 342)
3km....539 - 335
4km....534 - 332 (581 - 361)
5km....542 - 337
6km....563 - 350 (595 - 370)
7km....571 - 355
8km....547 - 340
9km....528 - 328
10km.486 - 302
Maximums:
A6M5a: 576kph/6,705m - 358mph/22,000ft
M.C.205V M.M.98215: 642kph/6,895m. - 399/22,621ft
M.C.205V M.M.9487: 650.5/7,400m - 404.2mph/24,278ft
All information I post on the A6M5 comes from TAIC 102D report.
All information I post on the M.C.205V comes from tests of aircraft Number M.M.98215
unless noted different.
Climb: A6M5a (M.C.205V)
Meters/sec. - FPM/Time to altitude.
S.L......15.951 - 3140
1km...15.951 - 3140/-1.2 (18.939 - 3728avg/.88)
2km...16.383 - 3225/-2.2
3km...15.697 - 3090/-3.4 (18.725 - 3686avg/2.66)
4km...13.310 - 2620/-4.7
5km...13.310 - 2620/-6.1 (20.066 - 3950avg/4.78)
6km...13.310 - 2620/-7.3
7km...11.304 - 2225/-9.1 (14.366 - 2828avg/7.1)
8km......8.255 - 1625/11.4
9km......5.461 - 1075/13.9

Service Ceiling (.508m/sec - 100 fpm)
A6M5a: 10,668m - 35,000ft
M.C.205V: 11,000m - 36,090ft
Armament:
A6M5: 2 x 13.2mm/? + 2 x 20mm/125rpg
M.C.205V: 12.7mm/370rpg + 2 x 20/250rpg.
Engine:
A6M5: Nakajima Sakae Model 21: 1,227ps - 1,210hp
M.C.205V: Fiat R.A.1040 RC58: 1,350ps - 1,332hp./2,650rpm, 1,475ps - 1,455hp/2,800rpm
Combat Weights:
A6M5: 2,733 kg. - 6,026 lb.
M.C.205V: 3,408kg. - 7,513 lb.
Power Loading:
A6M5: 2.227kg./ps. - 4.980lb./hp.
M.C.205V: 2.524kg./ps. - 5.640lb./hp. @ 2,650rpm, 2.3105kg./ps - 5.164lb./hp.
Wing Area:
A6M5: 21.308 sq. m. - 229.27 sq. ft.
M.C.205V: 16.807 sq. m. - 180.84 sq. ft.
Wing Loading:
A6M5: 128.262 kg./sq. m. - 26.28 lb./sq. ft.
M.C.205V: 202.773 kg./sq. m. - 41.55 lb./sq. ft.

Turn times:
A6M5: 17.0 sec./4,000m.
M.C.205V: 19.5 sec./4,000m.

 

[pops-paolo]

Maximum level speeds km/h - mph:
Mitsubishi A6M5a (Aeronautica-Macchi C.205V)
S.L.......475 - 295
1km....497 - 309
2km....520 - 323 (550 - 342)
3km....539 - 335
4km....534 - 332 (581 - 361)
5km....542 - 337
6km....563 - 350 (595 - 370)
7km....571 - 355
8km....547 - 340
9km....528 - 328
10km.486 - 302
Maximums:
A6M5a: 576kph/6,705m - 358mph/22,000ft
M.C.205V M.M.98215: 642kph/6,895m. - 399/22,621ft
M.C.205V M.M.9487: 650.5/7,400m - 404.2mph/24,278ft
All information I post on the A6M5 comes from TAIC 102D report.
All information I post on the M.C.205V comes from tests of aircraft Number M.M.98215
unless noted different.
Climb: A6M5a (M.C.205V)
Meters/sec. - FPM/Time to altitude.
S.L......15.951 - 3140
1km...15.951 - 3140/-1.2 (18.939 - 3728avg/.88)
2km...16.383 - 3225/-2.2
3km...15.697 - 3090/-3.4 (18.725 - 3686avg/2.66)
4km...13.310 - 2620/-4.7
5km...13.310 - 2620/-6.1 (20.066 - 3950avg/4.78)
6km...13.310 - 2620/-7.3
7km...11.304 - 2225/-9.1 (14.366 - 2828avg/7.1)
8km......8.255 - 1625/11.4
9km......5.461 - 1075/13.9

Service Ceiling (.508m/sec - 100 fpm)
A6M5a: 10,668m - 35,000ft
M.C.205V: 11,000m - 36,090ft
Armament:
A6M5: 2 x 13.2mm/? + 2 x 20mm/125rpg
M.C.205V: 12.7mm/370rpg + 2 x 20/250rpg.
Engine:
A6M5: Nakajima Sakae Model 21: 1,227ps - 1,210hp
M.C.205V: Fiat R.A.1040 RC58: 1,350ps - 1,332hp./2,650rpm, 1,475ps - 1,455hp/2,800rpm
Combat Weights:
A6M5: 2,733 kg. - 6,026 lb.
M.C.205V: 3,408kg. - 7,513 lb.
Power Loading:
A6M5: 2.227kg./ps. - 4.980lb./hp.
M.C.205V: 2.524kg./ps. - 5.640lb./hp. @ 2,650rpm, 2.3105kg./ps - 5.164lb./hp.
Wing Area:
A6M5: 21.308 sq. m. - 229.27 sq. ft.
M.C.205V: 16.807 sq. m. - 180.84 sq. ft.
Wing Loading:
A6M5: 128.262 kg./sq. m. - 26.28 lb./sq. ft.
M.C.205V: 202.773 kg./sq. m. - 41.55 lb./sq. ft.

Turn times:
A6M5: 17.0 sec./4,000m.
M.C.205V: 19.5 sec./4,000m.

thanks for the math but I already admitted it doesn't turn as well but it has other qualities

 

[GregP]

Other qualities such as?

 

[Snautzer01]

Whether you use English units or not, you can see that 22 lbs/ sq ft (107.4 kg/m2) is just more than half of the 41.6 lbs/sq ft for the M.C. 205. So, the A6M is WAY more maneuverable than the M.C. 205.

In combat, it would mean that the A6M would likely be much better at speeds below about 280 mph (450 km/h) and the M.C. 205 would come into its own at speeds above about 300 mph (483 km/h). So, if the fight is fast, the M.C. 205 would be a better choice and if the fight is slow, the A6M would be a better choice. It likely comes down to what they were doing and how fast they were going when combat was joined.

Typically, a wing loading of half the opposition means that lighter wing loaded aircraft could likely get on the tail of the heavier wing loaded aircraft within 2 turns or better, from comparative testing that went on during the war, especially with the A6M Zero.

True but what about energy fighting? Boom and zoom.