Macchi C.205 Vs. A6M5

[Clayton Magnet]

pops-paolo please consider that every time you select "Disagree" on someone's post, it counts as a sort of blemish on their record. So they are usually reserved for more significant disagreements.

 

[pops-paolo]

pops-paolo please consider that every time you select "Disagree" on someone's post, it counts as a sort of blemish on their record. So they are usually reserved for more significant disagreements.

its neutral so it's not that bad and you shouldn't care if you get a disagree on ww2 forum

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Rather than negging a post, I prefer to spell out my disagreement in the thread. That not only lays out my reasoning, but also allows for said reasoning to be corrected by others who know better. Just clicking a disagree button doesn't provide that.

Also, the negative buttons have a red line underneath the on the "like" pop-up. "Disagree" has that red line. [Stricken for being incorrect -- Thump]

I don't place much stock in likes or dislikes anyway.

 

[GrauGeist]

its neutral so it's not that bad and you shouldn't care if you get a disagree on ww2 forum

Disagree is not neutral, it is a negative mark against the poster.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Rather than negging a post, I prefer to spell out my disagreement in the thread. That not only lays out my reasoning, but also allows for said reasoning to be corrected by others who know better. Just clicking a disagree button doesn't provide that.

Agreed. I would prefer to reserve the negative ratings for overtly racist, or unnecessarily and deliberately offensive posts. But those people seem to be banned rather quickly anyway.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed. I would prefer to reserve the negative ratings for overtly racist, or unnecessarily and deliberately offensive posts. But those people seem to be banned rather quickly anyway.

That's an exception I'd gladly carve out as well -- though thankfully I've seen very little of it around here.

 

[SaparotRob]

Rather than negging a post, I prefer to spell out my disagreement in the thread. That not only lays out my reasoning, but also allows for said reasoning to be corrected by others who know better. Just clicking a disagree button doesn't provide that.

Also, the negative buttons have a red line underneath the on the "like" pop-up. "Disagree" has that red line. [Stricken for being incorrect -- Thump]

I don't place much stock in likes or dislikes anyway.

I see the irony in giving this post a like.

 

[Just Schmidt]

I don't have the book with me, but 'it' claimed there were two distinct Mc 205s, the 205N and the 205V where one was merely a 202 (by extention Mc 200) with a db 605 and the other a considerable structural redesign. I've never been able to discern any external differences on the pictures supplied. The performance figures differs somewhat.

Then again, the performance figures I've seen for all the series 5 Italian fighters in different publications are all over the place.

 

[CORSNING]

Similar but not identical.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I'm also talking in real life

sure...

 

[GregP]

Overtly racist? In a WWII aircraft forum? What's racist about an airplane?

Can't say I've seen that in here but, then again, I haven't exactly been looking for it, either.

Hope not to see it in here, ever.

 

[msxyz]

I don't have the book with me, but 'it' claimed there were two distinct Mc 205s, the 205N and the 205V where one was merely a 202 (by extention Mc 200) with a db 605 and the other a considerable structural redesign. I've never been able to discern any external differences on the pictures supplied. The performance figures differs somewhat.

Then again, the performance figures I've seen for all the series 5 Italian fighters in different publications are all over the place.

There is a person on ebay who sells scans of all sort of manuals of Italian aircrafts and their engines, some real gems. These are usually the best source for the performance figures. In regards to the conflicting sources, sometimes it's because they were obtained with different engines (many times the prototypes had German built engines while the production used the Italian copies which were slightly less powerful due to small differences in then design and materials employed). Other times it was because of the gasoline employed, affecting maximum rpm and manifold pressure. From what I've deduced reading a few Italian engine manuals, the Italian "Avio" gasoline, while classified as '87 octane', had lower antiknock properties than the german B4 fuel, which, in Italy, was sometimes referred as '91/92 octane'.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

....I am in very late in this discussion, but here goes anyway:

In the original proposed scenario with the two adversaries taking off from islands 10 KM apart and no airstrips to return to, my bet is on the A6M5 beating the Macchi 205 without much effort.

Consider the following:
If both aircraft are taking off simultaneously only 10 KM apart, there isn't that much separation.
Both are at sea level and neither has a chance to gain significant altitude before engaging.
The Macchi has a 40 MPH Maximum speed advantage over the A6M5 but that is at high altitude.
At Sea Level, it is significantly less.
I don't know what the low speed acceleration is for the Macchi, but it is VERY good for the A6M series.

Neither aircraft will be able to dive away to leave the fight assuming that was allowed anyway.
There is no discussion about what happens after the fight but if I flew the A6M5 and knew that even a victory would end up with a parachute ride back down, I would not be carrying a full fuel load. There is no point for the extra weight and with reduced fuel, the weight advantage of the A6M5 gets even better.
There also may not be the dive speed advantage everyone is giving to the Macchi. Depending on the version, the A6M5 in ANY version had a maximum IAS of at least 410 MPH and with the thicker wing skin versions was good for 460 MPH.

Basically it would be a close in knife fight with the A6M5 having most of the advantages over the Macchi.

- Ivan.

 

[msxyz]

Macchi planes could dive at above 500mph/800Kmh. In one incident during testing, a pilot reported a speed well in excess of 1000 Km/h. While this speed is not realistic (even the aircraft designer, Ing, Castoldi, dismissed it as a reading error since it had been already determined in wind tunnels experiments that the the probes of the time didn't measure accurately speeds that high) the effect described by the test pilot matched well the behavior of a straight wing entering the transonic region (which starts at about mach 0.8 or 900 Kmh).

One problem of the Zero that could be exploited (and indeed Allied people exploited) was the controls becoming progressively heavier and less effective above 180mph. So, instead of a slow turning battle (where the Zero would be superior in all aspects and in all the axis) a better strategy was to keep the speed high enough, keep a respectful distance and wait for an opening. Allied pilots learnt to fight the Zero even in F4F which weren't exactly... hot rods, so I'd say the chances of a pilot in a Mc.205 wouldn't be that bad.

 

[VA5124]

the c 205 would take the zero no problem its faster just as armed and unlike the zero actually has armor if it can get behind the the zero it would sherd it

 

[GrauGeist]

the c 205 would take the zero no problem its faster just as armed and unlike the zero actually has armor if it can get behind the the zero it would sherd it

Unless an experienced A6M pilot used the MC.205's high speed against it.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Macchi planes could dive at above 500mph/800Kmh. In one incident during testing, a pilot reported a speed well in excess of 1000 Km/h. While this speed is not realistic (even the aircraft designer, Ing, Castoldi, dismissed it as a reading error since it had been already determined in wind tunnels experiments that the the probes of the time didn't measure accurately speeds that high) the effect described by the test pilot matched well the behavior of a straight wing entering the transonic region (which starts at about mach 0.8 or 900 Kmh).

One problem of the Zero that could be exploited (and indeed Allied people exploited) was the controls becoming progressively heavier and less effective above 180mph. So, instead of a slow turning battle (where the Zero would be superior in all aspects and in all the axis) a better strategy was to keep the speed high enough, keep a respectful distance and wait for an opening. Allied pilots learnt to fight the Zero even in F4F which weren't exactly... hot rods, so I'd say the chances of a pilot in a Mc.205 wouldn't be that bad.

As a general purpose fighter, it would be much harder to call. Much depends on the conditions of the engagement.

In this case the scenario is already specified. The two fighters are each coming off the ground and have about 3 miles to climb or accelerate before meeting their opponent. This is not enough distance to do either in a meaningful way.
This is a low speed fight at near zero altitude. It is hard to use a dive advantage when you don't have altitude.
Of course, Macchi could take off away from A6M and just run for it and make it into a tail chase, and then it would get a bit more complicated. I am also not convinced the Macchi has enough of a speed advantage at sea level to get away in that situation either.

As for F4F versus A6M, the general conclusion as I understand it was that 1v1, the A6M would win easily.
in many versus many is where the durability of the F4F gave it the advantage.

- Ivan.

 

[VA5124]

Unless an experienced A6M pilot used the MC.205's high speed against it.

that would be a problem because the zero is more agaile

 

[GrauGeist]

that would be a problem because the zero is more agaile

Quite a few F6F and F4U pilots found this out the hard way.

 

[GregP]

Getting behind the A6M is the issue because the A6M is way more agile than the M.C. 202 or M.C. 205. Also, since the two have similar armaments, if the A6M got behind the M.C. 202/205, it could ALSO shred the opponent. Of the two, it is far more likely that the A6M would get behind the M.C. 202/205 than vice versa.

But, this is a "what if" since the two never fought each other, and the "what if" can go back and forth forever with no result.

Of the two, the A6M was WAY more successful in actual combat, though it is hard to quantify due to the relative unavailability of good numbers for the M.C. 202 / 205. One Italian unit (51° Stormo C.T.) is said to have achieved 97 victories for 17 Folgore losses, though this is a rather dubious Wiki quote rather than a unit record. Wiki also states that 1° and 4° Stormo achieved 22 victories against 5 losses on 26 May 1942. The victories are not broken out and could be transports or whatever. I do not claim they are not fighters; only that I do not know what the victim types were. This is also a Wiki quote with a claimed source that I cannot find. I have no trouble thinking the M.C. 202 / 205 were potent opponents, but unconfirmed claims with source I can't find aren't a very good argument at any time, even in a "what if."

Some reliable primary-source data might be very good to find.

The A6M, however, has many combat victories that are not easily dismissed since their combat record during the early war is not in question. A victor in the case of battle between these aircraft might come down to pilots and starting position, and it might be a shoo-in one way or the other. Again, there is no record of actual combat between the two, and claims of which one might be better are virtually impossible to prove at this stage as well as being pointless since they weren't enemies.