swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,028
- Jun 25, 2013
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Did the Germans actually have very many 'second rate' aircraft to give?
Short of taking old 109s from the training schools ( or left over 1940 French aircraft) what were these 2nd rate German planes?
The US may have screwed up by NOT shutting down the P-39/P-40 production lines sooner but since they HAD the 2nd rate fighters who should get them?
Yes, but production numbers doesn't make for an effective / ineffective fighter surely.
There must have been a flaw behind the beauty....
Armament?
Power?
Cheers
John
One problem with the Macchi fighters that isn't mentioned here is their tendency to spin.
Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons. They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph. When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi's tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi. But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.
RSI Adriano Visconti
Combat sorties: 72
Confirmed kills: 26
Probable: 18
RAF Johnnie Johnson
Combat sorties: 515
Confirmed kills: 34
Probable: 13
Those are astonishing numbers considering they would takeoff with 10 to 12 airplanes against an armada. Or maybe Visconti was just a better pilot or had a superior aircraft or both. Considering he accomplished 26 confirmed kills in 72 sorties being the underdogs shows how effective the series three fighters of Italy were.
This was only true for the 200 series. It was fixed with the 202 and 205 series.
Ineffective?? They were some of the best fighters of the war. They were used by countries until the early 60s. The Germans wanted to mass-produce them to replace the 109 and 190. They were heavily armed with two cannons and two machine guns. Some had three cannons.
They could reach altitudes of 37,000 feet and the G55 top speed was 426 mph.
When the late series fighters came to the front, numbers were limited. Squadrons would typically takeoff with 8 to 10 planes into formations of 60 to 80 allied airplanes. The odds are simply against you but the bravery unquestionable. In documented battles one particular one comes to mind where four Macchi's tangle with eight Spitfires. Two against one is not easy. The Macchi's down two spitfires with the loss of one Macchi.
But instead of comparing one battle, let's compare some real numbers and stats with some records.
RSI Adriano Visconti
Combat sorties: 72
Confirmed kills: 26
Probable: 18
RAF Johnnie Johnson
Combat sorties: 515
Confirmed kills: 34
Probable: 13
Those are astonishing numbers considering they would takeoff with 10 to 12 airplanes against an armada. Or maybe Visconti was just a better pilot or had a superior aircraft or both. Considering he accomplished 26 confirmed kills in 72 sorties being the underdogs shows how effective the series three fighters of Italy were.
Yes, but production numbers doesn't make for an effective / ineffective fighter surely.
There must have been a flaw behind the beauty....
Armament?
Power?
Cheers
John
Wiki says the tendency to spin remained in the 202 and cites Duma 2007, pp. 232–233 (not giving the title though).
It also cites this situation;
"Some defects appeared similar to those on the early C. 200 version: on 3 August, during a mock dogfight, Sergente Maggiore Antonio Valle – an experienced pilot, credited with two kills in Marmarica and recipient of a Medaglia di Bronzo al Valor Militare (Bronze Medal to Military Valor) – at a height of 4,000 meters entered in a flat spin and could not manage to recover or to bail out, losing his life.[26]"
An Me 109 was actually very difficult to spin, its long tail moment arm and slats probably gave it the gentlest stall and easiest spin recovery of any WW2 fighter and that includes the spitfire. Its vice was a take-off and landing swing. The Fw 190 also had a easy spin recovery as well. The MC 202 doesn't look quite right right, too much nose not enough tail.
The Germans were interested more in the G.56 and Re.2006 which were developments which were adaptable to the DB603 and flown with the DB603 engine, the Me 109 could not accept this vitally important engine. The M.C 205 transformed into the M.C.207 could but apparently required a larger wing.
I believe one other weakness of the serie 5 Italian designs from the German tests was a low roll rate but this could probably be fixed by work on the ailerons such as spring tabs, freis ailerons etc.
Readie is currently away from the forum, so, if you don't mind
Ineffective they were (if we can attribute effectiveness to machines, rather than to organizations), and they were fine fighters in the same time. Post war use of combat aircraft was a thing of countries' budget, not a thing of any piston-engined fighter being that good; people did not make the switch to the jet fighters just because there was no prop attached to them.
1st produced MC 205 fighters were armed with just 2 heavy MGs, the two cannons were not installed until a bigger wing wasn't introduced, with according loss in performance.
Could you please provide a sourced information (not English language Wikipedia article, if possible) that G55 managed 426 mph?
The low availability is a part of inefficiency - numbers produced do matter. Do we know what Macchi vs. what Spitfire, who held the initial advantages (current speed height), place time of battle, is it confirmed by both sides?
The Italian series 5 fighters (and other Axis fighters in second half of the war) were unable to wrestle the air superiority from the Allies, in MTO and on other theaters - hence the series 5 fighters were inefficient?
I'd LOVE to see a 5-series plane flying. One or more of each would be the best possible outcome, but any of the three would be a welcome addition to flying warbirds around the world.
Their resemblance IS somewhat mystifying if they weren't working together.
I THOUGHT that the basis for the 5-series was an "improved" Re 2000 or Re 2001. I've read that more than once, but have no feeling for the accuracy of the claim. Perhaps starting with the same plane and modifying it for a liquid-cooled powerplant, if that really WAS the case, has something to do with it.
Speculation on my part, though ... I've seen the claim with no references to it's origin such as an issued specification.