Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...
The G56 and RE2006 were to be fitted with the Fiat Tifone engine which was a DB605 under license as far as I know. The reason that they were interested more in the Fiat and Reggiane was because the Macchi took too long to build, even though in testing the Macchi came out on top in all aspects.
I have never heard of it being slow in roll. I was considered to be extremely maneuverable and the most well balanced fighter of the war.
I do not see where the inefficiency are at least in combat?
The first series were known as the 202's which had a less powerful engine. Then the 205's with a slightly newer wing and more powerful engine. This did not degrade in loss of performance in the series III 205 fighter.
Of course if you cannot buy a jet you're going to buy one of the best piston aircraft on the market. Countries that could not afford jets bought piston driven airplanes like the Macchi and Fiat.
The p-40, p-47 and Reggiane are based on the Seversky P-35.
I remember a thread quite a while ago where someone argued that the P-51 was a copy of the P-40. That was pretty much based on similarities in profile between a few of the many quite different profiles of the respective basic designs.
According to Macchi in Venegono and three interviews with pilots testing, it was solved, mostly having to do with moments and washout. The Macchi 205 was easy to recover from spins as reported from pilots.
All airplanes can be put into a flat spin and very few could actually recover from a flat spin. Not sure if any World War II fighters could actually recover from an incipient flat spin.
The G56 and RE2006 were to be fitted with the Fiat Tifone engine which was a DB605 under license as far as I know. The reason that they were interested more in the Fiat and Reggiane was because the Macchi took too long to build, even though in testing the Macchi came out on top in all aspects.
I have never heard of it being slow in roll. I was considered to be extremely maneuverable and the most well balanced fighter of the war.
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?
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?
That came directly from Macchi chief test pilot Franco Brisolini during flight tests in 1980. Also a quote but not complete shows if there was issues, tests would have brought that forward, but apparently it impressed and was one of the finest aircraft he ever flown capable to anything the Allied had: Chief Naval Test Pilot, remembered how they were impressed when they tested the Veltro. One of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi MC. 205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of Italian styling and German engineering. It was really a delight to fly, and up to anything on the Allied program. But again, it came just before the Italians capitulated so it was never used extensively. And we did tests on it and were most impressed.
This is just like everyone thought the wings where the same length not too long ago on the Macchi's. Anyway, they were different and not many know this unless involved directly with Macchi. Ingegnere Luigi Raggi and Ingegnere Mario Castelli along with CEO at the time Fabrizio Foresio all confirmed the minor differences in the 202 and 205 wings during the restoration at AerMacchi.
It is true with the P-47 and 2005. Can't confirm for sure on the P-40, Longhi is dead now, I would have asked him!! The designs came from the P-35. This is confirmed by friend Ingegnere Roberto Longhi who worked in the USA along-side many of the prominent engineers of the time. The P-47 and all Reggiane aircraft were derived from the P-35. When he was kidnapped by the fascists in the US, he was brought back to Italy as a prisoner to work on engineering aircraft. He later came back to the US after the war and worked for Boeing for a short time. He was nominated into the American Institute of Aeronautics and awarded by the International Aeronautics Commission for his achievements.
September 8, 1943 73a Squadriglia, belonging to the 9th Gruppo of 4° Stormo, was based at Gioia del Colle from August 28th, 1943 confirmed both sides.