Me 109 G vs Macchi 205 N Orione

Me 109 G vs Macchi 205 N

  • Me 109G

    Votes: 16 40.0%
  • Macchi 205N

    Votes: 24 60.0%

  • Total voters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Aug 2, 2006
The Daimler engined fighters debate:

Both fighters were powered by the DB 601 A-1 engine rated 1475 hp. (Italian version Fiat RA 1050 was built under license, and was identical with the original Daimler Benz powerplant)

The legendary Messerschmitt was among the top fighters of WW2.A closer look in the Macchi fighter though, may convince us that the Italian design was superior.

What is your opinion?

Kawasaki ki 61 I Hien was another axis fighter powered by the same powerplant (DB 601 A 1100 hp)which fought ''very well'' against a Me 109 E..
Both aircraft weigh 2600 to 2800 kgs, with major differences in span (me 109 :9.04m, macchi 205:11.25 m).Possibly the me 109 could roll better , but the macchi fighter should be more manoeurable and perform better in higher altittudes due to it's lower wing loading.The slats in me 109's wings played a part in dogfighting, but on the other hand during the big war most succesfull fighters operated without them (in fact i don't recall any of them having slats) .
The same with Macchi 205 N applies for the ki 61 also, but it was even lighter than the 205N, and with a bigger wing!
Who knows? The MC205 N 'Orione' was completed only in a couple of prototypes, words are that it was better than the contemporary Bf109G and it makes sense, since the 'Macchi 200 Mk III' (or MC205V) was at least on par with the best of the bunch, having finally closed the gap on armament.

But production of the 205N never started because of the armistice and because the Germans decided to standardize production on their models that were also easier to build (and this makes sense too)

Btw the engine was the DB605, not 601.
109 for me too. After all, the impact it had on the war was much greater than the Macchi. Italy wasn't involved in as many fronts as Germany was and their fighters weren't as numerous. But the Me was still up there right with it's biggest envy the Spitfire. I don't know what plane the allied pilots were more afraid of.

I bet often what they met more in greater numbers. And that would be the Me 109.
I think there is no doubt for '205N' vs '109G'.

Maybe a correct comparison could be 205V vs 109G-6: they were contemporary and the production (about 250) of 205V was enough to have some opinion on performances.

Of course we should limit the pool to pure performances evaluation (like when we talk about the Ta152), if we consider effective deployement, numbers produced, impact on the war etc. there is no comparison.
We can make a comparison off of performance:

Max Speed
Bf-109G-6: 398 mph
M.C. 205: 399 mph

Bf-109G-6: 38,550 ft
M.C. 205: 37,950 ft

Rate of Climb
Bf-109G-6: 3,345 ft/min
M.C. 205: ????

Bf-109G-6: 447 Miles
M.C. 205: 530 Miles

Bf-109G-6: One 30mm MG 108 cannon firing through hub.
Ammunition: 60 Rounds
One 20mm MG 151 cannon
Ammunition: 150 Rounds
Two 13mm MG 131 machine guns above engine.
Ammunition: 300 rpg

M.C. 205: 2x 12.7 mm MG with each 400 rounds on cowling
2x 20 mm cannons with each 250 rounds in wings

Basically based off of performance they were pretty much equal. The only thing to go off of is maneuverability now.
I have found this for the 205,

Macchi Mc.205

DB.605/A o RC.58

hp 1.475

Apertura alare (wing span)
m 10,50 (34,45 ft)

Lungh. tot.. (lenght)
m 8,85 (29 ft)

Alt. tot. (height)
m 3,05 (10 ft)

Superf. alare (wing area)
m2. 16,80 (181 sq ft)

Peso a vuoto (empty weight)
kg 2.524 (5.609 pounds)

Peso max (max weight)
kg 3.224 (7.164 pounds)

Velocità max (max speed)
km/h 650 a 7.400 m (403 mph @ 24.280 ft)

Autonomia (range)
km 1.040 (645 miles)

Quota di tangenza (ceiling)
m 11.350 (37.200ft)

The weight for Bf 109 G6 I have found is 2.700 kg (5.900 lb) empty and 3.400 kg (7.500 lbs) max.

Wing area is (should be? I've started to trust the sources like pre-owned car dealers...) 16,36 sqm or 179 sq feet

If so, wing load for the MC205 is 150 (empty) and 192 (max), for the 109G respectively 173 and 218 kg/sqm

The only rate of climb data I've found is for the MC202, 1.086 mt/min (3.563 ft/min): being the 205 about 100 to 300 kg heavier but with a lot more power (about 300 hp) the 205 should be equal or a bit better. (airframe was almost identical)

If the data are correct, the 205 should be a bit more maneuvrable, mainly because of a lower wing load, but the 109's slats were probably an advantage in low speed flight and we have no data about comparison of controls effectiveness.

Also to remark that several sources reports that the AR built DB605 was performing a bit worse than the original. Again a mess, because it seems that several MC205 were fitted with the German built DB605.

.. so, it looks pretty close to a tie, it looks that all the top fighters were in a narrow range and that the pilot could always make the difference. Hmmm... I believe to have already read this!
Bf-109 G is a rather general term. I went with the Gustav, because as far as performance is concerned, it's later versions were rather superior to the Macchi.
Chocks away! said:
Bf-109 G is a rather general term.

I totally agree, that's why I wanted to be more specific (.. or picky! :))

While the 109G evolved from 1942 to 1945, the MC205 was not developed after her first entry in 1943.

So, if the data we have gathered are somewhat reliable, MC205 and 109G6 looks very close in performances, hence 109G2 was a bit worse and 109G14 and G10 a bit better

Other general considerations are :
- Cockpit visibility: the Macchi was better at least until the 109 adopted the Erla hood and removed the bulges for the MG
- Armament : Macchi was better (a bit in terms of firepower and more in terms of number of rounds carried, and with the exception of the use vs heavy bombers for the 109g-Mk108 )
- Roll rate : 109G was likely better (I believe that having a substantial weight located in mid-wing like a cannon+ammo creates an inertia that impacts on roll rate)
- Maneuvrabilty: Macchi should be in slight advantage, because of the lower wing load and because of the asymmetrical wing construction that reduced the torque effect.

But all the above are in my opinion non-substantial in comparison to the development of the DB605 from 1943 to 1945: the Macchi remained with the 'basic' DB605A

What is also not shown by the performances is that, slave work or not, the 109 was much easier, simpler and faster to build than the Mc205.

The (until today) unknown Macchi 205 F was basically the standard 205V airframe fitted with a new experimental Italian engine.
The secret project was addressing the main problem of the Italian fighter: the lack of a locally developed high performance engine.

Apparently the prototype was extensively flown by the famous test pilot Michele Calzolari (*), who set an incredible string of speed records.

The 30 litre- 75 degree V12 with 4 OHC was credited of 3200 bhp, although the manufacturer always refused to declare the true power output, claiming that he did not wanted to give information to competitors.

More to follow, for now see attached 2 pictures, one original 1943 in bw and the color one from the manufacturer museum in Modena.

(*) Later Mr Calzolari moved to Germany and translated the family name in 'Schumacher'


  • tipo412T2.jpg
    7.7 KB · Views: 246
  • 45Motore%20Ferrari%20044%2001.jpg
    129.5 KB · Views: 250
Imagine an all red Macchi 205 Ferrari - powered racer!

Anyway guys, thanks because I found very useful all the details and specifications provided.Also, I would like to explain my original intentions about creating the poll:
Two similarly powered aircrafts, therefore we are obviously talking about the G6 variant, and of course the impact of the Me 109 was unquestionably greater than the 205.What i needed was your point of view and info about the technical comparison of the two different designs.
I am a big fan of the 109 and found it difficult to accept that the italian design (based on my limited sources) was probably a better dogfighter or had an overall better performance.
Thats what i wanted to focus on, your opinion about the best design powered by the same engine! A fairly straight comparison

Users who are viewing this thread