P-40 vs. Macchi C-200, Fiat G-50.
- Thread starter V-1710
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Against those - P-40 all the way!!!!
cheddar cheese
Major General
Sure, leave out the Re-2000, which would have a P-40 anyday of the week.
carpenoctem1689
Airman 1st Class
- 285
- Sep 10, 2005
Yeah i would have to take the P-40. It was faster, thats for sure, much more heavily armed, and it could just take the punishment better than the early italian fighters. But alot would also depend on tactics, because the P-40 wasnt exactly the most manouverable, you might have some serious trouble if your caught in a low speed turning match, the pilots would have to use dive attacks from above, or head on attacks to avoid being shot down. But it may not have been too needed, considering the sad level of training the regia aeronautica gave to its pilots. Overall id still take the P-40.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Dive and Split S - It's Lunch Time!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
cheddar cheese said:
Don't think so CC!
P-40 for me. It was just was an all around better aircraft.
- Thread starter
- #8
cheddar cheese
Major General
It had a few structural weaknesses. Other than that and a slightly lacking top speed of 324mph, It would probably outfly a 109E.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
V-1710 said:
Top speed of 325mph, I wonder?!?
The Swedes had problems with their engines...
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
How about P-40 vs. Mc-202? 
I wouldn't want to be stuck in a P-40 in that furball.
I wouldn't want to be stuck in a P-40 in that furball.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Sal Monella said:How about P-40 vs. Mc-202?
I wouldn't want to be stuck in a P-40 in that furball.
Actually if flown right I'd give it to the P-40, but a 202 would give it a much better fight than either other aircraft...
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
You're kidding right? What if both the P-40 and Mc-202 are "flown right"?
The only thing going for the P-40 is armament and ability to absorb damage. (Which would definitely come in handy) The Mc-202 holds a performance advantage across the board. In some areas, that advantage is small like in flat out speed but in others, it is massive like in climb, turn radius and acceleration and roll rate. I'm not sure about dive.
I have read accounts from P-51 pilots who considered the Mc-202 a near equal in performance in a low level turning fight. A P-40 would get waxed in two seconds by a 51.
The only thing going for the P-40 is armament and ability to absorb damage. (Which would definitely come in handy) The Mc-202 holds a performance advantage across the board. In some areas, that advantage is small like in flat out speed but in others, it is massive like in climb, turn radius and acceleration and roll rate. I'm not sure about dive.
I have read accounts from P-51 pilots who considered the Mc-202 a near equal in performance in a low level turning fight. A P-40 would get waxed in two seconds by a 51.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Sal Monella said:
If both are flown right it comes down to tactics and I would still take the P-40. Beyond that it's going to be luck. The point here is don't turn with the 202, the P-40 F weighed almost 3000 pounds more but had more mass and HP. You're hanging on the the "horizontal doctrine" and aircraft like the P-40 fought best in the vertical, using it's dive and zoom ability to gain advantage, and combined that with a high and low "yo-yo" to take the turning advantage away. Italian pilots loved to twist and turn and use basic aerobatic maneuvers while in combat. The P-40 had one of the best roll rates of any WW2 aircraft with the exception of the -190D and could certainly outdive it. Most of the 202s were delivered with only 2 guns.
the -202 was only 9 mph faster than the P-40F, it had the same speed as the P-40N, I don't see no big advantage between the two. The 202 could out-turn and out climb the P-40 from an even plane, the P-40 could out dive and out zoom the -202 and was definitely more heavily armed.
I think the real world WW2 statistics will find the 202 didn't do to well aganist the P-40, I have data somewhere.
Believe it or not, many P-51 aces perfered the P-40 and P-39 over the P-51, one of them being Chuck Yeager.....
Now the MC-205, that's a different story.....
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
Would you similarly favor a P-47D over a P-51D? The Mc-202 vs. P-40 is remarkably similar under your analysis to the P-51 vs. the P-47.
Mc-202 and P-51 have advantage in the horizontal while P-40 and P-47 have advantage in the verticle for dive and zoom.
Mc-202 and P-51 are only about 8 or 9 mph faster than the P-40 and P-47.
Mc-202 and P-51 have better climb and turn than the P-40 and P-47.
P-40 and P-47 have better roll rate than the Mc-202 and P-51.
P-40 and P-47 have superior armament and survivability over the Mc-202 and P-51.
Mc-202 and P-51 have advantage in the horizontal while P-40 and P-47 have advantage in the verticle for dive and zoom.
Mc-202 and P-51 are only about 8 or 9 mph faster than the P-40 and P-47.
Mc-202 and P-51 have better climb and turn than the P-40 and P-47.
P-40 and P-47 have better roll rate than the Mc-202 and P-51.
P-40 and P-47 have superior armament and survivability over the Mc-202 and P-51.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Sal Monella said:
P-47D to a P-51D?!? Personally I'd go with the -47, but the -47 weighs almost 10,000 pounds more than the -51. The biggest advantage is the round engine of the -47...
Sal Monella
Airman 1st Class
The P-47D weighs in at 14,600lbs normal load and the P-51D weighed in at 10,100 lbs normal load. That's 4,500lbs more.
In addition, the P-47D has a 2,530hp engine vs the 1,695hp that the P-51D has. (835 more hp)
In my opinion, the P-47 could take the P-51 but only at high altitude.
Back to the subject at hand though - In the data I'm seeing on various sites, the weights and hp figures between the P-40N and Mc-202 are as follows:
P-40N - 8,350 loaded
Mc-202 - 6,453 loaded
P-40N - 1,200hp
Mc-202 - 1,175hp
I still don't believe that the P-40 would stand a chance against an Mc-202 where both pilots are of equal skill. The fact that P-40's may have done quite well against Mc-202's is akin in my opinion to F4F pilots doing so well against Zeros. It's attributable to group tactics that expoit the verticle.
One on one, with pilots of equal skill, I think the Zero would splash the F4F every time.
From the Smithsonian Air Space website:
"The C.202 first flew in August 1940 and the RA initially deployed the aircraft during the summer of 1941 to the 1° Stormo C.T. for conversion training. By November, this unit had transferred to Libya and engaged British forces shortly before the British blockaded Tobruk. Although it was available too late to affect the outcome in North Africa, the new Macchi C.202 proved clearly superior to both the American Curtiss P-40 and the British Hawker Hurricane. The Italian fighter outperformed all opponents except Supermarine Spitfires and North American P-51 Mustangs. Folgore pilots lauded the fighter's finger-light handling and superb agility."
In addition, the P-47D has a 2,530hp engine vs the 1,695hp that the P-51D has. (835 more hp)
In my opinion, the P-47 could take the P-51 but only at high altitude.
Back to the subject at hand though - In the data I'm seeing on various sites, the weights and hp figures between the P-40N and Mc-202 are as follows:
P-40N - 8,350 loaded
Mc-202 - 6,453 loaded
P-40N - 1,200hp
Mc-202 - 1,175hp
I still don't believe that the P-40 would stand a chance against an Mc-202 where both pilots are of equal skill. The fact that P-40's may have done quite well against Mc-202's is akin in my opinion to F4F pilots doing so well against Zeros. It's attributable to group tactics that expoit the verticle.
One on one, with pilots of equal skill, I think the Zero would splash the F4F every time.
From the Smithsonian Air Space website:
"The C.202 first flew in August 1940 and the RA initially deployed the aircraft during the summer of 1941 to the 1° Stormo C.T. for conversion training. By November, this unit had transferred to Libya and engaged British forces shortly before the British blockaded Tobruk. Although it was available too late to affect the outcome in North Africa, the new Macchi C.202 proved clearly superior to both the American Curtiss P-40 and the British Hawker Hurricane. The Italian fighter outperformed all opponents except Supermarine Spitfires and North American P-51 Mustangs. Folgore pilots lauded the fighter's finger-light handling and superb agility."
- Thread starter
- #18
The C.202 was certainly a beautiful and capable fighter, but I was thinking about the earlier radial engined Italian planes. In any event, it is interesting to note that Alfa-Romeo was able to successfully reproduce the Daimler-Benz DB-601 while Kawasaki was unable to manufacture reliable examples.
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
I thing the G50 and C200 series with Italian radial engines in the 800 hp range were on par or slightly better than the previous generation of US fighters (P35, P36), but outclassed by the P40, having only better engine survivivability in their 'positive' vs the water cooled Allison
The frame design was ok but the engine was just too bad.
The 202 was a much better plane (give a 50% HP increase and more reliability to a good frame and you have a much better thing), and able to tackle any allied fighter of his (her? in Italian an airplane is a 'male') era.
Many 202 fought until '45 in the RSI, and according to the RSI documentation and pilot reports they had their way even with P47, P38 etc.
The only problem of the 202 was the light armament, that was addressed with the '05' series (with some more power too)
I have some doubt about the 'western zero' fame of the 202,205 etc.
If you look at the wing load of the Macchi's, it is not very different than the contemporary Me109, so it seems unlikely that they had such a dramatic difference in turns etc.
I think the answer might be that Italian pilots were simply more trained and more skilled in aerobatics than the German, US and British pilots, and so able to 'squeeze' more from their mounts in the horizontal plane. (Italian pilot training was really 'old biplane' fashion, basically all centered in aerobatics and nothing in tactics and formation)
The frame design was ok but the engine was just too bad.
The 202 was a much better plane (give a 50% HP increase and more reliability to a good frame and you have a much better thing), and able to tackle any allied fighter of his (her? in Italian an airplane is a 'male') era.
Many 202 fought until '45 in the RSI, and according to the RSI documentation and pilot reports they had their way even with P47, P38 etc.
The only problem of the 202 was the light armament, that was addressed with the '05' series (with some more power too)
I have some doubt about the 'western zero' fame of the 202,205 etc.
If you look at the wing load of the Macchi's, it is not very different than the contemporary Me109, so it seems unlikely that they had such a dramatic difference in turns etc.
I think the answer might be that Italian pilots were simply more trained and more skilled in aerobatics than the German, US and British pilots, and so able to 'squeeze' more from their mounts in the horizontal plane. (Italian pilot training was really 'old biplane' fashion, basically all centered in aerobatics and nothing in tactics and formation)
Parmigiano
Senior Airman
I thing the G50 and C200 series with Italian radial engines in the 800 hp range were on par or slightly better than the previous generation of US fighters (P35, P36), but outclassed by the P40, having only better engine survivivability in their 'positive' vs the water cooled Allison
The frame design was ok but the engine was just too bad.
The 202 was a much better plane (give a 50% HP increase and more reliability to a good frame and you have a much better thing), and able to tackle any allied fighter of his (her? in Italian an airplane is a 'male') era.
Many 202 fought until '45 in the RSI, and according to the RSI documentation and pilot reports they had their way even with P47, P38 etc.
The only problem of the 202 was the light armament, that was addressed with the '05' series (with some more power too)
I have some doubt about the 'western zero' fame of the 202,205 etc.
If you look at the wing load of the Macchi's, it is not very different than the contemporary Me109, so it seems unlikely that they had such a dramatic difference in turns etc.
I think the answer might be that Italian pilots were simply more trained and more skilled in aerobatics than the German, US and British pilots, and so able to 'squeeze' more from their mounts in the horizontal plane. (Italian pilot training was really 'old biplane' fashion, basically all centered in aerobatics and nothing in tactics and formation)
The frame design was ok but the engine was just too bad.
The 202 was a much better plane (give a 50% HP increase and more reliability to a good frame and you have a much better thing), and able to tackle any allied fighter of his (her? in Italian an airplane is a 'male') era.
Many 202 fought until '45 in the RSI, and according to the RSI documentation and pilot reports they had their way even with P47, P38 etc.
The only problem of the 202 was the light armament, that was addressed with the '05' series (with some more power too)
I have some doubt about the 'western zero' fame of the 202,205 etc.
If you look at the wing load of the Macchi's, it is not very different than the contemporary Me109, so it seems unlikely that they had such a dramatic difference in turns etc.
I think the answer might be that Italian pilots were simply more trained and more skilled in aerobatics than the German, US and British pilots, and so able to 'squeeze' more from their mounts in the horizontal plane. (Italian pilot training was really 'old biplane' fashion, basically all centered in aerobatics and nothing in tactics and formation)
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
