P-40 vs. Macchi C-200, Fiat G-50.

Sal Monella said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your're correct on the -47s weights. I was looking at sources that showed a max take off weight between 17,000 and 20,000 pounds for the Jug. That is very high, your numbers seem more correct.

Sal Monella said:

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."

Click to expand...

I think we're looking more at tactics than skill. As far as the Smithsonian info - although a great source, I think they paint a very "status quo" picture (the P-51 was the best fighter of the war, etc.) And not denying that the MC-202 was a worthy adversary, I think we're seeing not enough credit being given to the P-40 and Hurricane, that statement being "par for the course," and a situation discussed on another thread.

Oh - GREAT PHOTOS!

Parmigiano said:

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)

Click to expand...

My point exactly....

Again I stand by my statement, if flown correctly with the right tactics the P-40 can (and did) defeat the MC-202 as proven by the 325th Fighter Group.....

Victories
Losses
Ratio

Known air combat 133
12
11.1/1
Effective sortie/Victory ratio 30.2/1

Probable air combat 144
24
6/1
Effective Sortie/Loss ratio 93.3/1

Overall 133
43
3.1/1

Hmmm... FBJ, just a relaxed comment, even if I know I might start a fire now: I have some general concern in taking US kill ratio as granted...

No patriotism or personal issues with USAAF, but if we look at the US stats of any type of their fighters (and bombers, if we believe the claims of their gunners...), the minimum we find is 10:1, 20:1 and so on: if true, I can't understand why it took 3 years and new airplanes to end the war

As example here is a source of RSI stats, I have translated some data.

http://www.italia-rsi.org/farsianr/anrarena.htm

I don't know about reliability/certification of this numbers, but having more than a few years of experience in analyzing numbers I tend to doubt more of a 15:1 than 1.5:1 victory ratio.

1 - Losses
Velivoli ANR perduti in azione
in combattimento 154 (lost in combat)
distrutti al suolo 78 (destroyed on ground)
perduti in addestramento 28 (lost in training flights)
perduti in voli di trasferimento 52 (lost in transfer flights)
perduti per sabotaggi 9 (lost for sabotage)
demoliti o distrutti dai tedeschi 1230 (destroyed by Germans)
trasferiti in Germania (approssim.) 1500 (moved to Germany, approx)


2 - About certified victories the reported numbers are:

velivoli abbattuti in azione 262 (Caccia, aerosiluranti, reparti vari)
(aircrafts destroyed in action by fighters others)
velivoli abbattuti da reparti vari 19
(aircrafts destroyed in action by varia, no air force)

velivoli abbattuti dall'AR.CO. 156
(aircrafts destroyed in action by ARCO - Flak)

The other count in the same document gives a total of 418, but does not significantly change the proportion.

In air-to-air combat the victory ratio is 1.7:1, that clashes too much with the US claims.

It would be interesting to compare the sources of the different sides, unfortunately most of the documents of the axis side are lost.

And while you bring up a very valid argument, my point was to bring up one very successful squadron who seemed to deal with the MC-202 (As well as the BF-109) very effectively with the P-40.

Yes the numbers are very skewed and we could just assume that somewhere in the middle makes sense based on the outcome of the war.

Flyboy, I think the issue here, at least for me, is aircraft as the aircraft as opposed to tactics or pilot skill. Flyboy.

I'm sure you would agree that superior tactics and pilot skill will generally trump an adversary with a better performing aircraft.

That being the case, let's engage in an apples to apples comparison with equal tactical ability and pilot skill so that we can focus on the relative merits of the aitcraft themselves.

In a one on one engagement with mutual awareness on the part of equally skilled pilots and where the aircraft have positional equality, I just don't see how a P-40 could keep from getting flamed.

Sal Monella said:

Flyboy, I think the issue here, at least for me, is aircraft as the aircraft as opposed to tactics or pilot skill. Flyboy.

I'm sure you would agree that superior tactics and pilot skill will generally trump an adversary with a better performing aircraft.

That being the case, let's engage in an apples to apples comparison with equal tactical ability and pilot skill so that we can focus on the relative merits of the aitcraft themselves.

In a one on one engagement with mutual awareness on the part of equally skilled pilots and where the aircraft have positional equality, I just don't see how a P-40 could keep from getting flamed.

Click to expand...

As an old flight instructor once told me - "A plane is as only good as it's pilot," and I believe that applies to a certain point. In essence what were seeing here is a higher performing aircraft (that being the MC-202) being exploited by a less capable aircraft (the P-40). But keeping on the "apples to apples" scenario, does that include the -202 fighting in the vertical where the P-40 has the advantage in the dive or fighting in the horizontal where the -202 surely has the advantage? It seems that regardless of the advantages or limitations of your weapon, you're going to exploit those advantages to your benefit and it seems that's what was done in WW2 by the 325th and the AVG in the Pacific. It boils down to each pilot "suckering" the other into a disadvantage - Tactics, or having one pilot making a mistake - Skill, or just plain luck. This whole thing is 3 dimensional, both in the air and on the tactical blackboard....

G50 vs P-40 = would be a tough combat if both pilots were aware of the other. the most likly attack from the p-40 would be a diving attack. the G50 has = aileron responce with the P-40 but much better E responce so the most likely responce is bank and yank and extend, the p-40 will have a hard time tracking the move for long because of its speed advantage. I would perfer an out of plain barrel role because it makes the P-40 role while holding elevator with the G50, while accounting for the different aim points all the way through the roll. once the P-40 over shoots the G50 has a brief time while he is still in range to take a snap shot. the G50 does not have the guns to bring the p-40 down, the P-40 does have the guns to bring down the G50. Win for the G50 would be landing enough rounds to discorage the p-40 off or hit the radiator. the p-40 has to play "slash and dash tactics against a pilot that knows he's coming so he will only land afew rounds at best. but the P-40 has the advantage of deciding when the attack ends because of his speed advantage. the P-40 has the advantage but i don't see eithergetting a clear kill without help.

mc200 vs P-40 = would be a tough combat if both pilots were aware of the other. the most likly attack from the p-40 would be a diving attack. the mc200 has much faster aileron and E responce so the most likely (safe) responce is bank and yank and the p-40 will have a hard time tracking the move from the initial bank because of the A&E advantage. I would perfer an out of plain barrel role because it makes the P-40 role while holding elevator with the mc200, while accounting for the different aim points all the way through the roll. once the P-40 over shoots the mc200 has a brief time while he is still in range to take a snap shot. the mc200 does not have the guns to bring the p-40 down, the P-40 does have the guns to bring down the G50. Win for the G50 would be landing enough rounds to discorage the p-40 or puncture the radiator. the p-40 has to play "slash and dash tactics against a pilot that knows he's coming so he will land no rounds if the mc200 pilot plays it safe, the more he concentrates on getting into position for a snap shot the closer he gets to giving the P-40 a shot. but the P-40 has the advantage of deciding when the attack ends because of his speed advantage. the P-40 has the advantage but i don't see either landing a round without help.

Joe

paladin said:

G50 vs P-40 = would be a tough combat if both pilots were aware of the other. the most likly attack from the p-40 would be a diving attack. the G50 has = aileron responce with the P-40 but much better E responce so the most likely responce is bank and yank and extend, the p-40 will have a hard time tracking the move for long because of its speed advantage. I would perfer an out of plain barrel role because it makes the P-40 role while holding elevator with the G50, while accounting for the different aim points all the way through the roll. once the P-40 over shoots the G50 has a brief time while he is still in range to take a snap shot. the G50 does not have the guns to bring the p-40 down, the P-40 does have the guns to bring down the G50. Win for the G50 would be landing enough rounds to discorage the p-40 off or hit the radiator. the p-40 has to play "slash and dash tactics against a pilot that knows he's coming so he will only land afew rounds at best. but the P-40 has the advantage of deciding when the attack ends because of his speed advantage. the P-40 has the advantage but i don't see eithergetting a clear kill without help.

mc200 vs P-40 = would be a tough combat if both pilots were aware of the other. the most likly attack from the p-40 would be a diving attack. the mc200 has much faster aileron and E responce so the most likely (safe) responce is bank and yank and the p-40 will have a hard time tracking the move from the initial bank because of the A&E advantage. I would perfer an out of plain barrel role because it makes the P-40 role while holding elevator with the mc200, while accounting for the different aim points all the way through the roll. once the P-40 over shoots the mc200 has a brief time while he is still in range to take a snap shot. the mc200 does not have the guns to bring the p-40 down, the P-40 does have the guns to bring down the G50. Win for the G50 would be landing enough rounds to discorage the p-40 or puncture the radiator. the p-40 has to play "slash and dash tactics against a pilot that knows he's coming so he will land no rounds if the mc200 pilot plays it safe, the more he concentrates on getting into position for a snap shot the closer he gets to giving the P-40 a shot. but the P-40 has the advantage of deciding when the attack ends because of his speed advantage. the P-40 has the advantage but i don't see either landing a round without help.

Joe

Click to expand...

And how do you confirm these performance claims?

Research!

when i was young and foolish i read alot of the pilot debriefs. while g50's and mc200 where pretty sparce the mc202 was a mc200 with the german engine. one can assume if the 202 had good habits tey were only better whils slower. the mc202 was the third fastest aileron responce in the war(behind the fw190 and P-47, tied with the corsair).

now i have enough info that i can draw conclutions from the type of wing, the elevator, aileron area vs wing area.

by the way i chose not to enter the p-47 vs p-51 because it is an obsurd comparison (spelling, its late). the typical p-47 tactics were to fly streight into the furbal in a slight dive, shouting at targets of opportunity, then continuing out of the furball to a safe distence climbing to a safe hight then slit s into another furball run. with all that wt once it started to shuck and jive it would loose speed fast and become a target. It was only allowed to be successful because of the P-51, spit, etc.

Joe

paladin said:

Research!

when i was young and foolish i read alot of the pilot debriefs. while g50's and mc200 where pretty sparce the mc202 was a mc200 with the german engine. one can assume if the 202 had good habits tey were only better whils slower. the mc202 was the third fastest aileron responce in the war(behind the fw190 and P-47, tied with the corsair).

now i have enough info that i can draw conclutions from the type of wing, the elevator, aileron area vs wing area.

Click to expand...

Do you have proof of that "research?"

I've heard at least one dissertation presumably from Reggia Aeronautica sources there was a lot to consider about the Daimlers, that initial deliveries installed to the MC202 were from German stockpiles. Locally remanufactured Daimlers under license had finer engineering tolerances and performed more reliably at the high power settings (German 601A could only get a maximum of 2min start u-notleistung at 2400u/min where the Alfa could manage 3-5min at 2500u/min more like the 601Aa of 1939 production, actual rating of the MC202 motor should be closer to 1200hp with a 30min rating of some 1000hp), but the problem here was in the field these finer tolerances were a problem at places like North Africa, even with tropical/sand filters the Alfa had a very poor serviceability rate under forward airfield conditions. They required strict maintenance and careful servicing.

Also that the G.50 and MC.200-series airframes were totally different animals. The G.50 is regarded more traditional in design where the Castoldi was forward looking. With outdated radials the performance margin is only little in favour of the Castoldi but the fact the airframe was largely unchanged for fitment of the Daimler and performance jumped significantly and became quite competitive and contemporary with any front line model is testament.

I've also read the tolerances and boost calibration on the DB605 in MC.205 was similarly altered to Italian specifications locally, in this case slightly derated I believe to 1.35atm (slightly more than the German derating of the previous year until the pistons were cast differently), but that it could hold start u- notleistung all day unlike German models, so its ca.1350hp max rating was available for pretty much the whole sortie. Apparently it had much better oil cooling than a Messer.

Essentially, but this is anecdotal in terms of providing links and references, it appears the Alfa 601A performed slightly better than a German one but was less serviceable in frontal field conditions, whilst the Alfa 605 performed somewhere between the derated German 605A and the late production 605A but was far more reliable at the max power settings.

Any thoughts are welcome.

From Wiki - sources are noted...

The P-40 was generally superior to early Italian fighter types, such as the Fiat G.50 and the Macchi C.200. Its performance against the Macchi C.202 Folgore elicited different opinions. Caldwell, who had combat experience against the Italian fighters, considered that the Folgore would have been superior to both the P-40 and the Bf 109, except that its armament of only two or four machine guns was inadequate.[19] Other observers considered the two equally matched, or favored the Folgore in aerobatic performance, such as turning radius. Jonathan Glancey wrote that the Folgore was superior to the P-40, noting the difference in turning radius.[20] Walter J. Boyne wrote that over Africa, the P-40 and the Folgore were "equivalent." [21]

^ Ethell and Christy 1979, p. 51.
^ Glancey 2006, p. 166.
^ Boyne 2002, p. 406.

When you start talking "aileron response" I suggest you try to tie that into some type of confirmed performance data at a given speed. Here's a 1942 NACA report which compares the roll rate of the P-36, P-40, Spitfire Hurricane.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/usaaf/rollrate.pdf

"Aileron Response" is meaningless unless that "response" iequates into a sustained roll or turn rate at a given speed and altitude. The MC.200 was a lot lighter than the P-40, but the P-40 had one of the best roll rates of all WW2 aircraft. Additionally the MC.200 was not that stable and tended to spin in tight turns.

Sounds like you're getting some conclusions from a flight sim.

Walter J. Boyne wrote that over Africa, the P-40 and the Folgore were "equivalent."

Click to expand...

Damn I hate doing this, I love the P-40 I really do. That F-series Allison was superb and according to documentation was recalibrated for up to 66" Hg among squadrons in the Middle East and North Africa (source Allison Division letterhead). The lead engineer at Allison rated this specification, which was not officially cleared by Allison and was clearly discouraged, translated to some 1740hp at the WEP rating under 5000ft. That's just deadly, I would not like to get in a tussle with a Mediterranean sqn P-40E at low altitude in 1942 no matter what I was flying, Messer or whatever.

But I've sat and watched Walter Boyne state clearly on camera the MC.202 was a Ferrari where the Hurricane and P-40 both were a Ford, and although virtually unserviceable in the North African environment, were easily superior when actually in combat.

vanir said:

Damn I hate doing this, I love the P-40 I really do. That F-series Allison was superb and according to documentation was recalibrated for up to 66" Hg among squadrons in the Middle East and North Africa (source Allison Division letterhead). The lead engineer at Allison rated this specification, which was not officially cleared by Allison and was clearly discouraged, translated to some 1740hp at the WEP rating under 5000ft. That's just deadly, I would not like to get in a tussle with a Mediterranean sqn P-40E at low altitude in 1942 no matter what I was flying, Messer or whatever.

But I've sat and watched Walter Boyne state clearly on camera the MC.202 was a Ferrari where the Hurricane and P-40 both were a Ford, and although virtually unserviceable in the North African environment, were easily superior when actually in combat.

Click to expand...

Agree

vanir said:

Damn I hate doing this, I love the P-40 I really do. That F-series Allison was superb and according to documentation was recalibrated for up to 66" Hg among squadrons in the Middle East and North Africa (source Allison Division letterhead). The lead engineer at Allison rated this specification, which was not officially cleared by Allison and was clearly discouraged, translated to some 1740hp at the WEP rating under 5000ft. That's just deadly, I would not like to get in a tussle with a Mediterranean sqn P-40E at low altitude in 1942 no matter what I was flying, Messer or whatever.

But I've sat and watched Walter Boyne state clearly on camera the MC.202 was a Ferrari where the Hurricane and P-40 both were a Ford, and although virtually unserviceable in the North African environment, were easily superior when actually in combat.

Click to expand...

The last sentence is the crucial part! It makes the P40 a more effective combat plane, even if the MC.202 is a better fighter!

Agree, Watanabe et al.
MC-202 really needed one motor cannon at least to be an efficient war machine.

One thing to note are the ages of the aircraft we are looking at here.

The Re 2000 was essentially a P-35 cleaned up aerodynaically, and lightened. It was lightedned a little too much, because similar to Japanese types the structural integrity of the wings was a little on the suspect side. Since the fuel tanks were located in the wings, and the wings were moving excessively when under load, the Re-2000 had an unfortunate tendency to leak fuel allover the aircraft whilst in flight. It was literally a flying incendiary, just waiting to burst into flame.

A report by the Hungarian air force into the 30 or so Itlalian made types delivered to the Hungarian AF was damning about these problems. However the hungarian Re 2000s overcame these problems, I believe by strengthening the wings. The Mavag Hejas (as they were known) were quite successful on the eastern front. But all of the hejas were relatively slow divers, because they remained lightweight.

The MC 200 was good enough to just about follow a Hurricane MkI in a dive. I dont know how this compares to the P-40s, but it does show that some of the italian aircraft could dive

The C202 was heavier faster, a better diver, and could outmanouvre a hurricane (vertical or horizontal. I dont have the numbers to prove this, its just what Ive read.

The G-50 was not a good airacraft. It was described by some of the pilots that flew it as umanouverable and sluggish. It was not well liked by its crews, and the Hurricanes that flew against it did not have much trouble in shooting it down.

I know that the C202 was fitted with armour, I think the C200 may have been (but Im not sure). The G-50 and Re2000 were definately not armoured. The P-40 was definately armoured, and importantlypossessedf longer operational range than the Italian mounts.

A small advantage for Italian aircraft was that they all carried ammunition counters to tell the Pilot how much ammunition was remaining.

If we are comparing apples to apples, then we should note that the C200 and G-50 were delivered from 1939, The C 202 was entereing service from Septemeber 1941, at about the same time as the early marks of Tommahawk in the Desert Air Force. So at this point, even if we compare the earliest marks of the P-40 to the Italian early aircraft we are conceding two years or more of technological development time to the US Type. I thihnk this is worthwhile to note...

And finally if you are fair in the comparison, and you compare the early marks of the Tomahawk, it will become apparent that the Tomahawk was no better armed, and its performance described as "sluggish" by many of the people that flew it.

On that basis, my non technical assessment finds the following comparisons

The Tomahawk is superior to the G-50.

It is competitive against the C200 and the Heja

It is inferior as a dogfighterto the C202

The P-40s main problems in 1941 were poor armament and a lack of power. And it is a much newer design than any except the C202

The P-40 experts would have to chime in on this but as far as I know the original USAAC P-40 had no more armour than the P-36, ie. none really, though it was all metal and pretty sturdy. The British ordered the P-40 but requested it be equipped with pilot armour which the RAF were at that time retrofitting to their own a/c. So the P-40B and C (Tomahawk) has some pilot armour, I've no idea of the specifics. With the new F-series Allison the P-40D also got the self sealing fuel tanks, from what I've read this was the first version to have those.
So in Desert Air Force terms, the Tomahawk has some pilot armour, I'm guessing an armoured seat and headrest, whilst the Kittyhawk adds self sealing fuel tanks.
Messers were definitely better armoured by this time, but I think Italian planes were about the same, my random irrational guess would be the Castoldi design had self sealing tanks, the others didn't and whether they had pilot armour is easy to tell by the cockpit, ie. not the early series but say for the MC.200 from the serie 3 onwards when you can see the cockpit glass changes.

parsifal said:

The P-40s main problems in 1941 were poor armament and a lack of power.

Click to expand...

2 .50 and 4 .30 machine guns are "lack of firepower" in 1941 if we're talking a P-40B? Even with 1040 HP you're still looking at 350 MPH and a 3000 FPM climb. Not stellar, but definitely competitive.

vanir said:

The P-40 experts would have to chime in on this but as far as I know the original USAAC P-40 had no more armour than the P-36, ie. none really, though it was all metal and pretty sturdy. The British ordered the P-40 but requested it be equipped with pilot armour which the RAF were at that time retrofitting to their own a/c. So the P-40B and C (Tomahawk) has some pilot armour, I've no idea of the specifics. With the new F-series Allison the P-40D also got the self sealing fuel tanks, from what I've read this was the first version to have those.
So in Desert Air Force terms, the Tomahawk has some pilot armour, I'm guessing an armoured seat and headrest, whilst the Kittyhawk adds self sealing fuel tanks.
Messers were definitely better armoured by this time, but I think Italian planes were about the same, my random irrational guess would be the Castoldi design had self sealing tanks, the others didn't and whether they had pilot armour is easy to tell by the cockpit, ie. not the early series but say for the MC.200 from the serie 3 onwards when you can see the cockpit glass changes.

Click to expand...

For what its worth...

Curtiss P-40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gulp I've been wikified
I had read that about the P-40C but then read in some publications conflicts about just which model actually featured the proper self sealing (not just oxygen excavating) fuel tanks. Some sources say the P-40D, one book says the P-40E, Wiki says the P-40C. One RAAF document gives a larger fuel tankage for the Tomahawk than the Kittyhawk, of course due to the installation of the self sealing liners, but it doesn't say which model Tomahawk.