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

The book "America's Hundred Thousand" isn't exactly clear on this either. For the P-40, P-40B, and P-40C it gives fuel capacities of 180 gal, 160gal, and 135gals respectivly for fuel system weights of 171lbs, 253.4lbs and 420lbs.
The D-E versions are listed at 148-9 gals for fuel system weights of 425-437lbs. The weights are supposed to be from individual aircraft and so may reflect production tolerances/variation.

Armor weights for the P-40,P-40B, P-40C, P-40E are given as 0lb, 93lbs, 93lbs and 111lbs, this includes bullet proof glass. Armor weights for later models is included in the "armament provisions" catagory and so is harder to break out.

These are for US models and might not truely represent the British/lend lease versions?

Well based on those figures I'd say indeed self sealing liners were in from the P-40C. Like you said though this might not reflect exports, the RAAF document I was talking about also clearly says no armour at all is installed. These Tomahawks might be redirected Hawk-81A used by NA sqns (RAAF didn't use Tomahawks locally), without specific model designation it's too ambiguous. It'd be nice to see detailed documentation from RAF/RAAF records on the fit of each Tomahawk version.

I give the P-40 more credit where a lot of people might dismiss its abilities.
I think this conception of the -40 being a poor turn fighter stems from its contrast against fighters like the Zero.

Really, the Zero could out turn every other WW2 plane, and interestingly even Japanese pilots considered the P-40 their most dangerous adversary at lower altitudes, P-38 at high altitudes, and the F4U over all.

Between the match up of the MC202 or any other Macchi, and any other P-40, would be largely dependent on speed.
At higher speeds the P-40 was one of the tighter turning planes, and had the roll performance to match.

Indeed its always a tactical match up, but in this case i don't see either aircraft having that big of an advantage over each other. They both zoomed similarly and rolled similarly, and at the same speeds could match each other in turn performance. The only real difference is in climb rate, where the Macchi pilot could gain and maintain an advantage.

The biggest handicap the P40 had was poor climb rate and poor high altitude performance. At medium and low altitudes it was highly maneuverable and had one of the best roll rates of any US fighter. It was also very rugged.

I do tyend to think the p-40 was superior to the Italian types (MC 200, G-50 and Re 2000). However, the MC 200 was judged to be effctive against the Hurricane, and easily able to outmanouvre it in the horizontal. My unscientific opinion is that the hurricane was at least equal to the early P-40s, which I do consider to be underpowered and undergunned (comparatively....compare the eight gun broadside of the Hurricane to the two or four gun broadside of the Tomahawk, and compare the power to weight of the Tomahawk to the Hurricane, and the former comes up lacking) .

Where the P-40 wins out over the italian types is in the dive rates, ruggedness, and comparatively, in the armement 9whilst the Tomahawk was light on compared to the Hurricane, it was superior to the italian armament).

I think also that the P-40 was easier to develop into more effective subtypes than the Italian aircraft. Whereas the italians had to basically redsign the whole aircraft to develop the superior c202 and G-55 types from these earlier models, the P-40B was failry easily developed into the P-40M and beyond

a note C-202 it's not a redesign of whole planes only the need for install the daimler engine.

Incorrect. The fuselage was extensively redesigned between C.200 and C.202. The intermediate aircraft was also radial engined and offered no significant performance gains over the C.200. Observe that the fuselage contours between the Saetta and Folgore are not even close. The C.200 is much more hump backed.

- Ivan.

FLYBOYJ said:

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....

Click to expand...

Would agree with the first portion in particular. Air combat in general seems to even out over time unless one or more variables, including plane comparisons are majorly out of wack. Even the humble but nimble Cr-42 managed to score well initially despite it's archaic look and growing obsolecence. Stat comparisons can be disceiving, especially in light of incomplete or disputed sources.

For what it's worth....I discerned the following from Shores for the 1940-2 fighting:

P-40 (Commonwealth ---aka Tomahawk/Kittyhawk) vs. MC-200 Kills vs. each other.

42:2

ouch. This would on the surface suggest the P-40 runs rings around the MC-200, but from what i've read on the plane, it was decent if a bit no frills. Texts generally credit it with the ability to take on a Hurricane so given that a Hurr is not night and day inferior to a P40, the disperity might be explained from other comments made re: tactics and the variable state of Italian fighter pilot training. Records are spotty though so i'm sure this is not complete.

vs. the MC-202: (same: P40/202 kills vs each other)

23:35

On the surface, the 202 wins the kill contest. The ratio might be more....or even less because a major issue with the NA fighting was that the similarity in looks between it and the 109. It was suggested more than once in Shores' tombs that some combats credited with "109s" were in fact 202's. Specifically it was suggested in more than one place that kills credited to 109's were in fact 202's.

The only real criticism i've read about the 202 was it's armament was sub-par which combined with what is often described as a lack of killer instinct vs. the more kill minded German pilots. Some Italian pilots were credited with a real acrobatic ability but often failed to press home attacks. There was also the prevailing issue of pilot skill variability. Training according to author Chris Dunning was handled by the Gruppo C/O's vs. a set higher policy in the Regia Aeronautica so depending on which Gruppo you faced, you might get neophytes and/or pilots with inferior training or you might get experts who knew their craft. The Germans also tended to assign Italian air units to rear area duties due to integration issues and of course the ever present servicability issues that plauged the Italian AF,

Don't count too much on dive speed. Mc200 was suprisingly fast in a dive. "Flight testing of the two MC.200 prototypes was successful, one of them attaining a speed of 500 mph (805 km/h) in a dive, ". I would be supprised by that, but it was fast in a dive.
I'll look through the copy of the Italian manual for the Mc200 that I was most kindly given. Darn useful book Any questions on, oh, oil return lines?

Dino in Reno

I must give some defence to Fiat G.50. Actually Finnish fighter pilots liked it as a fighter, mechanics didn't, it has many serviceably problems and didn't like Nordic winters. But its flight characters were liked even if it was rather slow with rather poor roc, but it dived well, without controls becoming too heavy. Max diving speed achieved by Finns was 828km/h TAS. It was sturdy, breaking point 14g.
Armament, 2 synchronized Breda-SAFAT heavy mgs, was rather poor, but at least it had reasonable good ammo. The armament was not hopelessly inadequate, a distant relative of mine claimed c. 14 victories in G.50 and actually got c. 7. One was SB, almost unprotected twin, a bit like early Blenheims but one was DB-3, which were fairly well protected medium bombers and one was Pe-2. Of fighters he shot down 2 were MiG-3s.

Juha

Ivan1GFP said:

Incorrect. The fuselage was extensively redesigned between C.200 and C.202. The intermediate aircraft was also radial engined and offered no significant performance gains over the C.200. Observe that the fuselage contours between the Saetta and Folgore are not even close. The C.200 is much more hump backed.

- Ivan.

Click to expand...

i'm sorry but afaik this is not true, the C. 202 is not a derivative of C. 201, is directly derivate form C. 200.

Here is the excerpt from the M.C.200 Flight Handbook stating that "The reservoir front and rear of the fuselage are provided with protection against bullets of caliber 12.7" and a picture of what they look like.

The armor consisted only of an armored seat and no armored glass. I will do the same for the Fiat G.50 shortly.

Hello Nikademus
very interesting info

Juha

Hello Krieghund
very interesting info.

The Fiat G.50s Finns got in late 39 - early 40, so early production examples, were unprotected. Even if Finns usually added back armour to their fighters, one of the lessons learned from the Winter War because many Soviet fighters had had back armour for their pilots, that was not done in G.50. Probably because of its already rather poor roc. They designed one for G.50 but in the end didn't install them even if we installed back armour for pilot in our Fokker D.XXIs, Morane MS 406s, Hawk 75As and Brewster B-239s.

Juha

Here is the page from the G50 Fight Handbook with pictures of the protected fuel tanks. The G50 was not produced with any armor or protective Glass.

krieghund said:

The G50 was not produced with any armor or protective Glass.

Click to expand...

idk for glass, but afaik was add armour after early planes (just i don't remember if with Bis variant or meanwhile block productions in the original variant)

Hello
according to an article on G.50 in the Air International Jun 88, probably by Green/Swanborough, the G.50bis had armoured seat for the pilot. G.50bis was the main production version.

Juha

Juha said:

Hello
according to an article on G.50 in the Air International Jun 88, probably by Green/Swanborough, the G.50bis had armoured seat for the pilot. G.50bis was the main production version.

Juha

Click to expand...

Of the 782 G.50's produced my manual (G.50bis) covers the second to the last production batch of 315 aircraft from Nov 40 to Apr 42. The last batch was only 35 aircraft. The detailed weight tables, fuselage, cockpit pictures, drawings and the word picture indicate no armor but I would agree that this was an expedient field modification.

strange
can you attach the pages with weight? (or if it's in the manual section of forum give the link) thanks

I also think that the g-50s in North Africa suffered significant setrviceability issues. I have some figures at home and will post them a bit later. There was nothing wrong with the basic airframe that I know of, but it seems a little slow for a 1939 fighter.