and with regards to all of you speculating on swapping the engines on the Italian S.82(or any other italian aircraft for that matter), i believe the result will almost certainly always be positive. german engines compared to homegrown italians were, imho, a 100% better choice. the italians figured this out when they dropped the DB 601 into the C.200, and later when they dropped the DB 605 into the C.202. maybe not all german engines were superior to their italian counterparts of the same period (like the Ju.52, which didnt really need to be fitted with different and newer engines, which in my mind was due to the soundness of the design). in my mind though, the S.82 didnt need to be re-engined for a long while. a transport aircraft is a transport aircraft. in wwii they could have made them faster, but they had limited options. i imagine the italians, knowing the s.82 would form the backbone of their transport arm, put the best engine they saw fit for such a role, and the S.82 turned out fine. and the engines worked well enough to give the S.82 the opportunity to deliver 8,000lbs of bombs in an offensive role. but haven now looking at my question again, i dont think the germans should have replaced their main transports with the S.82, simply becuase the s.82 wasnt designed for the german air force. wood is more susceptible than corrugated metal, which is why i think the ju.52 made an outstanding aircraft for operations in every part of the world. in the Mediterranean, the S.82 was superior because of its ease to maintain in the warm climates, its longer range, and heavier payload. in russia, the heavy load would have been useful, but subzero winters would have played havoc with its airframe, and its need for longer runways than the ju.52 was a disadvantage.