Similar Aircraft of WWII

[Clayton Magnet]

How about the Macchi C.200 and Fiat G.50?
They would have to be right next to each other for me to tell them apart. The bulged valve covers on the Macchi is about the only obvious difference

 

[Greyman]

I always thought the Heinkel 111 and the Wellington kept pace with each other's capabilities to a remarkable degree throughout the entire war.

The medium bomber equivalent of the Spitfire / 109 matchup.

 

[Acheron]

Wasn't the Wellington quite more tough than comparable bombers though, thanks to its geodesic structure?

 

[Acheron]

How about the Macchi C.200 and Fiat G.50?
They would have to be right next to each other for me to tell them apart. The bulged valve covers on the Macchi is about the only obvious difference

Though the Macchi was somewhat faster, edging out the Fiat overall in performance? Question regarding these two aircraft though, weren't these somewhat lighter than even the Japanese A6M Zero?

 

[Vincenzo]

They loaded weight was lighter of that of Zero , they empty weight was heavier; they were supposed to load, and actually load, much less fuel

 

[Admiral Beez]

Wasn't the Wellington quite more tough than comparable bombers though, thanks to its geodesic structure?

Very tough. And one of few if only RAF aircraft to carry two torpedos.

 

[Acheron]

They loaded weight was lighter of that of Zero , they empty weight was heavier; they were supposed to load, and actually load, much less fuel

Interesting. Did these light-weight Italian fighters have similar turning performance as the legendary Zero?

 

[Kevin J]

Interesting. Did these light-weight Italian fighters have similar turning performance as the legendary Zero?

Manoeuvrable with high dive speeds but inadequate armament.

 

[bdefen]

There's the Soviet copy of the B-29, although that was more of a postwar thing.

 

[Vincenzo]

Interesting. Did these light-weight Italian fighters have similar turning performance as the legendary Zero?

Also if commonly they have a good "fame" they are relatively high wing load, i think part of the fame as turning fighter came from the acrobatic training of the pilots

 

[pbehn]

Wasn't the Wellington quite more tough than comparable bombers though, thanks to its geodesic structure?

I dont know that it was tougher because the crew, engines and fuel tanks were just as vulnerable, it was almost the ideal workhorse with a good range, payload and space when it stopped being a front line bomber it was still used for all sorts of unglamorous but necessary things and was the "go to" plane for testing "stuff".

 

[Admiral Beez]

There's the Soviet copy of the B-29, although that was more of a postwar thing.

that reminded me that the IJAF operated the DC-3 (in licensed form) before the RAF.

 

[GrauGeist]

that reminded that the IJAF operated the DC-3 (in licensed form) before the RAF.

Also the Soviet Li-2.

 

[P-39 Expert]

All WWII single engine fighters were basically the same. Engine in front, tail in back for stability, tricycle gear. Inline engines, radial engines, inward retracting, outward retracting and rearward retracting landing gear, guns on the centerline or guns in the wings.

There were a few rear engined prototypes that didn't see production. Other than that, all basically the same.

 

[GrauGeist]

The vast majority of SE fighters in WWII had conventional gear (tail-draggers)...

 

[P-39 Expert]

All WWII single engine fighters were basically the same. Engine in front, tail in back for stability, tricycle gear. Inline engines, radial engines, inward retracting, outward retracting and rearward retracting landing gear, guns on the centerline or guns in the wings.

There were a few rear engined prototypes that didn't see production. Other than that, all basically the same.

Correct, I was thinking tail dragger and typing tricycle. Thanks for the correction.

 

[GrauGeist]

Correct, I was thinking tail dragger and typing tricycle. Thanks for the correction.

lol...happens to me quite often:
thinking one thing, typing the other.

 

[topspeed]

Of course we must mention the trio of Mitsubishi A6M, Gloster F.5/34 and Caproni Vizzola F.5.

View attachment 588513

SAAB would have made it a quartet.

Urban's blog: Cancelled SAAB aircraft projects

J-22 was close enough !

F.5 was new to me:

 

[GregP]

The FFVS J-22 above was quite a performer on the given engine power. Performed almost as if it had the next bigger engine size in it.

 

[topspeed]

The FFVS J-22 above was quite a performer on the given engine power. Performed almost as if it had the next bigger engine size in it.

They claim if could have hold its own against Mustang.