Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?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
Very tough. And one of few if only RAF aircraft to carry two torpedos.Wasn't the Wellington quite more tough than comparable bombers though, thanks to its geodesic structure?
Interesting. Did these light-weight Italian fighters have similar turning performance as the legendary Zero?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
Manoeuvrable with high dive speeds but inadequate armament.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 pilotsInteresting. Did these light-weight Italian fighters have similar turning performance as the legendary Zero?
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".Wasn't the Wellington quite more tough than comparable bombers though, thanks to its geodesic structure?
that reminded me that the IJAF operated the DC-3 (in licensed form) before the RAF.There's the Soviet copy of the B-29, although that was more of a postwar thing.
Also the Soviet Li-2.that reminded that the IJAF operated the DC-3 (in licensed form) before the RAF.
Correct, I was thinking tail dragger and typing tricycle. Thanks for the correction.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.
lol...happens to me quite often:Correct, I was thinking tail dragger and typing tricycle. Thanks for the correction.
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
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.