Yes but we are talking about North Africa and the MTO, you should check your sources for Bf 109F-4 (trop), it's not quite as fast.
Hello Schweik,
Good point. Thanks. I will check for that.
The Fw 190 was only around in one squadron, from late in 1942, and the Spit IX didn't arrive in the MTO until 1943.
This is why I have been stating that the competition here wasn't really first rate.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory!
Do you actually KNOW about the data from the manual I am referring to?
I think you do not which is why you are so quick to disparage.
From your comment, I take it your view is that an initial climb rate of 4400 feet / minute is plausible for this aircraft?
If so, then aeronautical engineers in other countries must be pretty lousy.
You are again forgetting fairly obvious things here. First, guns could be and were removed in the field if needed depending on the mission. Second, by the time the P-40N came out most of the mission was for fighter bomber / strafing runs, which necessitated 6 guns.
Third, it is well known that the P-40N was configured one of two different ways, as a fighter bomber or more as a pure fighter. It always did a bit of both, but the weight and payload varied based on where the squadron was stationed and what kind of missions it flew. The N incidentally played almost no role with Americans in the MTO, it was widely used in the Pacific and CBI but came too late for fighting in the Med (or at any rate, the F/L were used instead). The British also used it in the MTO but almost exclusively as a fighter-bomber.
You are assuming I have an opinion on this. I stated it as a matter of history and observation as to what the client wanted. I have no firm opinion on this subject though I do have my preferences. From what I have stated thus far, all you can really conclude is that I believe two HMG is not quite enough, especially if they are fairly low powered HMG.
My understanding is that MC.202 was made with the capacity for the wing guns in place. I've read that some pilots removed wing guns (mainly to improve roll rate) which was incidentally also done with Spitfires, Hurricanes, and P-40s operating in the MTO, but that not all were.
I had also thought that there was no great modification necessary for mounting wing guns in Folgore. What I have been finding out more recently suggests otherwise. There is mention of structural modifications needed to the wing of the Serie VII Folgore which was the first version (though not chronologically) to mount wing guns from the factory. This seems to be supported by the photographs which show MG 151/20 cannon mounted below the wing surface in Folgore test machines while in production cannon armed aircraft, the were mounted internally. Those production cannon aircraft STARTED with the wing gun equipped Serie IX Folgore though.
It also doesn't really sound like a problem with roll rates because if it were, then the problem would only have gotten worse with fitting MG 151/20 cannon as was eventually done on Veltro and that was attempted with Folgore.
It sounds like simple extra weight. Keep in mind that this weight difference is about the same as that between a Yak-9T/Yak-9K and a regular Yak-9 or a Yak-9U with the M-105 engine.
Here is the fact - a single 'good' HMG isn't dramatically better than two 'poor' HMGs, especially when we know the latter were putting out more bullets. Both the Bf 109F and the MC.202 were lightly armed by the standards of their day. Both were very good fighters anyway. That is the reality.
You are set in your opinion. That much is obvious. I have also pointed out that Me 109F-4 was armed with a MG 151/20 which was significantly more lethal, but you don't seem to want to recognize that fact.
As for wing loading, it doesn't take a huge difference to make a difference - MC.202 with the larger wing area had 35.7 lbs sq ft loaded (with wing guns), Bf 109F had a wing loading of about 36.6 - that is enough to give the 202 an edge in a turn. Of course the Bf 109 also had leading edge slats which could help in a slow turn fight, but the tactics used with both planes emphasized keeping the speed up and combat in the vertical. Instantaneous turn or high speed turns would matter more.
First of all, in a high speed turn, the structural limitations are probably going to be more of an issue than the aerodynamic stall. The other factor is that if we are discussing the Me 109F-4, then the Messerschmitt has a significant power loading advantage over the Folgore.
Also, not everyone favored high speed turns. Marseille was know for very low speed turn fights but then again he was a strange case.
You are making an artificial distinction between stationed in North Africa to operating over North Africa. The latter is the only part that is relevant. Fighter squadrons operating from Pantelleria, which is what, 30 or 40 miles from Tunisia, so routinely engaged Allied fighters operating over Tunisia and Algeria that the Allies decided it had to be captured before they could invade Sicily. It also served as a waystation for fighters and bombers operating from Sardinia and Sicily, both about ~150 miles away from Tunisia as the crow (or MC.202) flies.
I quoted what data I had from a book. I have not stated otherwise though you have tried by various means to make it seem as I may have stated something else. The passage clearly describes the numbers in North Africa but not elsewhere.
I didn't write these books.
Your data clearly supports that the data in the book is correct whether you believe it is relevant or not.
Why are you trying to start an argument about something that was not stated?
It was beautifully streamlined, with an excellent combination of low drag with large high lift wings, it had a bubble canopy with excellent visibility in all directions, it was of all metal stressed-skin construction at a time when many fighters still had some cloth or wood skin, had highly effective combat flaps, was harmoniously balanced enough to handle fairly high dive speeds and remain controllable in a dive (unlike an A6M and to a better extent than a Bf 109). It had a remarkable range for a fighter in that era.
Let's analyze what you have just stated.
The Hayabusa was introduced in 1941. Contemporaries in other countries and even in Japan had already gone to all metal stressed skin construction at least 5 or 6 years before. Its bubble canopy was not unique even for a Japanese Army fighter because it was a feature of its predecessor, the Ki-27 and of A6M from a year earlier. It had very good maneuverability. Its streamlining was not so good as can be seen by its speed as compared to the A6M2 with the same engine. The A6M2 was easily 20 MPH faster. It had some serious limitations on dive speed and was structurally weak to the point that several of them broke up in aerobatics and killed their pilots. Initial armament was pretty much identical to fighters from the Great War: Two Vickers 7.7 mm MG. This was NOT cutting edge technology for an aircraft introduced in 1941.
Tomahawks oddly seemed to do pretty well against both Bf 109 and MC202 (better than the early Kittyhawks) but still not quite up to par, maybe 3/4 as good.
P-38 I would say outmatched. Not until the Spit IX arrived in 1943 did you see an Allied aircraft that clearly had an advantage over the MC.202 (this was also true of the Bf109F/G and Fw 190).
You included the Spitfire Mk.V as near equal with Folgore, but what I have been reading suggests otherwise. The Spitfire had a much better climb rate by every account that mentions it. Though if the manual is to believed, the Folgore outclimbs even a Spitfire Mk.IX and should give a Spitfire Mk.XIV a pretty good race.
It also has better armament and a much higher power to weight ratio, especially the low altitude versions.
The point though is as you know, none of these fighters was really "new", just new to the MTO.
This is why I have been commenting that the competition in MTO really wasn't quite first-rate.
The Italians didn't cause as much of a steady attrition against the DAW as the Luftwaffe did, partly because they flew fewer missions and seemed to disengage when the fight turned against them, but when it came down to an intense fight as it periodically did, they accounted quite well for themselves. I gather the small number that went to the Russian front did well there too. I think their main problem in the North Africa zone was fuel shortages.
I believe this response may be a bit off topic but here goes:
In reading about the accomplishments of Italian pilots, it appears that in general, they were a fairly skilled bunch and were also incredibly brave and fatalistic. They basically fought to the death against overwhelming odds and often with inferior equipment and terribly outnumbered. Regarding the Eastern Front, my understanding is that the Folgore was not sent there initially. Only Saetta were sent. By the time Folgore were arriving, it seemed like the Italians were having a pretty hard time there.
You missed my point, I was saying they should have made a heavily armed version like that earlier than they did. They were contending with strong Allied bombers and the new generation of radial engined fighters which were all harder to shoot down. In my opinion the A6M5c still had quite good performance and excellent maneuverability.
I believe the strategic situation prevented them from doing anything like that.
Keep in mind that in early 1943, the battle for Guadalcanal was still going.
It was being supported by aircraft from Rabaul.
A new model, the A6M3 Model 32 had been introduced, but the bigger engine had taken up space that had been used for the fuselage fuel tank and range was too short to make the trip. Even for the older A6M2, the trip was marginal, but that is all they had.
Before improving the armament, they had to improve the range which was done with A6M3 Model 22 which eventually also received a larger 20 mm cannon and more ammunition as well as more fuel.
The development cycle didn't get to the A6M5 prototype until much later in 1943.
- Ivan.
