"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs

[Ivan1GFP]

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the MC 202 but from what I know I would characterize it's performance a little differently. The two sources I looked at gave it's speed as 376 and 380. Anything in that balpark is pretty good in 42. What was the 109 f doing. About the same to slightly less I believe. Climb rate, 3500 fpm, at least from what I read. Again, can't think of any planes except maybe the p38 that were surpassing this in 42 and quite a few( most) that were behind it. I admit I have not read extensively on this aircraft but in what I have read it was always discribed as quite maneuverable by pilots on both sides. Add to that good high altitude performance and I believe it was pretty good in a dive and that sounds like one tough oponent to me.
Yes the armament was less than optimal but every plane has at least one fault and most of them several but overall it sounds pretty formidable to me.

Hello Michael Rauls,

What I am seeing is more like 373 MPH for a C.202, about 398-399 MPH for a C.205 and mostly numbers from the high 380's to about 394 MPH for a Me 109F-4.
As for climb rate, as mentioned earlier, both the FW 190A that was captured and tested and the Spitfire Mk.IX were both capable of climb rates in the 3900-4100 fpm range.

Now here's a cool thing: The manual for the C.202 claims a time of 1:28 to 2000 meters which works out to around 4400 feet per minute! Is it believable? I don't think it makes sense for the amount of weight and engine power, but you be the judge.

Hello Schweik,

A lot of the evaluation is probably context. Against a Macchi fighter with 2 x relatively light 12.7 mm Breda HMG, the P-51B/C seems very heavily armed.... And it is.
The SAME armament on a P-40N-1 was determined by the customer (US Army) to be inadequate and later P-40N reverted to 6 guns instead of 4.
There was a pretty convincing argument that a 4 x .50 cal M2 armament was probably the ideal compromise between power and weight. The problem is that no matter what WE believe, the people buying the airplanes decided they wanted 6 guns.

- Ivan.

 

[Stig1207]

This would seem to, unless there is something I'm missing, put to rest the inferior oposition narrative.

It doesn't really tell us anything about how many MC-202's were there or how many sorties they flew.

 

[Shortround6]

The point about the P-51B is that it was relatively lightly armed compared to many of it's contemporaries in 1944. Yet it was still considered almost wildly effective. In various other discussions in other threads some of the same people have made the claim that 4 x .50 cal is light armament - it's what the P-40F and L was often kitted out with in the MTO particularly when they were flying a lot of escort or fighter sweep missions. Lets also not forget that despite the opinions of some here, nose guns were widely considered more accurate (because they are) than wing guns and wing guns notably in the Mustang, Spitfire and P-40 were prone to jamming / stoppages, especially earlier in the war.

In a way, I see this as yet another example of the endless "There is only one way to make a good fighter" vs. "There are as many ways as there were battlefields".

There are a couple of approaches vis a vis armament. Quite a few of the best day fighters of WW2 had light armament:

P-51B/C - 4 x .50 cal in the wings
F4F3 - 4 x .50 cal in the wings
Ki-43 - 1 x 12.7mm and 1 x 7.7mm in the nose
Yak-1B - 1 x 20mm spinner and 1 x 12.7mm in the nose
Yak-3 - 1 x 20mm spinner and 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
La-5FN - 2 x 20mm in the nose
Bf 109F-2 - 1 x 15mm spinner, 2 x 7.92mm
Bf 109F-4 - 1 x 20mm spinner, 2 x 7.92mm in the nose
MC.202 - 2 x 12.7mm in the nose, 2 x 7.7mm in the wings (or not)
Ki-61 (early) - 2 x 12.7mm in the nose and 2 x 7.7mm in the wings

Some kind of in the middle:
A6M2 -2 x 20mm (60 rounds), 2 x 7.7mm in the wings
Spitfire I - 8 x .303 in the wings
Spit V - 2 x 20mm (60 rounds), 4 x .303 in the wings
Bf 109E - 2 x 20mm (60 rounds each) in the wings, 2 x 7.92mm in the nose
D.520 - 1 x 20mm spinner (60 rounds), 4 x 7.5mm in the wings
Ki-84 - 2 x 20mm inn the wings, 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
Ki-61 (late)- 2 x 20mm in the body, 2 x 12.7mm in the wings
MC 205 - 2 x 20mm in the wingts, 2 x 12.7mm in the nose
Fiat G.55 (early) - 1 x 20mm spinner, 4 x 12.7mm in the wings

And some heavily to very heavily armed:
Bf 109G-6, 1 x 20mm spinner, 2 x 20mm wings, 2 x 7.92 mm
Fiat G.55 (late) - 3 x 20mm in spinner and wings, 2 x 12.7mm nose
F6F - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
P-51D - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
F4U - 6 x .50 cal in the wings
Fw 190 - 4 x 20mm plus two 7.92 (or later 13mm)
P-47 - 8 x .50 wing guns
P-38 4 x .50 plus 1 x 20mm all in the nose
Tempest - 4 x 20mm in the wings
N1K1 -4 x 20mm cannon in the wings


All of the above were good to excellent fighters for their time. Some of the best of the war were in the first category, in fact I would say all in that first group with the possible exception of the F4F-3 are widely acknowledged as among the best designs of the war. . In fact many of the best and most highly regarded were in the first group and of the 'very heavily armed fighters' - probably only the Fw 190 is truly in the top tier. Maybe the P-47.

The point of laying out the above is to emphasize there were different schools of succssful fighter design in the war. Many of the types most successful in the key middle years of the war were the more lightly armed ones. Why? Because performance and / or maneuverability turned out to matter more than heavy armament. The most heavily armed fighters of the mid-war years like the Hurricane and the Me 110 did not turn out to be the most deadly, to the contrary.

Later in the war engines got so powerful as to allow heavier armament. The other reason for it is A) you have fewer fighters to contend with but must on the other hand do more strafing (which made the more heavily armed Allied fighters more useful) or B) you have to contend with hordes

We have to be careful in assigning such descriptions as light and heavy armament as it changed with time. A CR. 42 with two 12.7mm Breda-DAFATs had pretty good armament in 1939-40 ( the CR 32 with the same guns was even better in 1937 ).
The Spitfire with eight .303s falls in here, Heavy indeed in 1938 and even into 1940, pathetic in 1942 or later.

For the US, while the .50 was effective (in numbers) it was also a heavy gun using heavy ammo which affected the aircraft it was used in. This leads to two different definitions of "heavy armament" heavy installed weight and/or heavy throw weight/ heavy target effect.

ammo supply or duration of fire is also a question that needs looking at. The Bf 110 was not particularly heavily armed compared to the 109E-3 (it was compared to the E-1 or E-2 with their four 7.92 guns) when you figure weight of fire per second, however for a deep penetration fighter it carried 3 times the ammo for it's cannon as the 109. This required a 2nd crewman to reload the cannon. (first 400 Beaufighters had the 2nd crewman trying to change 60 round drums on four cannon, the 240 rpg was something of an illusion ).

For the US four .50 cal guns was about the minimum effective armament that would be accepted. You did have to send the fighter thousands of miles from the factory and hordes of lightly armed fighters have too big of logistics footprint. However even the 4 gun installation on a P-40L went about 600lbs (272kg?) just for the guns and ammo (235rpg) . That is not light from an aircraft design/performance point of view. The eight .303s in the Spitfire mk I went about 430lbs with ammo.

Just comparing calibers and number of guns can sometimes create a false impression or at least one that is shaded. 20mm cannon are especially subject to this as the weight of the projectiles and the rate of fire changed so much from one to the other (as did the muzzle velocity).

More tonight.

 

[michael rauls]

It doesn't really tell us anything about how many MC-202's were there or how many sorties they flew.

True, it wouldn't tell us exactly but should give a rough idea and what it does tell us exactly is the oposition they actually did encounter regardless of what the Italians had available or sortie rates.

 

[Stig1207]

That they were in North Africa is not disputed.

 

[soulezoo]

The stretch of the C-141 was pretty straight forward. The A model, which I flew, had excess power, a good thing. We had more power on three engines than a KC -135 did, with water injection, on all four engines and we maxed out at similar weight. The real driver was that most flights maxed out space before maxing out on gross weight. In fact, I can only recall, after some 40+ years, that I only flew two maxed out, weight wise, takeoffs. One was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at a pressure altitude of 7600 ft., and the other was at Cherry Point Marine base with a runway length of 8500 ft and we were going to Rota, Spain. Two plugs equaling 23 ft were installed, probably equidistant from the Cg. The change was estimate to be the same as buying 90 new aircraft!

I can recall when training missions included loading up the "pet rocks" (pallets of nothing more than a huge concrete block and steel rails) and putting them at each pallet station. That with about 90k lbs of fuel or so put the plane close to max load and then touch and go's were practiced. When we had the big crosswinds at Travis, well, that just made it more interesting.

 

[Schweik]

Hello Michael Rauls,

What I am seeing is more like 373 MPH for a C.202, about 398-399 MPH for a C.205 and mostly numbers from the high 380's to about 394 MPH for a Me 109F-4.

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.

As for climb rate, as mentioned earlier, both the FW 190A that was captured and tested and the Spitfire Mk.IX were both capable of climb rates in the 3900-4100 fpm range.

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.

Now here's a cool thing: The manual for the C.202 claims a time of 1:28 to 2000 meters which works out to around 4400 feet per minute! Is it believable? I don't think it makes sense for the amount of weight and engine power, but you be the judge.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory!

Hello Schweik,

A lot of the evaluation is probably context. Against a Macchi fighter with 2 x relatively light 12.7 mm Breda HMG, the P-51B/C seems very heavily armed.... And it is.

Here's something for you to research:

1) when did the Macchi C.202 first go into combat and
2) when did the P-51B first go into combat

Compare and contrast. When the P-51B came out it was very lightly armed compared to the fighters it faced.

The SAME armament on a P-40N-1 was determined by the customer (US Army) to be inadequate and later P-40N reverted to 6 guns instead of 4.
There was a pretty convincing argument that a 4 x .50 cal M2 armament was probably the ideal compromise between power and weight. The problem is that no matter what WE believe, the people buying the airplanes decided they wanted 6 guns.

- Ivan.

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.

 

[Schweik]

That they were in North Africa is not disputed.

Don't you own a copy of MAW II and III? You can read the rate of sorties in the text, I just posted the summaries because I think it makes it all very obvious. How many Italian fighter sorties in the period I covered do you think were by anything other than a MC.202? From looking through the book by mid 1942 99% of the fighter sorties are MC.202. The CR.42s were only being used as bombers, due to the lack of any other effective Italian light bomber, they were essentially in the same role as Stukas but only flew a handful of days a month. The MC.200 seemed to be relegated to some kind of maritime defense missions and occasionally went after B-24s. That is what I see and I'm not making anything up. What am I missing here Stig?

 

[Schweik]

Hello Schweik,

What I was saying was that the P-40 often wasn't facing first quality opposition which is one reason it might have done so well. There are many restrictive environments in which one set of performance qualities are favored. In a tight space even Romanian IAR 80 fighters were a match for first line US fighters, but that doesn't mean they were particularly good aircraft.

I think IAR 80 were quite good, they were just an old design that hadn't been upgraded with new engines. The fact that they did so well around Ploesti etc. tells me that in particular they were good low altitude fighters and by contrast, the P-38 was a bad low altitude fighter (which they also learned in the MTO)

The specific video I was thinking of is of an automobile that was modified for radio control and shot at with a BMG. It eventually was destroyed of course, but took quite a few more hits all over than I would have expected. There is also a couple commercial videos (I believe one of them is by Dillon Precision) which shows similar things.

Now that seems like a link you should post, I'd love to see it purely for entertainment purposes.

Keep in mind that the first factory equipped version of Folgore with wing guns did not get produced until May 1942. Multiple sources have claimed that the majority of the operational C.202 did not carry wing guns for weight and handling reasons.

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.

Schweik, We have been to the same point over and over again. You call it wiggling. I call it stating the facts.
Before going a whole lot further, I suggest you do a little background research on the Breda 12.7 x 81 mm HMG. In the field of HMGs, this is one of the weaker guns. It only has about 2/3 the muzzle energy of a Browning M2.
I don't have data for the Me 109F-2 handy, but for the Me 109F-1, weight is listed as 2750 KG loaded.
Thus there isn't any significant wing loading advantage for the Folgore. Where did you get this idea?

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.

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.

As for tailoring the armament to the mission, how long do you think it would take to completely remove and install wing mounted MG and ammunition feeds and replace fairings to block off the openings? Keep in mind that you also need to harmonize the guns. Is this the kind of thing that you would ask your ground crew to do once you hear that there is an incoming bomber attack? Oops, there are escorting fighters, "Hurry, pull the guns back out!!!" Really??

Again, you seem to think I'm making things up? I'm just telling you what I have read. You have already made clear you don't have any interest in operational history but you are routinely implying I'm crazy or disengenuous when I put out what is IN the operational histories! And no matter how many times you see evidence that defies your theories they never budge a centimeter.

The scenario I have seen described is something like this - "Maggiore Raspanti, your new mission is to fly from Pantelleria will be to intercept B-24s heading to Sicily." Maggiore Raspatni then tells Tenente DiSalvo to arm the fighters for their two Squadrigglia for bomber interception. If two months later he is told they are going to be supporting the Alpini division in Tunisia, and to expect to engage Spitfires and Kittyhawk IIs, they may remove the wing guns. Capisce?

I don't think you are even reading your own post. I stated average of 30-70 Folgore in North Africa in 1942.
Your one data point that "didn't match" showed 55 Folgore by your count. Seems in agreement to me.

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.




In fact, Pantelleria, with it's large capacity air bases and huge fortified hangers, was kind of the Italian Malta, and you could argue that it was the single most important base for the Regia Aeronautica in 1942 -43

Here is a nice two gun MC.202 in an olive orchard in Pantelleria in 1943

In what way do you think Hayabusa was that sophisticated?
It certainly was agile and easy to fly and that was probably the best that could be said about it.
What characteristics do you believe made it "excellent in combat" but "not so good for attrition warfare"?

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.

By my count, that is 18 Folgore shot down over two months versus 16 other types shot down.
As you commented, Commando raids and bombing victims really don't count the same.
That doesn't sound like a great loss of aircraft over two months for the numbers involved.
Just out of curiosity, how do the Italian claims stack up against actual Allied aircraft losses during this time?

The claims for the Italian fighters (almost exclusively Folgores) were often split between four or five pilots. They seemed to have something like a system of group kills similar to the Soviets. So in part that accounts for the large number of claims on a given day - you might have a total of 8 or 10 pilots making claims on the same two enemy aircraft. There was also clearly some substantial overclaiming.

That said, if you do look at the operational history, an encounter with MC.202s often resulted in a couple of casualties for any Allied fighters including Spitfires and P-38s. They also appear to have been able to shoot down B-24s if they could get past the escorts, and occasionally B-17s. Conversely MC.202 losses remained pretty low until 1943.
Early model Kittyhawks (I or Ia) and Hurricanes were clearly outmatched,
Spit V, P-40K or P-40F/L about even,
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).

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.

As for the A6M5c, even the first model of the A6M5 had not yet been developed by early 1943.
Engine power did not increase, so with the extra guns, this model was definitely getting too heavy.

- Ivan.

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.

 

[Schweik]

One other thing, in terms of "flying culture" as mentioned previously. The Italian pilots seemed to have a fighting culture tuned for attrition warfare - tuned for their survival. The biggest advantage of both the Folgore and the Bf 109F and early G was in combat ceiling and climb. The ideal attack mode was to bounce from above and climb away rather than continue to engage. This seemed to work even against the Spit V, perhaps due to the dreaded Vokes filter, Bf 109 and MC.202 could usually attack them from above and disengage by climbing (usually in a climbing turn to the right). I gather even the P-38 could not always stay above the Bf 109.

The Luftwaffe found that sustained engagement with Spits or P-40s would often lead to losses. Hit and run was safer but often not decisive however, so sometimes they had to force their way in to get at at the bombers or (more rarely) they got caught from above. In this case it was basically rolling scissors and energy fighting against the turn and dive tactics of the Allied planes. Bouncing from above and only attacking with that advantage, which was the favored tactic of JG.27, had to be partly abandoned in the second half of 1942 due to increasing attacks against Axis air bases and the escalating stakes of the war on the ground, and JG.77 seemed to get into more and more sustained engagements, relying on their increasing advantage in speed with the 109G-2 and G-4, they sometimes fought all the way back to Allied bases. But JG.77 paid the price for their increased aggression and took heavy and mounting casualties in the MTO until they were all but wiped out.

The Italians by contrast continued to attack mainly when they had an advantage. When pressed they apperently had a repertoire of loops and stall turns and acrobatic maneuvers which often somewhat baffled the British, but this seems to have simply been their method of disengaging. Often they got one or two victories and disengaged. Only occasionally did they get into really intense fights of the kind routinely taken on by the Germans, but when they did they gave at least as good as they got. I can post some examples later.

Many of the Italian pilots had been at war for a long time - not a few going back to 1937 or 38 in the Spanish Civil War, then in quite bloody fighting with the British in Greece, over Malta, and in North Africa. They had been under fascism far longer than the Germans had, the pilot commentaries make it clear there was both official and unofficial tension between the Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica. The first Italian capitulation in 1943 did not come as a total surprise to the troops lets say. I think by mid to late 1942 many of the Italian pilots wanted to survive more than to win glory for Mussolini. Their fighting tactics anyway seemed to emphasize survivability 'with a bite' as they often knocked down Allied fighters and then disengaged.

I think this tactic coincided well with the decision, both on an institutional / production and unit or pilot level, to keep the aircraft less heavily armed (i.e. to use 2 guns instead of 4), in favor of performance and agility, as the latter traits were more conducive to survival based on the type of fighting they were emphasizing. But they did still have the option of 4 guns.

 

[Schweik]

Another thought - early in the war in North Africa, Allied bombers consisted mostly of Britsol Blenheims which were extremely vulnerable to fighters. Starting in 1942 these were replaced by increasing numbers of much faster and more capable Douglas Boston and Martin Baltimores and also Hurricane and Kittyhawk fighter-bombers.

From mid 1942 heavily armed and armored US B-25 and B-26 medium bombers joined the mix, along with B-24s and a few B-17s. This is a big shift in the situation. The medium and heavy bombers were being used to pulverize Axis air bases from roughly the time of Torch onward (I used to think this Tactical change was an American innovation but it apparently came from the British Air Marshal Coningham). It did however rely on the more dangerous US bombers for success. Allied fighter bombers and dive bombers were also causing a lot more problems in the ground war. This forced the Axis fighters to engage more heavily and it meant they needed to knock down much tougher targets.

Which makes sense as to the timing of when the extra guns appeared for the MC.202

 

[michael rauls]

That they were in North Africa is not disputed.

Well on that we agree. Don't think anyone is disputing that Mc202s were there. Whether or not they were 1st rate fighters for 42 and wheather they and other modern types made up the majority of Italian and Luftwaffe types seems to be what's in dispute. At least as near as I can tell.

 

[Stig1207]

Don't you own a copy of MAW II and III? You can read the rate of sorties in the text, I just posted the summaries because I think it makes it all very obvious. How many Italian fighter sorties in the period I covered do you think were by anything other than a MC.202? From looking through the book by mid 1942 99% of the fighter sorties are MC.202. The CR.42s were only being used as bombers, due to the lack of any other effective Italian light bomber, they were essentially in the same role as Stukas but only flew a handful of days a month. The MC.200 seemed to be relegated to some kind of maritime defense missions and occasionally went after B-24s. That is what I see and I'm not making anything up. What am I missing here Stig?

You are missing how these MC 202 claims and losses that you transcribed refutes Ivan's assertion that their were 30-70 MC 202's deployed at a time during 1942.

Something else you missed, though I don't what it has to do with the Macchi, but I have helped you out:

August 19
(at this time Shores lists German fighter strength as follows:
Stab/JG 27 - 2 x Bf 109F
I./JG 27- 23 x BF 109F
II./JG 27- 24 x Bf 109F
III./JG 27 - 24 x Bf 109F
JaboStaffel/JG 27 - 12 x Bf 109E
III./JG 534 - 24 x BF 109E and F
10./ ZG26 7 Do 17Z
Jagdkommando /JG 27 3 x Bf 109F
III./ ZG26 46Bf 110C

165 in total
Listing 97 aircraft of these aircraft servicable)

 

[Stig1207]

Well on that we agree. Don't think anyone is disputing that Mc202s were there. Whether or not they were 1st rate fighters for 42 and wheather they and other modern types made up the majority of Italian and Luftwaffe types seems to be what's in dispute. At least as near as I can tell.

Yes, but see above.

 

[Dan Fahey]

The stretch of the C-141 was pretty straight forward. The A model, which I flew, had excess power, a good thing. We had more power on three engines than a KC -135 did, with water injection, on all four engines and we maxed out at similar weight. The real driver was that most flights maxed out space before maxing out on gross weight. In fact, I can only recall, after some 40+ years, that I only flew two maxed out, weight wise, takeoffs. One was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at a pressure altitude of 7600 ft., and the other was at Cherry Point Marine base with a runway length of 8500 ft and we were going to Rota, Spain. Two plugs equaling 23 ft were installed, probably equidistant from the Cg. The change was estimate to be the same as buying 90 new aircraft!

We supported the C-131 and C- 141 stretch programs at Lockheed in Marietta GA back in 1990.
Had a good many contractors out there.

 

[Schweik]

You are missing how these MC 202 claims and losses that you transcribed refutes Ivan's assertion that their were 30-70 MC 202's deployed at a time during 1942.

Au contraire mon frere, I had already demonstrated that several times there were far more MC.202 on hand than that. Please see this post:

"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs

Which shows that in October 1942 there were 210 MC. 202 in 7 groups, and in November 1942 there were 146 MC.202. In both cases there were also 20 Re 2001.
That is three times as many as Ivan insisted in October and two times as many in November (after El Alamein).

Next Ivan was implying (I guess?) that most of these weren't active or flying sorties, (again, I guess? Something about 30%), so I posted all the other evidence to make it clear that the 202s were flying regularly, and are in fact the main fighter that shows up in the operational history - by a long shot. In fact they flew almost all the fighter sorties in 1942 if you added them all up.

To be honest, I doubt you missed it. You have the book so you know there were plenty of MC.202 active, far more than 30 or even 70 at any given time.

If you too are adopting the spurious assertion that only aircraft physically stationed in North Africa were part of the air battle over North Africa then I say, please read your book since it will be very quickly obvious that aircraft flying out of Pantelleria and even Sicily or Sardinia routinely tangled with Allied aircraft based in Algeria or Tunisia and etc.

Something else you missed, though I don't what it has to do with the Macchi, but I have helped you out:

I didn't miss anything, I left out the twin engine birds because they were only flying night or maritime missions, so far as I am aware. Do you know any different?

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

You are missing how these MC 202 claims and losses that you transcribed refutes Ivan's assertion that their were 30-70 MC 202's deployed at a time during 1942.

Hello Stig1207,

It isn't just Macchi C.202 deployed everywhere. It is specifically deployed in North Africa which is where the book accounts overlapped.
There are two books that both claim 23,555 fighter sorties flown by Italian pilots in 1942 of which only 30% were with C.202 Folgore. I suspect they are all quoting the same source, but if they are correct, then who flew the other 70%?

I figure that AT BEST, the posts by Schweik may have accounted for a few hundred sorties.
What about the other 23,000? How about the beginning of the year. These are not answers I have but I am not willing to accept that 18 air to air losses and some number of "Claims" over two months in the latter half of the year is really an indication of what was happening for the entire year.

- Ivan.

 

[Schweik]

Maybe you should buy MAW II and read it. He goes through basically every squadron mission for every single day.

 

[Schweik]

I think in part what we are actually arguing about here is books that provide contradictory data. Older books especially often repeat errors or data points taken out of context.

Could a MC.202 climb 4,000 ft per minute? Well depending on the fuel and guns carried a P-40N could apparently do better than 3,500 ft per minute (according to one of those documents on WWiiaircraftperformance.org) and yet no pilot ever said it was a good climber.

Climb rate depends on a lot of factors - how much fuel is the aircraft loaded with, what altitude are you talking about (many can climb quite well from Sea Level for the first minute or two, after that it slows down a lot for most planes) what are the temperature, humidity, weather and atmospheric conditions? What power setting is used - takeoff, military, or "war emergency"? What flap setting, if any? How many wing guns or other heavy tidbits are on board? How fat is the pilot?

So I wouldn't rule out a 4,000 fpm climb rate for the MC.202 for a minute or two, no I don't think that is unreasonable. If you told me that a Bf 109F could climb that fast I'd not be tremendously surprised there either*. But I will say this, the MC.202 seems to have a slight edge, it's slightly more aerodyamic, a little lighter and it's wing probably provides just a bit more lift. It was a slightly better plane except for firepower, than the Bf 109F2. Taking the guns into consideration they were about even.

The 109-F4 was slightly better than the 202 but I think a 205 is slightly better than an F4 or even up to a 109-G4. Overall the two types (202/205 and 109F/G) were comparable in the period they were being used, both were top of the line fighters by world standards. Both could take on the Spit V which was the best Allied fighter in 1942, both had a bit more trouble with the Spit IX but could still kill them. So no the opposition wasn't easier in the MTO. You are a fool if you really think that.



Many books floating around out there say a variety of different things and spread misleading data points. I was pretty certain not that long ago that a Pe-2 could fly at 360 mph because I have 5 books on my bookshelf repeating that number. Shortround6 debunked that claim and I subsequently learned that more accurate data cuts that speed down by 30 or 40 mph. Now I assume the 360 mph must have been from a test without guns and armor or something like that. Similar cliches like that the P-39s were only used as tank busters also get repeated in probably at least a dozen books on my shelf. I've learned to be wary of them.

New data sources are emerging like all those wartime documents on wwiiaircraftperformance and the flight manuals floating around, and the archives now being used as sources by people like Shores and Bergstrom and John Lundstrom, and (I think so far most precise of all) Michael John Clairingbould and Peter Ingman. And there will be more. These fantgastic new sources, unavailable 20 years ago, are now giving us a much clearer picture of the reality of the air war in WW2, which is really exciting to me. We all knew some of those optimistic accounts we read as kids weren't quite on the level.

But some of us get annoyed these days because we consider ourselves well informed and have believed those old tropes for 10, 20 or 30 or 40 years, and aren't ready for them to be debunked. The other problem we have right here is that if I Schweik open up one of the more current books and tell you what is in it, even if I take photos, you flat out don't believe me. Just like when you quote a figure like 20,000 fighter sorties in 1942 and only 30% by MC.202 doesn't seem remotely credible to me so I don't believe you. I believe you read something in the ballpark of that, but if that is exactly what it said, I think your book is wrong. Maybe 20,000 sorties period, including all the Sm.79s and Cant 506s and everything, then maybe? Even then it seems a stretch.

I fear we are at an impasse, those endless arguments go nowhere after a while. My dreams of debunking that one particular legend about the P-40 and the other ones about the Mc 202 being 'inferior' or the Ki-43 being easy pickings... have run their course.


*Fw 190 on the other hand usually is quoted at a considerably lower rate of climb so I'd really love to see that claim validated. WWIIaircraftperformance shows a range from 2,938 to 3,290 from Sea level, and I think that is using boost.