Talk:Macchi C.200 Saetta

Wing length
This page on a modelling website states that the wings were of unequal length in order to counteract torque, although frustratingly it does not say which wing was shorter. This page states that the MC 202 shared this feature. 81.178.94.224 22:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC) <- that was me, by the way. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

 * AFAIK MC.205 shared this wing, too. --Denniss 23:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have to dig my books to provide comlete sources, but AFAIK all the MC.20x series shared the same wing. The left wing was aboutabout 18 cm longer than the right (equals to one interspar space). As a matter of fact, Dr. Mario Castoldi's original design was intended to use an inline engine and the Saetta was modified from it for the use of a radial. Thus, the Saetta is rather to be seen as a kind of offspring from the MC.72-MC.202-MC.205V-MC.205N development line. Various sources also cite that the aircraft from the first series were fitted with a full-enclosed canopy which was changed later to the open-cockpit and "hunchback" design as pilots kept complaining about visibility issues and eventual problems with opening the canopy in the case of a bailout. 80.132.220.194 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent - perhaps you could mention the wing asymmetry in the article, with a source. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag
I dont know who put the "citation needed" at the beginning of the article, anyway, as there is the quote from the Ethell book, "Aerei della II guerra mondiale" I am going to delet it in the next days. If somebody has different quotes please put it or stay silent. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gian, please read up on Verifiability first before commenting. FYI, I'm the person responsible for tagging the maintenance template and also the one who just removed it after you've provided the necessary reference citations to back up those claims. Ultimately, we are here to build an encyclopedia that is reliable sourced than to be the truth for point-of-view-pushers. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not pushing my point of view, why should I have one about the kill-rate of the Macchi C.200? People that flew it told me it was a very good plane for something, but had its defects of course, like every one in the WWII, noone excluded... I am just quoting someone and Ethell cant be suspected to push Italian FIghter fame up... I dont know if I can explain... but I have always the unpleasant feeling that some people here in en wiki prefer to undervalue Italian machines... AM I wrong? Pleased to be wrong, in that case... regards from Rome.... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I didn't say that you're pushing your view here but had you really been pushing your view, don't you think that it would have been evidently clear in your words to me? Trust me, I'll be the first to know of your point-of-view-pushing if indeed you were doing so but you didn't, right? Relax! As for Italian aircraft in WW2, the only plausible reason why it has always been the butt of joke and focal point of doubt in many military/history articles is because of the lack of proper citations and references, so please don't take a personal offense to that. However, it is possible that you can do justice to any of such articles by providing all the necessary reliable sources to back up the claims. Another thing, if you take a closer look at the German aircraft in WW2, the methodical Teutons are known for their immaculate attention to details, right down to their claims. That is something you can't fault them when their articles are flooded with citations/references. This is something you can see in real life too, think about the differences between a Mercedes-Benz and an Alfa Romeo, it is pretty much straight forward for everyone to see, right? I rest my case, regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(P.S.: This is not the first article that I have tagged for a need of citations or cleanups and such, take a look for yourself at Polish Air Force and Spanish Air Force. My goal is for Wikipedia to be WP:Verifiable, not having to rely on WP:TRUTH which could be based on hearsay, that's all!)

Climbing rate
I cant believe how the prejudices stick to some people... somebody do not want to believe that an Italian aircraft with almost 300 hp less could outclimb an Allied fighter! How could do that, an Italian plane? Of course there is something not clear... so if You quote an anglo-saxon historian, probably it is not true, right? Ok... I quote Mike Spick, do You like it? "With these disadvantages (engine of 870hp and the hump-backed appearance, n.d.r.), the Saetta could hardly be fast, but it outclimbed and out-turned the Hurricane; handling was excellent and stability in a high-speed dive was exceptional." Now, as the Macchi was a "close contemporary of the Hurricane and Spitfire" it is quite possible that the Spitfire was the only Allied fighter that could outclimb it... as american fighter arrived on the Mediterranean not before summer 1942, am I wrong? When the Macchi 202 was already "impressing Allied pilots with its performance and manoeuvrability" (all quotes from Spick, Mike. ‘’Allied Fighter Aces of World War II’’. London, Greenhill Books. 1997. ISBN 1-85367-282-3. Uff... better do not comment... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gian piero milanetti (talk • contribs)
 * The Curtiss P-36 and Bell P-39 could outclimb the MC.200 and while it could best the Hurricane, it wasn't by much. FWiW, simply check the specs on all the aircraft of the period, as others also could outclimb the Saetta. If you somehow wanted to focus the discussion merely to those in the same European theatre, then the P-36 was already in service in France. Bzuk (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An over-reliance on Spick does not help the article. He's more excitable than careful and objective. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You too, Bzuk? :) I cant believe it... I quote Ethell, not myself or an Italian Fascist-Orientated historian, I am really surprised to discover now and then this attitude here... THE P-36 AND THE MACCHI DID NEVER CLASHED, OR DOG-FOUGHT, RIGHT? SO, it does not make sense what you say. YOU CAN DELETE THE QUOTE BUT NOT CHANGE THE HISTORY, AND YOU ARE AN HISTORIAN, YOU SHOULD KNOW! Are you sure to be impartial, are you? AND THAT THE DESIGN OF THE MACCHI 200 WAS EXCELLENT YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE OUTSTANDING MACCHI 202 AND 205, THAT COULD DOWN THE RENOWED MUSTANG AND YOU KNOW IT. ok... en wiki is "yours", you are in your home... as you like it. Spick is "more excitable than careful and objective." We are speaking of the same most competent AViation tecnician and historian? Probably there is a mistaken identity... sorry


 * God bless you!--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement was: "When it (the Macchi MC.200) entered service, the Supermarine Spitfire was the only Allied fighter that could outclimb the Saetta." The only way that this statement could be made to conform to your narrow confines is to state: When it entered service, the Supermarine Spitfire was the only Allied fighter that it faced, which could outclimb the Saetta." However, this is a still a questionable point and is better addressed in the body of the text in "Operational history" rather than in the lede. FWiW, Bzuk (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC).
 * One of the other questionable aspects of the lede is the mention of the excellent design which Mario Castoldi himself felt was compromised by the many demands imposed on him, which inevitably led to the use of an air-cooled radial that was underpowered for the airframe, a "humped-back" cockpit that was demanded by service pilots who also insisted on an open canopy, both requirements supposedly necessitated by the need for adequate vision in combat. All of these concerns were inevitably addressed in a redesign of the basic airframe into the superlative MC.202, albeit still "under-gunned". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane more modern?

 * Thanks for your advice... but I think there is still a mistake.. it is written that the Hurricane was a more modern design, but its design started in 1934, while the "specific" for the new monoplane fighter issued from Regia Aeronautica was of 1936... so probably the Hurricane was LESS modern, that's why the Macchi that had only 870 hp could outperform the Hawker figheter, not speaking of the P-40 that was an old design of the Thirties...

regards
 * Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur as the development of the Hurricane was linked to earlier Hawker designs while the Macchi MC.200 was an entirely original design, although it did have the heritage of the Schneider Trophy behind it. The only more advanced element of the Hurricane design was the use of the powerful water-cooled Merlin engine, that far outstripped the contemporary engines of the period, and allowed for a streamlined front fuselage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC).


 * BTW, GPM, please stop to underrate P-40s. And Hurricane weren't never 'ouperformed' by C.200, on the contrary, they were outperformed, as the commander of 150° Gruppo understood already in March 1941.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see I'm not the only one to note this. If the Hurricane first flew in 1935, and the specification for the Macchi was written in 1936, why are we saying the Hurricane was a "more modern" design? The Hurricane had certain characteristics that gave it an advantage in certain situations, and in other situations the Macchi had an advantage. The P-40 was a newer design (1938) and seems to have been regarded as having an advantage over the Macchi. Darkstar8799 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macchi C.200. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014121943/http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/article.asp?id=tracey to http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/article.asp?id=tracey

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Saetta means arrow
Saetta means arrow (Latin "sagitta") Using "saetta" to mean "lightning" only occurs metaphorically poetically, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.94.137.142 (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * How do you know it wasn't meant metaphorically or poetically? After all, it's an airplane, not a literal arrow. Anyway, I've tagged the translation for a reliable published source. Translations are by their nature imprecise, and often subject to disputes. In the absence of a reliable source specifically stating a name's intended meaning, it's often better not to include a translation at all. BilCat (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)