Talk:Macchi C.202 Folgore/Archive 1

Aicraft's name
Hi all, I believe that "Folgore" better translates as "Lightning". Cheers.

MC.202 was to P-40?
It is not so clear that MC.202 was superior than P-40, especially in low altitudes.It centairly was inferior than the Bf-109F with the same engine, slower and less agile in the vertical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.43.8 (talk • contribs)

The Bf 109F with the same engine was the BF 109F2, in serial production since March 1941. It was a bit slower than the C.202 in levelled speed (595 km/h vs. 600 km/h) and dangerous in dive (the subsequent F4 had the tail reinforced to reach a terminal speed of 906 km/h, while the C.202 had a terminal speed of 920 km/h), had a much shorter range (570km vs. 750km), and a comparable armament, but with less ammo (one MG151/15, 15mm, with 12 seconds of fire, and two MG17, 7,5mm, with 40 seconds of fire vs. two BREDA SAFAT, 13mm, with 35 seconds of fire and two BREDA SAFAT, 7,5mm, with 40 seconds of fire). Given the climb and dive figures of the two aircrafts, I don't see how the C.202 can be considered: "less agile in the vertical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.231.207 (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Flying characteristics
About flynght caracteristics of Macchi all is said is that it was excellent aircraft. But what is really true about is unclear. Sadly, even if a Macchi was sent in USA after capture, there aren't report, evaluations and so on.

As speed it was faster than Bf 109 with DB 601 engine, but let's consider the costruction (22000 hours of work) needed a lot of time to build the machine. Macchi 202 had a lot of curves, a streamlined fuselage with cockpit elevated, al to optimize the aerodinamic of the aircraft. So it was fast, and also, the flyng control were well armonized.

Having said that, Macchi had a low ratio kg/Hp, and high wing loading. Speed was excellent, but Ki.61, even if less 'curved' was almost as fast, with double armament and 30% more range. Surely, the best of the fighter with DB 601, but also the last.

How Macchi was capable to reach at 6000m. in less than 6 minus? The climbing capability is cited, but is tricky. Macchi 205 was much more powerful, with only machine.gun was capable to climb at 6 km in less than 6 minus but using maximum power and at 3260kg. The Macchi 205V Series III had a weight of 3400kg and at combat power (2300 or maybe 2600 r/min) climbed in seven minutes at 6 km. So the picture.

Let's consider that Me Bf 109E and F had DB 601 too, weighted a lot less (400kg empy) and minor wingload, and still, had time to climb at 6 km in 7 and 6 min. This is cleary absurd HIMO, because to equalize the thing Macchi 202 should had been compared with BF-109 carryng a 250 kg bomb. And let's consider, that the M205V climbed in 7 min. at 6 km in a combat and not emergency (2800 r./min) power, so with 300 kg but also 300hp less MC 202 should had been even slower. Luigi GOrrini stated that Spitfire was faster also in climb, even so the official figure are 6-7 min to 6100m.

As orizontal speed, Macchi was faster than Bf 109E, but not than Bf 109F. No wonder, because Bf 109E had a high drag. He 100V (DB 601 also) reached 670 kmh!

But as climbing, aerodinamics not really matter. Let's go to figures of Gloster Gladiator, G.Gauntlet, CR 42, Hurricane, P-47: all are stated at 9 min to 6-6,1 km. despite that in orizontal ranged from 370 to 690 kmh. How to explain? Because the work to do against gratity need power, and all these aircraft goes at 3 kg to 1 hp around.

So, Macchi 202 had around 2,7kg for hp, while Bf 109E and F reached 2,2-2,4. Lower wingload, higher w/p ratio, so imagine how could be that Macchi was faster than a Bf 109 E in climbing??

As P-40, it was a nimble aircraft, with light aileron. Sadly, nobody flown both it and Macchi. But at low level P-40 was a dangerous foe for everyone. Tactics are important also: between the success of fling tigers and the success of Marseille vs P-40 SAAF there are mainly factors of tactics more than everyting else.

One of the things to assured is also this: Italians had always short deliveries of weapons, mainly aircraft. So no unexperienced pilots flew MC 205 or 202, while on other airforces, a lot of inexperienced pilots flew Bf 109,Spit, Zero. So you could assume that results were differents. Macchi, Reggiane and G.55 were 'silver bullets', too few to equip mediocre pilots, think, GOrrini had the first Mc 205 after 3 years of airbattle. Not a guy that hadn't saw war. If all japs pilost were experienced as him, the A6M5 could had been even better results than A6M, instead was devasted.

I hope this could help.--Stefanomencarelli 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In climbing, aerodinamic have less (but not irrelevant) importance than in levelled speed, but airfoils and propellers are paramount. For the effect of different airfoils alone, you can compare the climb rate of the early series Macchi C.200 (Fiat A.74 RC.38 engine rated at 870 hp; Fiat-Hamilton propeller; empty weight 1778 kg; loaded weight 2208 kg; wing area 16,8 sqm; wing load 131,5 kg/sqm; power load 2,54 kg/hp; max speed 502 km/h) to that of the Caproni Vizzola F5 (Fiat A.74 RC.38 engine rated at 870 hp; Fiat-Hamilton propeller; empty weight 1818 kg; loaded weight 2238 kg; wing area 17,0 sqm; wing load 131,6 kg/sqm; power load 2,57 kg/hp; max speed 496 km/h). Tested by the same pilots in the same occasion, the C.200 climb at 6000m in 6m 29s, and the F5 in 6m 03s. So, two aircrafts so similar showed 26 seconds of difference in climbing at 6000m (and the F5 being even better than the Bf 109e-3, that, with DB.601 engine rated at 1100 hp; VDM propeller; empty weight 2010 kg; loaded weight 2540 kg, wing area 16,2 sqm; wing load 156.8 kg/sqm; power load 2,31 kg/hp, requires 6m 20s to reach 6000m). For the effect of different propellers, you can compare the climb rate of the P.47D equipped with the Hamilton standard and the "paddle blade" propeller, the latter increasing the climb rate of the aircraft by a 13%. Needless to say, the C.202 and the Bf 109 used both different airfoils and different propellers (and those of the C.202 were different to those of the early C.200 of the test above, being the airfoil redesigned by Sergio Stefanutti and the Fiat-Hamilton propeller replaced by the Piaggio P.1001 one). Finally, talking of the "comparable Bf 109E/F German fighter" seems to have little significance, since the two series having different structures with different weight (Bf 109f-4, DB.601 engine rated at 1350 hp; VDM propeller; empty weight 2386 kg; loaded weight 2890 kg, wing area 16,2 sqm; wing load 178.4 kg/sqm; power load 2,14 kg/hp, requires 6m 00s to reach 6000m). Given those difference, the fact that a Macchi C.202 (Alfa Romeo R.A.1000 RC41 rated at 1175 hp, Piaggio P.1001 propeller, empty weight 2350 kg; loaded weight 2930 kg, wing area 16,8 sm; wing load 174.4 kg/sm; power load 2,49 kg/hp) requires 5m 55s to reach 6000m seems not so exceptional, only a good combination of three factors (aerodinamic, airfoil and propeller) that overshadowed the effect of a mere 15% higher power of the engine.

I posted here this part of text promptly deleted by mr. Bzuk. I don't find anything NNPOV here, and i would discuss this BEFORE someone start to say: 'hey this is unsupported, this pov etc'.

Macchi and look departement
The fairness is a highly soggettive thing, but generally the comments made on MC.202/205 fighters were and are about their shape, are quite elegant, aggressive, well designed with a fuselage highly streamlined (Carestiano test pilot said, MC.205V was the best and fairest italian fighter, as example). The huge nose gave to these fighters an aggressive shape, and the short aft fuselage continues over the tail surfaces in a fuse shape. The undercarriage, at ground, is wide and robust as well. The cockpit, like Formula 1 cars is above the fuselage, is in a characteristic 'hump' over that. This shape wasn't thinked to fairness, but to maximize aerodynamic efficency, at heavy expense in complexity of building. The DB engine greatly allowed to make a compact design as well, but other DB fighters were less complex, like Bf-109, with an aft fuselage bigger and simpler (macchi had fuel tanks in the nose, Bf 109 not). Simple costruction was needed to have a huge number of airframe made, and Bf 109 beaten Macchi of 4:_1. Macchis and Re.2005, much less G.55s are so largely considered the best looking fighter aircraft of Italy, marryng aerodynamic with a shape as streamlined and compact as possible. Other italian aircraft didn't match this result. MC.200 was in the best case considered 'pretty', thanks because the sharp motor ring and its bulges over pystons. RE.2001 was also considered quite pretty. Nobody is know to have wrote the same about Re.2000/2002/2003 and above all, G.50, among the less gracius italian figthers of all, and despite they were the ascendent of Re.2005 and G.55, 2 fighter literally 'elonged' and streamlined to have better aerodynamics thanks to DB 605 engine. As wings, all italian aircraft except Reggiane had normal, conventional wing trapezioidal shaped, not really impressive in look nor originality. Perhaps the opposite in Spitfire, a classical 'fair fighter' that had a fuselage not so outstanding designed with a long and stright aft fuselage behind cockpit, but with elliptical, classical wings that were a real mark of these aircrafts, so almost all the best picture of Spit are portrait with the fighter pictured in a mode to better show (ex. in a turn) its large and very elegant wings. --Stefanomencarelli 10:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits
A newbie editor has undertaken a wholesale revision of this article which is rife with typos, spellos and referencing errors. It is way too much to edit all at once. Can others help in taking this article to an acceptable standard. I am reverting it to the state it was in before the massive overhaul. I have no problem in having a rewrite but it needs to be done systematically. FWIW Bzuk 04:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

I am the newbie and this is the text:

The Macchi C.202 Folgore (Italian: Lightning) was a World War II Italian fighter aircraft built by Macchi Aeronautica. The C.202 was a development of the earlier C.200 Saetta with a more powerful German Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine.

hi just noticed oxygen is incorrect in the intro and i don't know how to edit that section can someone fix it and/or let me know how to edit the intro (i've probably just missed something simple but i can't work out how to edit that section) added by teknotiss without signing in because i forgot until now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.88.98 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Development
The preference of the Italian military authorities for radial engines had led to the failure of the Italian aeronautical industry to develop more powerful and streamlined liquid-cooled engines during the second half of the 1930s. This is a weird fact, because italians had produced high powered engines for Schneider Trophy.

The Macchi MC.72 beaten world speed record with a refined design and an engine of 2800hp., the AS.6. But this extensive work to make excellent racer aircraft, strongly supported by Mussolini, wasn't good to make operational stuff. In fact, the wars of Spain and Ethiopia sucked much of money available, and embargo as well damaged economy and tecnology developements.

In fact, despite MC 72 and other advanced aircraft, the bulk of Regia Aereonautica was still equipped with biplane until 1941. In June 1940, the estimed force of fighters was around 300 CR 32, 300 CR 42, 120 G.50 and 156 MC.200, and except the first of them, all were radial engined with less than 1000hp. Isotta Fraschini produced excellent engines for MAS of around 1000hp, but failed to make modern engines for aircraft, despite Delta series of engines. Fiat Asso engines, used on CR.32 weren't fullowed by better stuff. At the end of '30s, except Isotta-Fraschini, all italian engine producer made old french, british and USA radial model on license.

The experience of Schneider Trophy, as happened like Formula 1 racers and 'normal cars', weren't translated in industrial production for many reason, as the high cost of big series, the difficult to mantein, the very short life of engines, the vulnerable freezing systems and many others.

At the end, with Merlin and DB-600/601 all around, Italy Airforce asked for a powerful engine for aircraft. But nobody managed to do so. Piaggio radial engines, used on P.108, Re.2000 and 2002 never went reliable, expecially at the beginnings, Isotta Fraschini had inline engines but of obsolescent design. The result to reach quickly a satisfactory engine was to build the DB 601 by Alfa Romeo on licence, this was managed after a lot of trouble to learn how make a so sophistied and innovative engine.

Among the italians aircrafts, radial national engines were deserved to bombers and cargo, while DB-601 were sent to fighters line. Even so, never enough engines were built for the necessities. So, as example, was produced Re.2002, an alternative on Re.2001 Falco.

Macchi MC.202, designed by Mario Castoldi, flew in the summer of 1940 and quicly established to be the fastest italian aircraft. More, very few changements were needed before it entered in service 1 years after. On the contrary, Re.2001 needed a lot of refinements and 1 more year.

This forced Macchi Aeronautica to rely on the aging Fiat A.74 radial engine for its C.200 fighter. By 1941, the C.200, armed with two 12.7 mm machine guns and with a maximum speed of 504 km/h (270 knots, 315 mph), was obsolescent.

In July 1939, the Regia Aeronautica (Italian Air Force) requested the Officine Reggiane to build a Reggiane Re.2000 prototype equipped with a German Daimler-Benz DB 601A liquid-cooled supercharged inverted V-12 engine rated at 1,175 hp (815 kW). At the time, the most powerful reliable Italian inline engine was the 960 hp (715 kW) Isotta-Fraschini Asso XI RC.40, which was designed in 1936. As the result, in November 1939, Alfa Romeo acquired the license to produce the DB 601A.

Meanwhile, not waiting for production at Alfa Romeo factories, Aeronautica Macchi imported a DB 601A engine, and Macchi chief of design Mario Castoldi began work on mating the C.200 airframe with the German powerplant. The resulting C.202 made its first flight on 10 August 1940, two months after Italy's entry into World War II. To counteract the added torque of the more powerful engine, Castoldi extended the left wing by 20 cm (8 in).

Tecnical features
Castoldi, man of many experiences during several years of building racer aircrafts (Schneider Trophy), choosed to full explain his professional experience to obtain aerodynamic refinements in his projects. He tried successfully to sobstitute Celestino Rosatelli in as main projectist about fighter for Regia Aeronautica. His new project was simple, robust, small. The costruction was not a really innovating one, however, nor light. Complexity of design, cleary obsolescent and derived by previous experiences with wooden costruction adapted despite the thicker componets, make an aircraft non necessarly heavy, even if small and robust.

The empty weight of the new MC 202 was around 2400kg, then even more. It could appear quite modest compared to 4000kg of Hellcat, but it is very heavy compared to the 1800-2100 kg of fighters like Bf-109, Spitfire Mk I and Zero, the other '1000hp' fighters. This, surprising, didn't affected the speed (thanks to aerodinamic refinements) nor the agility (thanks to flight controls well balanced) but the useful weight was modest, so the aircraft was armed with only 2 mtg. Breda of 12,7 mm.: the same as C.R.32, a 600hp fighter of 1933!. Breda's are usually well recorded as reliable and with 'excellant ammunitions' but this should been relativized to all was available on international tecnology at those times.

Breda were heavy as Browning M2 aviation, the model from wich italian type derived. But Breda fired 12,7x81mm. 'Vickers' cartrige ammunition, not 99mm. and so, the energy at muzzle was 10.000 Joules vs 16.000. ROF was not satisfactory as well, and degradated by syncronizer by atleast 25%, so the output was around 18 rounds/second or 0,63 kg. HE ammunition didn't help as well: against light structures it was useful, not so with metallic, armoured, heavy machine like the '40s types. The weight of HE inside, 0,8gr. is around a tenth of a single 20mm. shell, so it was not minimally a match. British designers related for HE ammo from 20mm. and higher, and USA aviators preferred API ammo (Armour,Piercing, Incendiary) with a incendiary load of chemical instead of High-Explosive.

All the weaponry was fitted inside the big nose of the Macchi, over and behind the engine. The reserve of ammo was 700 rounds, teorically 750. The provision for 2 mtg. of 7,7mm. Breda in the wings was fitted by VII series onward, but this pair of machine-guns, 1000 rounds, made Macchi 100kg heavier at maximum weight. So they were usually deleted by pilots, also because these weapons were almost useless vs enemy aircraft in 1942.

A syncronizer made possible firing these weapons (not the wing's guns) trough the blade of the propeller, btu with 25% loss ROF (Rate of Fire). A collimator called San Giorgio, a reflection unit, was also fitted in the cockpit.

Fullowing a principle of aerodinamics similar to the Area rule, the mass and the volume were concentred in the anterior of fuselage. So from the nose to the pilot, there was both the weaponry, and the propulsion. The propeller was a 3 blades (Piaggio), costant speed. Then there was the Monsone, the DB-601 produced by A.R, and above it the pair of Bredas. After there was a fuel tank, self-sealing,of 370 lts., similar to Spitfire, and finally the ammo boxes. Behind the cockpit there was a real small part of fuselage, to make a shape similar to a modern submarine ('elonged drop'). Since the cockpit cannot be putten in this structure, this was elevated over the main fuselage, as happens in modern Formula 1 cars. Even so, this cockpit-so typical of italian fighters- and its characteristic 'hump', were cramped and never gave a good FOV to the pilot, also because there wasn't any mirror. The small part of aft fuselage until the tail conteined the reserve tanks (that bring, with 80 l, the amount to 430l., a bit more than 400l. of Bf.109), radio, oxigen and flight control wires.

All the velature was convenctional, with a single vertical tail, and wing of relatively convenctional design, with a pair of flaps and 2 elevators, but not slats. Undercarriage was classical as well: the 2 main elements were fitted in the wing, to have a big stability, expecially because MC.202 had an awful forward wiev once landed with its big nose. THe tail wheel was not retractable, however, but carenated.

The aircrat had not expecially features to show, except the complex, streamlined, aerodynamic shape of fuselage (payed with a more complex costruction than simpler aircraft such Bf 109). The cockpit was not pressurized, the radiogonimeter generally was not fitted. As armour, there was a armoured sit, self sealing tanks, but generally not an armoured windshield. This was few, but better than MC.200 that hadn't even the rear armour as standard (and no radio as well).

Costruction was made in a very complex manner, that was after all more economic than more sophistied tecnology, but taken too much time with 5 time compared to Bf-109E (usually rated at 4500-6000hrs while Macchi needed 22000 or more). Also the non-necessarly heavy structure, if helped to resist to offense of enemy, didn't helped to not waste precious light alloys (400kg heavier than Bf-109). All the aircraft was metallic, except control surfaces. Cantilever were 23 for every wing,with 2 wing spar. Main radiator was under the pilot's cockpit, but the oil's radiators were put on the nose, in a classical dustbin shape. Note well, normally it was only a oil radiator, but instead Macchi had 2 small.

Operational history
The Folgore was put into production using imported DB 601Aa engines, while Alfa Romeo set up production of the engine under license as the R.A.1000 R.C.41 Monsone (Monsoon). Due to initial delays in engine production, Macchi resorted to completing some C.202 airframes as C.200s with Fiat radial engines. Nevertheless, by late 1942, Folgores outnumbered all other fighter aircraft in the Regia Aeronautica.

Deliveries of the first production aircraft, C.202 Series I, to a specially formed conversion unit, 1º Stormo C.T., in Udine began in the Summer of 1941 and by November the C.202s made their appearances on the Libyan front. In addition to North Africa, the aircraft saw limited service on the Eastern Front where between 1941 and 1943, together with C.200s, they achieved an 88 to 15 victory/loss ratio. Following the Armistice with Italy, C.202s were used as trainers in the Italian Social Republic. After the war two examples served as trainers at Lecce until 1947.

The C.202 inherited its predecessor's durability and easy, responsive flight controls (but not the autorotation tendency, even if not totally solved even in MC. 205). The clean aerodynamics offered by the inline engine permitted dive speeds high enough for pilots to encounter the then-unknown phenomenon of compressibility. Although the C.202 could effectively fly against Hawker Hurricane, P-38 Lightning, P-39 Airacobra, Curtiss P-40 and even the Supermarine Spitfire at low altitudes, the aircraft's combat effectiveness was somewhat hampered by its weak armament.

Airbattles
In terms of diffusion, Macchi equipped all the main fighter wings like 1, 4 and 51. This aircraft started his duty at mid. '41, but it was imployed in a battle not until the fall of that year, when several Macchi fought against one of the most feared british aircrafts: the hurricanes, before in Malta,with a british downed, then in North.Africa, while italians claimed 8 Hurricanes in the first fight. In trouth, only 4 were lost, equalling the debut of Bf-109E (also 4 victories over Hurricanes, 19 april 1941 in Cirenaica).

The 'overclaiming' was all but extraordinary in all the airforces in WWII, but the weak armament of Macchi didn't helped to surely knock-down enemy aircrafts once hitten.

In the first occasion, 3 macchi of 4 Wing contrasted one of the frequent incursions of Hurricanes over Sicily, in that case, over the Comiso airfield, and after 12 am. they downing one of lt. Lintern, by Macchi of sottotenente Frigerio. It was 30 september 1941.

The second happened 26 november 1941, while there was Operation Crusader. 19 Macchi of 9 Gruppo, 4 Stormo (Wing) were begun by 3 days in Africa, hurried by british offensive. Guided by capt. Larsimont (97 squadriglia) and Viglione Borghese (96 ima) 10 of these italians flew at 5000 m. and whipped a force of Hurricane Mk II, 229 and 238 Sqdn. Both the italians leaders were hitted by Hurricanes, but return to base in Martuba.

On british side, two Bf 109 were claimed by RAF, obviousely Viglione and Larsimont. Sqn. 238 had Hurricane lost: Sgt. knappet and sgt. kay were downed. The first was definitively missed, the second bailed out. Ltn. Kings force landed on desert, then re-entred in british lines in Tobruk after taken an abandoned italian tank. So he started with an Hurricane and returned with a M.13 tank, a bit better than nothing. Ltn. Currie crashed the plane at landing at Tobruk. Other Hurricanes may be damaged, but not destroyed.

This fight obtained also the greetings of Marshall Bastico. It seemed that the war could be stil won against british.

For all the 1942 Bf.109 and Macchi disputed vs. Allied airforce the skies of North Africa, some Macchi were sent in URSS, many were employed vs. Malta. With the fall of the year the enchancing of Allied was unresistible and then El-Alamein the final result was decided in Mediterranean, while Malta didn't surrended.

So Macchi fough in retreat until Tunisi and then, in defense of Sicily, Sardinia, Italy, versus a foe getting stronger day after day.

One of the desperate situation was experienced by Macchi of 2 gropus landed at Korba airfield from Italy. Of around forty that they were, forced to be concentrated both the two groups (7imo and 16imo) of 54 Stormo, in this tunisian airfield, in 8 may 1943 almost all were destroyed at the ground by Spitfires before they could do something and despite they were potential a powerful force. Because no trasport aircraft were still available, every fighter taken-off the day after, with 2 men inside, pilot and a tecnician. Only few (5 of 7imo and 6 of 16imo) were repaired for the day 10 may and escaped to Italy. Atleast one, manned by Lombardo, was destroyed and the two man inside were wounded after the crsh-landing on a beach near Reggio Calabria. a photo show better the catastrophe of Tunisian campaign: over a dozen Macchi 202s (1% of total built in 1940-44) rested in an abadoned airfield, dismantled in pieces to support the last few operative fighter or damaged beyound repair by air attacks.

The rest of MC.202 fought at most to defend Sicily and Sardinia, and Naples. They cannot do the job, and they witnessed the bombing of Rome on that summer by masses of allied bomber versus that Macchis were severly undergunned. Results were poor, and MC 202 were sostituted by Bf 109, MC 205 and G.55 as soon as possible.

Several MC 202 have served also with Co-belligerant italian air force, and some were trasformed in MC 205. Other served in RSI aviation and Luftwaffe, but just as training fighter. Some were ordered by Switzerland, but none was delivered. Several, also, gone with Croatia legion.

After the bombing of Macchi, the career of '202 and '205 was almost nullified. After the bloody war, however, some stuff had surveyed and so, some MC 205 new or by MC 202 trasformation were sent to Egypt. Totally, 42 MC 205 were sent, but the 31 made by MC 202 were lasted with only 2 mtg. Breda. If nothing else, they had should been more lighter and performing than usual. Some fought against Israel, and some were in service until 1951. Fiat G.55/59, more modern, were also more successfull in post-war businness.

Macchi 202 vs the others
How Macchi feared against other aircraft? Usually, like german and italian identified all british fighter as 'spitfire' allied identified frequently as Bf 109 italian fighters. So it's not really easy to establish how they done really, and the ratio of lossess inflicted.

In general, Macchi was superior to the Hurricane and P-40, but the heavy weaponry of both was a real danger as well for the nimble italians and german fighters. P-39 was inferior as well, at least at altitude. Spitfire Mk V was a match and always a well respected foe, cleary superior at altidude thanks to the powerful Merlin 45 engine and the big elliptic low-charged wing. P-38 was also a formidable foe as well.

Spitfire was a relatively light costruction, less robust, but more armoured. It has a lower wingload, and higher p/W ratio, so it should had been a better performer and dogfighter than the Macchi. It was much better armed, until the few cannon shell were fired (6-12 seconds), after it was a question much closer, with 4x7,7mm. (20 seconds of fire) vs. 2x12,7mm. (30-40 seconds) for the macchi. However, weaponry of Spit was generally (despite the short endurance) considered much more effective.

As performances and agility, Spitfire were, as Hurricane, hampered by Vokes airfilters, that given to them an aerodinamic much worsened. So they weren't really good as expected while Axis fighters were equipped with air filters much less dragging. Apart this, the possibility of escaping of diving was obtained by DB fighters because the iniection fuel sistem, that didn't stopped the engine in a dive. The small german design was good enough to make a much smaller aircraft and then, a better speed/power ratio than Merlin.

DB had also a provision for a gun inside, but Macchi was equipped with none. This not because the engine, but the structure of the fighetr: even if bigger than BF.109 it cannot accomodate a gun inside the nose. This was a problem, because a eventuale 3th Breda 12,7 mm or Mauser gun could give to MAcchi a reasonably good firepower. But in 1940 the motor-guns weren't reliable and Castoldi taken a lot of time to reproject his fighter to have a weaponry improved: the Macchi 205V had still the weaponry of '202, and only 205N had finally a Mauser gun in the nose.

As agility, some reports implied that Macchi turned better than Spitfire, but giving the rough numbers (wingoload, stall speed etc.) this could not be supported and sadly not are known report on Macchi as those made for german fighters.

Also the climbing speed showns unusual good numbers for Macchi, 40 sec for 1000m. 5,9 min for 6. but this not match with wingload and power ratio, both worse than Spit and Bf-109 E/F. Even, these numbers are competitive with DB.605 engined Macchi, a thing that could'n be accepted, so the valuations of these performances should be taken with a precise knowledge of how those test were performed (weight, rated power of engine etc.).


 * I think it's unlikely that the MC 202 was 'easily outmaneuvering' P-40s, MC 202 had a higher wing loading and most observers noted that the P-40 out-turned it.

LankhmarJoe (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Italian aircraft industry produced around 1,200 C.202s, in 11 series between 1941 and 1943. Of these, Macchi produced 392, the rest being supplied by production lines at Breda and SAI Ambrosini.

Variants
Like its predecessor C.200, the C.202 saw only a few modifications during its career. Starting with Serie VI, the fighter had a new wing with a provision for 2x 7.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns, and one aircraft (serial number MM 91974) was fitted with a pair of gondola-mounted 20 mm cannon. Respect to Reggiane Re.2001 it was a lot less flexible as adaptability and it has subtantially the same project from start to 1994.
 * C.202AS
 * Dust filters for operations in North Africa (AS - Africa Settentrionale, North Africa)


 * C.202CB
 * Underwing hardpoints for 2 100kg. bombs or 100l. drop tanks (CB - Caccia Bombardierre, Fighter-Bomber).Really few use, because Macchi 202 were desperately needed for air superiority.


 * C.202R
 * Equiped with photo cameras for reconnaissance missions (R - Ricognizione, Reconnaissance)


 * C.202D (serial number MM 7768)
 * Prototype with a revised radiator. This was similar to P-40, placed under the nose.
 * C.202EC: perhaps 'Esperimento cannoni' it had 2 Mauser gun under wings. The only adapted for these arms.
 * C.202 with DB 605 engine. This was MC 202 bis, that was re-called MC.205. The 2 aircraft were almost equal, but not really equal as often said. In truth almost all the aircraft was redesigned, expecially the aft fuselage and cockpit. Only wings are almost the same, and this lead a decadence in performance and agility at altitude expecially.
 * After the war, 41 C.202 airframes were fitted with license-built Daimler-Benz DB 605 engines and sold to Egypt as C.205 Veltros.

--Stefanomencarelli 10:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason why i insist on these things is the sequent:
 * Bf-109s were already known and feared by allied in the desert: the apparition of the Macchi was a bad new for 2 reasons: a- it was finally an italian fighter that can whip the main opponents, insthead to be whipped by them and b-Bf-109s were few, so Macchi 202 were good to improve the quantity and give to Regia an effective weapon, since Bf-109s were indisponible to be exported in Italy.
 * The armament of Macchi had several times more opportunity to be used against many of allied fighters, until Spitfire and P-38 began. But, if P-40 or Hurricane had the opportunity, and often happened, they strike very hard as well, so axis fighter were made on pieces in more than one occasion. So these encounters were never 'easy': turn on the wrong direction and 6 M2s sent directly to S.Peter or Valhalla. This is important to point: Hurricane had lower performances, but its punch was ALWAYS well respected by enemy. No stuff like P-40 vs Ki-27 (2x7,7) were possible: the first that made a mistake was dead. So i want remark this: Allied had very respectable machines, even if underpowered.

Another aspects to search is still the Macchi performances: the climbing capability seems to me cleary overstated; it cannot climb better than Bf-109E, if yes i would know why. It cannot outurn (and outclimb) Spitfire, if yes i would know why. I don't pose faith on combat report, a bit too entusiastic. Gorrini stated that Macchi was overrun by Spitfire, while looking to performances it should'n be true. He made a mistake or the 'official' figures were too optimistics? I know that G.50s in finnish service were atleast 40kmh slower than official, and i not talk about ski-modiphied one.--Stefanomencarelli 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart the above aspects, i find that this articles are becaming OK as overall worth.--Stefanomencarelli 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

manhour
Every time i read the number of man-hours needed to build a C.202 they seems to grow up. Now they became "22.000 or more". It's only a suggestive, and incorrect, statement. 22.000 were the man-hours needed to build a C.205 at the Macchi factory at the beginning of it's production. In the Breda factory, the man-hours required to build a C.202 never exceeded the 18.000 (not a so bad figure compared to those of the Spitfires). Needless to say, the difference with the Bf 109 was only partly due to the "complexity of the structure". The Italian manufacture plants where much more labour-intensive than the Germans, so, even with the same structure, building an aircraft in an Italian factory will require an higher number of manhours. Finally, that NEVER LIMITED THE PRODUCTION RATE OF THE AIRCRAFTS. All the manufacture plants that built the Italian inline-engined fighers had their production rate limited by the number of disposable engine (produced by Alfa Romeo and FIAT), so the number of man-hours needed to assemble the aircrafts had little significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.27.231.207 (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just tell it to Germans, they were worried about this with G.55s production.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Facts" needing clarification
When reading this article some "facts" need some clarification In spite of a fact date label was posted in August '07 nobody has clarified the claims about the C.202 being structurally heavy for its power (by the same reckoning so was the Spitfire I) and that it needed 22,000 man hours to build. It is also claimed that the RE 2001 structure was more adaptable. What does this mean? No references have been given so this information can be contested and removed

It is claimed that the C.202 had a poor load capacity which meant it could carry no more than two 12.7mm Bredas; problem is while the C.202 had a useful, disposable load of 640kg (petrol, oil, pilot, ammunition, Gentilli and Gorena p 19) this was considerably more than the useful disposable load of a Bf 109E-3, which was 553 kg (Cross and Scarborough p.69). I have removed that sentence which is highly debateable

The 12.7mm Breda might have been less efficient than the .50 Browning on which it was based but how did it perform in aerial combat, where most of the time pilots were firing at close range? This is not covered when perhaps it should be. Secondly is a full discussion of the ballistics and the types of ammunition preferred by Britain and America really needed? This is already fully discussed in the article on the Breda and doesn't need to be revisited at length. (While looking this up BTW I found this; http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/performance-comparison-machine-guns-light-cannon-17521.html and this http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm)

The reference Sgarlato has been given several times but there are no page numbers. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could ask to me IF you wanted some clarifications, instead to revert at will what you wanted to do.

But i'll answer to you, because i am not afraid to proof what i said and because i have simpaty for the Kiwis(=)).


 * point 1. Breda 12,7 mm: Muzzle energy: around 10.000 J (12,7x81 mm); M2 Browning, around 16.000J (12,7x99 mm); Just tell me if this 'not matters'. The weight was around the same, coupled with a slighty superior ROF the M2 has an output 80% superior to Breda's energy. To not to talk about the useful load: with Breda, the HE charge was just 0,8 grams, far less than a 'heavy' 12,7 mm like soviet o american type (2+ gr). Putting 2 M2 in the Macchi was pratically almost doublig its firepower, without almost no weight more. Breda was reliable, but in the sense of energy-mass efficiency, the worse of all HMG. About the short range, this matters but in a limited manner; since you already know Tony William's analysis, i'll cut short: while a poorly armed fighter must combat only a short range, a well armed one can do differently: if you have 6xM2 Browning, then you'll can trash a target with a 0,5 secs raffic at close range or with a longer one at, let's say, 300-400 mts. Don't forget the whining about the poor weaponry of the first P-51 (B), later enhanced from 4 to 6 M2, or the same for Ki-61s (up to 2x20 mm +2x12,7 mm). If your comment wuold be right, because the 'close range shots', then it was no difference between a Ki-43 and a P-47. But a Ki-43 cannot disintegrate a P-47 with a short raffic, as P-47 was able with Hayabusa (or with a FW-190). Simply, two Browning 12,7 mm can: pierce more armour and a longer range (25 vs 18 mm at close range, 20 mm at 500 vs vs 15 mm etc), and hold an heavier chemical charge. The HE round was ridicolous, but in the '30s the aircrafts were fragile (plywood, fabric) and they were effective. But in the '40s the 12,7 HE was not efficient vs metallic and armoured aircrafts, API was the right choice (as the explosion, this was done by .. the fuel of the target). When Italian fighters had D.520, for the first time their aviator used and apreciated (a lot) the fire-power of the 20 mm gun (just read what wrote Minguzzi with his experience with D.520 e Re.2005). A world of difference with 12,7 mm HE.


 * Point 2. Please: Macchi 202 had an empty weight of 2,400 kg. It had rougly the same engine of Bf-109E, that had a empty weight of 2,000 kg. Max weight: 3,000 vs 2,600 kg. With the same engine, this meant a clean and straight worse weight-power ratio, around 20% worse. The same about wing load, since both the planes were almost equal in wing surface too. So we have about 2,5 kg/hp vs 2,2, 175 kg/m2 vs 150 (around). How Macchi could be faster in a climb it's a mystery to me (i bet it is a wrong statement).. the same with Spitfire: only Spit Mk V and further has a comparable weight. But Spit V has 1,450 hp (Merlin 45), almost like MC.205, not 1.075-1.175, and had 21 m2, not 17 m2, so it had a better power to weight and a inferior wingload (simply math). Spit Mk I/II, that had rogly the same engine power (around 1.000 hp), weighted just 2,050 kg empty and so, it was lighter and with better ratio too.


 * Point 3: when i wrote the Macchi page (my contribution, she existed before than me), the fact would be pointed. The fighter's firepower analysis is one of the main reason of interest in a lot of publications (books, magazines, websites, encyclopedias), so why not to not post it in wikipedia?


 * Point 4: Macchi 202 could have been better than Bf-109 as 'useful load'? Maybe, but remained a lot scarce. Ki-61, as example, with the same engine family, had 800 kg, Hurricane Mk IIB over 1.200, and this is not all. In fact, Macchi 202 was not simply limited as weight, but, in weaponry too. When Macchi 202 received 2 7,7 mtg, this was enough to dislike the 'improvement'. I.e. Macchi 202 was even able to enhance its weaponry with two mere machine-gun (7,7 mm). So tell me: with a similar engine power, P-40 was able to hold 6 M2, Macchi just 2. Hurricane had even 4 HS-404 20 mm. Try to put them in a Macchi 202 and se what happened: even the MC 202.EC with 2 x 20 mm was only a prototype, no series production was made. This is what i mean as 'useful load', not only the kg of fuel. Until Macchi 207 (!) the 4x20 mm weapon solution was not even considered.


 * Point 5: about the Reggiane Re.2001: sorry, but probably you have no clue of what you are saiyng. Reggiane was definitively more advanced than Macchi. And more flexible too. Try to put a 640 kg bomb in a Macchi 202, or use it for carrier use, or as night-interceptor. Macchi was not even considered in these roles, while Reggiane was. This is flexibility. Add to this a structure much more advanced (even too much, see Re.2000 and his integral tanks), add the 2x12,7+2x7,7 as standard armament, add longer range (much more fuel= over 1.000 km vs 800), add superior high level performances (bigger wing, less wingload, more ceiling, 12.000 m vs 11.000). Then tell me what's is wrong with that statement.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Stefanomencarelli; firstly the purpose of these discussion pages is to discuss the content of the article; there is no one editor who can claim to own the article which you, by implication, are doing. By asking questions on this page it gives others the opportunity to comment, not just you. It may well be friendlier to direct my questions to you alone but in this I am following proper Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Secondly; You may well be right in your analysis of the C.202 V other fighters, and the Reggiane may well have been more adaptable structurally but if no proper references are given there is no way to verify how accurate the information is. You have completely missed my point, I do happen to know the structural details of the RE 2000 series (ie: I know exactly what I am talking about!), but without references it simply becomes a statement of your personal opinion.


 * Few of the aircraft articles in Wikipedia incorporate a full ballistic analysis of the weapons used. All of your points are covered properly in the article on the 12.7mm Breda. This article is about the Macchi C. 202 not the Breda.


 * You've given some very detailed answers - along with some uneeded sarcasm - yet you have failed to provide any references, nor have you done so for the article. You have not "proved" anything you have said - you have given a whole plethora of facts which may or may not be accurate. To date, for example, NOTHING has been done to add references to the entire paragraph about the C.202's structural weight ("The empty weight of the new C.202 (approximately 2,350 kg/5,180 lb) gradually increased throughout production, and due to the thickness of metal used it was also comparatively heavy for the power installed...) since August 2007. It may well be accurate, but who can tell? Until you or someone else adds some references Wikipedia guidelines state that All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Without suitable referencing much of the material you have included could also be considered as original research. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you wanted to make me hungry you have realized it. Greetings! And even more greetings for your dimostration: even if i struggled to point the facts about your questions, the only thing you noticed are the 'references'. So i'll learn to no loose time with people that don't cares to understand every and detailed fact (because without 'references' one is automatically in 'bad faith', even if he talks about the Moon being smaller than Sun).

First of all: do you seriusly accusing me to 'make statements and datas', to be an Original researcher? Oh, my dear, surely i have a Bf-109 in my garage and i have enojy to weight it at will (=)). Since you are so versed in italian aircrafts, what kind of surprise do you have to read al togheter datas of Bf-109, Macchi and Spitfires? You'll should know them, so why such a surprise and scream about OR?

Before insulting another contributor's work (because you are arguing my bad faith OR or whetever), you must been careful. I am not here to be insulted by you. I offered to you my collaboration before, you simply quit it. And now you are saying that 'it was not the case to call me to clarify some things?' Wikinette says nothing to you? Good manners? Common sense?

If you bother to know, i was banned for one year because i did too much discussions in the 'peaceful aviation project'. Of course, while ARBCOM banned me for one year, nobody cared to help the articles i leave. When i returned in wiki.en finally unblocked, i decided simply to quit aviation project because i was, frankly speaking, amused by some other contributors and the last thing i desidered was to be -another time- involved in a discussion with the accuses you are posting. If i was an 'original researcher', i didn't loose my time writing on behalf of wikipedia. I wrote and sell books and make me happy, since i was so great to be the only one that knows the weight of the Bf-109 and the tecnology of Reggiane.

About the firepower, there is no policy that deny that, and it's not my guilth if the 'great Wikpiedia' is so poorly written, that even lacks a total list of F-14s avionics. So, instead to downgrade this article, start to raise the others. Wikipedia is not a bunch of sheeps.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In 2007 you had on it.wiki well documented answers on this matter and they were against your non cited sources own made summary. At that time your opponent presented detailed critics to your unreferenced thesis you are presenting again here, but your angry reactions worried him and he preferred to finally abandon that project before anyone could stop such those debates totally deprecated. This is not the way Wikipedia works. If you prefer to present your point of view on a plane or whatever, please keep going to write your Italian Wikibook, but you should not react this way to people who once again present official policies on Wikipedia Encyclopaedia. Please cite your sources in English language on this topic if you have some, possibly without reworking or integrating what they state, which is well beyond scopes of this project. --EH101 (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, the might EH. Well, i already gave all my sources. Osprey and Take-Off are foreigner publications, so nobody should be worried if i give the italian versions, the only ones i have. About Dogwalker, it's not my guilth if he quitted, as Palazzo explained better to JR.


 * Someone gives me sources stating that a BF-109E or F was heavier than a Macchi 202 and i'll accepted it. Until then, i will consider 2,5 t > 2t. And please, Dog Walker compared the 'conteporary' models like Spitfire Mk V and Macchi 202, just because they were both of 1941. Sadly, Spit V had 1.440 hp and the power to weigh ratio was 2,1:1 (vs 2,5:1), the Macchi had the lower hand in all the cases (why not to compare Me.262 and Ki-84? They were contemporary too!). Not to talk about the dimensions: BF and Macchi were smaller than Spit, BF 109E was only slighty lighter, Macchi was even heavier. Spit was fragile vs both the axis fighters, an it's not me that i am stating this, not even the basic logic and common sense (less weight/surface ratio, less thuickness, less sturdiness), but the obvious Sgarlato in the Spit monography at page 8. So the 'cronologic comparation' is not working, and in any case, Spit V has better power to weight ratio even vs MC.205 (1.475 hp/3.400 kg).

And now a small comparations between Spit Mk II and Macchi 202: 1.175 hp vs 2.2162/2.846 kg(Sgarlato P.22), vs 1.175 hp vs 2.400/3.000 kg (Macchi 202 with 7,7 mm). Power to weight ratio 2,3 vs 2,5-2,94 kg/hp.

Comparations between Macchi 202 and foreigner fighters (Folgore, Sgarlato, p. 33):

Bf-109F-3: 1.300 hp/2.750 kg; Spit VC 1.470/3.070 kg, P-40C, 1.150/3.655 kg

Comparations between Macchi 202 and italian DB 601 fighters (Sgarlato p.32):

Re.2001: 1.175 hp/3.240 kg, G50VC, 1175 hp/2.900 kg, F.6M, 1175 hp/2.885 kg

Only P-40 was heavier and less hp/w ratio, only Reggiane 2001 had the lower hand in the same aspect.

A link surely worthing to be read: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html

This is all i have to say about it. Maybe someone must tell to Sgarlato that in wikipedia he is rated as an incompetent. Having said this, is not sources, nor logic, nor common sense works, really it's not possible to proof anything (and it's not my guilth if anglosaxon have so few sources on italian fighters).--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stefanomencarelli; you are the one who has taken an offensive and insulting attitude to my perfectly legitimate concerns about the way in which information has been used in this article. Mate, if you choose to go down this road good luck to you. You may well be an expert on the subject of Italian aircraft but this is no reason to be nasty and insulting towards other editors. I repeat YOU have up until the last couple of days provided no sources for much of the information you have included. Read other Avition articles to see how to include references BEFORE you fly off at half cock and insult everyone else. You've already been banned for a year, don't give people reasons for imposing another one. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When it's enough, it's enough.
 * You have no consideration for all the facts, datas, sources (5h to post them) i gave.
 * I never insulted you, contrary to your claim
 * You seems unable to discuss rationally any of the issues you raised. I expected by you citations vs citations, a rationale discussion about FACTS, instead you prefer avoid it and go for 'insults and policies' line.
 * All this stuff seems more and more good for Uncyclopedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Since i waste my time to have nothing, not even a minimal respect, and maybe been even accused to 'insult' you, while i simply tried to point my rights and your 'fairly unfair manners', then i quit aviation project. If someone will have further questions, he will came on my talk page. When it's enough, dear Minor, it's enough. Goodbye to all.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits
There are some serious problems with the latest edits. I am going to summarize them as:
 * 1) Spelling, typing, grammatical errors that appear to be due to translation of the original Italian.
 * 2) Issues with WP:WEIGHT and WP:PEACOCK.
 * 3) References/citations that need revisions to read properly.
 * 4) Reliance on non-Engish reference sources (probably an unsolvable issue, as these may be the only sources available to the editors who are making the submissions)
 * 5) Massive text changes without referring to the talk page. (WP:BRD could be invoked to simply revert all changes till rewriting and corrections take place, but nonetheless, an effort was made to incorporate the edits.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

And you did well. As 'massive text changes', i limited to pose references and to the variant sections, really poor compared to the last works available. I am sorry for the references, but really notes drove me crazy. As pointed, if you want a very poor italian a/c article, then trash all italian sources and go with only english. So MC.202 will be 4 kb size and we will all happy. It's impossible to solve, this issue. But no wonder because wiki.en. is in truth the 'international wiki' and in fact, it gains far more by foreigner's contribution that it loose. Because this wiki.en is far bigger than the others. Don't forget it.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The careful Wikipedia policy which prefers verifiable sources to foreign ones is valid for sure. Otherwise, how could English language people understand the difference between the ufologist, the journalist or the popular books writer that somebody could cite as a source also here. Maybe he could be the same person, the sum of the three and maybe he could be the same of the notorious "stealth fighter fake article" everybody in the Italian aeronautical community knows. Maybe somewhere there is an historian with the same name, who writes without seeking rumours, legends, uncredited sources from officer's clubs, and so. Writing like an historian does, maybe could not help to sell magazines in Italy, but, as I mentioned before, how could English readers evaluate all this differences in an author, even when he is fully quoted here ?--EH101 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

MC.202 and the Allied fighters
I am moving this section temporarily here as it does need some editing work but does it belong at all? Copyedit:"As explained above, MC.202s and Bf-109Fs became the most important Axis fighter in the desert and overall, despite the weak armament, they were superior compared to Hurricane and P-40.

When (mid 1942) Spitfire became available, the situation changed, but not so swiftly and dramatically. The Spit was not present in a great amount, but there was also a tecnical problem: it was hampered by the big Vokes sand filter under the nose, that worsened marketly its performances. The Axis fighters had not such limitation, as their filters were very small and compact, and almost all the MC.202s were made with them almost as standard. Spitfire Mk V speed was theorically enough to counter them, but the tropicalization lowered this figure at only 570 kmh, affecting also the climbing ratio. This air filter slowered the Hurricane as well. There was a local air filter, the 'Aboukir', far less draggier than the standard one, but it was saw in not a great number in the air units (at least, it is seldomly seen in the pictures). This helped the Axis fighters to break or search the contact, due to their higher speed (around 600 kmh) and altitude, with the brightest example in Hans-Joachim Marseille and his Bf-109F-4 'Gelbe 14'. This problem, even in a lesser extent, would had reduced the Spitfire's performances of the last Mk VIII and IX versions, so even if teorically on pair, the Mk V was slower than the Macchi and Bf-109F (it was rougly comparable only with Bf-109E and P-40 at medium-low altitudes), and Mk VIII/IX would had been slower than MC.205 and Bf-109G. Spits often were LF, with shortened wingtips. This allowed for more speed and roll rate, but the high altitude performances suffered as well, expecially over 12,000 ft; the Spit MkVC LF Trop was far different than standard models. The performances were, of course, even more affected with a bomb or a fuel tank, dropping the speed to only 337 mph.

The P-40s were tough, but overall inferior, expecially in climb rate. Every Allied fighter, however, was heavily armed (from 8 x7.7 mm to 4x20 mm cannons), thus it could easily kill a foe that made a mistake. P-40s struggled to became lighter, often removing 2 Browing and other equipment, but the best step was the P-40F, a good and fast fighter. Spitfires Mk.V were the most dangerous foe, expecially over Malta, while in the last months, USAAF fielded the powerful P-38, even if not entirely successful in fightings at low altitude and with nimble Axis fighters.

Apart the issues with sand filters, Allied fighters were often also affected by their use, both as obsolete tactics (defensive circles, see Marseille kills), and even more, by their role. They scored thousands of sorties against ground and coastal targets, but this meant their performances compromised by the bomb load. Even without bombs, their low altitude missions, to strafe targets with their powerful armament, exposed them both to the flak, and the sudden attack made by Axis fighters. Neither Macchi 202 nor Bf-109 were usually loaded with bombs and not even auxiliary tanks were common (at least not with MC.202s). So they could dive and strike their victims and escape at will. But, in other way, the Commonwealth aircrafts were very effective to harm the Axis land forces, expecially in the dramatic 1942 (from the fall of Tobruk to El Alamein), helping to stop their march toward Egypt and supporting Commonwealth land forces. At the end, even suffering considerable losses, Commonwealth won the war in the desert. Spitfire Mk V could been not too superior compared to P-40s, but they seldomly carried bombs, often they were used, as the best allied fighter available, in air superiority role and high altitude, this helped them to be so dangerous even for the best Axis fighters. On the contrary, Hurricane became more and more a 'sitting duck', with air-to ground role as their main employ. Thus, even if the Hurricane started the desert war as the best fighter available, already two years after became bombers and the weight grew-up with the tank buster version (Mk IID). Thus, the Hurricane no longer was considered an effective fighter, still good against Bf-109E and superior compared to the early italian fighters, but outclassed by Bf-109F and MC.202, and all the more recent Allied fighters (P-40, P-38 and Spitfire). Thus the Hurricanes met in 1942 were tipically a no match in air to air role."

I have put this large section (nearly the size of an article on its own) on the talk page, as hardly any of this commentary directly relates to the C.202. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

"Sicilian and Italian campaigns" section poorly worded
The first paragrath in this section has poor grammar. It seems as if it may have been translated from Italian. There are a few places where the grammar could be improved to allow people a smoother read. In particular the statement "Perhaps the worst day" does not specify for whom or what, even though you could safely assume this is referring to the aircraft.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering who likely added the material, that's not surprising in the least. It's a full-time job cleaning up after those two, and they don't make it easy when we do either! Correct if you can, or toss it if it can't be fixed. - BilCat (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Asymmetrical Wings It is well known that Mario Castoldi corrected the torque problem by using an asymmetrical wing design. According to the Smithsonian NASM site, the port (left) wing was 21cm LONGER than the starboard wing. The Wikipedia article wants it both ways. Here is one relevant quote "In an effort to counteract torque the port wing was 20 cm (8 in) shorter than the starboard." A few sentences later the article contradicts itself with this statement: "As with the C.200, to counteract the torque of the engine, Castoldi extended the left wing by 20 cm (8 in). This meant that the left wing developed more lift, offsetting the tendency of the aircraft to roll to the left due to the rotation of the propeller, which was an ingenious solution to a problematic issue faced by all aircraft designers." Clearly the port wing can't be both short and longer than the starboard wing. The first statement regarding the wing length needs to be deleted.

Inserted into the discussion of the wing design is this unrelated, un-scholarly and unsupported claim: "The pilots of the Regia Aeronautica loved their Lightnings with excellent performance matched with light, well-balanced and responsive controls." This reads like text lifted from a juvenile "Big Book of Warplanes" and inserted by a willy-nilly by an anonymous editor.

If no one objects I'll make the corrections myself.

ENScroggs (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Considered one of the most beautiful fighters to fly with wartime Axis forces
"Considered one of the most beautiful fighters to fly with wartime Axis forces" I really don't see how since the FW-190, BF-109, and P-39/P-63 were much better looking. I also don't see how this is relevant either. RadPig94 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, very subjective and definitely not encyclopaedic - the whole article still needs a bit of a going over. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   10:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Still could use a rewrite
As far as I can make out not a lot has happend on this page since 2012? In my opinion it has problems with language, structure and a lack of subjectivity. I might consider doing a partial rewrite with a focus on these aspects. I don't read Italian or have the technical know-how to go into the more technical aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Hammershøj (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Various
I see a few problems with this article, in my opinion. It seems to be mostly written from the summary of one person who typed a long and very interesting, but not necessarily referenced essay on the talk page. A lot of the stuff is taken almost verbatim from that Talk section. Either that or the same person posted both, but went to much further lengths to clean up the English on the main page. Aside from that (as is common on WW2 aircraft pages, particularly for non-German Axis aircraft) the whole page seems to have been written by someone trying to prove to the world that the Macchi was really an inferior plane, and why. I see this all the time, and it makes reading the article annoying, it's like reading a comment thread on a message board with on person sticking up for it, and the next person tearing it down. You hardly ever see a positive fact about the aircraft that isn't followed with a "But (enter counterbalancing negative here)" to ensure that no-one starts thinking too well of it, or mistaking it for a really GOOD plane like a Spitfire or a P-51 or Bf 109. I don't suggest that the facts be suppressed, obviously, I just think that the style could be toned down to seem less partisan, or to sound less like two partisans arguing using the wiki page as a proxy battlefield. Maybe make separate paragraphs or even sections for positive and negative claims? Then things like "many" Italian pilots removing the 7.7mm guns. Who says? How many is "many"? Why would 7.7mm guns be considered "ineffective" when they were still perfectly fine for a Spitfire Mk.V after they used up their limited cannon ammunition? The Ki-43 shot down numerous AC, including 4 engine bombers with nothing but 7.7mm guns. When they started fitting subsequent Ki-43s with a single 12.7mm Japanese pilots were known to sometimes remove it and reinstall the 7.7mm because it was faster firing. Seems as though the Italian pilots would be glad of the extra firepower of a couple RCMGs. Aircraft were not armored like tanks, and a few machine guns bullets could take any plane down. It was just more difficult because you had to aim more carefully and get a longer burst into the target, statistically. While on the subject, when the aforementioned editor said the 12.7s fired "1,080 rounds per minute" is that ONE gun or BOTH guns combined? Because 18 rounds per second is actually a decent ROF for a single 12.7mm, low for a pair of them. It would be something less than 600rpm per gun if it was a pair, but the text is not clear on this. That sounds roughly standard for a synchronized 12.mm. 18rps would put it in the same territory as the Browning .303 used on the Spitfire and Hurricane, which seems unlikely.

64.223.104.59 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

HMS Furious, not USS Wasp
It states in the article that USS Wasp delivered the first Spitfires to beleaguered Malta, but that's not the case. Operation Pedestal on 11 August 1942, was a flight of eight Spitfires from the aircraft carrier HMS Furious. They landed at Luqa airfield on Malta. See the page on Geoffrey Wellum. Dean1954 (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)