Author Topic: c.205 (Read 2561 times)

VISCONTI · « **on:** December 25, 1999, 10:35:00 AM »

Sorry but can't resist!

Is someone working on c205 performances?
c205 will be fixed or this is the definitive setup?

If this is the definitive setup plz rename this aircraft!

c205 was not the best Italian fighter but was better than 109g6

here a Cesna is better than c205!!

janneh · « **Reply #1 on:** December 25, 1999, 01:46:00 PM »

better than 109G6 ? Really ?

Italian planes are quite unknown for me, but I must admit I feel 205 is a pig.
Perhaps gatt, my friend, has something say about this subject

VISCONTI · « **Reply #2 on:** December 25, 1999, 03:59:00 PM »

Yes better or at least quite the same look on "AC type" I have post some days ago.
I'am happy if gatt or others can confirm these data.

Till now think only Spitfire and Fw190 are "accurate" others need more work to be close to the original.
What do u all think about??

v-twin · « **Reply #3 on:** December 26, 1999, 12:43:00 PM »

Yes janneh, no doubt gatt has a *LOT* to say about the 205 :-)
The 205 was an excellent AC, combining great maneuverability, high climb rate (5'30" to 6000 meters) and good speed (642 km/h).
It was far more maneuverable than all the 109's and was a tough opponent for every allied AC.
The only shortcoming was the time required to build it: 21000 hours!
The 109 required only 4500 hrs...
Veltro (a squadmate of gatt and me), who is a researcher in history of the Regia Aeronautica, found that JG77 used the 205 for few months in winter 1944 and praised the AC, judging it as excellent.
Again from veltro's researches, in a comparison flight between 109g (don't remember wich version) & Macchi 205, the Macchi "glued" his prop to the 109, wich couldn't shake the 205 off from the tail despite the efforts of the pilot.
I'm not saying that the 205 was an uberplane or the best plane of the world, only it was competitive with the best AC of the belligerents.
The performances of the AH's 205 are at this moment far away from the reality
and I hope the bugs will be fixed.
Nevertheless I'm grateful to HTC for having modelled an italian AC.
(I apologize for my bad english, isn't my mothertongue...)

Veetwin
4^Stormo Caccia

[This message has been edited by v-twin (edited 12-26-1999).]

gatt · « **Reply #4 on:** December 26, 1999, 05:57:00 PM »

Luftwaffe and Regia Areonautica made a 4 days test of these fighters in Guidonia (Italy) during February 1943: Macchi C.205V, Macchi C.205N, Reggiane 2005, Fiat G-55, FW190A-5 and 109G-4. We actually have got from -IREG- the papers of the italian tests. So we will be able to say something more in a few days.

Hehe Janneh, your right

AFAIK, HTC is working on the C.205 instability and (I hope) on the climb rate: IMHO 2,900ft/min is really unacceptable. But this is a beta so we have to wait a little bit more to judge a/c performance.

(to be continued ...)

VISCONTI · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 1999, 12:13:00 PM »

I have found a Regia Aereunautica test results on the serie 5 aircraft.

Fiat G.55 100%
Reggiane Re2005 92%
Macchi C.205V 88%

Fiat G.55 is better than C.205V at high altitude and have better manouvrability

Re2005 was a very good plane whit more ammo power (3 20mm cannon + 2 12.7mm) but on high speed dive he suffered from structural damage.

VISCONTI · « **Reply #6 on:** December 28, 1999, 01:57:00 PM »

Here in these pages u can find more data about the c.205 that can confirm the not accurate setup in AH.
http://www.museoscienza.org/english/aereo/mc205.html
http://members.xoom.com/iwai/mc205.html

gatt · « **Reply #7 on:** December 29, 1999, 01:51:00 AM »

VISCONTI,

our 0.43 Macchi is more stable. The max speed is close to the real one, both on the deck and at altitudes of 6,000 and 7,000mt. Nice work HTC

. For climb rate and turning performance you have to wait more time ...

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 01-01-2000).]