Macchi C.202 performance

[gatt]

Here we go again.

Aces High C.202 climbs to 19,700ft in about 7'10" with WEP (wep cuts out at 16K), 160mph IAS climb speed, 100% fuel and 100% ammo, 2x7,7mm + 2x12,7mm. At 18,300ft the max speed is about 350mph TAS.

The real C.202 climbed to 19,700ft in 5'55" and her max speed was 373mph at 18,300ft. Data from C.202 official manual CA 670/1 Air Ministry (yes, guess what, we had also an Air Ministry  )



[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-15-2000).]

[juzz]

I thought it was underpowered too when 1.02 came out, but I was waiting for you to say it first.  

Does it at least out-turn the Spitfire Mk V?

[gatt]

Yep Juzz, she does. I wonder why the 109F-4 and the C.202 are undermodeled.

[funked]

Why should it out-turn the Spitfire Mk. V?  The 202's wingloading is 40% higher!

[Kieren]

Juzz-

I too found the 202 to turn inside the SpitV. Imagine the surprised look on his face! Of course you have to keep that Spit jock in your sights a lot longer than he does you (weak guns), but it makes an interesting fight.

I don't know anything about the climb performance of the 202 (I will try to find info). I do find it very light on the controls at mid to low speed. It most closely reminds me of the WB Zero (bear in mind, it has been a loooong time since I flew a WB Zero!).

[Kieren]

I checked-

Speed 372
Climb to 19,735 feet in 5 minutes, 55 seconds
Takeoff weight 6,400lbs

Funked-

The loaded weights of the Spit V and c202 are virtually identical. Does the Spit V really have that much more wing area? 40% seems like a quite a bit.

[funked]

The information I have comes from here:
 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/ital/MC202FOL.html
 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/br/SPITFIRE.html

Spitfire Mk. V was a lighter plane with a bigger wing.  If the Macchi is out-turning it, I think Pyro has been eating too much spaghetti.  

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-15-2000).]

[leonid]

Empty Weight Wingloading
o C.202 - 30.6lbs/sqft
o Spitfire V - 21.1lbs/sqft


Loaded Weight Wingloading
o C.202 - 37.4lbs/sqft
o Spitfire V - 228.0lbs/sqft


Aspect Ratio
o C.202 - 6.65
o Spitfire V - 5.61

These figures are only based off one source so may vary from other figures, but should be in the 'ballpark'.  Looking at wingloading the Spitfire has it down solid.  However, looking at aspect ratio (ratio of wingspan to wing area) one sees that the C.202 has quite a high figure.  In fact, its aspect ratio is very high among WWII fighters.  Another well known fighter with an even higher aspect ratio is the P-38.  This might be the reason why the C.202 can outturn the Spitfire V, even though its wingloading is higher.

------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."

[Kieren]

While not the best sources of info, both books I have give the c202 and Spit V virtually identical loaded weights. That the Spit's wing has more area is a given; I was questioning the high disparity in wingloading percentage you quoted.

I think Leonid is on the right track with the aspect ratio. Isn't a high aspect ratio wing more efficient at slow speed? (thinking of gliders here) This might account for the difference in performance. Further, I don't know what type airfoil is used on the c202. That can matter, too (of course you know this, funked   ).

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 04-15-2000).]

[funked]

Yeah I know aspect ratio helps, but is 18% aspect ratio advantage enough to overcome 33% wingloading advantage?

(per Leonid's numbers, I didn't have a loaded weight for the 202)

I guess Pyro's calcs say it is enough, and I'm not in a position to second-guess him on this kind of thing.  


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-15-2000).]

[Fishu]

Leonid seems to have a point here...
Spitfire has all armament in wings, when C.202 has only those small machineguns in the wing and bigger, 12.7mm are in the nose..
So it can't have bigger wing loading against armed Spitfire, or either it would have partly full steel wings...  

Unless you wan't to fight without weapons in spitfrie...

[wells]

Turn radius or turn rate?  

Turn radius should definitely be in the Spitfire's favour.  Rate?  Dunno...

The higher aspect ratio does make for less induced drag and maybe a higher sustained turning speed, but is it enough to overcome the Spitfire's turn rate?  I would think not quite, but maybe pretty close.  The Italian fighters really aren't much different from a 109, regarding wing area, weight and aspect ratio...the engine's the same.

[Jekyll]

err Fishu.. wing loading has nothing to do with what is actually IN the wings.
It's a measure of the total weight of the whole aircraft divided by the wing area.

So an aircraft with all its armament in the wings is not disadvantaged vis-a-vis an aircraft with all armament in the fuselage. (except perhaps in the area of rolling moment of inertia)



------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[juzz]

Apparently the C.202 could outturn the Spit 5 in RL. Maybe the fact that those Spit 5's would have had the Vokes filter fitted made a difference somehow(drag?).

[gatt]

FYI, the C.202 had:

Empty weight: 5,490 lbs
T/O weight: 6,459 lbs
Wing Area: 180,4 sq.ft
Wingspan: 34,710 ft

We dont know if in RL the "Folgore" out turned the MkV, all we know is that she was considered fast and with an excellent climb rate, something like the Bf109F-4.
IMHO the C.202 should not out turn the MkV. You should use same 109 tactics with her, hit & run that is.
Heck, 373mph TAS at 18,370ft is a very good speed. The kite was not light so (I am not an engineer) I dont think she was a real turn & burn'er.


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-16-2000).]