c205 hardpoints

[dstrip2]

spent most of today trying to find info online about this topic. have found two sources that state the 202/205 airframe had plumbed hardpoints for either two bombs or two 30gal fuel tanks. i realize most of HTC's time will most likely be spent on other issues but i did a search and couldnt find another topic on this so i figured i'd try to get it in the works so to speak

i am not entirely sure how reliable these sources are but the other data they provide seems to be comparable to data found on other sites. i am a bit new to researching 'obscure' things so any advice or corrections would be helpful

fuel tanks/bombs
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Macchi_C.205

"The 827 kg (normal) payload was comprised of the equipped pilot (85 kg), fuel (307 kg), two Breda machine guns and two Mauser cannon (60 and 84 kg respectvely), 740 rounds of 12.7 mm ammunition (76 kg), 500 rounds of 20 mm ammunition (100 kg), and other sundry items such as oil (33 kg), oxygen cylinder (12 kg) and radio equipment. Additionally, 100 l fuel tanks or 160 kg of bombs could be carried on two underwing hardpoints"


http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=621

(look under the armament section towards the bottom of the page)

 

[STEELE]

I like!

[dstrip2]

would give the 202/205 slightly longer legs.. more time over the fight.. more fun/kills  
the fuel tanks are more of a personal concern than the bombs, all i really do with bombs in a fighter is drop the radar or some ords or hit a soft VH if needed.. but the 202/205 airframe would become more useful and be one of the most well rounded aircraft in the game with these options for its hardpoints


anyone else have some expertise or sources regarding this?
 

[Krusty]

The small bombs (60kg each wing I think?) were of no use and were not used. The drop tanks were apparently also never used.

I'd love to have the drop tanks as well, but by the time the C205 was out Italy was totally defensive in the war, and they were on the way out as well. They didn't need to bomb anything and they didn't need more gas because they were flying over their own home and landing again.


We'll either have to find some proof that the 205 fighters used DTs (from memory previous research yields only a few recon birds used it) or we'll have to wait for the G.55 which apparently had more range.

[dstrip2]

yeah i noticed the 205's limited service due to italy's fall in the stuff ive dug up on google. i believe the only thing that really kept the drop-tanks from being employed more often than just on the occasional recon mission done by a c202/205 is italy's comparatively short involvement in the war. was just hoping that since the airframe had the provisions for the ord/fuel we could get them in AH and put them to better use in our cartoon world 

besides, the 205 fills the g55's spot in the planeset right now as far as i can tell, figured it would be easier to correctly model the abilities of one plane (albeit sparingly used in RL) than to model a whole new aircraft. maybe get the c2 updated from AH1 standards while we're at it 

[potsNpans]

It seems only the recon Gruppo's had the added fuel DT's. I also read in one source(AERMACCHI#27) that some 20 Veltros had their nose guns removed, and added a specially manufactured tank adding 220 liters of fuel.

[dstrip2]

ah okay, i guess i just saw the tanks/bombs listed under "armament" sections and got excited 
thanks for the info though, would be very interesting to see how these fighter's wouldve fleshed out after the airframe got a decent engine. i was surprised to read in one place that the 202/205's airframe was designed in late 39/early40... the fact that it is still competitive against LW aircraft speaks volumes IMO. =)

guess ill be happy flying the 205 anyway. 

any links you have about other general c2 stuff would be greatly appreciated, i like learning about aircraft and design back then, seems to be one of the times when there were very smart people, advanced enough technology to build what they wanted but were still in uncharted territory and trying really new things so to speak. that sentace could be formed better but i think you get my general point =)

me ->>  <<- search engines

[Krusty]

Similar to the Curtiss Hawk's transformation with an inline engine based on an older airframe, the C.200 was the basis for the C.202 (and then the 205 with slight modification). It even retained that same cowling armament setup for far too long. It was not the lack of performance or the lack of skill that doomed the Italians... It was the malaise in their construction efforts and the chronically weak armament.

[dstrip2]

btw ty potsNpans for the wonderful 205 skins 

i find the two mg151s to be plenty powerful, and the nose guns are weak but between all four it isnt a half bad battery, compared to 109 or 190 guns, especially the earlier models.  


trying to figure out if the 'recon' planes were the same airframe and just designated differently i.e. reserved for recon purposes only or if they were the same fighters that would to intercept allied planes one day and go take a look-see around the next. if the latter is true my best guess is that the original armament would be retained. however if we can find a combat report where a fighter mission used DT's the previous sentence would be moot.
with so few c205s actually being delivered to the lines and with as well as they performed compared to the c202, i doubt squadrons would have deliberately taken the bite out of a few of their best planes when they needed all they could get. or at least i wouldnt  

unfortunately i cant find much about the actual operations of these fighters, certainly not records that explicitly state the use of the drop tanks in fighter/intercept missions although they could've been equipped.

is the line for being included in-game drawn at the ability to be equipped or strictly on actual 'fighter' use of them on a regular basis?

based off what potsNpans said the DT's were used on the airframe at least in some squads. it would make sense to take DTs for CAP purposes IMO... the nose gun/larger main tank thing sounds more like a post-production 'field' modification, so i guess someone was looking for more range/flight time and was willing to get rid of the 'anemic' nose guns (id have to assume this would be a recon gruppo)

best case would be to find an actual combat account of an intercepting or CAP type flight that used DT's before fulfilling a strictly 'fighter' mission...

so i guess either

a)fighters used the DT's on 'fighter' missions (retain airframe, add DT's if need be)
b.1) fighters did double duty as recon planes/recon planes served as fighters when needed (retain airframe, add DTs)
b.2) some 205's were modified to be purely recon (stripped of armament, field modifications, etc)



but, again, i struggle at finding things online anyway and the c205 is a bit obscure

[Krusty]

Then there's the other side of things: Was it normal?

The WGr21 rockets are carried in drag-inducing steel tubes. Not only are they heavy, they slow you down a lot. When loaded on Fw190s and Bf109s and 110s, there was an emergency charge to (in emergencies only) jettison the tubes.

HTC chose not to model this because as it was the use of the detachment was rare and only in extreme emergencies. In-game it would be "fire rkts, jettison tubes, continue dogfighting" and would not be in the spirit of its original use.

That is, it would game the game and nothing more.

Now, going to DTs on the 205 (the above story ties into this post, here), it may have been POSSIBLE but was it done? Not really. In AH it would be common place to have DTs on all C205s because of their short legs in-game. Hardly representative of the actual aircraft.

Hence why the G.55 would be so appealing: more wing area, better high alt performance, better turn radius, more fuel, more guns, more ammo, than the C.205. Sure, it doesn't fill any real holes that the 205 doesn't already fill, despite being about 50% of the (albeit small) air force at the end of Luftwaffe-controlled Italian resistance. As much as I love the 205, the G.55 would be a new favorite for me.


P.S. I play devil's advocate here, and don't expect to ever see DTs, but heck... I'm biased. If they were included I'd use them every time! I do so love the 205!

[dstrip2]

id love to see them to (in case you cant tell lol) 
g.55 would be nice also i suppose

guess ill just learn to climb it at reduced throttle and save WoT for fighting only
still think the 205 is one of the better kept secrets in this game, and although it isnt bent-winged and blue, doesnt have that elliptical wing, or the simple beauty of german engineering found in say an a5 or d9 or 109 i still think its a looker (just not in game)

maybe ill spend a while getting used to flying the greyhound, i like being underestimated

have learned lots about this airplane and some about the italian air force in this process so its not really a waste. and yeah i figured it would be a long shot to see little DT's under 205s but thought id try anyway lol. if nothing else some other people can use this as a jump-off point

read an interesting story about a 205 pilot that had noticed b17's skirting too close and too low to the italian coast, he attacked a flight of them by himself and nobody was in the guns, put a solid burst of 20mm into both starboard engines (slightly closer than his convergence) and forced the aircraft to ditch.
additionally, there was lots of space in the fuselage and during the italian retreat some ground crews/pilots caught rides in the belly of this fighter