« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: C.205/190D comparison  (Read 641 times)

Offline Kevin14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
C.205/190D comparison
« on: February 25, 2003, 05:05:20 PM »
Instead of another "Name this plane" thread, I've decided to start a thread about a comparison between my two favorite rides so far.  This thread is supposed to share HELPFUL insight on the strenths and weaknesses of these two aircraft.
Logged

Offline HFMudd

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 609
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2003, 05:39:02 PM »
In the C.205 Spits and Nikis never taunt you with "Run90" when you decline to play in the weeds with them while at the same time you have more of an opportunity to taunt P-51's with "Runstang" when they refuse to play in the weeds with you.

You have a much greater chance of folks underestimating your speed and climb in a C.205 than in a 190D-9.

If it matters to you, you'll get 3x the perks in the C.205.  On the other hand you don't get to carry anything external on it.
Logged

Offline Kevin14

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2003, 05:51:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by HFMudd
...On the other hand you don't get to carry anything external on it.


That is one of the only bad points about it.  I like the D9 for distance flights because its climb, speed, and acceleration are all astonishing.  The range of the Dora seems just about perfect also.
Logged

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2003, 05:56:05 PM »
I have real trouble hitting things in the D9. Dont know why. The plane rocks though.
205 pilots seem really really shy. Dont know why the plane can mix it up.
Logged

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2003, 06:04:36 PM »
I do NOT like the restricted views of the 205.  This is a fine little performing AC other than that though.  The inherant problem with flight sims and 2D screens is it is hard to simulate what the pilot would actually see from the cockpit.  I think the 205 is one of the best (or worst) examples of this problem.

190D should be perked:)
Logged
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline MANDOBLE

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1849
      • http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2003, 06:43:48 PM »
IMO, 205 is an hybrid between 109 and Spit. Good turning, good substained climb and atonishing diving and zooming.

D9 is raw speed between 10 and 20k. Below 10k it enters into the La7 domain and above 20k it enters into the P51/47/38/Spit reign.
Logged

Offline fd ski

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1530
      • http://www.northotwing.com/wing/
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2003, 09:01:38 AM »
everytime i fly 205 i feel like i'm flying is a casket...
Logged

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2003, 10:15:55 AM »
The 205 is a very good early-mid 1943 fighter. Better than the most part of the fighters of his era. With a rollin plane set we'd have a lot of arses kicked by the Macchi fighter.

You cannot compare the 205 with the D9, they are two different world.

Hibryd between the Spitfire and the 109? Nhaaaa ;) Turning with the 205? Nhaaaaa ;)

Too bad you probably cant read italian, we have a nice "how to do it with the 205" on our squad site ;)
Logged
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2003, 10:48:08 AM »
C205, excellent climb, short range, no drop tanks, great diver... guns are pretty good if you take the cannons vs. the 7.7mm.  Feels a little less stable at lower speeds than the C202, but that's just my take on it.  Visibility is poor, wings are positioned differently too, giving a different view around the wings.  Seems the C205 burns E/speed fairly quickly too.. which is a bit surprising.

190D9: rocketsled.  Nothing to hate except the turn-rate at low speeds and the guns which seem to defy logic.  The guns on the 190D9 should be great, but they simply seem to shoot differently from anything else with Mg151's, even other 190's.  Dunno what it is, but it's like the wing cannons shoot low or something.

Kevin, don't know if you checked my website out before but maybe you want to take a look:

Soda's Aircraft Evaluations

-Soda
The Assassins.
Logged

Offline M.C.202

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2003, 09:33:47 PM »
The M.C. 200, 202, and 205 had the same wings. They also were credited with climb rates that excede what is believed by HE WHO RUNS THE GAME. I now know why the real ones had those "magical" abilities.

A web site I visited gave the aspect ratio as ...

6.66 :D
Logged

Offline Octavius

  • Skinner Team
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6651
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2003, 10:59:40 PM »
I'm never shy in the 205.

I just shook the rust off of mine a week ago and it STILL impresses me with the number of things you can do with that aircraft.  

Not many people who fly the 205 actuall fly it right.  Well there isn't really ONE strict way to fly it.  When you DO fly aggressive, you can actually tell the pilot you're facing is skeered just by the eratic moves he makes while trying to escape.  

If you burn the tanks in a particular order, it becomes incredibly agile... able to put the moves on any N1K or Spit.  

Set the convergence to 350 and you can easily get kills out to 600.

Dive in at high speeds, cut the throttle, and you're glued to your victim's six for an excellent shot.  Or don't cut the throttle and zoom merrily away as your opponent spins earthward in their flaming wreck.

Overall, I love this aircraft.  However, I dont often plan on taking front-touring sorties.  I did that the other night and stayed in the same 205 for about 2 hours.  6-7 refuels later I get shot down with 23 kills to my name.  Darn!
Logged
octavius
Fat Drunk BasTards (forum)
"bastard coated bastards with bastard filling?  delicious!"
Guest of the ++Blue Knights++[/size]

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
C.205/190D comparison
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2003, 06:45:02 AM »
205 is quite good. Basically similar to the 109F, but rolls better, has better high speed handling and more firepower.
However, Spits are a pain.........
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline DB603

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Comparison
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2003, 07:19:38 AM »
S!


 FW190D-9 is the ultimate E-fighter IMO. U can pretty much engage and disengage at will on most planes. Dives like crazy and good handling. Nice plane if U use it as an E-fighter only.

 C.205 lacks the vices Bf109G has..compression at high speed dive and such. Wider landing gear makes landings less twitchy, armamanent is adequate. In general a nice plane to fly.

 Still I tend to use the Bf109G-2, even it is not fast when pitted against US/RAF iron. But it can beat a cocky enemy easily;)Keeping the speed in certain limits makes this plane a good fighter.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »