Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Krusty on July 01, 2006, 12:10:09 AM
-
AH has a C202 and a C205. It doesn't say what versions of each we have.
However, the MC.202 series V had provisions for underwing stores, and it wasn't until the series VI that the 7mm wing guns were added. So clearly we have the series VI or later. Yet we lack underwing stores!
The MC.205V (Veltro) had the DB605, and 262(give or take) were produced. I'm sure this is our "MC.205" in AH. The MC.205V used the same airframe as the MC.202. In fact so did the later MC.200s (the airframes were made faster than the engines, so some were re-engined with the 202's armament but with the 200's engine).
It is not until the 205N-1 (4x12.7mm and 1 hub MG151/20 -- why don't we have this??) and the 205N-2 (2x12.7mm and 3xMG151/20!!! none saw action) that the airframe was totally redesigned rather than being a 202 airframe with a stronger engine.
So we have the 202 series 6 but without the underwing stores of the series 5 (which the 6 would have). Then we have the 205 based on the 202 airframe but also without same underwing stores.
Why don't our Macchi's have underwing stores?? DTs or up to 360kg bombs, just think of the possibilities!
(yes, 360kg isn't much, 180kg per bomb but still enough to take out a panzer or two!)
As a side note... Once a LONG time ago in AH1, way way WAY the heck back I popped into the SEA and gunned for a JU88. A group of Italian fighters were practicing a North Africa bombing run, flying Ju88s and escorted by C202s. This is back before I even bothered looking at 202s. I didn't know they really existed. However, I *DO* distinctly remember them having drop tanks! In-game!!! Nobody can confirm/remember if they ever had them in AH1, though. I swear I saw DTs under their wings! I only got screenshots of the landing, they musta dropped them while engaging some spit1s over the drop zone. No DTs on the runway landing pics.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
As a side note... Once a LONG time ago in AH1, way way WAY the heck back I popped into the SEA and gunned for a JU88. A group of Italian fighters were practicing a North Africa bombing run, flying Ju88s and escorted by C202s. This is back before I even bothered looking at 202s. I didn't know they really existed. However, I *DO* distinctly remember them having drop tanks! In-game!!! Nobody can confirm/remember if they ever had them in AH1, though. I swear I saw DTs under their wings! I only got screenshots of the landing, they musta dropped them while engaging some spit1s over the drop zone. No DTs on the runway landing pics.
Well, I've been playing Aces High for quite some time and during that period there was never any option for under-wing fuel tanks or bombs in AH1 or now. I'm not sure what you saw, but I can tell you what you didn't see. I still have AH1 on my machine.
Now, as to the C.202 and C.205: They are decent fighters, with the C.202 having very good comparable performance when used in early-war period scenarios. However, in the MA both are well down on the performance curve. At high to medium speeds they offer very good handling. Climb is good, roll rate is about average. Gun packages go from weak (202) to good (205), and they have a good ammo load.
Unfortunately, both have some glaring weaknesses. Low speed handling is miserable in the C.205 and not much better in the C.202. Get either of these fighters slow and you get dead mighty fast. Simply stated, if you get slow enough that flaps can be deployed, you're far too slow. I need not detail the poor outward vision.....
Compare the C.202 to the Bf 109F-4... the 109 wins and does so with relative ease. Likewise, compare the C.205 to the Bf 109G-2 and the 109 wins by a similar margin. Why? Better acceleration, climb and vastly superior low speed handling. Why do I harp so much on low speed handling? Well, the facts are that neither Macchi has the suds to disengage from either of those two 109s, unless both are high enough to dive away at high speed, and that buys you only a momentary respite as you will eventually run out of altitude.
By the way, the Macchis are not alone when it comes to inferior low speed handling. Although generally thought to be very good "turners", both Yaks, the P-40s and the Ki-61 all suffer badly at low speeds.
In general, the C.205 was a very minor player in WWII, barely on the radar, so to speak. Likewise for the 2000 series Fiats and Reggiane fighters. Grumman often produced more Hellcats in 10 days than all C.205s manufactured up to Italy's surrender. In Aces High, Macchis are a novelty. Therefore, you can expect that HTC will concentrate on more common fighters with their limited availability of time. When the Macchis get a graphics update, maybe then HTC will add additional options (external fuel and bombs), but I suspect that the Macchi update is a long way down the road.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Regarding Macchi historic performance in general -- when they were introduced they claimed clear superiority against P40Es and Hurricane IIs, and were considered the equal match to the Spit5.
The problem was that Italy didn't care about high powered engines. It wasn't their national mentality. They could have geared up for DB601 production much sooner but did not. As a result the 202s arrived too few to stop the enemy in Africa. Had they been produced sooner, and had larger numbers, the axis would have dominated African skies.
They also had the opportunity to produce DB605s earlier but did not. I wouldn't say the military planners of Italy were insane (like Hitler) but they were definitely not focused, not planning ahead, and not taking the war seriously, IMO.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The problem was that Italy didn't care about high powered engines. It wasn't their national mentality.
I disagree. Italy produced some of the most powerful aircraft and auto engines on the planet during the early 1930s. The Macchi-Castoldi MC 72 was powered by a 3,100 hp Fiat engine. In 1933, it set a world speed record of 440.68 mph that still stands today.
(http://hypertexthero.com/images/1.jpg)
Italy's troubles were centered on a small and totally disorganized industrial base, which was never properly managed by the government. It had nothing to do with a lack of talent or the skills of its designers and engineers.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hi Widewing,
>The Macchi-Castoldi MC 72 was powered by a 3,100 hp Fiat engine. In 1933, it set a world speed record of 440.68 mph that still stands today.
Hm, Google tells me it was broken in 1961 by a Beriyev Be-10 seaplane. Jet driven, but anyway ;-)
The MC72 is actually powered by two engines. I'm not sure of the technical details, but it might well be that each powered one of the contra-rotating propellers with no mechanical connection at all. Its development was troublesome, and two pilots were killed by engine problems. The MC72 didn't get finished in time for the Schneider Trophy races either, allowing the Trophy to fall to England.
And while Fiat got 3100 HP out of two V12 engines, Rolls-Royce got 2600 HP out of a single one for the S6B. That's a better indication of the relative state of technology of the two engine manufacturers than the combined power of two such engines.
(If Fiat had managed to convert the twin-engine arrangement into a production-ready system, one could quote the 3100 HP for comparison anyway, but I'm not sure this was even attempted as it did of course increase cost and complexity considerably.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
They also had the opportunity to produce DB605s earlier but did not. I wouldn't say the military planners of Italy were insane (like Hitler) but they were definitely not focused, not planning ahead, and not taking the war seriously, IMO.
He was an idiot, wasnt he? He said "No" to producing jet fighters in 1942!!! can you say F##king retarded?!?
-
Hi Reynolds,
>He said "No" to producing jet fighters in 1942!!!
Hm. Me 262 history:
04.01.1939: RLM issues a general specificiation for jet fighters
07.06.1939: Messerschmitt answers the RLM specification with P1065, which later becomes the Me 262
31.01.1940: RLM orders 20 test aircraft
11.10.1940: First run of the Jumo 004
Mid-1941: Junkers begins re-design of the Jumo 004A into the Jumo 004B that avoids the use of rare alloys
25.03.1942: First flight with jet engines. Both BMW P3302 jets fail.
29.03.1942: RLM restricts Me 262 programme to 5 prototypes until engine troubles have been worked out
18.07.1942: First flight with Jumo 004A engines
12.08.1942: RLM orders another 5 prototypes and 10 pre-series aircraft
02.10.1942: RLM increases order to 30 pre-series aircraft. Messerschmitt states he can't deliver as quickly as ordered.
02.12.1942: RLM demands immediate production of pre-series and 20 aircraft per month in 1944.
10.12.1942: Milch of the RLM brings jets into the highest priority: Me 163, Me 262, Me 328, He 280, Ar 234
27.03.1943: He 280 is cancelled
17.04.1943: Späthe, leader of the Me 163 operational test unit, tests the Me 262 and recommends it for production
22.05.1943: Galland tests the Me 262 and recommends it for production
24.05.1943: Milch orders series production to begin
17.10.1943: First flight of a Me 262 with Jumo 004B engines
05.11.1943: Franz, engine designer at Jumo, declares the Jumo 004B for not ready for mass production yet
26.11.1943: Me 262 demonstrated to Hitler. Hitler decides to make it a "Blitzbomber".
January 1944: Jumo gets go-ahead for Jumo 004B-1 mass production
February 1944: First Jumo 004B-1 engines are delivered
28.03.1944: First flight of the first series production aircraft
May 1944: First series aircraft delivered to operational test unit
(From Radinger/Schick, "Me 262")
So there was a delay of about 15 months in the production history of the Me 262. However, this was caused only by the unavailability of the materials required for the Jumo 004A in the amounts necessary for mass production. The sources were in Allied hands, and Germany's supply routes cut.
Hitler's active interference only came very late, in 1944, and hardly made the difference many authors assign to it.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The problem was that Italy didn't care about high powered engines. It wasn't their national mentality.
From what I have read, change "national" to "military" and these sentences become more accurate.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Widewing,
>The Macchi-Castoldi MC 72 was powered by a 3,100 hp Fiat engine. In 1933, it set a world speed record of 440.68 mph that still stands today.
Hm, Google tells me it was broken in 1961 by a Beriyev Be-10 seaplane. Jet driven, but anyway ;-)
The MC72 is actually powered by two engines. I'm not sure of the technical details, but it might well be that each powered one of the contra-rotating propellers with no mechanical connection at all. Its development was troublesome, and two pilots were killed by engine problems. The MC72 didn't get finished in time for the Schneider Trophy races either, allowing the Trophy to fall to England.
And while Fiat got 3100 HP out of two V12 engines, Rolls-Royce got 2600 HP out of a single one for the S6B. That's a better indication of the relative state of technology of the two engine manufacturers than the combined power of two such engines.
(If Fiat had managed to convert the twin-engine arrangement into a production-ready system, one could quote the 3100 HP for comparison anyway, but I'm not sure this was even attempted as it did of course increase cost and complexity considerably.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Well, the Italians tried a very novel approach to generating huge horsepower. It worked, but offered many challenges.
By the way, the MC 72's record is still recogized for piston-engined sea planes.
(http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Italy/images/FIAT_AS6.jpg)
You can get or simply read an indepth description of the AS6 V-24 engine and the MC 72 program from the NASA server here. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930094473_1993094473.pdf)
It's a very interesting document.
My regards,
Widewing
-
That's the strange part, they spent time to produce engines for races, but they never bothered even planning similar engines for production. ALL of their production engines were radial until they got some DB601As, then when those ran out they needed more -- so they built them under license, but still no creation or design of their own.
I just find it funny, in the silly kind of way.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
That's the strange part, they spent time to produce engines for races, but they never bothered even planning similar engines for production. ALL of their production engines were radial until they got some DB601As, then when those ran out they needed more -- so they built them under license, but still no creation or design of their own.
I just find it funny, in the silly kind of way.
Not really suprising at all. The Italians and Japanese pilots were both of the same mind...manuever was more important than speed.
-
Actually, italians tested more powerful engines. Two DB603 engined G.55 "Centauro"'s (called G.56) were built and tested with excellent results (during september 1943). The G.55's one was the only fuselage able to mount the powerful DB without major modifications and ANR/LW testers were very happy of it.
Even with the limitation to 2.500rpm the fighter got close to 700Km/h at altitude and took 5.45" to get to 6.000mt). Her 3x20mm and 2x12,7mm with a *huge* ammo load (300rpg for each MG151-20 and 250rpg for the 12,7mm) made it a very good interceptor. Obvioulsy the allied bombing campaign in northern Italy put an end to everything.
Widewing, the G-2's weight is some 200-250Kg less than the C.205 and his wing load is much lower, so theoretically it should be a better dogfighter. In AH2 however the 205 is faster at medium-high altitudes (say, 14-18K) and rolls better at high and very high speeds. Usually, I dont have problems in shooting down G-2s, G-6s and G-14s. If I keep the fight fast, that is.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Reynolds,
>He said "No" to producing jet fighters in 1942!!!
Hm. Me 262 history:
04.01.1939: RLM issues a general specificiation for jet fighters
07.06.1939: Messerschmitt answers the RLM specification with P1065, which later becomes the Me 262
31.01.1940: RLM orders 20 test aircraft
11.10.1940: First run of the Jumo 004
Mid-1941: Junkers begins re-design of the Jumo 004A into the Jumo 004B that avoids the use of rare alloys
25.03.1942: First flight with jet engines. Both BMW P3302 jets fail.
29.03.1942: RLM restricts Me 262 programme to 5 prototypes until engine troubles have been worked out
18.07.1942: First flight with Jumo 004A engines
12.08.1942: RLM orders another 5 prototypes and 10 pre-series aircraft
02.10.1942: RLM increases order to 30 pre-series aircraft. Messerschmitt states he can't deliver as quickly as ordered.
02.12.1942: RLM demands immediate production of pre-series and 20 aircraft per month in 1944.
10.12.1942: Milch of the RLM brings jets into the highest priority: Me 163, Me 262, Me 328, He 280, Ar 234
27.03.1943: He 280 is cancelled
17.04.1943: Späthe, leader of the Me 163 operational test unit, tests the Me 262 and recommends it for production
22.05.1943: Galland tests the Me 262 and recommends it for production
24.05.1943: Milch orders series production to begin
17.10.1943: First flight of a Me 262 with Jumo 004B engines
05.11.1943: Franz, engine designer at Jumo, declares the Jumo 004B for not ready for mass production yet
26.11.1943: Me 262 demonstrated to Hitler. Hitler decides to make it a "Blitzbomber".
January 1944: Jumo gets go-ahead for Jumo 004B-1 mass production
February 1944: First Jumo 004B-1 engines are delivered
28.03.1944: First flight of the first series production aircraft
May 1944: First series aircraft delivered to operational test unit
(From Radinger/Schick, "Me 262")
So there was a delay of about 15 months in the production history of the Me 262. However, this was caused only by the unavailability of the materials required for the Jumo 004A in the amounts necessary for mass production. The sources were in Allied hands, and Germany's supply routes cut.
Hitler's active interference only came very late, in 1944, and hardly made the difference many authors assign to it.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
There was another one before that. Actually, i think the one im talking about (forget what its called) Was created and flown in the late 30s, and hitler said flat out "No." and cancelled the project. It looked somewhat like the Me-163. But he DID interfere real bad with the 262,
-
Originally posted by gatt
In AH2 however the 205 is faster at medium-high altitudes (say, 14-18K) and rolls better at high and very high speeds. Usually, I dont have problems in shooting down G-2s, G-6s and G-14s. If I keep the fight fast, that is.
Actually, the 109G-2 is faster at all altitudes below 22,000 feet, very similar from 22k on up. It accelerates better at all altitudes and climbs significantly better at all altitudes as well. Even with gondolas, it out-turns the 205. It can carry one drop tank or a 250 kilo bomb.
Let's look at the 109F-4. It accelerates faster at all altitudes. Speed is virtually identical up to 20,000 feet where the 205 gains a slight edge. Climb rate is the same at sea level, with the 205 gaining a very small advantage from 2k through 7k, where the 109F catches up and climbs faster from there on up. Turn rate and radius goes to the 109F-4 by a huge margin.
There's only one area where the C.205 is better; handling above 450 mph.
While the C.205 was a respectable fighter for 1943, it wasn't upper tier by any standard. Consider also that the 109F-4 was a 1941 vintage fighter and the 109G-2 dates to 1942.
Other 1943 fighters of note: P-51B, P-38J, Spitfire LF MK.IX (essentially our Spit16) and the La-5FN.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Ehm, I havent been flying the G-2 for a long time so my wrong opinion about speeds is probably based only on my MA's Bf109 encounters. My fault.
-
Widewing, while you might consider the P51, P38, etc, all superior, the allies seemed to think that the C205 was superior. For a 1943 aircraft it was one of the best. 109 pilots thought it was better than a 109 (and the extra firepower couldn't hurt, I bet!).
So at the time it was one of the worst planes to go up against.
We even have the first-hand story told by an italian pilot given a 205 (he had been flying 202s and he got the first 205 in his squadron) -- his first sortie he took out 2 bombers and easily killed a P38, then got into a fight where he was serverely outnumbered and he still managed to get away and land safely! He was fine but the plane was written off. His CO was pissed as hell until he dragged him around confirming the 2 bombers and 1 fighter kills.
-
Hi Reynolds,
>There was another one before that. Actually, i think the one im talking about (forget what its called) Was created and flown in the late 30s, and hitler said flat out "No." and cancelled the project. It looked somewhat like the Me-163.
Back in those days, it was Udet cancelling projects, not Hitler.
If an early single-engined jet was cancelled, I can only think of the He 178, and that one was never intended as a combat aircraft anyway. The He 180 designation was hypothetically reserved for a single-engine fighter, but quickly skipped in favour of the twin-engine He 280 which was cancelled because it was overtaken by the Me 262 before it got anywhere near finished status.
>But he DID interfere real bad with the 262,
He made the Luftwaffe use the jets that they received too late in too small numbers in the wrong role for two or three months. That was highly incompetent, but hardly changed anything.
The big thing was metallurgy, and there was nothing Hitler could have done in 1943 to solve that problem.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Widewing,
>Well, the Italians tried a very novel approach to generating huge horsepower. It worked, but offered many challenges.
It basically consisted of building a twin-engined aircraft with two closely coupled engines. It wasn't completely novel, but it was consistently difficult each time it was tried anew. My impression is that success along this route came only with the advent of the propeller turbine.
>By the way, the MC 72's record is still recogized for piston-engined sea planes.
Good point, the record started out as absolute world speed record anyway, and as that it was already beaten by the Heinkel He 100 landplane record flight. The Beriyev did only further limit the record's "scope", but within this scope the record is still valid. I'm pretty confident it's going to remain valid for a long time, too :-)
>You can get or simply read an indepth description of the AS6 V-24 engine and the MC 72 program from the NASA server here. (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930094473_1993094473.pdf)
Wow, great stuff, thanks for the link! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Widewing, while you might consider the P51, P38, etc, all superior, the allies seemed to think that the C205 was superior.
I'm not aware of any Allied analysis that supports this. Naturally, this begs the question; superior to what?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Here is a little web page about all the secret wepons hittler was looking at.
http://www.luft46.com/
It shows a bunch of stuff that if they had gotten off the ground with some of the things in here they might have won the war. Well if they had gotten off the ground in the young stages of the war that is. Take a look and let me know what yall think?:aok :O
-
Widewing, from memory the comment was vague. I read something on that order in a book recently, but I'm sitting here flipping through the books I have and I can't find which book had it. Sorry for the lack of details :(
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Widewing, from memory the comment was vague. I read something on that order in a book recently, but I'm sitting here flipping through the books I have and I can't find which book had it. Sorry for the lack of details :(
No need to flip thru books, I do recall that some P-38 pilots thought that the C.205/202 was the best Axis fighter(s) they faced over Italy. I suspect that this perspective was enhanced because the Italian pilots were often insanely aggressive and would not quit a fight when the odds were poor.
Don't misunderstand me, I have a high regard for the C.205, but it is a fighter that requires a full understanding of its capabilities. Many of the guys who fly them do silly things, like attempting to turn fight with a Spitfire. Like the P-51, you can push this only so far and then know when it's time to break-off and get clear. This problem has grown with the addition of the Mk.VIII and Mk.XVI, both of which are faster, while climbing and accelerating better than the 205. You cannot simply disengage. There was a time when the 205 could out turn fighters that were faster and out-run fighters that turned better. This isn't the case any longer due to new additions and the revised drag model.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
There was a time when the 205 could out turn fighters that were faster and out-run fighters that turned better. This isn't the case any longer due to new additions and the revised drag model.
Really true. Our squadron had to relearn to fight against the new (well flown) Spitfires. Before, you could outrun and disengage at will from early MkIXs. Opposite thing happened with the old Niki's UFO flight model.
Anyway, green-average Spitfire VIII-XVI pilots (90%+ of them) still keep their fighters too slow and low so they are usually preys for average-good 109/205 pilot.
As far as allied pilots memories about italian fighters are concerned it is probably easy to understand why some of them remember those C.205 and G.55 ... after three years of fighting against biplanes, G.50, C.200, Re.2001 and C.202, those few, new, fast and well armed fighters should have been a little nasty surprise.
-
Back to Krusty's original post, the C.202 wing mounted mgs were introduced in Series VII, while the pylons for underwing stores were introduced in Series IX (the so called C.202CB, "CacciaBombardiere", for Jabo): each pylon could carry a 50, 100 or 160 Kg GP bomb or, alternatively, a 100 or 150 liter drop tanks.
The problem is that these modifications were often retrofitted, so it's hard to say how many C.202 and from which series were able to carry underwing stores. What's certain is that C.202 (and, consequently, C.205, that shares most, if not all, of its airframe with the Folgore) could carry external loads, so I'd like to see them added to the game.
C.205N, Macchi's final configuration for the last fighter competion held by the Regia Aeronautica before the armstice (the one that gave birth to the so called "Serie 5" fighters), never saw production, in any variant. Air Ministry decided to produce a certain number of C.205V, because of the strong similarity with C.202, that allowed a ready production, while Fiat and Reggiane were preparing their production lines for the G.55 and Re.2005, but this latter two were to go in big production, not the Veltro, that was seen as an temporary solution. Gatt sent to HT the G.55 manual, I hope to see it in game, sooner or later, maybe with a CT Italian scenario! :)
As for engines, it's not true that we didn't care about high powered engines. The matter is that Regia Aeronautica decided (with one of the many unforeseeing choices they made) that radial engines were better suited for combat and more reliable than inline engines, ignoring the progresses made in the inline engine production during the 30s; only in 1938, about, they undestood the error.
And the research on inline engines was never dropped, it did go ahead: there are prototypes of many italian planes equipped with Isotta Fraschini Delta engine, but it was never tuned before the armstice and, given the needs of production, it was eventually decided to use the Daimler Benz as power unit, without waiting for the national industry to perfection its own designs.
The true problem was lack of foreseeing and proper leadership in the Air Ministry and Air Force top brass and the status of national industry that Widewing so well framed.
-
One source I've got is a book by David Donald (whoever that is) and it claims that the series 5 introduced bomb racks, but maybe they weren't installed on most planes until the IX? (I dont' know).
I have read in several sources that the N-2 never saw service, but if the N-1 did I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to have it. The same armament of the P38 in a better airframe!! (*ducks from things Ack-Ack is throwing at him*)
-
Well, Krusty, my sources stated what I typed above. I'm pretty sure the 205N never saw service (it never entered production, to be correct), but if you like that kind of armament, then root for the G.55, as the first exemplars (the pre-production Series 0) had 4 .50 and 1 20mm, and they saw service along side the normal exemplar, fitted with 2 .50 and 3 20mm. ;)
-
I know.. but... it's not a Macchi!!
-
:lol Well, very good plane, too! ;)
-
Ok so all in all what the 205 good for is there any one thing good turner good ZandB bird I cant figure it out:O :O :O :O
-
More Zoom and Boom than turner. Watch your energy! :)
-
What is the best way to keep it up because If I just fly down and boom the guy he always catches me on the way up
-
Originally posted by red26
What is the best way to keep it up because If I just fly down and boom the guy he always catches me on the way up
Hm, sounds like you need some basic information about boom&zoom and fighting in general. Take a look at www.netaces.org (http://www.netaces.org). You will find information about various combat techniques, including BnZ. After that, you might ask a trainer (trainers@flyaceshigh.com) to give you a few lessons. :aok
-
Hey, red, didn't you already asked that question in another thread? ;)
Anyway, it seems Lusche is right, I guess you need more info about aerial combat, check netaces and the links in my signature, especially SimHq Air combat corner, you may find a lot of useful info there.
-
I ask that ? so alot so that I get diffrent point of vews on man flys a little diffrent than others.
-
Red26,
the term "Boom&Zoom" can be misleading as far as the 205 is concerned. Dont use the old classic "Boom&Zoom", good for FW190s and F4Us. Use instead a "Hit&Climb" technique: shallow dive up to 400-450mpg TAS, never go below the enemy, hit and extend with a soft climb or spiral climb. Keep as much E as you can pulling up gently, since the DB605A of the 205 doesnt have any MW overboost and doesnt allow very good sustained climbs. Again, practice with 109Gs and K, they are a very good training for the 205.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Widewing, while you might consider the P51, P38, etc, all superior, the allies seemed to think that the C205 was superior. For a 1943 aircraft it was one of the best. 109 pilots thought it was better than a 109 (and the extra firepower couldn't hurt, I bet!).
So at the time it was one of the worst planes to go up against.
We even have the first-hand story told by an italian pilot given a 205 (he had been flying 202s and he got the first 205 in his squadron) -- his first sortie he took out 2 bombers and easily killed a P38, then got into a fight where he was serverely outnumbered and he still managed to get away and land safely! He was fine but the plane was written off. His CO was pissed as hell until he dragged him around confirming the 2 bombers and 1 fighter kills.
The IAR80 series had the Allies trembling more than the 205. I wish we could get the I.A.R. 81c.