PDA

View Full Version : Veltro -25k and above



geetarman
02-17-2006, 05:38 AM
Do yourself a favor and check out the Veltro at 25,000' and above. I'd be interested in how some others feel it is performing at high alt..

My understanding is that it's strength lay in low to mid altitude work. It out easily outperformed a boosted Jug, a P-38L and a Mustang III on WC a few nights ago from 25K up to 31K. The climb rate is unbelievable up there!

Don't know much about the plane other than it had the Daimler Benz engine with supercharging, but, I'm beginning to believe something is a bit off in it's high alt perfromance.

Found these links on the web. Note comments on high alt performance and a climb rate about like a Mustang:

http://www.museoscienza.org/english/aereo/mc205.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_C.205

http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/profile.asp?cat_id=10&ple_id=100

It certainly was fun watching it up there!

geetarman
02-17-2006, 05:38 AM
Do yourself a favor and check out the Veltro at 25,000' and above. I'd be interested in how some others feel it is performing at high alt..

My understanding is that it's strength lay in low to mid altitude work. It out easily outperformed a boosted Jug, a P-38L and a Mustang III on WC a few nights ago from 25K up to 31K. The climb rate is unbelievable up there!

Don't know much about the plane other than it had the Daimler Benz engine with supercharging, but, I'm beginning to believe something is a bit off in it's high alt perfromance.

Found these links on the web. Note comments on high alt performance and a climb rate about like a Mustang:

http://www.museoscienza.org/english/aereo/mc205.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_C.205

http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/profile.asp?cat_id=10&ple_id=100

It certainly was fun watching it up there!

StG2_Schlachter
02-17-2006, 05:46 AM
Got track?

Cippacometa
02-17-2006, 05:55 AM
From one of the links you posted above:

"[...] Comparative tests of the three aircraft revealed that the MC-205 V was faster than the Re-2005 and the G-55 at medium and low altitude and that it was also sturdier than its competitors. However, at an altitude of over 26,247 ft (8,000 meters) its performance dropped considerably, while the other two were still fairly maneuverable even though they carried a slightly heavier armament which included an additional 20mm cannon. [...]"

AFAIK, this is what usually is reported about these 2 aircraft. Moreover, in a recent interview with the Italian WWII ace Gorrini (see my thread where I translated it), he stated the same thing, i.e. that G.55 was better than MC.205 at high altitude.

geetarman
02-17-2006, 07:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cippacometa:
From one of the links you posted above:

"[...] Comparative tests of the three aircraft revealed that the MC-205 V was faster than the Re-2005 and the G-55 at medium and low altitude and that it was also sturdier than its competitors. However, at an altitude of over 26,247 ft (8,000 meters) its performance dropped considerably, while the other two were still fairly maneuverable even though they carried a slightly heavier armament which included an additional 20mm cannon. [...]"

AFAIK, this is what usually is reported about these 2 aircraft. Moreover, in a recent interview with the Italian WWII ace Gorrini (see my thread where I translated it), he stated the same thing, i.e. that G.55 was better than MC.205 at high altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup - that's what I was referring to