View Full Version : MC 202/205 Maneuverability Question

02-11-2006, 11:01 AM
Every source I have ever read about the Macchi Castoldi series fighters went to great lengths to point out their very good maneuverability.

I don't see this reflected in the recently released 202 and 205 series aircraft. I would have expected them to out turn/maneuver the P40s in the sim, which they clearly do not do.

Are the aircraft represented accurately in the sim?

Are all the history books wrong?

02-11-2006, 03:59 PM
I have also read that the Italian planes were very dangerous in a turning fight with the desert P-40's avoiding this situation ,my findings have been that they seem to lack any authority from the rudder and elevators at almost any speed.

Any increase in speed make these control surfaces totally useless.

Not really being familiar with the characteristics of these planes I am hesitant to criticise ,yet something smells fishy here!

02-11-2006, 04:22 PM
My first post patch post commented on the Italian planes. In it I described them as neutered Hiens. Also that I didn't think anyone would become an ace in them anytime soon.

From all I have read this is wrong. I expected them all to be slightly faster than they are, and for their roll rates to be better. I think if both these attributed were addressed they would be more accurately modeled. (Esp. for the 205).

If the roll rate was increased it would help with the turning and we would have a series of planes that lived up to their reputation/hype.

My 2 cents.

02-11-2006, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Are all the history books wrong?

Yep they just said that to make the italians feel better because in reality the italian planes are useless garbage. Oleg knows better than to be fooled by stupid propaganda books.

02-11-2006, 06:23 PM
i'm convinced the roll rate is the cause of the lack of turning ability, testing them a fair bit on and offline.
as gumtree says the rudder and evelator all play a part as well, man if i know my italians as i think i do, they will riot, whinge and burn stuff down for misrepresenting anything italian as inferior.... watch out.

at the very least, it should be looked at for some tweaking. it's got the slowest rollrate for any single engined fighter i've flown. and some of the big twins out roll it.

02-11-2006, 06:28 PM
Target, where did you get the sig picture?

Is that my namesake in the foreground?

02-11-2006, 07:04 PM

Currently doing a documentary on a Canadian Desert Ace who flew Kittyhawks. (P-40's) He shot down 12 109's and Macchis in the desert. He said that the C-202's could turn with the P-40's, although they were not as good as the Spit V's in the horizontal plane.

All the Italian pilot accounts mention the superb harmonization and responsiveness of the controls in the C-202, it was notable for an excellent rollrate as well, and maintained its maneuverability at higher speeds. Although it did see the normal drop off in response as the speed built, it was considerably superior to the 109's, especially in turnrate and high speed maneuver.

Its biggest flaw of course, were the guns, which were pretty ineffective.

I thought the version modelled in ACES HIGH was done very well. An Ace pilot in one could give a Spit V pilot a hard time.

Historically, top speed and climb for both aircraft were very similar.

02-11-2006, 09:28 PM
Creamed two SpitV's and manouver killed two more using the Italian MC-202's and 205's on Spit's vs 109's tonight. Besides being very prone to overheating and a little slow compared to the later stuff I was up against, I can't see much wrong.

To me it's a killer and a fighter with few flaws. No way the Mk-V could out turn any of them. Engine is the weak point, one hit and it's gone every time.

02-12-2006, 02:16 AM
About C.202 vs Hurricane:


02-12-2006, 04:02 AM
Since it took up to patch 4.03 to have a more historical FW 190 according to my counts we will have a pretty decent Macchi for patch 8.06

02-12-2006, 05:00 AM
Just my 5 pence worth of thoughts:

- Italian pilots did often comment favourably about the manouverability of the Macchi fighters, that is true. However we all know (or should know) that personal impressions are always to be taken with a pinch of salt. If an Italian pilot had in his career piloted - for instance - both the C.202 and the Bf.109 G-6 (a plane that an Italian pilot had famoulsly compared to a flatiron) and was making the comparison between the two, then yes, probably the C.202 was a lot more manouverable than the Gustav.

- Some British/American/Commonwealth pilots who faced the Macchis in Africa might have commented that the Macchis were turning tighter than the 109's, but that could just have been the Italians using their aerobatic training in combat instead of limiting themselves to pure BnZ tactics like their LW counterparts, thus giving the impression that the Italian figters were better turners.

- The Macchi C.202 had the same engine as the Bf.109 E-4, and a wing surface similiar to the Messerschmitt's, while being structurally very robust and somewhat a little heavier than the Friedrich: even if the elevators of the Macchi were somehow more efficient (which they probably were), I doubt that its turning radius could have been significantly better, even if the pilots of the Regia Aeronautica were good at turnfighting.

- I am not sure about the 202 being underpowered: it should be compared to the Emil rather than the Friedrich, although it was aerodinamically cleaner than the first (but heavier).

- When it comes to roll rate though, the Macchis' roll rate in FB is A LOT slower than both Bf.109 and Spitfire, and this doesn't seem very realistic. Even if I admit to having no precise data to what the real roll rate was, given that the wingspan and surface was very similiar to the Messerschmitt I would have expected a comparable rate of roll.

In conclusion: my personal impressions are positive, I believe that the manouverability of WW2 Italian fighters has been perhaps exaggerated in aeronautical literature through constant quoting of the same personal comments and consequent magnification of the same, but also that the roll rate of the Macchis is somewhat not right and should be corrected.

All the above only reflects my personal thoughts of course.


02-12-2006, 05:42 AM
I just had a great night with the 205! Over about an hour, 18 kills. One of my best nights http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Its roll rote is a bit unbeleiveablely slow yes, but it makes up for it in other aspects. Like, it climbs like the devil. Use this to your advantage, and you have one. Out of those 18 kills, about 16 were later then mine. This means 109s, I-185s, Spit +25's, and yes Tempests. They are among the easists!

So, if Oleg changes anything about it in the next patch, only change the roll rate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Cos everything is perfect for me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

02-12-2006, 06:08 AM
The mc.202 and mc.205 were good planes, but they weren't acemakers. They had the same engine as the 109, so they have (subsequently) many of the same technical and aerodynamic soluctions. They were better than the 109 at turning (and they are) but they were less armed (before the 205) and much, much less in numbers.
But again they were NOT acemakers, they didn't have a "turn 180 degrees instantly" button in the cockpit.
They were pleasant planes to fly, and they are. They were quite good all rounders, and they are.
They weren't I-16 or zeros, and they aren't.

Italian PILOTS had a training strongly based on aerobatics and maneuverability, so yes, they were able to use this aspect of their planes to the best effect. This doensn't mean those planes could be able to bend their wings in a knot.

I'm actually fairly satisfied with the flight model, and didn't expect it to be an inch better (actually i expected it to be worse).
If anyone was expecting the macchi to make an ace of him, just because how they were described on paper, then, i'm sorry to say, but his expectations were wrong.
And yes, i'm italian, and as we italians say, "What really matters is only the handle", meaning the macchi were fearsome opponents for the allies mostly because the PILOTS in them were good.
IF you ARE an ace, you can be an ace in a macchi. If you are not, you will not be an ace even in an F-22.

02-12-2006, 07:07 AM
Yes, I think that the C.202s and C.205s flight characteristcs are probably realistic in the game: I agree that the roll rate is so slow though... The Macchi C.200 seems another plane , very stable and very agile.

The fact here is that the C.202 and the C.205 are so much unbalanced in the game, while the C.200 is solid as a rock.
At the slightest movement of the joystick the planes wobbles up and down or left and right... It's really annoying and I don't think it was exactly like that.
The Bf.109 in comarison is a gem to fly, weird enough...

Harlock "what really matters is only the handle"?. Dove vivi in Italia, io non l'ho mai sentito! :-D


02-12-2006, 07:58 AM
Milan, it's an old italian pilots' figure of speach ^_^ It's not something commonly used outside the aviation environment, so it's not that surprising you never heard of it.

Actually i don't find the 202 and 205 that wobbling, i find them a rather stable gun platform. Probably it's because i'm used to be quite gentle with my inputs to the plane, after all even real fighters weren't THAT forgiving when you treated them too harshly.

PS @ I450IVex: on the italian version of this forums and on most italian squadrons forums i saw no one "rioting, whinging and burning stuff down" over this, we're actually quite happy just HAVING our planes to play with, after years of waiting. So no, you definately do NOT know your italians as you think you do.

02-12-2006, 08:38 AM
Harlock is right, there haven't been any negative reactions in any of the main Italian forums, everyone is very happy to have the Macchi fighters modelled in a sim at last.

It has been observed that roll rate and damage model need to be corrected (Macchis in reality were very strong machines structurally speaking, and had good armour protection), but I haven't seen any flames so far, and I hope not to see any.


PS: the Italian expression is "Quel che conta รยจ il manico", "the handle is what counts". To be or to have a good "manico" - handle - obvioulsly refers to the control stick and a good pilot is said to be a good "manico"

02-12-2006, 11:02 AM
Thank you Superaereo and Harlock, didn't know that!


02-13-2006, 01:04 AM
Vex let me know if ya want that photo of mine and as for the Italian planes they would have been better if Ducati had built them .....hehe

02-13-2006, 02:23 AM
I have to disagree with the instability, the MC 205 is the ONLY plane in the game that I can leave the joystick, and it'll head comPLETELY straight.

02-14-2006, 03:58 AM

Gives insight to what they thought of their 205's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

02-14-2006, 07:15 AM
In maneuvrability alone (not speed) even the Fiat G.50 outclasses all Macchi's. Is that correct? I thought Macchi was superior to Fiat, or did i get it wrong?

02-14-2006, 09:32 AM
Can't say for sure about Fiat vs Macchi, but generally speaking newer aircraft were often less maneuvrable than the ones they replaced.

For example the A5M Claude outturned the Zero in IJN trials (described by Saburo Sakai), the Hurricane could outturn the Spitfire, the 109 Friedrich could outturn the Gustav, etc.

As fighters gained bigger engines and more guns and armour during the war they often became less maneuvrable. The most maneuvrable aircraft in world war two were obsolete biplanes like the CR.42 and Gladiator.

02-14-2006, 10:50 AM
Olli and I did some tests with the Macchi's.

Interestingly the Macchi 200 saetta 1940 is outclassed by Hurricane mk2b and the early p40 in the sim as reported in real life(not by much though).
The Macchi 202 and up are outclassed by the spits in turn and combatclimb but they dive very well and can leave the spit behind for a while or until damaged* (*= because of drag).
All Macchis are very sensitive near stall and flips nastily unlike 109's and therfore the 109 is to prefer for turnfighting.
Only the cannonvariant can acchieve fast kills but it can't stay behind any single engined allied plane online exept p47, p51 and perhaps Corsairs when the opponent is aware of the threat.


The Macchis already seem discarded online because exeptional skill is needed to down a plane with the two, or even 4mg's.
The mg's can kill but the poor turn makes it harder than for example in Fiat G50 or even the Cr42 biplane wich easilycan shoot down spits if they stay or fail to see them.
Fiat G50 is more capable in turning than the Macchis and its turning ability also saves it since it can evade danger wich the early macchis can't do as easily with the exeption of later Macchi veltro outrunning slower types.

Well, what we got so far. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Love the 200 Saetta http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

02-14-2006, 02:25 PM
You guys know that the c200 is 434lbs lighter than the G50? The c200 should handle more or less like the g50 in the game but its actually worse.

02-15-2006, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by pdog1:
You guys know that the c200 is 434lbs lighter than the G50? The c200 should handle more or less like the g50 in the game but its actually worse.

My sources say they have about the same weight but the 200 Saetta have 30 more horsepowers, so they should be about the same.
Perhaps also that the G50 seems to have american 50 cal's and not the slower Breda-Safat guns wich therfore makes the G50 a bit more potent in gunning.

You can compare the american and italian guns here:

I've also read that the Saetta got some kills at the russian front but I guess they must have been bombers or transports because it cant stay behind any russian plane, and hardly fly away either exept from the I-153 chaika.

02-15-2006, 03:11 AM
lol how does the 200 have more hp than the g50?
They have the same engine...
Italians on the eastern front shot down some i16s, be sure. Currently its safer going against i16s than russian bombers.
Macchi DM is pretty stupid. You get one hit in the engine and engine pours heavy black smoke and goes on fire in a few seconds and plane blows up. This is pretty stupid. Happens with mc200 engine although alot more in 202/205.
Oleg and company really messed it up with the Macchi's i can't enjoy them. Ok if they porked the FM whatever but flying Macchis are like flying jap flaming torches. I guess no one cares though, i hear the Ki61 engine is the same way but strangley absent from the Emil.

02-15-2006, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by pdog1:
lol how does the 200 have more hp than the g50?
They have the same engine...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Perhaps a typo in my book.
Well they atleast have same weight and speed is almost same, just a few kph difference.

The I-16's probably were rookies then? or had very bad luck being hit in a bad spot before they could turn. We will never know for sure.

There is no way the 200 Saetta can turn with an I-16 in the sim, and in the African desert it fared badly against Hurricane and P40, wich both are outturned by the I-16.

I haven't yet tested the Dm with arcademode where one can see how many hits one takes.
The saetta is really too slow and underarmed to go after bombers so the outcome should be to the bombers favor if one tries to take them from behind.

My own thought from years of flying is that most planes seem to burn too seldom compared to the enormous amounts of pilots accounts I've read from all theatres.
But thats me.

Have in mind that this is the first DM's and FM's for the Macchis so cut a little slack for the dev-team. they really shouldn't make patches at all to old games because they doesn't have time.
They even made it for free so go easy with The "porked" speaches and report and post the things u think is wrong and explain why as detailed u can, and I'm sure they'll take a look at it.

They have listened to us almost too much so far. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

02-15-2006, 04:17 AM
tactics used by both side planes makes the other better than other. if other is better in turnin and other is faster, and both uses TnB, its no hard to know which one is winner. same is with E fighting.

02-15-2006, 04:30 AM
Pdog is right about the DM, one only 7,7 (12,7) bullet destroy the C.205 engine. Macchi were not P-47 but they were very strong fighter, first of all the C.200.

02-15-2006, 05:21 AM
Perhaps you could find threads on P-47 engines killed with one small hit........

02-15-2006, 05:25 AM
I know...but P-47 doesn't have to attack B-24 and B-17 like the C.205. The USAAF bombers should be the first target for the C.205 (B-24, B-17 and B-25) in a lot of missions, and is quite impossible now....

I'm testing some very nice mission (online and offline) on the Air War Italy 1944-45, but this DM is really a problem in spite of high speed attacks, from the right and from the left side of the bombers formation.....

02-15-2006, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps you could find threads on P-47 engines killed with one small hit........

what is one small hit?

important part hit? or does everypart of the engine have limits that 10 hits then im gone.??
in other way, there isnt any Critical part in P47 engine? you cant get Flame out from it with single hit by cutting the fuel/oil pipes`?

yes, we have seen planes which came howe with hits on engine, and few blocks disabled. but how many times we got same planes go down because of bit different hits at same area??

02-15-2006, 06:34 AM
Pdog! Long time no see!

Yes, we have seen planes which came down with hits on engine, and few blocks disabled. But how many times we got same planes go down because of bit different hits at same area??

I think one part of the problem here is that the internal modelling is not that detailed. The other part of the problem is that the AI always aims at center mass, which makes them c**p at deflection shooting but deadly at headon shots and as bomber gunners.

Fortunately it looks like BoB will really up the ante (http://airwarfare.com/Sims/IL2BOB/images/updates/aircraft/Hurricane.jpg) when it comes to modelling internal structures. If the AI gets the same improvements we will all be in simming heaven!