PDA

View Full Version : How was the MC205 flown and best way to fly it in game?



MichaelMar
02-12-2006, 12:12 PM
I grown a liking to the MC205 but not sure about the best tactics to use when flying online and what are it's strengths and weaknesses, Also, how was it flow in RL?

thx

MichaelMar
02-12-2006, 12:12 PM
I grown a liking to the MC205 but not sure about the best tactics to use when flying online and what are it's strengths and weaknesses, Also, how was it flow in RL?

thx

major_setback
02-12-2006, 03:19 PM
I found that it spins if you turn too violently. It's also a bit sluggish on pulling up from a short dive (like in a vertical dogfight), so make sure you have some altitude when doing this. Otherwise I love this plane, it just feels very comfortable and responsive.
The ground handling is one of the best in the game, you can easily steer onto the airstrip while powering-up for take off.
It suits 'turn dogfigting', though it doesn't turn as well as some others in the game.
Try Ctrl+D for a better gunsight.
These are just my initial reactions based only on an hour of flying the new patch .

major_setback
02-12-2006, 04:04 PM
I found this article:

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

Stigler_9_JG52
02-12-2006, 04:11 PM
It was flown pretty rarely in the real event, so I'd say the best way to fly it in game would be to try another plane that actually flew more than a few dozen examples. Like the 202 for example.

Resist ueberplaneism.

berg417448
02-12-2006, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MichaelMar:
I grown a liking to the MC205 but not sure about the best tactics to use when flying online and what are it's strengths and weaknesses, Also, how was it flow in RL?

thx </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real life 205 pilot comments:

http://www.eaf51.org/New_Web/Documenti/Storia/PresentazioneMC205-Finale.pdf

tigertalon
02-12-2006, 08:01 PM
Tested Veltro extensively last days online.

Hint: fight verticaly. It zooms formidably, dives decently and posesses good firepower and large ammosuply (plus it has digital ammocounters). Controls get stiff only at very high speed. Top speed is great and climb is fantastic. IMO plane is superior to SpitMkIXc.

However, it has bad rear visibility and very heavy roll at high speeds.

HarlockGN
02-12-2006, 08:02 PM
Be VERY gentle and be precise. Don't ask her too much and she'll please you immensely.
Just treat her like you'd treat a girl, expecially if she had guns.

HotelBushranger
02-13-2006, 02:30 AM
With my 5 or so hours of so of flying, I found the more gentle you are with it, in turns etc, you more successful you are with it. Also climbs like the devil, use it to your advantage. But yes, in realistic servers, the extremely poor rear vision is likely to lose you a life! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Gatt59
02-13-2006, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
It was flown pretty rarely in the real event, so I'd say the best way to fly it in game would be to try another plane that actually flew more than a few dozen examples. Like the 202 for example. Resist ueberplaneism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cant resist, eh?

Numbers are relative to each air force. So, the (more or less) operational 200 C.205 are rapresentative of the small italian air force. They fought from early-mid 1943 till the end of the war with co-belligerant and ANR air forces. No 1943-45 map of the MED theatre of ops, from the invasion of Sicily up to the surrender, would be accurate without the C.205.

Uberplane? Not at all. Just an excellent 1943 mid-low altitude fighter. Faster at those alts and with probably better high speeds handling than the early Spitfire IX and the 109G-2 ---&gt; G-6.

Whats your problem with the Macchi? Learn to live with them. They are already in Warbirds, AcesHigh, TW's Target Tobruk Mod and now even in IL-2.

269GA-Veltro
02-13-2006, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gatt59:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
It was flown pretty rarely in the real event, so I'd say the best way to fly it in game would be to try another plane that actually flew more than a few dozen examples. Like the 202 for example. Resist ueberplaneism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cant resist, eh?

Numbers are relative to each air force. So, the (more or less) operational 200 C.205 are rapresentative of the small italian air force. They fought from early-mid 1943 till the end of the war with co-belligerant and ANR air forces. No 1943-45 map of the MED theatre of ops, from the invasion of Sicily up to the surrender, would be accurate without the C.205.

Uberplane? Not at all. Just an excellent 1943 mid-low altitude fighter. Faster at those alts and with probably better high speeds handling than the early Spitfire IX and the 109G-2 ---&gt; G-6.

Whats your problem with the Macchi? Learn to live with them. They are already in Warbirds, AcesHigh, TW's Target Tobruk Mod and now even in IL-2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you Gatt....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
<span class="ev_code_yellow">It was flown pretty rarely in the real event, so I'd say the best way to fly it in game would be to try another plane that actually flew more than a few dozen examples.</span> Like the 202 for example. Resist ueberplaneism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

ordway
02-13-2006, 08:38 AM
Here are two accounts of why the Macchi 205 might want to do hit and run combat and not turning combat:

(In a P-40F-15 (4119740), "I had climbed to about 7000 feet when another Macchi 202 jumped me...I could dogfight and out-turn him with ease...he went straight in.

- Lt. Richard T Conly of the 315th FS describing a dogfight starting with a disadvantage against a Macchi 202. April 29, 1943

"P-40 Warhawk aces of the MTO", Osprey Aircraft of the Aces Series #43, p. 65

Here is a second account of bad things that happen to Macchis 202s when Macchis try to do turning combat instead of hit and run which is their "usual" combat method:

Macchis 202s and BF 109s bounce and try to engage in a turning-fight with P-40s.

... The P-40s had 21 claims for one 1 loss...ie...it is not normal for Macchis to fight using a turning style....and turning style does not suit the Macchis against the P-40s.

"They were jumped by 25-30 BF-109s and then a second force...C202s piled in....noted that the enemy fighters tried to turn with them rather than using the normal dive and zoom tactics...P-40s claimed 21 victories for the loss of just one P-40."

The American P-40 325th FG got a unit citation for the turning engagement.

"P-40 Warhawk aces of the MTO", Osprey Aircraft of the Aces Series #43,

It is facinating that this account directly states that the Macchi 202's usual fighting style is "hit and run." (the Macchi 205 just has a bigger engine in it).

HarlockGN
02-13-2006, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
It was flown pretty rarely in the real event, so I'd say the best way to fly it in game would be to try another plane that actually flew more than a few dozen examples. Like the 202 for example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, "only" 200 were built before the armistice and another 112 were built after to be flown for the ANR, so yeah, only a few dozens uh? Funny.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Resist ueberplaneism. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So i suppose anyone flying anything with cannons is an uberplaneist, right? Again, Funny.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ordway:
They were jumped by 25-30 BF-109s and then a second force...C202s piled in....noted that the enemy fighters tried to turn with them rather than using the normal dive and zoom tactics...P-40s claimed 21 victories for the loss of just one P-40 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This kinda reminds me of Captain Kelly sinking the Haruna...
But yes, point is, you have to decide the tactic for a fight according to the RELATIVE characteristics of your plane with the opponent, sure not according to the absolute characteristics of your plane.
It might be wise to engage a late war allied plane in a turn fighting, if he's a fool enough to accept it, but sure not a P-40, unless you're in a Zero, of course.
The c.202 (and of course the c.205) is faster and outclimbs the P-40 easily, so the wisest tactic is just to boom and zoom it to hell.

mortoma
02-13-2006, 04:45 PM
Stigler is going to continue to get more popular around here I see. He comes into this forum to promote Targetware and is very subtle about beating up on this sim. Sometimes not so subtle. While at the same time he continues to beat up and make fun of offline players, which he's been doing for a long time. Then he comes in threads like this and proves how little he knows about WWII aviation after all. Amazing!!

Stigler_9_JG52
02-13-2006, 06:12 PM
Funny. All those quotes mention the 202 and not the 205. Which makes my point.

Also, built doesn't mean delivered or sortied in, does it. People use the same justification for cannon Corsairs being "ubiquitous", when most of those were on ships on the way to the action when the atomic bombs were dropped.

And veltro, I got nothing against the plane itself. I happen to love flying Itie kites, like G-50s, CR-42s, MC202s (don't like the MC200 too much, gotta admit). But, I happen to like flying REPRESENTATIVE, workhorse planes, instead of the usual IL-2 "find the latest, most souped up model and fly that exclusively" tactic.

That's all I'm saying. People ask these questions about flying planes "the way they were flown" in the real event, but they never ask it of the planes that fought the MOST. Just the ones on the end of the family list with the least history and the most "drawing board" fantasy. And not just for Italian planes, for Russian, German, British and American types too.

HarlockGN
02-13-2006, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Funny. All those quotes mention the 202 and not the 205. Which makes my point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, two episodes mention the 202 and this throws the 205 completely out of the war, isn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, built doesn't mean delivered or sortied in, does it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, they built them to make some nice static decorations for gardens and museums, right?
I'm sorry, but since you encouraged me to do some reading in another post, maybe you could tell that in front of a mirror and go do some homework yourself, since you seem fairly lacking in the field of knowledge on the matter.
Italy didn't nearly have enough planes on the line to even afford wasting ONE of them. All the 205 built were heavily used and flown fighting all kind of enemies. So heavily that before the end of the war they had to get some 109s from the german because the 205 that still flown for the ANR had their engines almost completely burnt and their structural integrity compromised.
Just a few numbers for you, since you can't seem to understand words very clearly.
At the time of the armistice, the total numbers of fighters in the italian air force are as follows:

CR.42 - 41
G.50 - 8
Mc.200 - 33
G.55 - 3
Mc.202 - 50
Mc.205 - 32
Re.2001 - 33

Yes, it was small, idn't it? I don't see the 32 Mc.205 being so heavily outnumbered by the whopping 50 Mc.202, and this already proves yuor point wrong. But let's go on with the war, shall we? It didn't end in 1943 for Italy, you know?
After the armistice, the ANR, the part of the aviation that decided to stay with the axis, lined up 141 Mc.205 (since the production of the plane went on for a few more months in the Macchi factory in Varese), while the production of the Mc.202 was already stopped, and only about 20 were used (7 to 1 proportion, yeah, the 205 is SO not representative, lol) to equip only part of the third fighter group.
No earlier planes were used, the only other italian fighter that kept fighting was the FIAT G.55 Centauro, that unfortunately (because it was a real beauty, like the 205) is not represented in this sim.
The cobelligerant air force that sided with the allies, assigned to the balkan air force, only managed to salvage about 20 between macchi Mc.202 and Mc.205 (in fairly equal numbers), and most Mc.202 were field modified to Mc.205 standards.
This should be quite enough to prove you wrong and to properly affirm that your statement about the Mc.205 not being representative of the italian forces from 1943 on is, if our american friends don't mind me borrowing their way of speaking, simple bull.
I don't care if you come here to promote another simulator or whatever (even if this is normally called trolling), but please, before going all out talking about something you seem to know very little about, study more.

gthgrrl4game
02-13-2006, 09:29 PM
Regardless of numbers, the Veltro, along with the Folgore and the Hien are very elegant looking fighters. I enjoy flying all three.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-13-2006, 11:46 PM
Very well, Harlock. I stand corrected.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

However, if the MC205 becomes like other ueber examples of their lineage such that they're flown to the total exclusion of the others (for another example, see how often you see cannon Corsairs and hardly ANY '43 models with 6 x .50s), you can see where my skepticism comes from. And you sure can't argue that the cR42s, G.55s, G-50s, MC202s and MC200s of the world certainly did more than the 205s, by simply pre-dating them.

LEXX_Luthor
02-14-2006, 12:00 AM
By "real event" I think Stiglr refers to World War 2 and not the "time of armistice" so we need the list of 202 and 205 total production. For super-dogfight simulation of 1943+, then 205 seems to be competitive in numbers with 202 according to the list.

Harlock:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At the time of the armistice, the total numbers of fighters in the italian air force are as follows:

CR.42 - 41
G.50 - 8
Mc.200 - 33
G.55 - 3
Mc.202 - 50
Mc.205 - 32
Re.2001 - 33 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HarlockGN
02-14-2006, 12:49 AM
i'm sorry Lexx, but i have to argue that the "armistice" (as i already wrote, but you probably didn't bother to read or notice it) wasn't definately the end of the war in Italy.
After the armistice (datedseptember the 8th, 1943) the northern part of italy (the RSI, whose aviation was in fact the ANR) continued a bitter fight against the allied forces up to april the 25th, 1945, despite being outnumbered and partly outgunned. So i TOTALLY doubt this year and an half long period is to be excluded from the "real event", since it DEFINATELY IS still part of world war 2.
I used the date of the armistice as a reference simply becaue the MC.205 entered service in 1943, little before the armistice itself. in a few months it grew in relative numbers compared to the 202, at the date of the armistice it almost reached the same numbers, and after the armistice the 202 was almost completely abandoned in favor of the 205. The fact that there has been an "armistice" in between the two parts of the war in italy doesn't bsolutely mean that the second part wasn't "the real event".
In FB the mc.205 is rightfully dated 1943, and just until the month of september of that same year it's realistic to actually mix MC.202 with MC.205, then, for the rest of the war (assuming we're talking about italy as blue, since we can't use it as a red country, unfortunately) MC.202 was almost completely abandoned and no more on production (actually the production of the 242 ended in 1942), so it's absolutely realistic to use the MC.205 almost exclusively, possibly mixing it with Bf.109 of the G series onwards to K as the war proceeds(even because the few remaining 202 equipped just a small part of just one of the three remaining italian fighter groups). Unfortunately we don't have the Fiat G.55 that was the other main italian fighter at that time, and that rivaled with the 205 in beauty, performance (many actually argue it was better) and numbers.
http://kits.kitreview.com/images/SH72087%20Fiat%20G.55%20Centauro.jpg

No one is arguing that the MC.205 is any representative of the italian air forces before 1943, no more than the P-51D could be of the USAAF before 1944 since they didn't EXIST before those years, but it sure was DEFINATELY representative from 1943 onwards. Keeping it out of servers dated that year or after or criticizing the ones that are using it is just like criticizing the ones flying on mustangs or spitfires. No more, no less.
I don't even keep into account servers that don't have a definite date or historical setting. For me they simply don't exist.

LEXX_Luthor
02-14-2006, 01:18 AM
Yes, if I recall, the time AFTER armistice saw the majority of 205 production which is "okay" for 1943+ super-dogfight simulation. Here is where you made your basic mistake...

Harlock:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">i'm sorry Lexx, but i have to argue that the "armistice" (as i already wrote, but <span class="ev_code_yellow">you probably didn't bother to read</span> or notice it) wasn't definately the end of the war in Italy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I skipped over the rest of what you wrote after seeing that. Try again if you wish, but don't make mistakes like that. Thank You. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gatt59
02-14-2006, 01:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People ask these questions about flying planes "the way they were flown" in the real event, but they never ask it of the planes that fought the MOST. Just the ones on the end of the family list with the least history and the most "drawing board" fantasy. And not just for Italian planes, for Russian, German, British and American types too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, people should ask about and fly only the most produced a/c, no matter of the total Regia Aeronautica or ANR forces numbers?

"The last of the family list with least history"? "Fantasy"? C'mon Stig, buy some good books and learn to be constructive in your posts.

Probably, you should be really involved in the development of a/c or MODs for sims to know what I mean .... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

HotelBushranger
02-14-2006, 01:43 AM
Stiglir, have you actually flown the MC 205? No disrespect intended, but seriously, "the latest, most souped up model and fly that exclusively" thing DOESN'T apply for the 205. On a server of roughly 34 last night, 3 max were flying 205's, myself included. Do you know what the rest were? You betcha, Spitfire Mk IX +25lb Boost! out of the remaining 31, at any one time there were more than 20+ Spits flying, 1-3 Dos & FW's, 1-2 I-185', 1-3 La-7's....you get the picture. The 205 can be a real handful to fly, and for the people looking for uberism, this plane simply isn't it.

LEXX_Luthor
02-14-2006, 01:49 AM
Stiglr is kinda kneejerk responding to the famous FB/PF Online dogfight shooter community culture of selecting only the most Super Dogfight planes available during FB/PF arcade Online play. Just look at all the Boost Threads around here hehe and I can see his/her point.

On the other hand, I would enjoy a "fantasy" 205-Orione for use in Offline Dyanamic Campaigns where Italy wins the WAR http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif or at least delays the armistice to 1944+ or something. Actually, I am thinking of a hypothetical extended Eastern Front campaign with much greater Italian involvement. But, such "fantasy" planes like Orione should come only after ALL the Italian bombers are modelled with at least pilot and a top gunner station modelled, and not before. As for Bombadiers, I suggest maintaining formation and dropping bombs when the AI bombers drop bombs ... if eliminating Flyable bombadier stations will help to finally get Flyable bombers into these combat flight sims.

Tooz_69GIAP
02-14-2006, 01:56 AM
The 205 is a nice aircarft, flies smoothly, but in combat, although the Series III has very good guns, you have to keep an eye on the thing, otherwise it'll buck like an un-broke stallion! Smooth and steady hand all the time, otherwise you'll end up in the dirt!

Anyway, I like flying them against Spits and P-47's and P-38s, etc, it's a pretty good match up.

Gatt59
02-14-2006, 02:06 AM
Lexx,
the Macchi C.205N Orione was actually a technical flop (low speed handling, heating problems, etc.) and production plans abandoned. The G.55 and even the Re.2005 were better.

If you wanna build a fantasy arena you should use the mighty DB603 engined Fiat G.56. Two prototypes were tested and flown with excellent results. The allied bombing campaign put obviously an end to the whole development.

HarlockGN
02-14-2006, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
The 205 is a nice aircarft, flies smoothly, but in combat, although the Series III has very good guns, you have to keep an eye on the thing, otherwise it'll buck like an un-broke stallion! Smooth and steady hand all the time, otherwise you'll end up in the dirt!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's indeed a b.itchy girl, but aren't b.itchy girls the best of them all?
I wouldn't understand why the tommies called theirs "spitfire" otherwise :P

jds1978
02-14-2006, 03:21 AM
the new Italian fighters have some nasty compression issues at high speed.

other than that, i love 'em!

LEXX_Luthor
02-14-2006, 08:39 AM
Gatt:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lexx,
the Macchi C.205N Orione was actually a technical flop (low speed handling, heating problems, etc.) and production plans abandoned. The G.55 and even the Re.2005 were better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I see you are correct. G.55 would be better for Offline Dynamic Campaign. And the major Italian bombers be made Flyable long before Oriones.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-14-2006, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
Stiglir, have you actually flown the MC 205? No disrespect intended, but seriously, "the latest, most souped up model and fly that exclusively" thing DOESN'T apply for the 205. On a server of roughly 34 last night, 3 max were flying 205's, myself included. Do you know what the rest were? You betcha, Spitfire Mk IX +25lb Boost! out of the remaining 31, at any one time there were more than 20+ Spits flying, 1-3 Dos & FW's, 1-2 I-185', 1-3 La-7's....you get the picture. The 205 can be a real handful to fly, and for the people looking for uberism, this plane simply isn't it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For ITALIAN planes, the 205 is undoubtedly the most ueber.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-14-2006, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gatt59:
Probably, you should be really involved in the development of a/c or MODs for sims to know what I mean .... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I am, hold that thought for a bit, and note the signature graphic.

269GA-Veltro
02-14-2006, 10:31 AM
C.205 is not reperesentative!? It's an uber plane?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Ok, we'll ask Oleg to remove it....

HarlockGN
02-14-2006, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
For ITALIAN planes, the 205 is undoubtedly the most ueber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being the most ueber between italian planes doesn't automatically makes it ueber in comparison to other aircrafts of that time and sure doesn't make it "less representative".
I think the popular idea of the italian pilot on a biplane kept together by shoe strings and flying by pure luck kind of misguided you.
Late war speaking italy had some fearsome fighters (MC.205 and G.55) in good numbers (compared to the total of course).
The allied forces trying to bomb the northern cities od Italy definately learned it the hard way.
The only "series 5" aircraft that can be deemed not representative of the italin war effort is actually the Reggiane Re.2005, that was built in very small numbers and almost never used.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-14-2006, 11:54 AM
Yah, I tend to get the 2005 and the 205 confused, for obvious reasons....

Gatt59
02-14-2006, 04:09 PM
LOL Stig, really, get a good book about RA and ANR! Slap! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif The Re.2005 was not even as good as the C.205 and the G.55. Was this the uber non-representative plane in your mind?

Saying that the C.205 was uber is like saying that the A-4, A-5 or the G-4, G-6 were uber during 1943. Wrong. You wont see mid-late 1943 MED arenas full of 205 and G-6, you'll see a lot of damned Spitfires IX with better Merlins and new USAF irons. This is what you'll see http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MichaelMar
02-19-2006, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
I found this article:

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


Berg: That was a great read. I really like reading such things...nice change from the allies biased reports about Italian fighters and pilots)))

In Il2 can the the 205 out turn the spit? Or is it the the other way around?

THX