PDA

View Full Version : Dossier Macchi....Some Info inside....



BigSkill
03-08-2006, 01:38 PM
These articles r about Macchi.
Sry for language, is all in Italian, but some Graphic r undesrtable i think.

Pag 01
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/8602/pag019oz.th.jpg (http://img463.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pag019oz.jpg) http://img328.imageshack.us/img328/4642/pag028at.th.jpg (http://img328.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pag028at.jpg)
Pag 02
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2888/pag032eg.th.jpg (http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pag032eg.jpg) http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2435/pag044wb.th.jpg (http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pag044wb.jpg)

BigSkill
03-08-2006, 01:38 PM
These articles r about Macchi.
Sry for language, is all in Italian, but some Graphic r undesrtable i think.

Pag 01
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/8602/pag019oz.th.jpg (http://img463.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pag019oz.jpg) http://img328.imageshack.us/img328/4642/pag028at.th.jpg (http://img328.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pag028at.jpg)
Pag 02
http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2888/pag032eg.th.jpg (http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pag032eg.jpg) http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/2435/pag044wb.th.jpg (http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pag044wb.jpg)

crazyivan1970
03-08-2006, 03:20 PM
What does this prove tho? I am confused.

A.K.Davis
03-08-2006, 03:57 PM
I don't know, but I've seen this book in English and it is FULL of errors. Almost every page has at least one from my cursory glance in a book store last year.

crazyivan1970
03-08-2006, 03:59 PM
But what is teh poster trying to prove.... lol

DuxCorvan
03-08-2006, 04:37 PM
Oooh, then it'true!

Macchis... EXISTED! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BigSkill
03-08-2006, 04:39 PM
Prove that aerodinamics is wrong, engine is wrong and roll is wrong.
This document say that the real Macchi was fast during manuvers, and can beat easily Spit MK V and Hurricans.

Monson74
03-09-2006, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigSkill:
Prove that aerodinamics is wrong, engine is wrong and roll is wrong.
This document say that the real Macchi was fast during manuvers, and can beat easily Spit MK V and Hurricans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 202s & 205s are fast & can beat Hurris & Spits even if the FM is "wrong" - maybe the roll is a bit stiff - just don't forget the human factor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bartolomeo_ita
03-09-2006, 03:17 AM
ummm, the roll rate(take a look at wing and weight, and compare em to la5, fw, bf) and glass are wrong but macchis are good planes... IMHO... i guess, with next pacht, they going to fix the roll rate and glass position...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

alaNera
03-09-2006, 03:23 AM
Sorry Big,
but the content of this book is really shallow and full of errors, cannot be useful to prove anything. Even Tarantola's name is badly written!

Monson74
03-09-2006, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bartolomeo_ita:
ummm, the roll rate(take a look at wing and weight, and compare em to la5, fw, bf) and glass are wrong but macchis are good planes... IMHO... i guess, with next pacht, they going to fix the roll rate and glass position...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is wrong with the glass?

BigSkill
03-09-2006, 04:24 AM
Itsnt a book but an Aeronautic Magazine,yes correct name is Eugenio tarantola,but is a Typeing Error.

joeap
03-09-2006, 04:27 AM
Unless you have primary sources, or the primary sourcs this article used, a magazine article can't prove anything. Especially in this case as some posters said it was full of errors. Not saying there are not mistakes with the Macchis, I myself am a but frustrated with the armament for example. You need other proof bud.

Monson74
03-09-2006, 04:43 AM
I think the guns are fine - you just have to hit. I'm more worried about the mirrors - they look very strange.

F19_Orheim
03-09-2006, 04:59 PM
Hand over documents originated from Italian airforce, manuals, testing schemes etc .. That is evidence... articles are not

pdog1
03-09-2006, 11:30 PM
Just make belive 202 is not flyable because its usless.
Mc200 is good as fast as hurri and can out manuever it any day.
Mc202 is useless pile of dog poo.
Mc205 is good because of speed and cannons.
So Macchi's are good just don't fly 202.
Which is sad because i really like the 202!
Oh well i get used to sewing machine 200! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

269GA-Veltro
03-10-2006, 01:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pdog1:
Just make belive 202 is not flyable because its usless.
Mc200 is good as fast as hurri and can out manuever it any day.
Mc202 is useless pile of dog poo.
Mc205 is good because of speed and cannons.
So Macchi's are good just don't fly 202.
Which is sad because i really like the 202!
Oh well i get used to sewing machine 200! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right...don't fly the C.202....

C.200 and C.205 are good fighters, but the C.205 has a big problem in the roll rate (747 roll rate...), and in the DM. Macchi were very strong machines thank to their high quality manufacturing. What we have now is nothing more than a Zero.

BTW, please don't considere the article above.

Rickustyit
03-10-2006, 01:56 AM
The only things I think are wrong with the model in the game is, as you said, the "damage model" and the roll characteristics.
The roll rate seems like the one in the KI-61 before the last patch, quite horrible and it suffers from compression so early...

As for the guns: they were good ones, very reliable and accurate. The only shortcoming was not of the gun itself (as it has been said numerous times), but of the numbers of guns carried on the planes.
Two heavy machineguns per plane were really patetic...

Riccardo

ImpStarDuece
03-10-2006, 03:35 AM
Actually, the Breda 12.7mms were probably the worst gun of their class in the entire war. They fired quite a short round at relatively low velocity and rate of fire. They were accurate and reasonably reliable, but that is about the only complements that you can bestow on them. They didn't have the muzzle energy or AP power of the Browning or UB, nor the high rate of fire and high capacity High Explosive rounds of the MG 131. Even the Ho-103, which used basically the same rounds (12.7x81), had a much higher rate of fire and a lower installed weight.

In terms of cartridge power, Breda-SAFAT rounds were about 33% less efficient than a 12.7x99 Browning M2 round, 40% less efficient than a 12.7x108 UB round and about 5-10% less efficient than a 13x64 MG131 round.

pdog1
03-10-2006, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:

Right...don't fly the C.202....

C.200 and C.205 are good fighters, but the C.205 has a big problem in the roll rate (747 roll rate...), and in the DM. Macchi were very strong machines thank to their high quality manufacturing. What we have now is nothing more than a Zero.

BTW, please don't considere the article above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if you notice but there is HUGE difference between 200 and 202 FM.
With 200 you can out turn hurri easily.
With 202 you can't even stay with one half turn because you stall out and crash. I don't think this really happened.
202 FM is pathetic.
Also like you said DM is wack. Look at 109 engine and compare how strong it is to 202 engine.... 109 engine does not have the same tendency to go on fire and blow up so readily.

Flakwalker
03-10-2006, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

In terms of cartridge power, Breda-SAFAT rounds were about 33% less efficient than a 12.7x99 Browning M2 round, 40% less efficient than a 12.7x108 UB round and about 5-10% less efficient than a 13x64 MG131 round. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not much, but the MG-131 work a lot better.

About the MC.202, is difficult for an Sptifire V get them out of their six as soon you attach there, the problems I find are:

A) Bad roll rate: altough able to follow it, is very difficult because of this.

B) Soft 12.7mm: I find them useless even on fuel tanks, only on engine hits and on fighters it could be usefull. Test it against a C-47, then try it with any other HMG ingame.

C) Very hard stall-spin

MC.200 vs Hurricane:

A) Soft HMG (same as above)

MC.205 vs Spitfire IX:

A) Same as above on the non MG-151 version

ImpStarDuece
03-10-2006, 02:27 PM
Remember that the MG131 also fired about 20% faster than the Breda-SAFAT, because it used electric priming to fire throught the propellor arc, instead of mechanical interruptor gear like on the Italian birds.

So, in actuallity, a MG 131 should be more effective than a Breda-SAFAT by around 1/4, because it will fire more rounds at the target and each round has slightly more damage potential.

MMGs and HMGs are always going to be at a disadvantage in this game because of many of the internal structures to puncture/ destroy. And when your firing two realtively weak HMGS, its only going to be worse.

pdog1
03-10-2006, 10:27 PM
Yes Breda's are historically bad... but not this bad... also Macchi's FM is historically "good"
I guess Oleg just likes to put bad parts inm hmmmm.
It seems as if the incendiary round is either not there or totally weak. You think wood hurricane would burn or get torn when hit with these bullets but they just bounce off.
Shooting italian guns at airplanes is like shooting american 50s at tiger tanks.
HAHAHAHAHA.

VW-IceFire
03-10-2006, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pdog1:
Yes Breda's are historically bad... but not this bad... also Macchi's FM is historically "good"
I guess Oleg just likes to put bad parts inm hmmmm.
It seems as if the incendiary round is either not there or totally weak. You think wood hurricane would burn or get torn when hit with these bullets but they just bounce off.
Shooting italian guns at airplanes is like shooting american 50s at tiger tanks.
HAHAHAHAHA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hurricanes were historically a fairly sturdy aircraft. Good construction and sound engineering practices. That said, the HE rounds in those machine guns probably would do a number on the fabric cover in the rear fuselage. Those MG's are definately weak. The best you can hope for is engine damage by nailing a Spitfire or Hurricanes engine repeatedly from close range.

I understand they were fairly weak HMG's. Probably the bottom of the barrel.

pdog1
03-11-2006, 01:10 AM
Something weird i noticed with hurris dm and breda's. I was flying 200 in spits vs 109s and shot down some hurris. First hurri i came in close and fired long burst - nothing. We turned for a bit and i got closer and more long burts from behind - still nothing. I kept firing and firing at him and nothing happened, only little pieces fly off him but no real damage. Eventually he stalled out and crashed.
Another hurri i came in on right behind and i damaged his controls but still flyable. I kept shooting at him and eventually he crashed.
Next two hurri's we weird kills. They saw me coming in and did snap turns and i managed to get a round in the engine and thick black smoke started to come out from one burst. Strange but firing alot of rounds from behind does nothing, one burst to engine and its dead?! I don't know.
But with 200 i could stay on hurris tail pretty easily and do any kind of move to evade there attacks or do high yoyos to get on them easier.
With 202 is different story. With 202 i would be lucky even to bail out of my airplane alive after an encounter with hurri. 202 is absolutly garbage horrible **** plane. Every time i try to df hurri with 202 i always stall out after HALF A TURN lol. 202 is pathetic, not even worth flying. It is not even that much faster than 200 and which such degraded performance flying 202 is tantamount to suicide.
All the work those guys went into making 202 cockpit is worthless because 202 flies like a brick with wings.

Rickustyit
03-11-2006, 01:13 AM
True, they were probably the worst performers in their category, but at that time, they were considered effective since it was "assumed" (wrongly) that the majority of the other air forces were using rifle calibre machine-guns.

In Spain this thinking got a wrong confirmation unfortunately.
However, the numbers of machine guns carried was totally wrong; had they put them 4 x aircraft they could have sorted many problems.
Unfortunately, the engines used were weak, the aircrafts had to be as light as possible, and the result was that our fighters went into the war underarmed (and underarmored at the beginning too)
There was a plan to replace some Breda SAFAT 12,7mm HMG with Rheinmetall ST guns, but the plan didn't get through...

pdog1, yeah the Hurris are (and were I suppose) solid birds. The tactic I use the most to shoot them down is to fire in deflection and try to it the engine. It seems like firing from the rear really is almost worthless.
With deflection shooting I find that I can bring down many planes without spending too many rounds.

The only complaints I have is that it seems it's much more difficult to set a fuel tank to fire, compared to using different 12,7mm guns...

The 202 has a weird FM indeed... As said before, the roll rate is horrible and I can't realy understand why, since the C.200 "Saetta" has a very good one. The two planes shared the same wing!

http://www.vvs-regia-avions.com/Regia/MC205-001.jpg

pdog1
03-11-2006, 03:39 AM
And same rudder and elevator. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
202 only sacrificed some manueverability at the expense of greater performance of more speed, power, climb while retaining the manueverability that italain pilots demanded.
202 is really lame i don't like flying it even though it looks better than 200 it doesn't fly better...200 is my bird of choice.

Bartolomeo_ita
03-11-2006, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monson74:

What is wrong with the glass? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mirror* ops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bartolomeo_ita
03-11-2006, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rickustyit:
As said before, the roll rate is horrible and I can't realy understand why, since the C.200 "Saetta" has a very good one. The two planes shared the same wing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, no sense at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Monson74
03-12-2006, 03:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bartolomeo_ita:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monson74:

What is wrong with the glass? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mirror* ops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes - the mirrors are weird - the 205 mirror should be like the 202 & the 200 doesn't have one at all! Has anyone reported this to 1C?

Maraz_5SA
03-12-2006, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
They didn't have the muzzle energy or AP power of the Browning or UB, nor the high rate of fire and high capacity High Explosive rounds of the MG 131. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Breda actually had HE rounds.
According to Tony Williams, "the HE contained around 12.3 grains (0.8 g) of Penthrite wax".

I do not know if 12.3 grains are a big charge but surely it was more effective than a ball round on soft targets like aircraft skin.

Maraz

ImpStarDuece
03-12-2006, 02:09 PM
Notice the qualifier 'high capacity' before the phrase High Explosive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The MG 131 rounds came in 3 flavours:
1. The API round with 2.2 grams of incendiary filler,
2. The basic incendiary round, also with 2.2 grams of incendiary filler
3. The HEI-t round with 1.4 grams of PETN and .3 grams of Thermite, both of which have around 2 time more explosive force than Penthrite, which is a Piric acid based explosive.

mortoma
03-12-2006, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pdog1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 269GA-Veltro:

Right...don't fly the C.202....

C.200 and C.205 are good fighters, but the C.205 has a big problem in the roll rate (747 roll rate...), and in the DM. Macchi were very strong machines thank to their high quality manufacturing. What we have now is nothing more than a Zero.

BTW, please don't considere the article above. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if you notice but there is HUGE difference between 200 and 202 FM.
With 200 you can out turn hurri easily.
With 202 you can't even stay with one half turn because you stall out and crash. I don't think this really happened.
202 FM is pathetic.
Also like you said DM is wack. Look at 109 engine and compare how strong it is to 202 engine.... 109 engine does not have the same tendency to go on fire and blow up so readily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that the 202 has a snap stall that comes on suddenly and at too high of a speed in my opinion. It will drop a wing severely even if you try to 3 point land the thing. It is hard to fly successfully, at least harder than it should be. It should be more comparable to the 200. But that's supposition on my part. I don't however have any trouble killing things with it, except the titanium Lagg-3s and the semi-titanium Hurricane.

Maraz_5SA
03-14-2006, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maraz_5SA:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
They didn't have the muzzle energy or AP power of the Browning or UB, nor the high rate of fire and high capacity High Explosive rounds of the MG 131. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Breda actually had HE rounds.
According to Tony Williams, "the HE contained around 12.3 grains (0.8 g) of Penthrite wax".

I do not know if 12.3 grains are a big charge but surely it was more effective than a ball round on soft targets like aircraft skin.

Maraz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also the Breda had higher muzzle velocity than the MG.131, 76o vs 730 m/s.

The weight of the round was about the same (36,2 m/s for MG.131, 36 for Breda).

(source: N. Malizia, Le Armi degli Aerei Italiani, Storia Militare n. 48, 1997)

But as you know energy is proportional to the square of velocity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am not saying that the MG.131 was not more powerful than the Breda, but now the Breda performs much like than a 7,7 mm gun and this is not realistic IMHO.

Maraz

Maraz_5SA
03-14-2006, 02:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

3. The HEI-t round with 1.4 grams of PETN and .3 grams of Thermite, both of which have around 2 time more explosive force than Penthrite, which is a Piric acid based explosive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETN

states that penthrite and PETN are exactly the same thing.

Of course everybody knows that Wikipedia is an Axis-biased source http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but I can find more.

Also please compare the cartridges in this picture from Tony Williams's site:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/HMG1.jpg

clearly the Browning cartridge (12.7 x 99) is of another class than the Breda (12.7x81), but the Mg.131's round (13x64B) is of the same category of the Breda's round, even smaller I dare say. This is consistent with a higher muzzle velocity for the Breda round.

Maraz

ImpStarDuece
03-14-2006, 02:49 AM
Muzzle velocities and weights for the MG131 are:

13mm API: 720m/sec, 38g
13mm APT: 710m/sec, 38.5g
13mm HEI-t: 750 m/sec, 34g
13mm Incendiary: 770m/sec, 34g

From the Ring's P.R.O site, which uses:
L.Dv. 4000/10 "Munitionsvorschrift für Fliegerbordwaffen, Teil 10, Handbuch der Munition für Fliegerbordwaffen

And your right about PETN and penthrite, I mis-read it as pertite, which is less powerful.

I'd still choose the MG 131 over the Breda because it had both better ammunition and rate of fire.

Zoom2136
03-14-2006, 07:36 AM
The S.C. 205 is a though bird... last night in W.C. I pumped 38 hits in a S.C. 205... two of those being 20mm hispoanos hit to its left wing and the rest spread of the fusalage (nose to tail) and the "/$%?&* kept flying... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Tember you're a lucky /$%? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VW-IceFire
03-15-2006, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pdog1:
Something weird i noticed with hurris dm and breda's. I was flying 200 in spits vs 109s and shot down some hurris. First hurri i came in close and fired long burst - nothing. We turned for a bit and i got closer and more long burts from behind - still nothing. I kept firing and firing at him and nothing happened, only little pieces fly off him but no real damage. Eventually he stalled out and crashed.
Another hurri i came in on right behind and i damaged his controls but still flyable. I kept shooting at him and eventually he crashed.
Next two hurri's we weird kills. They saw me coming in and did snap turns and i managed to get a round in the engine and thick black smoke started to come out from one burst. Strange but firing alot of rounds from behind does nothing, one burst to engine and its dead?! I don't know.
But with 200 i could stay on hurris tail pretty easily and do any kind of move to evade there attacks or do high yoyos to get on them easier.
With 202 is different story. With 202 i would be lucky even to bail out of my airplane alive after an encounter with hurri. 202 is absolutly garbage horrible **** plane. Every time i try to df hurri with 202 i always stall out after HALF A TURN lol. 202 is pathetic, not even worth flying. It is not even that much faster than 200 and which such degraded performance flying 202 is tantamount to suicide.
All the work those guys went into making 202 cockpit is worthless because 202 flies like a brick with wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats not that weird really...thats consistent with the DM's on most of the aircraft in this game. Rear fuselage can take many hits...shoot elsewhere for the best kills. To some extent this is historically correct. You really do want to pour most of your rounds into wing roots or engines.