Happy Easter Aeronautica Macchi pilots :) cheers, TFS

[Mysticpuma]

mc-202_06.jpg


mc-202_05.jpg


mc-202_04.jpg

Cheers, MP/TFS

[ATAG_Lolsav]

Cool a Machi! I tought it was out of the question for the time beeing ( i mean TF 5.0)

[Ohms]

That's sexy

[Pareto]

Fantastic !!!

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

I can hardly believe my eyes. Is that a 202?!

I must be dreaming.

[ATAG_kiwiflieger]

Splendido! It's strange that not 3 hours ago is was in fact reading about this aircraft - the DB.601-engined version of the MC.200 Saetta (which originally had the same engine as the G.50). Does this mean the MC.200 will be included as well?

[Topgum]

Coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool!

That's happy Easter at it best.

[ATAG_Marlow]

Ha ha! That's so much better than the chocolate Easter Egg I didn't get this morning!

Happy Easter, TFS!

[ATAG_Lolsav]

Ha ha! That's so much better than the chocolate Easter Egg I didn't get this morning!

Happy Easter, TFS!

Have you been a bad boy?

Cheers m8, Happy Easter!

[ATAG_Highseas]

What do you think?!

[ATAG_Highseas]

It's beautiful looking and deadly all at once.

Dix will be delighted!

[DerDa]

Oh dear!
109 F and Macchi 202.
One much faster, the other a better turner ... hard times for Hurris, Spits and P 40.

It looks fantastic!
Thanks for showing!

[Pareto]

Oh dear!
109 F and Macchi 202.
One much faster, the other a better turner ... hard times for Hurris, Spits and P 40.

....

Fortunately, the upper hand does not automatically belong to the pilot of the fastest or tightest turning aircraft. It belongs even more to myriads of other factors, including but not limited to: tactical skill/foresight, teamwork, altitude, deflection shooting capability, aircraft reliability...shall I go on?...In essence, the being behind the stick decides the outcome most of the time.
There's nothing better than getting the upper hand on your opponent no matter what he's flying.

The world is about challenges, whether real or virtual, and it's going to be great, flying on either side.
Take your time TFS, after all, it's a complex work of art.

[DerDa]

In essence, the being behind the stick decides the outcome most of the time.

Well, that's just why I am so worried

[FS~Fenice_1965]

This is what was missing ! A Tobruk teather without main RA fighters would be not believable...hopefully we we'll have some AI (cannot dream of fliables...) bombers.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Oh dear!
109 F and Macchi 202.
One much faster, the other a better turner ... hard times for Hurris, Spits and P 40.

It looks fantastic!
Thanks for showing!

What altitude an aircraft is at, and the peak hp of the engine at that altitude is a big factor in how well it can sustain a turn.

I do not think you will find the Macchi to have a better turnrate at lower altitudes when compared to the P-40. The powerloading of an aircraft is a heavy factor in the determination of sustained turn rate. And a Macchi outturning the Hurricane or Spitfire...? Don't believe what you read on Wiki. Neither will the 109F be necessarily faster at lower altitudes than a P-40.

Will the Macchi be a better dogfighter than the 109F... probably... if the pilot in the Macchi knows what he is doing.

I personally expect to spend many happy hours in this aircraft.

[ATAG_Highseas]

And i want a gladiator.

No doubt it will be no match for my hurricane.

But.....

Haha. Im gonna fly everything i get.

Epic stuff chaps!

[ATAG_Flare]

Wow! Fantastic. I did not expect a MC 202. I did want one, but this is a nice surprise!

Buzzsaw, you are saying that the Macchi will have a hard time turning with the P-40 at lower altitudes. Is the P-40 a good turner? I was under the impression that it was rather clunky. How does it turn, say, compared to a Hurricane or a Spitfire?

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Wow! Fantastic. I did not expect a MC 202. I did want one, but this is a nice surprise!

Buzzsaw, you are saying that the Macchi will have a hard time turning with the P-40 at lower altitudes. Is the P-40 a good turner? I was under the impression that it was rather clunky. How does it turn, say, compared to a Hurricane or a Spitfire?

The P-40 was the best close in dogfighter the USAAC flew in WWII. Better than the P-51/P-47/P-38/Wildcat/Hellcat/Corsair. It has the reputation of being unmaneuverable because it is usually rated according to its Pacific service... therefore compared to the Zero, which of course can fly circles around any other aircraft in a close in knifefight. But the P-40 was a good aircraft in a dogfight, it especially had very good roll response, better than the early Spitfire or Hurricane.

When creating a Flight Model, the only thing one can deal with are the facts.

- What is the power curve of the engine?

- What are the drag coefficients? (zero lift and induced)

- What is the aerofoil profile and what are the lift coefficients?

- What is the wingloading?

- What is the power to weight?

I am not going to get into the myriad of details of each aircraft, I don't have the time... but I'll give you a brief example: (details in British measure)

P-40E:

Weight: approx. 8400 lbs

Wing area: 236 Sq/ft

Engine: Allison V-1710-39, approx. 1150 hp at 15,000 ft, approx. 1525 hp at 4500 ft.

Aerofoil: Wingroot: NACA 2215 197 inchs from center of fuselage: NACA 2209

Wingspan: 37.3 ft



Macchi C.202

Weight: approx. 6450 lbs (without wing MG's)

Wing Area: 181 Sq/ft

Wing Span: 34.7 ft

Engine: Alfa Romeo RA 1000 R.C.411 (license copy of DB601Aa low alt engine from 109E-4B) approx. 1100 PS (1085 hp) at 12,140 ft, approx. 1220 PS at 3000 ft (1203 hp)

Aerofoil: Wingroot: NACA 23018 mod Wingtip: NACA 23009 mod (still doing research on the details of the Macchi mods to the basic aerofoil)

----

P-40 is obviously a much heavier aircraft. But it has a larger wing area. Wingloading is 35.6 lbs per square inch compared to the Macchi at 35.65 lbs per square inch, a slight advantage to the P-40. However, in the area of drag, advantage goes to the lighter, smaller aircraft.

As far as I can tell as this point, (investigations still ongoing) the P-40's aerofoil provides higher lift at high angles of attack, therefore in turns. The Macchi aerofoil and fuselage design was focused on low drag, one of the reasons why it was faster than the similarly engined 109E-4b, (despite the Macchi being heavier) especially at higher altitudes. (109E did not have a clean airframe) One of the negatives to the aerofoil design was less lift and a sharp stall at high AoA's.

The P-40 has a lot more horsepower than the Macchi at lower altitudes, not much more at higher. Power loading for the P-40 is 5.5 lbs per hp at 4500 ft, powerloading for the Macchi is 5.6 lbs per hp at same altitude. At this altitude, considering the wingloading, aerofoil, etc. the P-40 should outturn the Macchi. At 12,140 ft, the Macchi's powerloading is 5.9 lbs per hp, the P-40's is 7.2 lbs per hp. Big disadvantage P-40. Here the Macchi should outturn the P-40. At 15,000 ft P-40 is at 7.3 lbs per hp, the Macchi loses power but is still better at 6.6 lbs per hp. Still probably in favour of the Macchi.

One factor to consider... like most American aircraft the P-40 carries a lot of fuel, 123 Imperial gallons. (553.5 liters) The Macchi carries 430 liters, (94.5 Imperial gallons) So if fuel in both aircraft is reduced in an equal percentage, the P-40 loses more weight and improves relative to the Macchi.

This comparison is only for the P-40E. The P-40C is quite a bit lighter at 7600 lbs, although its engine would put out less power.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

[FightingSteel1]

Very nice looking plane...though I admit my personal interest in Italian aircraft is pretty much near zero, it will be great to have even more variety on the Axis side of things. Hopefully they'll be easier to recognize by friendly pilots than the G.50s!

The P-40 was the best close in dogfighter the USAAC flew in WWII. Better than the P-51/P-47/P-38/Wildcat/Hellcat/Corsair. It has the reputation of being unmaneuverable because it is usually rated according to its Pacific service... therefore compared to the Zero, which of course can fly circles around any other aircraft in a close in knifefight. But the P-40 was a good aircraft in a dogfight, it especially had very good roll response, better than the early Spitfire or Hurricane.

The P-40 is a personal favorite, and for the first time in years I saw one fly last weekend at the SNF airshow (a mostly exported P-40M variant). It put on a good show, and seemed to be very nimble in the air. I don't believe the Warhawk's forerunner, the P-36, has been featured in many sims, though they were used fairly extensively by the French, accounting for something around 30% of their kills in the Battle of France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-36_Hawk

[DerDa]

Thanks for answering in detail Buzz.

Hmmm ... if we can get five pilots together in FG28, two in P40, three in Beaufighters I think we will have tons of fun with (very, very) low level attacks.
Brilliant times to come!

[buster_dee]

Is anyone else missing their Easter basket? It was right here in front of me.

Brilliant work Team.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Thanks for answering in detail Buzz.

Hmmm ... if we can get five pilots together in FG28, two in P40, three in Beaufighters I think we will have tons of fun with (very, very) low level attacks.
Brilliant times to come!

Yes, the Allison engined P-40 is probably best in the ground attack role. It was not particularly successful in the Desert as an air superiority fighter.

Once the Spitfire V arrived, the P-40 Squadrons focused on ground attack and in that role they were quite successful until the end of the war or until they were replaced by P-47's or P-38's.

The game P-40's will have the option of carrying bombs.

The two speed supercharger Packard Merlin V-1650-1 engined P-40F's and P-40L's were better in the air superiority role, they had much better high altitude performance, but they were still hampered by a lack of speed when compared to the 109's or Macchis. At this point it is doubtful they will be included in TF 5.0, although we might see them later if TF 5.0 is successful.

[xoriguer]

Hi Buzzsaw, about the 109:

- AFAIK the F4 was restricted to 1.3ata on most of 1941, will there be a rated and derated versions?

- I've also read that the GM-1 enabled versions stored the nitrous oxide in presurized bottles that tended to explode when damaged, will this "feature" be modelled.

Thank you!

[LimaSierra]

That's a nice asymmetric entry!

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Hi Buzzsaw, about the 109:

- AFAIK the F4 was restricted to 1.3ata on most of 1941, will there be a rated and derated versions?

- I've also read that the GM-1 enabled versions stored the nitrous oxide in presurized bottles that tended to explode when damaged, will this "feature" be modelled.

Thank you!

Yes, if you read all the updates you would see there will be normal rated and 'de-rated' versions of the F4.

There will be no GM-1 version of the 109F for TF 5.0, although we hope there will be a 109E-7NZ. And there will hopefully be damage effects for both NoX bottles as well as ordinary oxygen bottles for TF 5.0.

[Bear22]

Yes, if you read all the updates you would see there will be normal rated and 'de-rated' versions of the F4.

There will be no GM-1 version of the 109F for TF 5.0, although we hope there will be a 109E-7NZ. And there will hopefully be damage effects for both NoX bottles as well as ordinary oxygen bottles for TF 5.0.

It is very interesting! Here is an example of an explosion of an oxygen balloon (the plane was badly damaged, the enemy recorded it downed) 008-1d3d2865c6cbfed3acb1f620518c84fd.jpg007-973a73c192d755e7a7ea709778582cfc.jpg

[Mysticpuma]

Blimey! Imagine flying along and a bullet hits that! That would be a shock to the player no doubt!

[ATAG_Flare]

Blimey! Imagine flying along and a bullet hits that! That would be a shock to the player no doubt!

Like a Minengeschoss shell in a ready to explode position inside your cockpit!