PDA

View Full Version : Which plane is most like the MC202?



MichaelMar
07-24-2005, 08:42 AM
I gave up on the Fiat. After flying the plane for months, some good and soom bad, I ditched it.

Now I am getting ready for the add-on which suppose to include some nice Italian planes like the MC202, 205 and possibly the 200 models. An Italian bomber would be nice also. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So, which plane, in game now, is most like the MC202? I had been flying the KI-61KO and like it so far...seems the most 'like' the MC202 for me...might be wrong though.

Flying it is really fun and VERY challenging. With only two 50cals and two 303cals it makes for a nice T&B plane. Every shot needs to count and the closer the shot the better.


THX

MichaelMar
07-24-2005, 08:42 AM
I gave up on the Fiat. After flying the plane for months, some good and soom bad, I ditched it.

Now I am getting ready for the add-on which suppose to include some nice Italian planes like the MC202, 205 and possibly the 200 models. An Italian bomber would be nice also. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So, which plane, in game now, is most like the MC202? I had been flying the KI-61KO and like it so far...seems the most 'like' the MC202 for me...might be wrong though.

Flying it is really fun and VERY challenging. With only two 50cals and two 303cals it makes for a nice T&B plane. Every shot needs to count and the closer the shot the better.


THX

mortoma
07-24-2005, 10:06 AM
I'm not sure but I'd guess that flying a 109-F2 or F4 would be pretty close to the MC202/205. Flying the Kawasakis like you are now is closer to flying an Emil than an F2 or F4, as far as speed. So I'd fly a F2 or F4 to be closer to an Italian stallion in speed and handling. As I said, I'm not entirely sure though.

mortoma
07-24-2005, 10:15 AM
Ok, I just did some research and find that the 202
is only a tad slower than the 109F2, and a hair faster than the Emil E7Z. So yes, flying the F2 would give you a good feel for the 202 when it comes. The MC205 will probably perform closer to the 109F4 or maybe even the 109G2, at least that's as good a guess as I can make about the 205!!

3.JG51_BigBear
07-24-2005, 10:31 AM
I'd agree that the 109F2 is the best bet. The Ki-61 has a noticeably better turn rate than the MC 202 and isn't as fast. The F2 is a little too fast but its turn rate is almost the same as that of the 202 and with the 15MM cannon instead of the 20MM in the F4, I'd be willing to bet that weapon effectiveness is about the same.

Skalgrim
07-25-2005, 12:43 AM
So many i know, germans has like Italy plane, esspecially with db engine, was count on par with f4

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I'd agree that the 109F2 is the best bet. The Ki-61 has a noticeably better turn rate than the MC 202 and isn't as fast. The F2 is a little too fast but its turn rate is almost the same as that of the 202 and with the 15MM cannon instead of the 20MM in the F4, I'd be willing to bet that weapon effectiveness is about the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MichaelMar
07-25-2005, 04:39 AM
So would a 109f2 or f4 be better? Also, need to look at the guns. The MC202 had only two 50cals and two 303cals.

THX

JG53Frankyboy
07-25-2005, 04:50 AM
the performance is more F2 - F4 is to good.

as looke and weapons related - its the Ki-61-Ko.

but propably soon, August/september, we will know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

269GA-Veltro
07-25-2005, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
but propably soon, August/september, we will know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said...

Gigi3osei
07-26-2005, 11:57 AM
The 202 Flight capabilities had nothing to do with the Messerschmitts at all,apart from the DB601 engine,they were a completely different kind of plane,the turn rate of the Macchi was way better than the Fs,the Veltro was much more a handler than Fseries Me,only lacked in firepower,read about the Allied reports on captured Macchis,about the 205,well you better
update your infos guys,it was a great fighter
;-) at low medium altitude,on par with Allied top horses,on higher altitudes the Fiat G55 was superior.
None of teh actual planes in Il2 resemble the 202,the Ki61 is like the Mes very different from it.

MichaelMar
07-26-2005, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gigi3osei:
The 202 Flight capabilities had nothing to do with the Messerschmitts at all,apart from the DB601 engine,they were a completely different kind of plane,the turn rate of the Macchi was way better than the Fs,the Veltro was much more a handler than Fseries Me,only lacked in firepower,read about the Allied reports on captured Macchis,about the 205,well you better
update your infos guys,it was a great fighter
;-) at low medium altitude,on par with Allied top horses,on higher altitudes the Fiat G55 was superior.
None of teh actual planes in Il2 resemble the 202,the Ki61 is like the Mes very different from it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So Gigi, would you say the ki-61ko is more 'like' the MC202 then the Mes109f or any other 109 series?

THX

Gigi3osei
07-26-2005, 01:39 PM
In the way of handling ..yes,much closer than the Mes,but slower,Japanese copy of the DB601 was weaker

269GA-Veltro
07-26-2005, 02:09 PM
Macchi is Macchi.........
If we have worked so hard and wait so many years to have another Bf 109...we'll have only lost our time.

The italians are what we need to complete the Axis hangar in this sim.
How were the Macchi? Competitive, pure dogfighters. BF 109 was an interceptor.

Macchi were better than 109? Macchi were worst than 109? No, they were different.
The perfect mission? Gustav as interceptors, and C 205 as dogfighters. They must fly together. Personally i would like have always some Gustav over my C 205...always.

C 205 vs Mark IX.
This will be THE test. This dogfight must be a nightmare for both the pilots. If yes....ok, we'll have THE C 205. If no...we'll have another nice Axis model....

Gigi3osei
07-26-2005, 03:06 PM
As I said the 205 was a real match for most of the allied planes in '44,at low medium altitude,
in fact the ANR used their 205s at mid and the G6/G14 and Karls, and G55s at high.
Back to 202,it was a very good plane,fast sturdy, and very capable at dogfighting,only drawback its firepower,if you look at its wingplan,and then look at the Messerschmitt's one,the difference it's obvious....they could not have behaved in the same way :-) only a fool could think that ;-)

W la Regia......

mortoma
07-26-2005, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gigi3osei:
The 202 Flight capabilities had nothing to do with the Messerschmitts at all,apart from the DB601 engine,they were a completely different kind of plane,the turn rate of the Macchi was way better than the Fs,the Veltro was much more a handler than Fseries Me,only lacked in firepower,read about the Allied reports on captured Macchis,about the 205,well you better
update your infos guys,it was a great fighter
;-) at low medium altitude,on par with Allied top horses,on higher altitudes the Fiat G55 was superior.
None of teh actual planes in Il2 resemble the 202,the Ki61 is like the Mes very different from it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Where are you getting your info at?? My source shows that the Mc-202 had a 20 second turn time at 1000 meters, while the 109F2 shows 19.9!! So the 109 is a hair better handler than the Macchi!! I'd like to know your sources. My source is Oleg himself. Where he got the figures, I don't know but you can bet yer butt that Oleg thoroughly researches everything for the sake of game accuracy. They were slower than mid-war 109s and there is nothing about their airframes and wing loading to suggest they could turn much tighter than a 109, or even as tight.

WTE_Warg
07-27-2005, 04:21 AM
I'd go the early Ki61 as a substitute. My reasons are the similar engine and performance. Armament setup and there are Italian skins out there for it. Also, its suposedly thought that the Allies gave the code name of "Tony" to the Ki61 Hien, because it looked liked the MC.202. Hopefully the problem will resolve itself and we'll see a flyable Folgore some day.

Gigi3osei
07-27-2005, 04:34 AM
@Mortoma
I don't know where Oleg found its figures,and I really don't care,since accuracy in IL2 FMs is far from the real thing,but I know where mine come from...Macchi flight manuals and specifications,also pilots accounts wich are far better than some factory figures ;-)
Than if you prefere to believe that the Me F was a better plane,it's up to you,again I'm not interested in these sillinesses :-)
They were different planes that's it,the guy who asked just wanted to know what resembles more of the 202 in IL2 flyable planes,and that's not for sure the Messerschmitt.

269GA-Veltro
07-27-2005, 05:06 AM
We will see....

BTW, C 202 had to fight against the Spitfires not the 109, and for sure the C 202 didn't turn better than a Spitfire Mark V, but it was very competitive against it as the C 205 was with the Mark IX. Fly fast, and you could put also the Spitfires in a big trouble.

MC 202 had a poor armament...a ridiculous armament, but had a good climb rate and a very strong structure, thank to its high quality manufacturing...too much high for a war.

MC 205 had a very good climb rate and also a strong armament.

They were competitive against all the Allied fighters of that time, no more no less.....

The test wiil be:

Mark V vs C 202
Mark IX vs C 205

These two dogfights must be perfectly equilibrated....they must be a nightmare for both the pilots.

Gatt59
07-27-2005, 06:29 AM
I'd say: the Ki61 as a C.202 and the 109G as a C.205. However, the G-2/G-6 was probably more stable and a better turner at medium-low speed due to the much lower wing load. The C.205 was probably faster up to 6-7.000mt, a better roller, probably a better diver but more, say, "nervous".

Italian WW2 pilots seldom (or never) described their C.202 and C.205 as "turn and burn" fighters. When they had to fight against Hurricanes, Spitfire V and then IX they probably used them as "Hit & Run" fighters (so I was told by a C.202 ace). Their better turn capabilities could not (probably) be exploited during hi-speed, hi-alt engagements against (huge numbers of) USAAF fighters during 1944-45.

Fortunately, online arenas are a different thing. A lone P-51, P-47 or P-38 is in great danger when engaged by a C.205 at low-medium altitude (I'd say up to 5-6.000mt).

Gigi3osei
07-27-2005, 10:05 AM
The main theater for the 202 was North Africa,and the Spits were very few there,mainly
P40s, Hurricanes,and P 39s.
Then In Russia and again no Spits,as long as I know the only clashes between Spits and 202s were over Malta.
205s were another matter,the few that saw action with the Regia in 1943 before the collapse,were only first series and different from the line production,in armament and other things,but with ANR they confronted Both Spits IX,Thunderbolts and Mustangs,and the reports from Allied pilots say that they were a real "match" of course the number was all in favour of the other side;
and this is related to the Gatt59 statement about 202 tactics...if you are outnumbered you HAVE to avoid dogfight ;-) otherwise is a suicide,there are reports of trial dogfights in USA between captured Macchis and various allied planes conducted by American pilots,.....to test capabilities...well you'll be surprised to read them ;-)