How'bout the C.202 ? Like it ?

[Guest deleted@50488]

I confess I skipped using it for quite a long time - didn't like the rear visibility restrictions, and there was something strange about it's handling, but, as I gain more experience flying this thing, it is turning into one of my preferred il2 BoS fighters!

 

I have adapted my brain to the control inputs, and spins are now very rare... I can successfully use it against practically all VVS fighters, the Yak-1 sometimes being still the only problem...

 

 

[Uriah]

I fly the Yak-1 exclusively and have a hard time finding why anyone flying a 109g or f would have a hard time fighting a Yak-1. But to the point of your post it seems everybody who wants to dogfight either just takes a 109 or Yak.

All the other fighters might have been good in their time or are good for a particular role or even good if people flew in a real life situation. But that is not the case in a game even though the game might have the fm and dm exactly right.

Some fighters were made for and do well at killing bombers. If my assignment was to do such I would be taking a LaGG not a Yak.

 

And of course it all depends on how good the pilot is. I think most anyone could take me out no matter what plane they chose and what I chose.

[Rjel]

I love flying the 202. But it is so under armed that flying is all I really do with it. It does great aerobatics. I really enjoy just tooling around in it. Maybe we'll get a cannon armed Mc.205 once we go to the Med. I hope.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Rjel

[ShamrockOneFive]

I love flying the 202. But it is so under armed that flying is all I really do with it. It does great aerobatics. I really enjoy just tooling around in it. Maybe we'll get a cannon armed Mc.205 once we go to the Med. I hope.

 

With the 20mm gunpods attached the MC.202 has some very good firepower. But the handling does decline quite a bit.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I confess I skipped using it for quite a long time - didn't like the rear visibility restrictions, and there was something strange about it's handling, but, as I gain more experience flying this thing, it is turning into one of my preferred il2 BoS fighters!

 

I have adapted my brain to the control inputs, and spins are now very rare... I can successfully use it against practically all VVS fighters, the Yak-1 sometimes being still the only problem...

 

I love it. Leading a flight of 202s in the FNBF, we are yet to be shot down in an aerial engagement. I advised my wingmen to not take any additional guns, only the 2 Bredas...and while they are by no means groundbreaking, we shot down all sorts of planes, from Yak over P40, IL2, Pe2..no problem. We also had no problems fighting Yaks. In a realistic environment, it's an awesome plane, with the most pleasing thing to not have to counter the torque all the time, which makes quite a difference in an 2hour+ campaign. I like it most of all axis fighters second only to the 190 (not only in BoS). I'd never ever take any additional guns though, they make this plane a flying brick

Edited January 2, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Feathered_IV]

I love flying the 202. But it is so under armed that flying is all I really do with it. It does great aerobatics. I really enjoy just tooling around in it.

I've often thought that about Italian aircraft. They seem to be built more for passion than aggression.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Thx for all of your interesting and informative posts guys!

 

Manu, yes, in il-2 the 190 is also a charm to fly. It's limitations at higher speed ranges are also more believable than what I found in my preferred ww2 fighter is another sim I had been using for a while, although it was an inline, latest WW2 series... 

 

The C.202, which was far from being of any interest to me, started by attracting me with the "looks" of the cockpit, then, as I gained some experience vlying it, and not getting into spins that easily, it proved to be a very aggressive fighter against all sorts of opponents, as you pointed out so well.

[Falco_Peregrinus]

I've often thought that about Italian aircraft. They seem to be built more for passion than aggression.

 

That was indeed the case. No wonder we lost the war. But at least we did in in style, at least the few times we were able to amass a sufficient quantity of 202 or 205 in the air  ) (joking, we found out how romantic we had been only after 1942, when we produced those cool Serie "5" fighters)

 

I love the 202, always did, and the casual reader would make no mistake in recognizing its older brother, the 205, even in my profile pic. )

And it seems the one modeled in our beloved game/sim (it depends who you ask for) reflects the real one amazingly well, considering what the real pilots use to say about it, about its characteristics, its agility, structural strength and aerobatic performances.

Even Eric Brown was amazed at how great a plane the C.205 was and even considered it one of the finest aircraft he ever flew.

 

The 202 gives me a feeling of total control of the plane; I feel like I can take on anything in it. If I want to turn with the enemy, I am confident. If I want to zoom climb away or dive fast, I am again very confident. I am not that confident on pure speed races with the red enemy.

 

I find the armament really enough for the theatre we are set to fight in; against 4 engine british or american heavies it would probably result a little scarce, but against yaks and pe-2 the two 12,7 heavy machineguns in front of your nose are,really, more than enough and I agree with Manu here to not select additional weapons.

I'd much prefer to have a really aerobatic, agile and gritty warplane with very bad armament than a heavy and sluggish van but armed to the teeth..

But then, I am italian, so I agree with the Regia Aeronautica's decisions taken back then.   

 

Encomiastic Macchi rants aside, I think that the 202, the P-40E, the I-16 and the Bf.110 all represent my beloved planes in the game. 

Each one of them is very "charismatic" on its own terms, each one of them represents that kind of car that may be not the best or most powerful on the market, but the one you feel yourself as-one with her and would never change, despite this, despite that...

 

 

Edited January 2, 2016 by Ioshic

[LittleJP]

That was indeed the case. No wonder we lost the war. But at least we did in in style, at least the few times we were able to amass a sufficient quantity of 202 or 205 in the air  ) (joking, we found out how romantic we had been only after 1942, when we produced those cool Serie "5" fighters)

 

I love the 202, always did, and the casual reader would make no mistake in recognizing its older brother, the 205, even in my profile pic. )

And it seems the one modeled in our beloved game/sim (it depends who you ask for) reflects the real one amazingly well, considering what the real pilots use to say about it, about its characteristics, its agility, structural strength and aerobatic performances.

Even Eric Brown was amazed at how great a plane the C.205 was and even considered it one of the finest aircraft he ever flew.

 

The 202 gives me a feeling of total control of the plane; I feel like I can take on anything in it. If I want to turn with the enemy, I am confident. If I want to zoom climb away or dive fast, I am again very confident. I am not that confident on pure speed races with the red enemy.

 

I find the armament really enough for the theatre we are set to fight in; against 4 engine british or american heavies it would probably result a little scarce, but against yaks and pe-2 the two 12,7 heavy machineguns in front of your nose are,really, more than enough and I agree with Manu here to not select additional weapons.

I'd much prefer to have a really aerobatic, agile and gritty warplane with very bad armament than a heavy and sluggish van but armed to the teeth..

But then, I am italian, so I agree with the Regia Aeronautica's decisions taken back then.   

 

Encomiastic Macchi rants aside, I think that the 202, the P-40E, the I-16 and the Bf.110 all represent my beloved planes in the game. 

Each one of them is very "charismatic" on its own terms, each one of them represents that kind of car that may be not the best or most powerful on the market, but the one you feel yourself as-one with her and would never change, despite this, despite that...

 

 

Now, all I want is a G.55 and the 205 :D

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Now, all I want is a G.55 and the 205 :D

Italy campaign 1943, those 2 aircraft would fit in perfectly.

[Feathered_IV]

That was indeed the case. No wonder we lost the war. But at least we did it in style,

 

 

Each nationality tends to specialise somewhat.  If I wanted to level a city for example, I'd choose a British aircraft.  If I wanted to wreck a column of vehicles, it'd be a Russian.  But if I wanted to fly low and inverted over a nudist beach...  it would be an Italian aircraft every time. 

[Falco_Peregrinus]

Each nationality tends to specialise somewhat.  If I wanted to level a city for example, I'd choose a British aircraft.  If I wanted to wreck a column of vehicles, it'd be a Russian.  But if I wanted to fly low and inverted over a nudist beach...  it would be an Italian aircraft every time. 

 

 

So true Feathered. It's very interesting that every air force's war machines can be, somewhat, easily recognizable in their different philosophies.

 

Manu, LittleJp, I agree. I would just love to see the Fiat G.55 (even better, the 685-700 km/h Fiat G.56!)  and the C.205 in a future module, but what I would really, really like to fly would be the Reggiane 2005 Sagittario.

Such a beautiful and "mean" machine. Ohhh... dreaming...

 

 

[Feathered_IV]

Speaking of beach-buzzing Italian aircraft. 

 

[Dakpilot]

You just cant help liking all three of the late Italian fighters

 

Macchi C205

 

Reggiane RE. 2005

 

Fiat G55

 

The well known C205 Veltro (Greyhound) was a stop gap design, using many parts including the wing of the C202, produced until the 'Full' new version C205N could be finished, however it's performance was not as good as the FIAT or Reggiane and the C205N was cancelled

 

The Reggiane RE.2005 was considered the most advanced and well liked, but very expensive and time consuming to produce and the G55 with similar performance was chosen to be the mass produced 'next generation fighter

 

Interestingly the RE.2000 although no real relation to the 2005 was based on/inspired by the Seversky P-35 (a civilian version was used by Jimmy Doolittle pre-war in Air Races, later to become famous for The Tokyo raid and changing USAAF fighter escort tactics in Europe)

 

The P-35 changed into the P-43 and later became famous as the well known P-47 thunderbolt, my rambling link/coincidence being the Macchi C202 Folgore 'Thunderbolt' in English  (although sometimes  translated as 'Lightening bolt"  am no expert in  Italian LoL)

 

​Isn't aircraft history fascinating?   

[II./JG77_Manu*]

But if I wanted to fly low and inverted over a nudist beach...  it would be an Italian aircraft every time. 

 

True for every (pre-)war planes. Don't know what happened to their aircraft designers then. Probably the same like to the German rocket scientists. Now you see stuff like that

 

 

wondering where they got their inspiration from...

 

Edited January 7, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[LittleJP]

I'd be incredible happy if the next module was dedicated to the Italian late fighters, in all their forms.

[Xenunjeon88]

I have trouble with the apparent lack of firepower, not to mention feedback on whether I'm actually hitting my target. When machine gun rounds hit a plane, I don't see much actually happening, but when 20mm shells give off that puff of smoke, I know exactly where I should lead.

 

It certainly doesn't have that one pass, one kill capacity that a bf109 or a fw190 would do better.

[Jade_Monkey]

I have trouble with the apparent lack of firepower, not to mention feedback on whether I'm actually hitting my target. When machine gun rounds hit a plane, I don't see much actually happening, but when 20mm shells give off that puff of smoke, I know exactly where I should lead.

 

It certainly doesn't have that one pass, one kill capacity that a bf109 or a fw190 would do better.

I agree. Seems a bit underpowered for my taste.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Keeping mind that the BREDA Safat 12.7mm is the worst heavy machine gun of WWII. It's not surprising that it lacks one pass killing abilities. Pretty much every other HMG of the era had better attributes in some or all areas. Even the Ho103 with the same smaller cartridge (compared to the Browning .50cal or the Berezin UB) had a much higher fire rate.

 

http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html

[LittleJP]

Yeah, you need a golden BB to do anything in one hit with only the 50s.