Jump to content
Geronimo553

Macchi MC202 5 minute combat power

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

So I'm curious to know if there is a solid answer on why the MC202 only has five minutes of combat power when compared to the near identical engine of the E-7 109 that has thirty minutes. It seems like combat power is not represented correctly for how the 202 should perform. Now of course the 202 has the DB601 engine and the E-7 has the DB601A engine. Why is the power difference so drastic to cause a reduction of twenty five minutes worth of combat power between the two models? 




Specs

Machhi MC202
nHc5FV3.png

"One of the best Italian fighters in the middle years of World War II was the Macchi C.202 Folgore (Lightning). At Macchi the C.200 Saetta was already in series production for the Italian Regia Aeronautica and the company recognized the full potential of the fighter when its underpowered Fiat A74 engine could be replaced.
Mano Castoldi developed the new Folgore from the C.200 with its radial engine, which was now equipped with a Daimler-Benz DB 601 engine. The German aircraft engine was built under license by Alfa Romeo as RA 1000 RC411."

"The first production aircraft of the C.202 series 1 were delivered by Breda to the 1° Stormo in Udine in the summer of 1941."


source
https://ww2-weapons.com/macchi-c-202-folgore/




BF 109 E-7
cmwljo2.png

"Bf 109E – The fourth series of the Bf 109, of which more than 4000 units built were built. The E-1 was powered by a Daimler Benz DB 601A-1 of 1075 hp with three propellers, which required movement of the main radiators beneath the wingroots. The E-3 was powered with a Daimler Benz DB 601A of 1100 hp. The E4 had a Daimler Benz DB 601Aa inverted V-12 of 1175 hp, receiving a Daimler Benz BD601N engine later for high especially altitudes. As a result, this series could reach speeds of 560 -570 km/h. The Bf 109E-5 and E-6 were powered by a Daimler Benz 601N of 1200 hp. The E-7 received Daimler Benz DB 601A, DB 601Aa and DB 601N engines. The E-8 had had a Daimler Benz DB 601E of 1350 hp. The armament consisted of four 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns and 4 X 50kg bombs or one 250kg normally on the earlier E variants (E-1 to E-4), the E-2 having the 20mm engine-mounted cannon. The E-4, however lacked the engine gun, armed instead with the two 7.92mm machine guns in the engine cowling and two 20mm guns at the wings. The following Bf 109Es (E-5 to E-9) were normally used as fighter bombers, carrying a 250 kg bomb. The E-5 and E-6 were reconnaissance fighters lacking the 20mm guns and having the cameras behind the cockpit. The E-7 was armed with two 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns on the engine cowling and two 20mm MG FF guns on the wings. The E-8 was armed with 4 X 7.92mm machineguns, while the E-9 had only the two 7.92mm machineguns in the engine cowling, being a reconnaissance fighter. Noteworthy to point out, the E-4 had four important sub-variants: E-4/B with a 250 kg (550 lb) bomb, as it was a fighter bomber; E-4 trop, fitted for tropical service; the E-4/N with the Daimler Benz 601N engine; and the E-4/BN, with the 250 kg (550 lb) bomb and the same engine as of the E-4/N. The E-7 also had as remarkable sub-variants: E-7/Trop, fitted for service in the tropics; E-7/U2, fitted for ground attack and with more armour; and the E-7/Z, with nitrous oxide injection system."


source
https://www.plane-encyclopedia.com/ww2/bf-109/



 


If the performance is indeed represented incorrectly in game. Why has the data/performance not been adjusted since the 202's release in August of 2016. 

Edited by Geronimo553
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

C.202s continuous power setting is actually the Bf-109E-7s 30 minute power settings 

(both 1.23 ata @ 2300 RPM)

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

202's Combat power is similar to E-7's Emergency power too, in both power and time (2400 RPM 1.3 ata vs 2400 RPM 1.35 ata), with 60 more HP for the 202, for 5 min both. 

 

That being said its more about how conservative each manual is than the engines themselves... I dont expect we will be able to run the V-1650-7 in the P-51 for 1 hour at 61" 2850 RPM like we can in the Spit Mk IX with the Merlin 66

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Although good points and I agree with both of you. The question at hand is why is the time limit only five minutes and not, let’s say ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes. This is entirely dealing with the arbitrary magical engine self detination timer the game has for each plane. Apologies if I may have gone off track or did not convey that properly by comparing service year and engine spec.

 

 

(near bed time for me today atm).

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That E-8 would be the best dogfighter in the game... Lighter than E-7 without the cannons and as powerful as the F-4...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.753c90527453f1e5cfc805d086dd293a.pngimage.png.9f00ed5bebb9859331a5e5cd825e3c2e.pngimage.png.9aad9ac85dafdb8a41e6739acc149a15.png

These are 3 Tables taken from 3 different Original Sources - The first is from a Motore Alfa Romeo RA1000 Engine Manual 1942, the second from a Fiat and Daimler Benz RA1000 and DB601 Engine Manual specific for the Mc202 and the last is an extract from the Mc202 Series 9 Maintenance Manual.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

 The German aircraft engine was built under license by Alfa Romeo as RA 1000 RC411."

 

Italian quality control vs German

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some more information - it would appear there were differences between the Italian and German Production Variants:

 

http://www.alieuomini.it/pagine/dettaglio/uomini,5/daimler_benz_db_a_-_alfa_romeo_ra_r_c,154.html - This is a Comparison Document 

 

Also see these notes from another Forum I follow:

 

According to Ali d'Italia n. 2, Aer.Macchi C.202, pag. 4, "the MC.202 was initially equipped with German-built DB.601A-1 engines which, when Alfa Romeo completed its new factory in Pomigliano d'Arco (Naples), were later replaced by the Italian-built version called R.A. 1000RC.41" (it is interesting to note that it appears that German-built engines of M.C. 202 were A-1 and not Aa, but I know other sources tell a different story).

The pilot's notes of M.C. 202 (draft 1941, pag. 129) had a chapter called "Norme per l'impiego dei motori D.B. 601 od R.A. 1000" (i.e. "Instructions for the use of D.B. 601 or R.A. 1000 engines"), the chapter was no longer present in the pilot's notes of M.C. 202 C.A. 670/2 of 1942. Moreover in November 1941 an apparently provisional typescript was published under the title "Norme per l'impiego dei motori D.B. 601 ed R.A. 1000 sui velivoli M.C. 202 ed RE.2001" (i.e. "Instruction for the use of D.B. 601 and R.A.1000 engines on the M.C. 202 and RE.2001 airplane"). This is to prove that both German- and Italian-built engines coexisted, at least in 1941. Incidentally, the typescript explained also that regardless of the engine (D.B. or A.R.) there was only one difference between the rating of the M.C. 202 with Piaggio propeller (whose climbing was allowed at 2,400 rpm and 1,20-1,23 ata for 10') and the RE.2001 with the better Alfa Romeo propeller (whose climbing was allowed at 2,300 rpm and 1,27 ata for 10').

It must be also noted that there were two names for the licence-built DB:

the R.A. 1000 RC.41.I (which means full throttle height at 4,100 m) with a maximum power of 1,175 HP at t.o. (2,500 rpm, 1.45 ata) for 1', 1,100 HP at 3,700 m for 5' and 1,050 HP at 4,100 m for 30', reduction rate 0.643:1 (data from page 11 of "Motore R.A. 1000 R.C. 41.I, Caratteristiche, Uso, Manutenzione", Alfa Romeo, publication n. 4114, July 1941, 1st reprint January 1942); according to the pilot's notes of RE. 2001 (C.A. 627, 1942, page 113) the reduction rate was 0.645:1;

the R.A. 1000 RC.44.I.a (which means full throttle heigh at 4,400 m) with same rating as above but reduction rate of 0.646:1 (data from page 1 of "Motore R.A. 1000 R.C. 44.I.a., Caratteristiche e descrizione", Alfa Romeo, no date [it looks like a draft]); another example of the same draft is dated 1941 and contains a table with the power curves: take off is again 1,175 HP at 2,500 rpm at 1.45 ata; full throttle height is set around 4,100 m and not 4,400.

I therefore suggest that (unless there was a misunderstanding with the German supplier) the R.A. 1000 RC.41.I was a DB.601Aa, whilst the R.A. 1000 RC.44.I.a was a DB.601A-1 (the "a" means "alta quota", i.e. "high altitude")

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, it's been months since anybody has talked about the Macchi, I thought it was forgotten. Then all the sudden everyday there is a new thread about it. Avanti!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice info @Mikoyan74, btw do you have some info in the 5 series fighters engine management? Were the settings the same as the DB 605 in the 109s or were there some differences like in this case (specially about the RPM management)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Nice info @Mikoyan74, btw do you have some info in the 5 series fighters engine management? Were the settings the same as the DB 605 in the 109s or were there some differences like in this case (specially about the RPM management)?

 

Were you talking about the Mc205V?

 

The Mc205 had a Licence Built DB-605:

See Below

 

The Italian DB 605
In 1942 the German Air Ministry granted Fiat the production license for the DB 605 A1 which was renamed Fiat RA 1050 RC 58 "Tifone". However, the official use of this nomenclature is not followed scrupulously according to the customs of the time which attributed little importance to rigorous designations. For example, in the Fiat manuals, published in several editions, the name "Mercedes-Benz DB 605" (Mercedes and not Daimler) always appears, although it is clear that this is the Italian version due to the various national components mentioned (magnet and starter Marelli, Ducati fuel pump, etc.).

The same is true of a post-war Fiat edition in French, for use by G 55 aircraft in Egypt and Syria. Moreover, all these manuals are the pure and simple translation of the German correspondents. Even on the manuals of the G 55 aircraft we only talk about the Fiat DB 605 engi
ne (this time aimed at). The Fiat RA 1050 RC 58 "Tifone", aka DB 605 A1 is to be considered therefore the faithful and scrupulous replica of the German engine, without even those slight modifications that Alfa Romeo had perished of making to its DB 601. The DB 605 Italian is only recognizable from the German for the Fiat brand previously applied (instead of the famous three-pointed star) and for the writing on the side of the base "Fiat Construction".

 

Below is the Data from the Motor D'aviazione DB605AB 1942

 

image.thumb.png.b5a05d3b6dfdef5b68f48f1767c84e07.png
 

 

 

 

 


 

Edited by Mikoyan74

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

The question at hand is why is the time limit only five minutes and not, let’s say ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes. This is entirely dealing with the arbitrary magical engine self detination timer the game has for each plane.

 

So what is your point? What do you propose we do? All those numbers are equally arbitrary based on your comment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this becomes another topic about engine timers and limitations we are going to need a certain someone with a certain GIF very soon.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

So what is your point? What do you propose we do? All those numbers are equally arbitrary based on your comment. 

 

Ideally to remove the arbitrary engine detonation timer from all planes. However that is unlikely thus we are forced to contend with it. Some planes are not balanced properly with use of their timer limitation. The 202 is the most questionable as it only has five minutes allowed and the near identical engine in the E-7 has thirty minutes of time until self detonation. That is a large margin of time difference between both planes for nearly the same engine. Surely the timer can be easily increased to something like ten or twenty minutes to alleviate this inconsistency. 

 

 

So here we are, everyone working together to figure out what may justify the drastic differences in time limitation we currently have for the self detonation timer between two near identical engines. 

(ehh never posting again just out of bed. apologies...) 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Geronimo553 said:

 

Ideally to remove the arbitrary engine detonation timer from all planes. However that is unlikely thus we are forced to contend with it. Some planes are not balanced properly with use of their timer limitation. The 202 is the most questionable as it only has five minutes allowed and the near identical engine in the E-7 has thirty minutes of time until self detonation. That is a large margin of time difference between both planes for nearly the same engine. Surely the timer can be easily increased to something like ten or twenty minutes to alleviate this inconsistency.

 

I agree that a new system is needed, however the 202 is not in a worse situation than the E-7. As RoflSeal and myself pointed out, how the settings are called in the game isn't of much importance, what's important is the available power and the time:

Bf 109 E-7 can run at 1.23 ata 2300 RPM for 30 minutes (Combat Power)
MC.202 can run at 1.23 ata 2200/2400 RPM indefinitely (Continuous)

Bf 109 E-7 can run at 1.30 ata 2400 RPM for 5 minutes (Emergency Power)
MC.202 can run at 1.35 ata 2400 RPM for 5 minutes (Combat Power)

So even if the E-7's "Combat Power" is longer than MC.202... it actually is a less powerful setting, the MC.202 already has that as continuous. And the MC 202's "Combat Power" is the same as the E-7's "Emergency Power", and both last the same time.

 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly didn't read any of the responses. There is nobody more deaf than the one who doesn't want to hear.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Clearly didn't read any of the responses. There is nobody more deaf than the one who doesn't want to hear.

I probably shouldn't pick the scab, but oh well.

Don't even get me started on that when it comes to this certain person...

 

Very much agree what has been said in this post though. I think the engine limitations are awkward depending on what plane you're flying. Although, it's generally not a good idea to suggest something needs to be changed without proposing some sort of new solution. Shows a lack of initiative overall; nobody likes that guy who does nothing but complains.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

I agree that a new system is needed, however the 202 is not in a worse situation than the E-7. As RoflSeal and myself pointed out, how the settings are called in the game isn't of much importance, what's important is the available power and the time:

Bf 109 E-7 can run at 1.23 ata 2300 RPM for 30 minutes (Combat Power)
MC.202 can run at 1.23 ata 2200/2400 RPM indefinitely (Continuous)

Bf 109 E-7 can run at 1.30 ata 2400 RPM for 5 minutes (Emergency Power)
MC.202 can run at 1.35 ata 2400 RPM for 5 minutes (Combat Power)

So even if the E-7's "Combat Power" is longer than MC.202... it actually is a less powerful setting, the MC.202 already has that as continuous. And the MC 202's "Combat Power" is the same as the E-7's "Emergency Power", and both last the same time.

 

 

Yes I agree the E-7's emergency power is equal to that of the 202's combat power. However the 202 does not have a listed emergency power setting so combat is actually the emergency power. Meaning the E-7 and the 202 both have the same emergency power at 2400 RPM for five minutes. (just noticed that)  So does the 202 run for 30 minutes at 2300 rpm like the E-7?


Just ran a test of the 202 at 1.3 ata for 2300 RPM, and indeed it flew for thirty minutes at which point the time exceeded combat power. I have to say, this test appears to show the game has in fact modeled the 202 engine correctly or same as the E-7. So perhaps what have here is an incomplete description of the 202 instead of a timer issue. This finding tells me that the 202 designated RA1000 (DB601) engine has 5 minutes of "emergency" power instead of the listed combat power. The 202's combat power is actually thirty minutes like the E-7. (But with a better ata rating thanks to the Italian prop.) Hmm very interesting result.

 

Comparison results

Bf 109 E-7 can run at 2200 RPM for indefinite

Bf 109 E-7 can run at 2300 RPM for 30 minutes combat

Bf 109 E-7 can run at 2400 RPM for 5 minutes emergency

Bf 109 E-7 can run at 2400 RPM boosted for 1 minute


MC.202 can run at  2200 RPM for indefinite
MC.202 can run at 2300 RPM for 30 minutes combat
MC.202 can run at 2400 RPM for 5 minutes emergency

MC.202 can run at 2500 RPM boosted for 1 minute

 

 

3 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Clearly didn't read any of the responses. 

 

Corrected my post

 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And if you use the boost key (2400 RPM) and keep ata below 1.30 it is considered as continuous, so with 1.29 ata 2400 RPM you can use it unlimited and has slightly less performance than 1.35 ata 2400 RPM, limited to 5 min. Around 10 km/h difference at sea level only.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Italian engine is a licence of the DB 601Aa, which had slightly different (higher) boost ratings than the DB 601A-1: 5 minute rating is 1.35ata vs 1.30 for example. 

 

The 601A-1 is mounted in our Luftwaffe Emil. IIRC it was just a matter of choice from the devs, historically the Luftwaffe's 109E-7s also had the DB 601Aa (or 601N), as well as all /B fighter bomber conversions, but AFAIK some crashed Emils bearing the E-7s manufacturer plate found after the war in Russia had the 601A-1 mounted, so they modelled this instead of the Aa model. So there is that. This could have been an older E models that were upgraded to E-7s (E-7 designation simply means the aircraft have fittings for droptanks, and some other small things like fixable tail) from older E-1s or E-3s. In any case, both are correct and valid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mikoyan74 Thanks for the info! So looks like the MC 205 had the same automated RPM controls as the 109G right? Unlike the MC 202 with the 109 E-7. It also appears it has an automatic radiator, since in that technical sheet there are mentions about thermostat temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

@Mikoyan74 Thanks for the info! So looks like the MC 205 had the same automated RPM controls as the 109G right? Unlike the MC 202 with the 109 E-7. It also appears it has an automatic radiator, since in that technical sheet there are mentions about thermostat temperature.

 

The Mc202 and Mc205 both have Oil and Water Radiator manual controls - located on the left hand side panel, slightly behind the location of the throttle and propeller control,  above the Horizontal Stab Trim Wheel.  The Propeller Control was "Auto" with 3 settings on the Prop Control - A - Auto, M - Manual and S - Boost.

image.png.965ca549a1ec24086b2058a4b662c8e8.png

Edited by Mikoyan74
Additional Info
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As a 202 fan this thread has shown me some info that i feel will make me a better Macchi pilot. Thanks for asking the questions @Geronimo553 😍

Edited by 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1/LG1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

As a 202 fan this thread has shown me some info that i feel will make me a better Macchi pilot. Thanks for asking the questions @Geronimo553 😍

 

Yes same here, I have been flying the 202 for years and loved it. But the combat power always bugged me compared to the E7 as it felt lacking. I’m happy to have learned the plane is actually better than the E7 and quite good for it’s time period and that the true performance is somewhat hidden. The boost tip from @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard is also amazing to learn and for me has really revived my intrigue in the plane. I wonder if there any other tips people have picked up about the 202 that is not commonly known?

 

 

Hopefully this thread will change the minds of those who dislike this plane and give it the positive popularity it deserves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...