Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Control_Freq

MC.202 flat spin

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I've done this twice now, usually when attempting a hammerhead maneuver in the MC.202. But I get thrown into a violent flat spin and have no idea how to pull out of it. The typical method of rudder in the reverse direction and pushing nose down doesn't seem to fix the stall. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

 

 

Edited by Control_Freq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Control_Freq said:

I've done this twice now, usually when attempting a hammerhead maneuver in the MC.202. But I get thrown into a violent flat spin and have no idea how to pull out of it. The typical method of rudder in the reverse direction and pushing nose down doesn't seem to fix the stall. Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

 

 

 

Interesting attempt to counter torque induced roll.

https://youtu.be/sO2rAxUX4aE

 

Wikipedia

The C.202 also had its defects: like its predecessor, the C.200, it could enter a dangerous spin.

3 August, during a mock dogfight, Sergente Maggiore Antonio Valle – an experienced pilot, credited with two kills in Marmarica and recipient of a Medaglia di Bronzo al Valor Militare (Bronze Medal of Military Valor) – at a height of 4,000 meters entered in a flat spin and could not recover or bail out, losing his life

 

Daz

 

Edited by dazako

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

interesting video and that's a good point about the difference in wing lengths. In this case I pulled a rather ugly hammerhead on the right (and shorter wing!) side, but I wonder if I pulled the same maneuver on the left side instead if it wouldn't flat spin like this. I'll have to test that out, thanks for the input!

Edited by Control_Freq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had such a spin last time.

Throttle down to 0, push the nose slightly down to the ground. Nothing else.

It took some time but this was helping me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this respect the FM is completely wrong.
Indeed the Macchis had the tendency to drop the right wing and even enter in a spin when pulled too hard, but *not* in that way. Otherways *all* the italian pilots would have died at the first turn...
This "infamy" comes from the bad spin behaviour of the early C200s, that had a nasty tendency to spin because of the constant profile wing.
Despite this, March 1st 1938 engineer Ambrogio Colombo presented the C200 to the military commission and wrote in the report: "tutte le entrate in vite avvennero naturalmente per distacco della vena fluida e i giri furono dovuti ad autorotazione... L’uscita dalla vite avvenne sempre regolarmente in meno di mezzo giro; dopo il terzo giro l’apparecchio aveva tendenza all’uscita, tanto da costringere al contrasto con gli alettoni per mantenervelo, ciò specialmente a sinistra...Nelle viti più lunghe (5 giri) furono persi m 1300 di quota in totale"
I try to translate, forgive my english: "[the plane] entered in all the spins naturally due to flow separation and the turns were caused by autorotation...exiting the spins happened always regularly in less than half a rotation; after the third rotation the plane had the tendency to exit the spin, so much that it was necessary to contrast this by the ailerons, especially in left spin...in the longest spins (5 turns) a total of 1300m of altitude were lost".
So, the C200 actually entered in spins, but also recovered easily.
Unfortunatly 
the weight of the further equiments requested by the Regia Aeronautica altered the CoG position, giving the plane an erratic behaviour and making difficult the spin recovery.
First batch of C200 was forced down after two pilots died because their C200s entered in a spin at low altitude and crashed. The problem was corrected in the following batches by adopting a variable profile for the wing, as suggested to Castoldi by Ing. Stefanutti. The C200 wing was modified through almost all the production and many modifications to the profile were tested. The wing of the C202/C205 followed these experiences and adopted variable profile and other improvements. The C202 *did not* have the tendency to spin like the early C200. When pulled too hard dropped the right wing and may have possibly entered in a spin, but *not* in the way the eraly C200s did. AFAIK, the only victim of an unrecoverable spin of a Macchi 202 was Maggiore Antonio Valle, a pilot of 4° Stormo Caccia who died testing the C202.
It is necessary that TFS corrects this aspect of the 202, that is antihistorical and also makes flying the C202 quite frustrating.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't like complaining about the FMs of the planes and by choice I always preferred "difficult" planes. I think I'm one of the players with the most hours with 202 in MP (I use the nick 5th Hellrider) and getting quite decent results.

I also think that Macchi's FM is partly wrong. In the sense that it is different from what I experienced in other sim. (Il2 46 and Il2 BoS) and above all from what the pilots of the time (both Italian and British) said. The aircraft has always been described as very manageable and with a good handling.

 

The problem of the flat spin affected the first C.200s so much that the plane was considered unsuitable for operational use. A simple solution was enough by gluing layers of balsa plywood in the center and at the ends (I guess for reasons of airfoil). This is for Macchi 200.

The C.202 had a redesigned wing so as not to give problems. So no deadly flat spins. 

As a matter of correctness: some sources still report these flat spin problems (Antonio Duma, military history author).

 

Another speech that I would like to open (although I am one who does not like to complain) is about the handling of the plane. The Macchi in game is too awkward, specially below 300 Km/h. It is no more manageable than 109 on balance, when instead it should be easily equal (at least according to the sources of the time) of the British planes.

In game the manageability is quite good at medium-high speed, but it becomes very bad at lower speeds. it is impossible to follow in turn a Spitfire and even a P40 (*).  Even in scissor, the Macchi does not seem excellent (despite the decent roll) because it has difficulty in "braking" when necessary.

 

*  "Sleek, supremely fast (..) the 202 was capable of out-turning our P-40s with ease; but the majority would pull away effortlessly into a climbing roll off or a roll off the top when things became at all hectic... Their aircraft was superior to ours on all counts." (Sqn. Ldr. Dennis Harry Clark).

 

About C.202 versions: as mentioned in the past I have never heard of a "alta quota" version in any source.
As Karaya said, in game this version has been adapted to highlight the differences between the DB 601 A-1 and DB 601 Aa engine, both used by the Macchi.

To clarify, about 400 planes had the 601s (some sources speak of A-1 others Aa) directly from Germany; other engines were assembled in Italy using German parts; and the latest engines were the RA 1000 R.C. 41 (DB 601 built under license from Alfa Romeo). 

All these aircraft (around 1100/1200) were simply called Macchi C.202, and when they were used in Africa they took the name C.202 AS (due to the anti-sand filter).

Often the Folgore is also called M.C.202.

 

I hope I was helpful.

 

Edited by Jean_Jacques
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jean_Jacques said:

A simple solution was enough by gluing layers of balsa plywood in the center and at the ends (I guess for reasons of airfoil). This is for Macchi 200

This is what Ing. Stefanutti did on the wings of the C200. He glued balsa sheets on the wings to shape a variable profile (I mean, airfoil X at the root and airfoil Y at the tip). This resolved the spin problem and led to the new wing desing of following C200 series and then C202/C205.
The accident reported by Antonio Duma is the only (AFAIK) reported spin accident of a late Macchi.
JG77 pilots, that used for some months the C205 in 1944, reported that she dropped the wing when pulled too hard, but they did not report of uncontrollable spin.
The C202 in DW seems quite off. Below 300 km/h gives the impression that will fall at any moment and tries to kill you at every turn, over 300 km/h feels (to me) sort of "mushy" and slow to respond, but maybe I have to trim the input configuration. Speed and climb seem credible, at least. 

Edited by 4SCT_V-Twin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This  "flat spin" happens to other planes, e.g. Blenheim, and allow He 111 do "hover landing".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After all, CloD physics is one from... "Dr.WHO'leg world"😜
 

 

Edited by Sokol1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 4SCT_V-Twin said:

Below 300 km/h gives the impression that will fall at any moment and tries to kill you at every turn, over 300 km/h feels (to me) sort of "mushy" and slow to respond, but maybe I have to trim the input configuration.

I have the same impression. Below 300kph the plane is always on the edge of the spin.

On the other way engine parameters seems really good looking at original Regia aeronautica's manuale.

 

I'm also doing some search regarding the "Alta quota" term. But I can't find anything. Desert wing is the first place where I hear such variant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sokol1 said:

This  "flat spin" happens to other planes, e.g. Blenheim, and allow He 111 do "hover landing".

 

Nice landing! 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 7:11 AM, 5th_Barone said:

I have the same impression. Below 300kph the plane is always on the edge of the spin.

On the other way engine parameters seems really good looking at original Regia aeronautica's manuale.

 

I'm also doing some search regarding the "Alta quota" term. But I can't find anything. Desert wing is the first place where I hear such variant.

The Alta Quota version is just a standard version with the DB601A engine instead of the DB601Aa on the standard.  So the full throttle height is a little higher, but overall hp is lower.

 

It is better for high altitude combat.  The early versions of the C.202 were built with German supplied engines and sometimes these supplied engines were the DB601Aa version, sometimes the DB601A.

 

Regarding the flat spin of the C.202... this was a known flaw of this aircraft and the C.200.  Once in a spin it was very difficult to recover.  A very experienced Italian Ace was killed when he got into a spin.

 

In the 0.0005 patch we have reduced the difficulty of getting out of a spin slightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buzzsaw said:

Regarding the flat spin of the C.202... this was a known flaw of this aircraft and the C.200

That doesen't mean that C202 had the same behaviour. The C202 wing was a new design compared to the C200 wing and was deisgned *exactly* to overcome the spin problem of the C200. Moreover, from 1940 on the C200s received a modified wing that greatly reduced the spin problem (the "famous" wing that Ing. Stefanutti modified by literally glueing balsa sheets on the C200's wing...). Latter batches of C200 received the new wing designed for the future C202; probably that's why it is said that C200 and C202 had the same wing. It is not completely true, since the wing was the same only from the latter C200s on.
There is only one recorded accident of unrecoverable spin on the C202. Would the C202 have spun like in the sim, all the italian pilots would have died at the very first turn...
When pulled too hard the C202 (and the C205) dropped the wing and could possibly spin, but not in the way modelled in DW. At least I'm not aware of recorded evidence of spin problem, except the mentioned accident .
Still, I'm happy to see the C202 in the sim and I'm grateful to the team for this. Let me say that exactly because of the effort you put in modelling the C202 it's worth to correct this issue.
 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2020 at 3:40 PM, 4SCT_V-Twin said:

That doesen't mean that C202 had the same behaviour. The C202 wing was a new design compared to the C200 wing and was deisgned *exactly* to overcome the spin problem of the C200. Moreover, from 1940 on the C200s received a modified wing that greatly reduced the spin problem (the "famous" wing that Ing. Stefanutti modified by literally glueing balsa sheets on the C200's wing...). Latter batches of C200 received the new wing designed for the future C202; probably that's why it is said that C200 and C202 had the same wing. It is not completely true, since the wing was the same only from the latter C200s on.
There is only one recorded accident of unrecoverable spin on the C202. Would the C202 have spun like in the sim, all the italian pilots would have died at the very first turn...
When pulled too hard the C202 (and the C205) dropped the wing and could possibly spin, but not in the way modelled in DW. At least I'm not aware of recorded evidence of spin problem, except the mentioned accident .
Still, I'm happy to see the C202 in the sim and I'm grateful to the team for this. Let me say that exactly because of the effort you put in modelling the C202 it's worth to correct this issue.
 

From Wiki:

 

The first units selected to be equipped with the C.202 Series I were the 17° and 6° Gruppi, from 1° Stormo, based at the airfield of Campoformido, near Udine, and the 9° Gruppo of 4° Stormo, based in Gorizia.[30] Their pilots started to train on the new fighter in May–June 1941, at Lonate Pozzolo (Varese), the airfield of the Macchi.[32] Although first deployed in mid-1941, the C.202 did not see action until later that autumn; this delay came as a consequence of the many defects that were discovered upon the first fighter deliveries. Some defects appeared similar to those on the early C. 200 version: on 3 August, during a mock dogfight, Sergente Maggiore Antonio Valle – an experienced pilot, credited with two kills in Marmarica and recipient of a Medaglia di Bronzo al Valor Militare (Bronze Medal of Military Valor) – at a height of 4,000 meters entered in a flat spin and could not recover or bail out, losing his life.

 

Both the C.200 and C.202 used very similar wings, including both having the left wing being 8.5 inches longer.... this originally had been a design feature to eliminate torque effects, but has been suspected as one of the causes of the difficulty in getting out of spins... due to the asymmetrical lift.

 

The major change between the C.200 and C.202 was the fuselage... which was much more streamlined on the C.202.  This is a feature of the TOBRUK aircraft, it has excellent speed and energy retention due to the airframe's low drag.... despite having the same engine as the 109E-4B, it is much faster.  However it lacks the slats of the 109's and is quite a bit heavier... which means its stall speed is higher and the stall behaviour also more abrupt.

 

The aircraft is designed to be flown at high speed and when it is, the maneuverability is superior or equal to any aircraft in the game.

 

When flown at low speeds and tight turning contests its weak points become clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

From Wiki:

 

 

 

From Italian Wiki:

Ecco la genesi della nomea di autorotazione, ma arriva dal MC-200...
[...]Le prime impressioni sono giudicate positive ma, per quanto riuscito, nasce con un difetto di autorotazione [...]  Se si chiudeva troppo la virata, il Macchi entrava in una pericolosa autorotazione. Era lo stesso difetto che caratterizzava anche i contemporanei Fiat G.50, IMAM Ro.51, nel 1937, e gli AUSA AUT 18 e Reggiane Re.2000, nel 1939. All'inizio del 1940 due piloti restano uccisi proprio a causa di questo difetto. Consegne e voli vengono sospesi[...] Castoldi iniziò subito a sperimentare un nuovo tipo di ala, ma è l'ingegnere Sergio Stefanutti, a Passignano sul Trasimeno, a trovare la soluzione semplicemente incollando strati di compensato di balsa al centro e alle estremità. Castoldi rinuncia alla nuova ala, che riserverà al Macchi M.C. 202. Ora l'apparecchio ispira fiducia ai piloti, ha un buon comportamento generale nella qualità del volo e in acrobazia, anche se nelle virate molto strette a destra tende ancora a rovesciarsi, ed è praticamente esente da vibrazioni. Così trasformato l'M.C.200 si rivelò presto il nostro migliore caccia dell'epoca: la sua entrata in linea sul fronte greco-albanese lo confermò con numerosi successi sull'Hurricane[...] Ma, per risparmiare peso, i Macchi della produzione iniziale non avevano corazzatura per proteggere il pilota. Le blindature arrivavano spesso a guerra inoltrata, a volte quando le unità stavano per sostituire le "Saette" con i nuovissimi Macchi M.C. 202, e comunque in numero limitato. E dopo che la corazzatura era stata montata, centrare l'aereo poteva essere piuttosto laborioso e finanche pericoloso. Durante manovre acrobatiche, poteva entrare in una vite piatta da cui l'unico modo di uscire era lanciarsi con il paracadute, come avvenne a Leonardo Ferrulli, il 22 luglio 1941, in Sicilia.[...]"

 

English Recap:

"Spin" fame come from Mc200: first impression are really good, but it has a tendency to spin during hard turns, as G.50, Re.2000 ecc. In 1940 two pilots died for this reason, so the furniture was suspended.

Castoldi begin to study a new wing profile, but Ing. Stefanutti solved the problem sticking something (Google says-> balsa plywood) to the old ones and it worked.

So, the new wing will be reserved for Mc.202 (to avoid the same problem).

From now MC.200 reveals to be Italian best fighter, with a lot of victory over hurricanes in Greece. But had no armour, they arrived just later when most of them were substituted by Mc.202. With new armour Mc.200 regain tendency to flat spin during acrobatic manoeuvre.

 

 

 

But this is about MC.200.

Mc. 202 should have solved this problem due to the new wing. And one crash doesn't seems to be enough to justify this weird behaviour compared to others airplane (although with the last patch it's at least playable.)

Plus: Germans engineers propose to add slat also on Italians wings, but the problem was already fixed by balsa plywood/new wing profile, so was considered not necessary. -> to me this sounds as at the end the plane was pretty normal under this aspect...

 

Still, the source it's Wikipedia, so please don't consider it true at 100%.

But if you want to know more about this there are other players more expert than me in the Italian community..

 

(P.s. Desert texture now it's suuuuuuuuuuuper nice! Well done, finally who complained about "flat map's texture" can buy the game... 👍)

 

 

 

Edited by ITAF_Airone1989
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the first attached image the C200 prototype. The wing looks straight and not tapered.

In the color image of a C200 II serie it can be seen how the profile was "edgy" (look at the white triangle). Castoldi tried this to gain some mph, but this worsened the stall behaviour.

 

ANR-Macchi-C.200-Saetta-prototype-01.jpg

a1b2220233f78273f36a14ce0f905ab6.jpg

In the first image the C202. The wings are clearly tapered.

In the second and third image the profile can be seen: it is clearly round.

The wings of C200 and C202 *were* different. Thus different was the behaviour. Period.

gettyimages-612583278-2048x2048.jpg

1389978-large.jpg

IMG_20200913_143721.jpg

As for the accident that cost Sgt.Valle his life, it may be perfectly possible that it was caused by a lost of consciousness due to the centrifugal stresses or the faulty oxygen system -which was well known to be prone to malfunctioning- or both rather than the impossibility to recover from the spin.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A clarification: the C200 in the colour photo had the modified wing (variable profile). No C200s with constant profile wing entered the war.
Yet during the plane prodution the wing profile underwent some modifications (for example the "edge" as picted in the photo).
When the C202s arrived, for a matter of standardization the C200s received the same wing, since it was interchangeable with the old.
To differentiate between the C200 series, the "Ispettorato Superiore Tecnico Militare", i.e. the office that oversaw the production of the military equipments, defined following classification:
C200: first production serie with modified wing, engine A74RC38
C200 A2: serie with wing and carriage of C202, engine A74RC38

C200 B2: serie with only leading edge of C202, engine A74RC38 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually 3 specific modification were requested to Macchi Industries by the DGCA (DIREZIONE GENERALE COSTRUZIONI  ED APPROVVIGIONAMENTI - the technical-procurement Directorate-General of the Italian AIr Ministry) after extended experiences and tests about the tendency in lowering right wing at stall speed, markedly in landing phase, on an already modified C200 (test campaign in November 1939 at aeronautical experimental center in Guidonia near Rome - Plane serial n. MM.4525  - 31th built of C200 1st series).

(E.G. Ref.: internal communication of Superior Directorate of Studies and Tests of the  Air ministry - Prot. N. 3230 of 9 October 1939, ans subsequent other technical internal technical notes ) 
The modifications requested to Macchi were:

1) deleting of the original ailerons-flap mechanical link  

2) light reduction in span of the left asymmetrical wing to reduce the propeller torque compensation effect

3) modification of outer wing section airfoils, more rounded (than the original "pointed" modified NACA 23009_like, to obtain a better aerodynamic wing twist effect and allow for a smoother behavior at stall speed, to assure a more regular stall dynamic and to maintain the ailerons authority at critical AoA).

 

The modifications were then all cross tested for stall & spin behavior and recovery with the models in vertical wind tunnel at Guidonia and then in actual free flights tests conditions.

BTW the spins obtained at critical AoA etc. was never of a "flat" kind but essentially fast descending spins with low rotational speeds (E.G. Ref. Guidonia Center reports about C200 vertical wind gallery spin tests).The resulting recovery maneuver from tests was for a moderate elevator 2deg dive angle with a mid 15deg to full 30deg rudder angle counter spin-wise.  

 

The interventions were finally considered satisfactory and then certified for the implementation in further construction series of the plane. (E.G. Ref. official test of general performance with comment on aerobatics  of a fully retrofitted C200 - Mat MM 4523 on 1st February 1940).

The limitations in aerobatics for the C200 were imposed only in case of full fuel load in rear tank (indicated also in the synthetic pilot's notes booklet) due to the positioning of the CG near the aft limit . That limitation was removed in the C202 and C205 due to the different weights distribution.

The late C200 models implemented then modifications to the wing and the new ailerons design finally adopted also for all the following C202-205 Macchi fighters' wings.

   

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm posting a passage from the book "Frecce, Saette, Folgori e Veltri" by Giulio Cesare Valdonio. It's a publication of the Aeronautica Militare (the Italian air force) so surely a good and accurate source.

 

To sum up:

The autorotation was induced by the very thin profile also called "tagliacarte" (paper knife) and a very odd distribution of the thickness in the wing. The situation was so serious that in spring 1940 all the fleet of Saetta was grounded. 

Already in 1939 at the flight test center in Guidonia the problems was taken in consideration during wind gallery tests but was not until the modification by Ing. Stefanutti (the one with balsa the others have already explained) that the problem was solved. (The paragraph here says: total elimination of the phenomenon).

The solution was applied to 240 MC200 of the first 5 series and from the six series the new wings were already built with the modification.

The new wing with the modification applied and other changes were denoted "ala C.202 or ala A.2" and was standard on MC202 and also to the MC200 built in 1942.

 

So as said by others the autorotation problem was not present in the Folgore since it has a new wing that was expressly built and researched to eliminate the stalls problems.

I post also an interesting wing scheme that shows the wing modifications.

 

Hope this could help. The Folgore is a well developed in engine settings and well modelled in the game.

I hope that with all this material you'll take into consideration to edit the flight characteristics and bring them to the most historical level.

 

p.s. I agree that the skins are really well done. As for the cockpit. A great work.

0001.jpg

0002.jpg

0003.jpg

Edited by 5th_Barone
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2020 at 10:11 PM, Buzzsaw said:

 

 

It is better for high altitude 

Regarding the flat spin of the C.202... this was a known flaw of this aircraft and the C.200.  Once in a spin it was very difficult to recover.  A very experienced Italian Ace was killed when he got into a spin.

 

In the 0.0005 patch we have reduced the difficulty of getting out of a spin slightly.

Well, if we take anecdotal evidence into account there are far more accounts of pilots recovering from a spin in a C200/202/205 than of pilots who didn't survive it. I remember reading the memories of a pilot who at the fighting school was took up by his instructor for 2 flights, both were mounted in C200 and flew mock fights. In the first flight they were carrying no ammo and then in the second they were loaded with ammo. In the first run he could follow the instructor in the wildest maneuvers but once loaded with ammo's weight he entered spins at least three times while trying to keep on his instructor tail or to evade him and had to recover. This was business as usual to them. If Macchis had the spin characteristics sported in DW, no rookie pilot had survived the fighter school, don't you think? 😉

Edited by 4SCT_CR42Falco
Correction of typos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 5th_Barone said:

Hi,

 

I'm posting a passage from the book "Frecce, Saette, Folgori e Veltri" by Giulio Cesare Valdonio. It's a publication of the Aeronautica Militare (the Italian air force) so surely a good and accurate source.

 

 

*EXCELLENT*!
Precious and detailed informations, thanks!
I immediatly ordered the book...😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 4SCT_CR42Falco said:

In the first run he could follow the instructor in the wildest maneuvers but once loaded with ammo's weight he entered spins at least three times while trying to keep on his instructor tail or to evade him and had to recover

Instructor's techincal commet was:" Ciò, mona, ma no ti gà capìo che 'l Machi da guera xe diverso??" 😁

 

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2020 at 6:15 PM, KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82 said:

I had such a spin last time.

Throttle down to 0, push the nose slightly down to the ground. Nothing else.

It took some time but this was helping me.

 

Landing gear down should also help to give some weight to push the nose down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Livai said:

 

Landing gear down should also help to give some weight to push the nose down

Tried already on purpose (but not with the latest patch though) to no avail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just downloaded the last patch and have quickly tried out, feels slightly better: I just quickly tried 3 spins out of a forced thight left climbing turn until the Macchi drops the right wing and enters a right hand almost flat spin: still very very difficult to exit the spin, if at all (out of 3 tries I exited one), but stall comes less abruptly and the mount holds itself afloat until 200kmh minus something before killing you. Sure it is a nice improvement but I frankly think that we are still far from the real thing. TY anyway team, keep up the good work, hope to see refinements in the coming releases.

 

Edited by 4SCT_CR42Falco
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fellas

 

As has been mentioned in your sources, the wing modification was implemented on the C.200 after the initial series.... and was continued on the C.202.

 

There was no difference between the later version of the C.200 wing and the C.202.

 

And the issue of the spins was not solved completely with the new profile.... the aircraft still remained prone to entering a spin at low speeds and the spins required time to exit.

 

This is documented with the many reports.

 

I am not going to suggest I am a better virtual pilot than everyone else, but I am able to recover from a spin every time I try to unless the altitude is very low.

 

---

 

My technique is normal.

 

In this aircraft the Spin is 99% of the time to the right.

 

Technique is as follows:

 

NOSE DOWN, i.e. stick forward and in the direction of the spin... i.e. which will be to the right 99% of the time.  So your stick is pushed to the right and as far forward as possible

 

FULL rudder in opposite direction of the spin... i.e. to the left 99% of the time.

 

-  Throttle IMMEDIATELY to zero

 

Very important to hold the full left rudder until aircraft has straightened out... do not release early.... once the aircraft is pointing straight down, gently release rudder to center position.

 

Very important not to add throttle until aircraft is out of spin and pointing down.

 

Gradually center stick once the nose is pointing down and under control.

 

---

 

I do my testing from 1000 meters and I can recover from a spin 100% of the time using these techniques.

 

My usual loss of altitude is approx. 400-500 meters, but often I can recover in 250 meters.

 

If you take the time to test my suggested technique, (which is a normal one)  I think you will find you are able to make safe recoveries unless you are very close to the ground.

 

---

 

The fact is, this aircraft was known for its difficult tendencies at low speeds in tight turns.... it had a quite advanced airfoil for the time... unlike most of the combat fighters of the time, it did not base the wing on a typical NACA four digit airfoil, it instead based it on one of the later 5 digit series, which provided lower drag, but had more abrupt stall characteristics.

 

The strong points of the airfoil was as mentioned, low drag.... so this gives the C.202, with its small wing and span, plus smooth fuselage lines and drag characteristics, exceptional energy retention.... it maintains speed extremely well when using low G turns and rolls.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Buzzsaw and thank you for your reply.

Indeed with the new patch the problem seems to be lightened.

But just for curiosity may you please post the report you quote when saying that the issue of the spin was not solved completely?

I've gone through all my books about the folgore and I can't find anything.

Thank you in advance

Edited by 5th_Barone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Barone

 

I am not going to post any references here, if I did that, then I would then see people requesting references for every aircraft and on every characteristic and I simply do not have time to do that.

 

Re. the C.200/C.202:

 

The early issue that aircraft were 'non-recoverable' from spins was solved with the introduction of the changes with the 2nd series of the C.200.

 

So in that sense, the aircraft was then capable of normal spin recovery.

 

But that did not change the fact these aircraft still used an aerofoil which had a sharper stall onset than typical types, or the fact these aircraft had an asymetrical lift pattern with the different size left and right wings.

 

As currently modeled, I believe the C.202 has the strong and weak points of the aircraft included.

 

Last comment on this subject.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buzzsaw said:

The early issue that aircraft were 'non-recoverable' from spins was solved with the introduction of the changes with the 2nd series of the C.200.

It was not only the non recovery but the fact also that the aircraft was not prone to the flat spin that was solved.

At least we can agree on something.

 

Thank you for your time

Edited by 5th_Barone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the issue won't be debated anymore so please take this as a bullet point in case you will do a general major overhaul of the game somewhere in the future.

I don't challenge the fact that the Macchi's were prone to stall with a less gentle attitude than contemporary fighters, but in view of the modifications to the airfoil introduced with the time I do challenge the fact that every spin you get in the Macchi is flat spin sort of as it seems to be the case now.

 

Hope you won't mind, and this is my proposal to the contributors to this thread so far, if we take this thread as a repository for documentation and considerations about the flight characteristic of the Macchi series: it could become handy if and when the developer's team decides to overhaul the game in somewhere in the future.

 

Thank you for your time.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I state that in game I have never had excessive flat spin problems. After the first two days with a couple of crashes, figuring out what the limits were, I never found myself in trouble.

 

Having said that, say:
"The early issue that aircraft were 'non-recoverable' from spins was solved with the introduction of the changes with the 2nd series of the C.200. So in that sense, the aircraft was then capable of normal spin recovery"
seems an attempt to scrambling.

 

In the texts they talk about entry in spin, not of recovery. Therefore, importance is given to the entry of the spin, not whether it is recoverable or not.

 

Honestly, this feature in game, as written, does not interest me much. Knowing the plane, you know what are its limits. So for me it can remain as it is, but for historical correctness the tendency to flat spin should be greatly reduced/zeroed.

 

What worries me a lot, in game, is the "laziness" of C.202 below 300 km/h. It is awkward, a real flying turkey. Buzzsaw's explanation reiterates this, so it's a "handling" wanted by the developers. It might be right then. However, it is totally different from the Macchi behavior proposed by the other sims. (il2 46 and il2 Gb) where the plane remains very maneuverable even at medium and low speeds, with also a quite good climbing ability.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 5th_Hellrider said:

What worries me a lot, in game, is the "laziness" of C.202 below 300 km/h. It is awkward, a real flying turkey. Buzzsaw's explanation reiterates this, so it's a "handling" wanted by the developers

Exactly, it's a behaviour wanted by the developers and don't reflect what apparently was the behaviour of the real plane. Obviously none of us knows how *really* flew, but by all accounts I have read -also "enemie's"- no mention was made of easy spin and/or difficult recovery from, nor of laziness at low speed. It is well known that at stall the Macchis dropped the right wing -and I assume the also went into a spin- but I never read of unrecoverable spinning. As I mentioned, the only known death due to flat spin were those occurred at two C200's pilots ant that of C202  of Sergente Maggiore Valle.
Anyway, I'm happy to see the Macchis (and the Fiat) modeled in this game and I'm grateful to the developer. I hope that more Regia Aeronautica planes will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find speed to be the most valuable trait of the C.202. It is one of the fastest fighters up to around 5000m and only outclassed in this regard by +16 lbs Spit Vs and the Bf109F which is testimony of the C.202s clean aerodynamics as it's powered by what is essentially a 1939 engine. I also find it surprisingly agile keeping in mind the wing and power loading isnt all that great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JG4_Karaya said:

I find speed to be the most valuable trait of the C.202. It is one of the fastest fighters up to around 5000m and only outclassed in this regard by +16 lbs Spit Vs and the Bf109F which is testimony of the C.202s clean aerodynamics as it's powered by what is essentially a 1939 engine. I also find it surprisingly agile keeping in mind the wing and power loading isnt all that great.

I agree. Considering the weight and the wing loading datas on the 202.

 

The biggest problem of the plane are the mgs. Totally shit. (And that's historically accurate).

While the enemy just need 1 or 2 passes on you the macchi needs a lot. At least 3-4 attacks.

And when doing so you'll lose tons of energy.

It's simply inefficient.

The best way we found to use it (and we are flying a lot) is good teamwork and pack attacks.

Fast in and out very close to each others.

In that way the enemy will have no time to breath and as a whole you'll lose less energy.

Edited by 5th_Barone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 2:39 PM, 5th_Barone said:

 

The best way we found to use it (and we are flying a lot) is good teamwork and pack attacks.

Fast in and out very close to each others.

In that way the enemy will have no time to breath and as a whole you'll lose less energy.

 

That, or you chew the tail of your opponent with your propeller while firing at him, and I'm not sure what causes more damage :biggrin:

Edited by 4SCT_CR42Falco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 2:39 PM, 5th_Barone said:

The biggest problem of the plane are the mgs. Totally shit. (And that's historically accurate).

 

The ballistics are the biggest problem. Muzzle velocity of the Breda 12.7mm is not nearly as high as that of the US AN/M2 .50Cal so you have to get closer to your opponent before firing and high angle deflection shots are a lot more difficult.

 

That said however I have scored quite a few pilot kills even from dead 6. The armor on most aircraft does not provide enough protection against anything larger than rifle calibre. Engines are also very allergic to the Bredas and can be destroyed with a few good hits. So my advice is to aim for engine and cockpit if possible, anything else is a waste of time and ammo.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to the spin characteristic, I won't challenge how the Bredas are modelled in the game: it is beyond doubt that they were the least powerful 12,7mm MG used in WWII, even less powerful than the Japanese with the exact same bullet and casing size. OTOH our pilots deemed them adequate, or rather "sufficient" to deal with fighters and light to medium bombers to the point that many preferred to take out the 7,7mm from the wings to retain more favourable agility (to be clear, they were well aware of the fact that their armament was inferior to that of the opposing airplanes, but dealing with the very few they had, they still preferred to have a better power to weight and roll ratio deeming the 7,7 nearly useless). It wasn't util they had to deal with 4 engined bombers that they really started screaming for more adequate armament.

The weakness of the round can be somewhat compensated for by carefully composing the ammo belt choosing from the vast variety of rounds available: I still have to understand what the best choice looks like, thuogh.

Edited by 4SCT_CR42Falco
content added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder why the Italian air force did not put effort into developing a domestic 20mm cannon. It wasnt until the Series 5 fighters of 1943 that Italian aircraft were armed with cannons in significant numbers. And even then the cannons were Mauser MG151/20s which had to be imported from Germany.

 

Maybe it would have been wise to acquire a production licence for the MG FF early on so that C.202s and similar could have been armed with a pair of cannons in the wings like the Emil. That would have seriously boosted their firepower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JG4_Karaya said:

 

The ballistics are the biggest problem. Muzzle velocity of the Breda 12.7mm is not nearly as high as that of the US AN/M2 .50Cal so you have to get closer to your opponent before firing and high angle deflection shots are a lot more difficult.

 

That said however I have scored quite a few pilot kills even from dead 6. The armor on most aircraft does not provide enough protection against anything larger than rifle calibre. Engines are also very allergic to the Bredas and can be destroyed with a few good hits. So my advice is to aim for engine and cockpit if possible, anything else is a waste of time and ammo.

I totally agree here with our experience in game with the plane. We found the most effective when aiming for engine and rads (spit and hurri are no problem while the p40 with his forward radiator is more difficult to hit). The AP/HE combination seems to be effective.

The ratio of the mg does not permit good deflection shooting so attacks need to be prepared.

 

13 hours ago, 4SCT_CR42Falco said:

I won't challenge how the Bredas are modelled in the game

I absolutely didn't. That's why I said "And that's historically accurate". I think they are really well represented in-game (but they already were in old clod/blitz).

 

2 hours ago, JG4_Karaya said:

I do wonder why the Italian air force did not put effort into developing a domestic 20mm cannon.

Doctrine. Italian idea of fight was still anchored to a WW1 style of dogfight. Aerobatics, manoeuvrability, tight formations as well as the thought that two 12.7 mg were still enough to counter the enemy.

if you think of that you understand why and how was possible that Italy was a couple of years behind in developing the technology of their fighters (just think about the Falco. Its first flight it's dated 1938!)

On the other side there was blindness on developing tactics due to regime thinking.

Long story short, one big example is the aftermath of the Spain campaign:

The Germans understood that fast monoplane was becoming crucial in air combat. They developed tactics and new formations (e.g. fingertips).

The Russians did the same but they probably lost part of the know-how during the military purges.

The Italians failed to understand the evident changes that were introduced in modern air combat.

There was a really good article on the subject on an military history magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Italians have focused heavily on 12.7 mm caliber. I believe they are the only nation, or one of the few, to have HE mutions of that caliber.
Probably installing the 12.7 SAFATs on wings would have been better than 7.7. But maybe the pilots wanted more a racing plane than a war plane, so: less is more!

 

Shooting in deflection in game is really difficult (because of these MGs), and it had to be in reality as well.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...