Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I recently bought the Macchi MC.202 and I was sorry to note that even here, as in IL-2 1946 and CloD-Desert Wings, with it I can't even hint of a turn without stalling and then entering a unrecoverable flat spin. I'm unable to face a dogfight.
I don't know why that's so, neither how much phisically and historically correct; but I find contradictory that the maximum angle of attack that can be reached with this airplane is equal to or greater than that of the '109 (which does not suffer from this problem). Also, the Macchi 200, which has the same wing, does not have this defect in IL-2 1946. As a consequence, I would beg the developers to give a deep inside, once and for all. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're comparing apples and oranges, both sim (GB vs CloD vs 1946) and plane wise (C.200 vs C.202 vs Bf109).

Many of the FMs in the old IL-2 are very basic and not up to modern standards, same goes for the damage models in that game.

 

Historically the C.200 was known for its vicious stall & spin characteristics which was a result of its wing profile. This issue was later partially rectified but never completely fixed, even on the C.202. The Bf109 on the other hand was known for its docile handling due to the use of leading edge slats. The 109 usually stayed very controllable right up to the stall which when it occured could easily be recovered by simply relieving pressure on the control stick.

 

The C.202 was optimized for speed. It was very fast considering that it was running on what was essentially a 1939 vintage engine. While it had a lot more engine power than the C.200 its wing loading increased significantly which certainly didnt help improve the existing handling issues.

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

Historically the C.200 was known for its vicious stall & spin characteristics which was a result of its wing profile.

True.

 

1 hour ago, Karaya said:

This issue was later partially rectified but never completely fixed, even on the C.202.

False.

 

Please read carefully following comment [source: https://www.aereimilitari.org/forum/topic/10831-aermacchi-c200-saetta/?do=findComment&comment=200117]:

"The increase in speed of the new thick-profile monoplane revealed that the sudden stall phenomenon could also occur when maneuvering under load (e.g. in a 3g turn) and the stall was followed by a situation which was then called 'autorotation' , as the aircraft temporarily escapes the pilot's control in a sometimes unpredictable way and which more correctly is called 'G-Stallo' (stall under load factor). The phenomenon has nothing mysterious and can be mitigated or avoided by establishing with suitable experimentation the complex of the flight envelope of the aircraft or those speeds below which the maneuvers (turns, looping, horizontal and vertical reel, flare and so on) must not be performed, under penalty of falling into autorotation. Similarly, the increase in 'g' can lead to similar or even damaging phenomena to the structural integrity of the aircraft. The phenomenon was known, however, if one thinks that already in Spain our pilots of the CR 32 biplanes had seen the Russian I-16s jump into sudden uncontrolled maneuvers when they were so ill-advised as to accept the combat maneuvered at the low speeds of the biplane. Unfortunately the C 200 had a NACA-derived airfoil to which Castoldi had sharpened the leading edge by reducing the nose radius of the airfoil. If the modification had reduced the drag coefficient of the profile with the gain of at least 10 km / h in maximum speed, it had however worsened the behavior in 'autorotation' in relation to the unpredictability of the set-up after the 'G-stall'. Unfortunately, there were two fatal accidents to the 1st wing in March 1940 (Ten. Tinti) and in the following May (Sergeant Major De Bernardinis) caused by autorotation. The issue risked becoming a national affair and during the necessary grounding of the aircraft pending the investigation, there was even talk of canceling the production of the C 200. Yet at the Experimental Center, perhaps too plethoric and bureaucratized, we had all the data and the knowledge not only to warn the problem but also to make it the subject of a timely and exhaustive technical regulation for the use of the operational departments that were starting to receive monoplane fighters and who were used to different (and outdated) piloting techniques. It would have been a simple modification to the detachable leading edge to reduce the inconvenience to acceptable dimensions. As mentioned, the fact was not only dramatized and perhaps exploited for more or less clear reasons. It was talked about for twenty years with interventions by officers (even of the highest degree), journalists, historians and disseminators of aeronautical things often incorrectly technically, demonstrating a widespread ignorance on specific aspects of aerodynamics and flight mechanics. Precisely with regard to this phenomenon, it is necessary to report the commitment of Mantelli, who in April 1937, was one of the first to fly with the Breda Ba. 65 in Spain, already has an experience on monoplane machines to his credit: he therefore carries out an intense cycle of tests on the C. 200 and is a priority problem to be solved, so that autorotation phenomena never occur. However, his concern is not shared by the design engineers who define the phenomenon as a "characteristic" of the monoplane. Our test driver is not convinced, he continues to consider autorotation as a "defect" of the monoplane and to dedicate every free moment in the library of the Experimental Center, where there is illustrative material on the wings designed by Willy Messerschmitt, and by the N.A.C.A. American. The cause lies in fact in the constant profile wings, initially adopted. When in 1939, we also built variable profile wings, aircraft such as the Reggiane Re. 2000 and the Caproni-Vizzola F. 5 were exempt from the monoplane "characteristic". Later, in the year 1940, Mantelli himself was present at the construction of an experimental wing with a variable profile for C. 200, edited by Eng Sergio Stefanutti at S.A.T. Ambrosini di Passignano on Trasimeno. The modification of the first wing is carried out with very simple techniques by adding externally, in particular points, some balsa shims that are fixed by gluing, covered with canvas and painted. The flight tests of the aircraft thus modified give excellent results, so much so that the new profile is adopted for the subsequent series of C. 200 and will be kept for the wing of the same C. 202." (translated with Google Translator)

 

[Source: http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/storia/museostorico/Pagine/MacchiMC200.aspx]

"Built in large numbers throughout World War II, the Macchi MC.200 proved to be a machine with rather poor characteristics and complex piloting, sometimes risky, due to some defects in wing design. These problems were resolved only after the introduction of a new wing, which was also adopted by the subsequent Macchi MC.202 and MC.205 fighters, thanks to which this fighter was able to provide competitive performance and contribute to the conduct of operations in Africa and Russia." (Translated with Reverso)

 

[Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macchi_C.200]

"However, during 1940, the termination of all production of the type was considered in response to aerodynamic performance problems that had caused the loss of multiple aircraft; the type was retained after changes were made to the wing to rectify a tendency to go into an uncontrollable spin that could occur during turns."

 

[Source: https://juhansotahistoriasivut.weebly.com/my-blog/a-nice-little-publication-on-aer-macchi-c200-saetta]

"The publication explains well why it was so difficult for the Italian air force to accept wholehearthly monoplane fighters and the reason behind the tendency to high speed stall of the first C.200s and how this problem was solved in this otherwise supreme manoeuvrable and well behaving little fighter."

 

I would have other references, but I think that's enough. In summary, you have modeled a C.202 with the fatal defect of the first specimens of Macchi 200, definitively solved in 1940 for the same Macchi 200 and for all subsequent series, then including the Macchi 202.

Edited by greybeard_52
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All of that text is wonderful, but it's not an actual flight test report, which is what the developers need and use in order to develop a flight model.

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

All of that text is wonderful, but it's not an actual flight test report, which is what the developers need and use in order to develop a flight model.

Having made flight models on my own in the past, I think it should suffice NACA reports of relevant airfoil, that's to say root: NACA 23018; tip: NACA 23009.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

I find the 202 to handle extremely well, a really good counter to Yaks, that is if you are gentle with it. It will turn with near enough anything.

Thanks, I'll try to follow your suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
21 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Have they fixed the Machine gun ammo belts on macci yet? 

Yes they now fire mix HE and AP and are pretty good for taking out fighters but heavy targets are a lot of effort as expected

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...