Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post tips n' tricks, construction and detailing techniques, airbrushing techniques, decals, references and tools
User avatar
Jonners
Pilota
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:40 am

Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by Jonners » Fri Sep 29, 2023 2:04 am

Hi all, and thanks for letting me in!

I'm a long time fan of RA and AM aircraft, and have lurked here often for info - so I felt I should join and say Ciao!

So, I'm building the Italeri 1/32 kit, and backdating to a Serie III aircraft. My question is this- were updates that were added into later Serie aircraft like the pilot's armour, or wing guns, installed on earlier series aircraft, and if so - did for example a Serie III aircraft being serviced have a set of upgrades applied or was it ad hoc depending on what was wanted and needed?

Inparticular I guess from a modelling point of view - would the wing guns have been retrospectively installed in a serie III machine ? I know they were often removed in later machines as being next to useless, but I'd imagine if they were introduced on serie VII, someone might have thought it a good idea to install them on existing earlier machines too?

I cant seem to find this info in any of the books I have, and I seem to have several.

grazie mille!

Jonners
Jon Tabinor

User avatar
Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by Editor » Fri Sep 29, 2023 5:20 pm

Welcome to Stormo. Serie VII machines were built between April - July 1942, the guns were added after RA pilots began encountering American bombers but it was pretty clear what was needed were canons. Some earlier serie planes could be fitted with the wings guns also. The rifle caliber 7.7mm wing guns were the same Browning guns used in Spitfires and Hurricanes and produced under license in Italy. When captured, 0.303 rounds were used without problems in the SAFATs. I’ve never seen an operational C.202 with wing guns. The 7.7mm guns were standard in the more powerful C.205s Serie I, Reggiane 2000-2001-2002s.

User avatar
MDriskill
Comandante di Gruppo
Comandante di Gruppo
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:35 am
Location: Tennessee

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by MDriskill » Tue Oct 03, 2023 4:02 pm

To back up what the Editor said, most of my sources state that Macchi started building-in the wing gun bays, before the weapons were actually installed. Any aircraft for which that was true, could presumably have had the guns added. And, there are many photos of C.202's with wings swapped from other machines, so an early example might have acquired guns that way.

But when exactly the bays and guns were added has vexed me for years. The earliest I have seen with the guns is the C.202D prototype with nose radiator. This was a Serie III machine (MM 7768), but I suspect this is not typical of such early examples, so why they are present I don't know.

Image


One does see aircraft which have a small plate covering the wing muzzle opening. Whether this represents a machine that left the factory with an empty gun bay, or guns that have been removed in the field, again I don't know.

Image

User avatar
MDriskill
Comandante di Gruppo
Comandante di Gruppo
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:35 am
Location: Tennessee

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by MDriskill » Tue Oct 03, 2023 4:32 pm

Speaking of the new 1/32 scale Italeri kit, no less an expert than Maurizio Di Terlizzi has posted some excellent comments on improving it.

https://www.hyperscale.com/2023/feature ... emdt_1.htm

User avatar
Jonners
Pilota
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:40 am

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by Jonners » Tue Oct 17, 2023 1:30 am

Thanks everyone. I've gone for a wing without guns or access panels (rightly or wrongly) as a Serie III machine. It will probably be one of the 51° Stormo machines at Gela, 378-6 or -9.

Backdating the new Italeri kit has been fun, especially r-building the fully-faired tailwheel and the older-style tailwheel leg.

Cheers & Ciao

Jonners

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Factory Photos Of Four-Gun Folgores - Italian Aircraft Arms Issue Ever Addressed On STORMO?

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Tue Oct 17, 2023 8:16 am

Editor wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2023 5:20 pm
Welcome to Stormo. Serie VII machines were built between April - July 1942, the guns were added after RA pilots began encountering American bombers but it was pretty clear what was needed were canons. Some earlier serie planes could be fitted with the wings guns also. The rifle caliber 7.7mm wing guns were the same Browning guns used in Spitfires and Hurricanes and produced under license in Italy. When captured, 0.303 rounds were used without problems in the SAFATs. I’ve never seen an operational C.202 with wing guns. The 7.7mm guns were standard in the more powerful C.205s Serie I, Reggiane 2000-2001-2002s.
Profile Publications No.28 pages 8 & 9 below includes these well-known though of mediocre print quality presumed factory photos of early & late production Folgores presumably fitted with wing-mounted machine guns they white circled. Over the years I'd read they'd been removed by combat units for whatever reasons possibly whilst undergoing SRAM overhauls as well though one would think SRAM management followed whatever published official directives keeping them in place. The whole subject of suposed feebly-armed WWII Italian aircraft and in particular the C.202 has piqued me no end, has anybody on Stormo addressed it in the past?

Image

Image

User avatar
Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by Editor » Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:09 pm

Pilots didn't ask for heavier guns until US B-17/B.24s appeared - the B-24s were especially hard to shot down. It wasn't that the C.202 couldn't take down a B.24, it could, it was the heavy escorts that were the problem and it usually took two or three passes to take down a B-24, what was needed was armament that could take down a B-24 in a single pass i.e., canons. The Bf.109F-4 which appeared at about the same time as the C.202 was armed with a single 20mm canon in the nose and two MG 17 7.9mm guns in the cowling (like Italian planes), however the F-4 is considered the variant Germans pilots liked the most and is generally considered one of the best combat planes (fighter) in history while the C.202 is considered under armed with two 0.5 caliber MGs, even though it had a similar weight of fire as the Bf.109F. The two MG 17s were as effective as the two Browning guns in the C.202's wings. If Italian pilots thought two .50 caliber mgs were adequate, I'll go with the pilot accounts, until they asked for canons and then they were supplied with canons. Stefano and I talk about this in our review of Nijboer's book C.202 vs Spitfire V, see below:

Book Review: Spitfire V vs C.202 Folgore: Malta 1942

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Thanks For The Historical Clarifications!

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Tue Oct 17, 2023 4:04 pm

Editor wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2023 2:09 pm
Pilots didn't ask for heavier guns until US B-17/B.24s appeared - the B-24s were especially hard to shot down. It wasn't that the C.202 couldn't take down a B.24, it could, it was the heavy escorts that were the problem and it usually took two or three passes to take down a B-24, what was needed was armament that could take down a B-24 in a single pass i.e., canons. The Bf.109F-4 which appeared at about the same time as the C.202 was armed with a single 20mm canon in the nose and two MG 17 7.9mm guns in the cowling (like Italian planes), however the F-4 is considered the variant Germans pilots liked the most and is generally considered one of the best combat planes (fighter) in history while the C.202 is considered under armed with two 0.5 caliber MGs, even though it had a similar weight of fire as the Bf.109F. The two MG 17s were as effective as the two Browning guns in the C.202's wings. If Italian pilots thought two .50 caliber mgs were adequate, I'll go with the pilot accounts, until they asked for canons and then they were supplied with canons. Stefano and I talk about this in our review of Nijboer's book C.202 vs Spitfire V, see below:

Book Review: Spitfire V vs C.202 Folgore: Malta 1942
Yes I'd read accounts of Italian fighter pilots shooting down US & UK "twins & heavies" with 12.7 & 7.7 mm machine gun-armed steeds. Mid-late 1930s vintage Italian fighters ala FIAT C.50 & Macchi C.200 me thinks shot down mid-late 1930s-vintage UK & USA import twin-engine aircraft over the Mediterranean & North Africa without difficulty, late 1930s & early 1940s vintage twins me thinks with some difficulty, Macchi C.202 Folgori & Reggiane 2001 Falco IIs arguably did better shooting down twins but still tough going shooting down heavies armed with just machine guns whilst being harried by escort fighters!

New cannon-armed FIAT G.55s & Reggiane 2005s put into service in 1943 clearly could knock out heavies but came too late into service, cannon-armed Macchi C.205s "pinch-hitting" for them since late 1942 arguably could had been potent "bomber killers" in their own right given purposeful development effort simplifying & lightening the Folgore's airframe IF could had been done to squeeze every grams worth of improved flight performance out of starndard production 1,475 hp Daimler-Benz DB 605As - a wartime plausable "what-if" if ever was one IMHO!

A wholly possible "what-if" incorporated in with the C.202's original 1940 design are four fuselage-mounted 12.7s ala the Daimler-Benz DB 605-powered C.205N-1. If Mario Castoli had purpously designed the Folgore for this number initial combat operational ones powered by 1,175 hp DB 601 Aa's would had been very effective takng down 1930s-vintage UK & USA twins, those powered by later 1,350 max hp DB-605Es taking down any twin well as giving early mark heavies migraines till lightened-frame cannon-armed C.205s were generally available say by mid-1942. Being my personal favorite "what-iffer" over time I'd built several four-gun FROG Folgories they having been up on the Internet on other websites for some years now.

User avatar
Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by Editor » Wed Oct 18, 2023 1:06 pm

Most historians get caught up in the numbers game, for example when a Hurricane is compared to the C.202 they usually bring-up the 8 x 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Brownings versus the 2 x 12.7mm (0.5in caliber) SAFATs. However the eight guns on the Hurricane (and later the Spitfire) weren’t what they seemed, the destructive power or the weight of fire (as represented by the kinetic energy of a round) of a Browning gun was much smaller than the SAFATs. The destructive power of the guns did not scale up proportionally but exponentially as seen in the equation Ek = 1/2mv^2. So for example the weight of the browning round was about 10g with a muzzle velocity of about 760m/s, while the SAFAT round weighted about 42g with a muzzle velocity of 765m/s.

The equations look like this with all guns considered 8 vs 2:

8 x Brownings 0.303ingun:
Ek=1/2(10g)(760m/s)^2=2.89KJ x 8 = 23.12KJ

2 x 12.7mm (0.5in) SAFATs:
Ek =1/2(42g)(765m/s)^2=18KJ x 2 = 24.58KJ

Even if you factor-in variance in the weight of the round, the muzzle velocity or rpm, at best the energy of those 8 Brownings was about the same as the two SAFATs, however the effective trajectory of those rifle caliber mgs was much shorter than the SAFATs which meant that the Hurricanes and later Spitfires had to get in close to make a kill (you see this in combat footage). The British recognized this and added 20mm Hispano-Suiza canons but those canons were not as reliable as the SAFATs (they typically carried two (not 4) + two 0.303in mgs), due mainly to the poor quality ammunition. The SAFATs were good reliable guns and accurate but are often misrepresented by historians who do poor research or just copy and paste what was printed in the past. Italian pilots did not complain about their SAFATs until US heavy bombers appeared and then it was time to move to the MG 151/20mm canons which they did. The C.202 and C.205 all appeared about the same time as their contemporaries, timing was not an issue – as I’ve said many times modern Italian equipment in WWII was generally good (not the old equipment), of course there are exceptions but the main problem Italy faced was a resource (money) issue after two major wars (and you can argue continuous wars from beginning of the century) that drained their finances at the worst possible time. This is why the Italians said to the Germans they would not be ready for a major European conflict until 1943.

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Agree With Y'a All Points...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Wed Oct 18, 2023 1:44 pm

...Liked the Breda-SAFAT, name alone is unforgetable for reason's I won't go into here (chuckles). Me thinks the weapon slower-firing than USA Browning M2 though still had good punch, here's War Thunder Wiki particulars regarding it: Breda-SAFAT (12.7 mm). My favorite Italian "what-if" remains a four-gun engine topside & wing root mounted Macchi C.202 ala the C.205N-1 in service 1940 & available for the first Italian North African campaign. Me thinks this "what-if" wouldn't had been in service before 1942 anyway but if were they'd be handfulls for Allied aircraft of all types even then.

User avatar
Editor
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:53 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by Editor » Fri Oct 20, 2023 9:54 am

Richard, for years Beretta WWII SMGs were considered inadequate, even inferior because of their cyclic rate of fire, today they're considered the best SMGs of WWII - the Germans knew that 80yrs ago. And now they're looking at the Carcano too. A slower rate of fire is better for accuracy. SAFATs were accurate such that pilots aimed for cockpits. The rate of fire on SAFATs was reduced because of synchronization however the trigger times were also low in Allied aircraft. The muzzle velocity of the SAFATs was the same (actually a little faster) as the MG 131 that the Germans began installing in the Bf.109G5/G6 (they were clearly influenced by Italian aircraft) and installed the guns in the same place (cowling) for concentrated fire and straight-line trajectories - it was a better way to use these caliber guns. Outside of the Bf.109E series the Germans never mounted the MG 151/20 in the wings of the Bf.109 except in heavy under-wing R6 gun pods that affected performance, the C.205V (G.55, Re.2005, all contemporaries of the Bf.109G6) had its MG 151/20 in the wings, which plane do you think performed better? And what do the history books say? What advantages did any of these supposed shortcomings in armament or aircraft design give the Allies if their equipment was that much better, the kill/sortie of RA pilots was the same as USAF and the British pilots. As for the weight of the gun the M2 weighted 84 lbs, the MG 131 37 lbs and the SAFAT weighted 28 lbs. No one is arguing Italy won WWII, they did not and could not - WWII was a war of resources that even the Germans could not win. Once the US entered WWII it was pretty much over for the Axis or just a matter of time.

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

Yep!

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Fri Oct 20, 2023 5:36 pm

MORE reasons y'all given why I'd LOVED modeling four-gun FROG Macchi C.202 "what-ifs" (presumably) with Breda-SAFATs years back. Am beg'n y'all allowing me to post just one build photo somewhere here on STORMO, don't wanna get y'all ticked off my doing that recognizing its a serious history website & not a "secret projects" nor fantasy aircraft one my post-war Reggiane 2007 build not withstanding! I also did a 5 cannon, 4 machine gun Artiplast FIAT G-55 one in ANR livery, way to "what-if" well as impratical with the DB 605 even with MW & GM boosts.

User avatar
MDriskill
Comandante di Gruppo
Comandante di Gruppo
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:35 am
Location: Tennessee

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by MDriskill » Tue Oct 31, 2023 11:41 am

Many thanks - a most interesting discussion!

Also thanks to RiK for that shot of MM 7731 with wing guns! I had a vague memory of seeing it before, and unsuccessfully searched for it before making my previous post with photo of MM 7768, LOL...

This brings up interesting questions about when the wing guns were first installed. In his "MC.202 Technical Guide" for Valiant, Maurizio Di Terlizzi notes this began "after May 1942" - see graphic on p.17 of the book. But MM.7731 was an early Macchi-built Serie III aircraft, surely manufactured long before that (per my references, Serie III encompassed MM 7719 through MM 7858, manufactured from June 1941 to April 1942).

Whether the .30 cal guns were installed or not, this would seem to indicate most Serie III machines at least had the bays built into the wings.

User avatar
RetiredInKalifornia
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Generale di Divisone Aerea
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 6:34 pm

What I'd Read In The Past...

Post by RetiredInKalifornia » Tue Oct 31, 2023 2:37 pm

MDriskill wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2023 11:41 am
Many thanks - a most interesting discussion!

Also thanks to RiK for that shot of MM 7731 with wing guns! I had a vague memory of seeing it before, and unsuccessfully searched for it before making my previous post with photo of MM 7768, LOL...

This brings up interesting questions about when the wing guns were first installed. In his "MC.202 Technical Guide" for Valiant, Maurizio Di Terlizzi notes this began "after May 1942" - see graphic on p.17 of the book. But MM.7731 was an early Macchi-built Serie III aircraft, surely manufactured long before that (per my references, Serie III encompassed MM 7719 through MM 7858, manufactured from June 1941 to April 1942).

Whether the .30 cal guns were installed or not, this would seem to indicate most Serie III machines at least had the bays built into the wings.
...Squadron/Signal No.41 Aeronautica Macchi C.202 Roberto Gentilli & Luigi Gorena (1980 ISBN 10: 0897471008 / ISBN 13: 9780897471008 ) text says 7.7 mm wing machine guns were factory installed though removed by operational units. Donald Greer's (1938-2022) cover art of an early production 96 Squadriglia 9 Gruppo 4 Stormo Folgore} with an unpainted wing root panel (also have seen a model build of the airplane on the Internet) is shown below (wing gun white-circled) along with WWII photo of it presumably from which he'd rendered the art:

Image

Image

Greer was noted for including small details on his art renderings, me not at all knowing whether he'd consulted Gentilli and/or Gorena whether this particular airplane had wing guns am wild guessing he'd showed then the art before or at time of publication presumably leaving it up to them to say whether it was historicaly correct or no. It's also possible the wing guns had already been removed but cover plates haven't been bolted over the ports yet, knowing the Public Internet is still relatively young photos of early production operational Folgores with wing guns may show up in the future.

User avatar
lb
Comandante di Squadriglia
Comandante di Squadriglia
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:21 am
Location: Italy

Re: Salve tutti! and of course a Macchi 202 question

Post by lb » Wed Nov 01, 2023 1:51 am

Attached is the Macchi 202 1\48 Hasegawa built by my brother Marco Bossi.
Attachments
c202mb_005.jpg
c202mb_005.jpg (103.64 KiB) Viewed 1642 times
c202mb_005.jpg
c202mb_005.jpg (103.64 KiB) Viewed 1642 times
c202mb_004.jpg
c202mb_004.jpg (51.24 KiB) Viewed 1642 times
c202mb_004.jpg
c202mb_004.jpg (51.24 KiB) Viewed 1642 times
c202mb_001.jpg
c202mb_001.jpg (83.15 KiB) Viewed 1642 times
c202mb_001.jpg
c202mb_001.jpg (83.15 KiB) Viewed 1642 times

Post Reply