@@CFITOMAHAWK they couldn't use italian inline engine designs, which btw were getting pretty good by the early 30s, because the fascist regime were morons and stopped the development of liquid cooled inline engines in favor of building air cooled radials in the early 30s, which they deemed to be overall better also because they were generally less susceptible to combat damage Problem is that at the time italy had very little know-how about radial engines and was mainly copying old licensed engines from other countries, while said countries were already developing much more advanced radial engines which they obviously weren't willing to sell (on top of continuing their development of liquid cooled inlines) So by the end of the 30s the regime realized how stupid their decision was and quickly had companies restart development of liquid cooled inlines, but even though they managed to develop some promising designs, the war (which Mussolini thought Hitler would start later in the 40s) had forced the fascist regime to buy german DB engine license and produce those instead, as by that time those engines had already proven themselves and were being mass produced TLDR italians were more than capable of building good, reliable and powerful engines, but the fascist regime through their own hubris and stupidity simply never gave them the opportunity to do so
Not well suited to mass production is an understatement. If you look at the cutaway, the wing ribs are composed of ten or more pieces each, carefully riveted together. This has to make for much higher manhour costs in manufacturing.
Very informative and an excellently constructed concise presentation on just one of the many incarnations of the Macchi series of warbirds - those of which aren't often particularly well-documented among many WWII air-war historians. Good job! As an avid air-war enthusiast of The Second World War (of many years myself), I still find myself often getting confused from time-to-time over the many little-known details regarding Italian warplanes in general, and your good narrative here helped clear up some misconceptions of this fighter, which by all rights, could've made a difference (among others) in history (at least in the Mediterranean theatre) had the Luftwaffe invested more support into the Italian air arm. It is not that well known that the rigorously inventive Italians did indeed summon up some excellent aircraft designs (even before the war) right up just before their capitulation, but alas, such as with Nazi Germany's fate, their unyielding efforts were, at best, 'proven' to be a mere vain exercise in their ultimate downfall. Thanks for the well-narrated posting (as well as kudos to your well-spoken voice), and keep up with your good work - I think your channel will eventually find its mark amongst others in line with your deserving content.
@@worldofwarbirds maybe a good client would be the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero. I always found this aircraft intriguing. Thanks for your channel (and the podcasts as well 😊).
@@worldofwarbirdsanother interesting italian fighter of the "serie 5" (together with Fiat G55 and the Macchi MC205) was the Reggiane Re2005...it could be interesting a video dedicated to that plane...
Not true, Thunderbolt is the thunder and the lightning _together_ while folgore is just the lighting, as far as I know there is no Italian word to describe both phenomena at the same time
@@codyoxcutter No, you’re wrong, I suggest you look it up in any Italian online dictionary, if you can read Italian that is. I can, I was born here, I’ve lived here my whole life. After 20+ years in the Italian education system I’d like to think I can at least look up a word in dictionary, which I did, before I wrote the original comment and again, before replying to yours. Fulmine, Folgore and Lampo are, essentially, the same
@@johndaltrocanto you might want to check on a more accurate online dictionary then, because if you look it up on Treccani it clearly states: "fùlmine s. m. [dal lat. fulmen -mĭnis]. - 1. a.' Violenta scarica elettrica atmosferica (più esattamente, successione di scariche, ciascuna di brevissima durata), che si produce fra una nube e la superficie terrestre, o fra nube e nube o, più frequentemente, nell’interno di una stessa nube, con manifestazioni visive (lampo) e sonore (tuono) generalmente molto vistose". Furthermore, on Folgore, it says : "fólgore s. f. (ant. m.) [lat. fŭlgur -ŭris, neutro, dal tema di fulgēre «lampeggiare»]. - Sinon. di fulmine, soprattutto usato per indicare le scariche elettriche che colpiscono il suolo con effetti vistosi e terrificanti"
Hello BP. Synchronization mechanisms are commonly misunderstood. Many people thing the gear interrupts the gun whenever firing would damage the propeller. For synchronised aircraft guns it was the engine that fired the guns when the trigger is pulled, not the trigger itself. Needless to say that 'slowing the guns', would have no useful effect on synchronization. Synchronization by it's nature would slow the guns effective rate of fire but not it's cyclic rate of fire.
There’s an excellent model of a synchronization device at the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa. It’s one of those things that makes perfect sense when I look at it working, but later can’t recall the exact details!
Yep. People get confused when they think of the interrupter gear of WW1, which was built to work with standard ground-use machine guns that could not be sychronized.
Love the image. Shows the plane banking to the left and the pilot looking more towards the left as well (as opposed to looking after the Hurricane in the background). Yet the ailerons clearly show bank to the right. Yes, we can suppose all kinds of things, like the pilot in a left bank having given control input to now turn the opposite direction. But as drawn, it's hilariously wrong.
I “harvest “ images wherever I can get them and for the more exotic birds, sometimes I can’t be choosy about accuracy. I try to use editing tricks to hide errors, but alas am not always successful.
Italy had great engineers. But lacked industrial organization and resources. U.S.A. in comparison was a true war machine, everything well organized, analized, produced.
Sad to read some stereotype ignorant comments as it was Italian. When people read about history, you realise that its the Italians who gave the world most of the great engineering works. Even language, ie: English alphabet is 98%LATIN. But sadly, ignorant people will always exist and need ironically the LATIN alphabet to write their comments!
Even Germans loved it and used it till the end of the war. Probably one of the best Axis fighters. If it was a "failure" because Italians didn't have infinite resources like the Americans or the Brittish to mass produce it then Yes, it was a failure.
The C202, C205 and the Fiat G55 were very nice looking aircraft.
Some of the nicest looking prop fighters of all time. The G.55 especially.
Do not forget the Re2005 "Sagittario"
Very nice plane. One of the unsung heroes.
These inverted V engined Italian fighters were some of the best looking fighters of WWII.
Nope, Americans were better. Dont suckkk. Be a man..
And italians were using the German Mercedes engine of the BF109. That is not italian engine crap.
@@CFITOMAHAWK they couldn't use italian inline engine designs, which btw were getting pretty good by the early 30s, because the fascist regime were morons and stopped the development of liquid cooled inline engines in favor of building air cooled radials in the early 30s, which they deemed to be overall better also because they were generally less susceptible to combat damage
Problem is that at the time italy had very little know-how about radial engines and was mainly copying old licensed engines from other countries, while said countries were already developing much more advanced radial engines which they obviously weren't willing to sell (on top of continuing their development of liquid cooled inlines)
So by the end of the 30s the regime realized how stupid their decision was and quickly had companies restart development of liquid cooled inlines, but even though they managed to develop some promising designs, the war (which Mussolini thought Hitler would start later in the 40s) had forced the fascist regime to buy german DB engine license and produce those instead, as by that time those engines had already proven themselves and were being mass produced
TLDR italians were more than capable of building good, reliable and powerful engines, but the fascist regime through their own hubris and stupidity simply never gave them the opportunity to do so
Love that camo paint job!
Last plane shown in video is actually a MC.205 Veltro.
Made a balsa wood model of Macchi 202. Has nice looking layout. Cool info thanks
It really does. It’s a very sleek bird!
Not well suited to mass production is an understatement. If you look at the cutaway, the wing ribs are composed of ten or more pieces each, carefully riveted together. This has to make for much higher manhour costs in manufacturing.
Very informative and an excellently constructed concise presentation on just one of the many incarnations of the Macchi series of warbirds - those of which aren't often particularly well-documented among many WWII air-war historians. Good job!
As an avid air-war enthusiast of The Second World War (of many years myself), I still find myself often getting confused from time-to-time over the many little-known details regarding Italian warplanes in general, and your good narrative here helped clear up some misconceptions of this fighter, which by all rights, could've made a difference (among others) in history (at least in the Mediterranean theatre) had the Luftwaffe invested more support into the Italian air arm.
It is not that well known that the rigorously inventive Italians did indeed summon up some excellent aircraft designs (even before the war) right up just before their capitulation, but alas, such as with Nazi Germany's fate, their unyielding efforts were, at best, 'proven' to be a mere vain exercise in their ultimate downfall.
Thanks for the well-narrated posting (as well as kudos to your well-spoken voice), and keep up with your good work - I think your channel will eventually find its mark amongst others in line with your deserving content.
Thanks so much for your positive review. As long as I continue enjoying making them, I’ll keep sharing them.
Nice. Italian weapons are often neglected.
True! Do you have a request for another?
@@worldofwarbirds maybe a good client would be the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Sparviero. I always found this aircraft intriguing. Thanks for your channel (and the podcasts as well 😊).
@@worldofwarbirdsanother interesting italian fighter of the "serie 5" (together with Fiat G55 and the Macchi MC205) was the Reggiane Re2005...it could be interesting a video dedicated to that plane...
Just a little note "Folgore" it's a synonimous of lightning, and not Thunderbolt. In italian, Thunderbolt Is usually translated as "Tuono".
Good to know! Thanks
Not true, Thunderbolt is the thunder and the lightning _together_ while folgore is just the lighting, as far as I know there is no Italian word to describe both phenomena at the same time
@@johndaltrocanto Folgore, or Fulmine, is both the thunder and the lightning. The word for lighting only is Lampo
@@codyoxcutter No, you’re wrong, I suggest you look it up in any Italian online dictionary, if you can read Italian that is. I can, I was born here, I’ve lived here my whole life. After 20+ years in the Italian education system I’d like to think I can at least look up a word in dictionary, which I did, before I wrote the original comment and again, before replying to yours. Fulmine, Folgore and Lampo are, essentially, the same
@@johndaltrocanto you might want to check on a more accurate online dictionary then, because if you look it up on Treccani it clearly states: "fùlmine s. m. [dal lat. fulmen -mĭnis]. - 1. a.' Violenta scarica elettrica atmosferica (più esattamente, successione di scariche, ciascuna di brevissima durata), che si produce fra una nube e la superficie terrestre, o fra nube e nube o, più frequentemente, nell’interno di una stessa nube, con manifestazioni visive (lampo) e sonore (tuono) generalmente molto vistose". Furthermore, on Folgore, it says : "fólgore s. f. (ant. m.) [lat. fŭlgur -ŭris, neutro, dal tema di fulgēre «lampeggiare»]. - Sinon. di fulmine, soprattutto usato per indicare le scariche elettriche che colpiscono il suolo con effetti vistosi e terrificanti"
Hello BP. Synchronization mechanisms are commonly misunderstood. Many people thing the gear interrupts the gun whenever firing would damage the propeller. For synchronised aircraft guns it was the engine that fired the guns when the trigger is pulled, not the trigger itself. Needless to say that 'slowing the guns', would have no useful effect on synchronization. Synchronization by it's nature would slow the guns effective rate of fire but not it's cyclic rate of fire.
There’s an excellent model of a synchronization device at the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa. It’s one of those things that makes perfect sense when I look at it working, but later can’t recall the exact details!
Yep. People get confused when they think of the interrupter gear of WW1, which was built to work with standard ground-use machine guns that could not be sychronized.
I enjoy the format of Your videos.
Best Wishes.
Glad you like them!
Good stuff 4daalgorithm
The c200 Saetta means Thunderbolt. The c202 Fogore means Lightening
Saetta means crossbow bolt, not thunderbolt. And is not "Fogore", it is "Folgore".
Love the image. Shows the plane banking to the left and the pilot looking more towards the left as well (as opposed to looking after the Hurricane in the background). Yet the ailerons clearly show bank to the right. Yes, we can suppose all kinds of things, like the pilot in a left bank having given control input to now turn the opposite direction. But as drawn, it's hilariously wrong.
I “harvest “ images wherever I can get them and for the more exotic birds, sometimes I can’t be choosy about accuracy. I try to use editing tricks to hide errors, but alas am not always successful.
@@worldofwarbirds That's OK, I wouldn't expect you go in an retouch them by hand. Heck, maybe you can get an AI to do it soon! 😆
Italy had great engineers. But lacked industrial organization and resources. U.S.A. in comparison was a true war machine, everything well organized, analized, produced.
Alfa Romeo engines!
Folgore could outturn a Spitfire? Wing loading Folgore 174.2 kg/m sq, Spitfire Vb 122 kg/ m sq. So, how could that be?
All Malta Spitfires had 20mm cannons.
Sad to read some stereotype ignorant comments as it was Italian. When people read about history, you realise that its the Italians who gave the world most of the great engineering works. Even language, ie: English alphabet is 98%LATIN.
But sadly, ignorant people will always exist and need ironically the LATIN alphabet to write their comments!
I’m sorry, but how the mc202 can out turn the spitfire, especially the mark 5 or 2.
The only thing that could out turn the spit is the zero.
In other words, it was a failure. Thats it.
Even Germans loved it and used it till the end of the war. Probably one of the best Axis fighters.
If it was a "failure" because Italians didn't have infinite resources like the Americans or the Brittish to mass produce it then Yes, it was a failure.
That’s not the impression that I was trying to convey…
@@nostrodelaantares8416 BS. They didnt. Italins love to lie and exagerated Drama.
In other words you don't understand nothing.
@@alessandrom7181 LOL.. That is a Reverse Negative. Which is a.. POsiTive.. LOL>>>