Talk:Macchi C.200 Saetta

message: This page on a modelling website states that the wings were of unequal length in order to counteract torque, although frustratingly it does not say which wing was shorter. This page states that the MC 202 shared this feature. 81.178.94.224 22:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wing length

message: :AFAIK MC.205 shared this wing, too. --Denniss 23:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to dig my books to provide comlete sources, but AFAIK all the MC.20x series shared the same wing. The left wing was aboutabout 18 cm longer than the right (equals to one interspar space). As a matter of fact, Dr. Mario Castoldi's original design was intended to use  an inline engine and the Saetta was modified from it for the use of a radial. Thus, the Saetta is rather to be seen as a kind of offspring from the MC.72-MC.202-MC.205V-MC.205N development line. Various sources also cite that the aircraft from the first series were fitted with a full-enclosed canopy which was changed later to the open-cockpit and "hunchback" design as pilots kept complaining about visibility issues and eventual problems with opening the canopy in the case of a bailout. 80.132.220.194 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent - perhaps you could mention the wing asymmetry in the article, with a source. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I dont know who put the "citation needed" at the beginning of the article, anyway, as there is the quote from the Ethell book, "Aerei della II guerra mondiale" I am going to delet it in the next days. If somebody has different quotes please put it or stay silent. --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Gian, please read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability first before commenting. FYI, I'm the person responsible for tagging the maintenance template and also the one who just removed it after you've provided the necessary reference citations to back up those claims. Ultimately, we are here to build an encyclopedia that is reliable sourced than to be the truth for point-of-view-pushers. Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 07:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was not pushing my point of view, why should I have one about the kill-rate of the Macchi C.200? People that flew it told me it was a very good plane for something, but had its defects of course, like every one in the WWII, noone excluded... I am just quoting someone and Ethell cant be suspected to push Italian FIghter fame up... I dont know if I can explain... but I have always the unpleasant feeling that some people here in en wiki prefer to undervalue Italian machines... AM I wrong? Pleased to be wrong, in that case... regards from Rome.... --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *FYI, I didn't say that you're pushing your view here but had you really been pushing your view, don't you think that it would have been evidently clear in your words to me? Trust me, I'll be the first to know of your point-of-view-pushing if indeed you were doing so but you didn't, right? Relax! As for Italian aircraft in WW2, the only plausible reason why it has always been the butt of joke and focal point of doubt in many military/history articles is because of the lack of proper citations and references, so please don't take a personal offense to that. However, it is possible that you can do justice to any of such articles by providing all the necessary reliable sources to back up the claims. Another thing, if you take a closer look at the German aircraft in WW2, the methodical Teutons are known for their immaculate attention to details, right down to their claims. That is something you can't fault them when their articles are flooded with citations/references. This is something you can see in real life too, think about the differences between a Mercedes-Benz and an Alfa Romeo, it is pretty much straight forward for everyone to see, right? I rest my case, regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: : Thanks for your advice... but I think there is still a mistake.. it is written that the Hurricane was a more modern design, but its design started in 1934, while the "specific" for the new monoplane fighter issued from Regia Aeronautica was of 1936... so probably the Hurricane was LESS modern, that's why  the Macchi that had only 870 hp could outperform the Hawker figheter, not speaking of the P-40 that was an old design of the Thirties...
regards
::Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur as the development of the Hurricane was linked to earlier Hawker designs while the Macchi MC.200 was an entirely original design, although it did have the heritage of the Schneider Trophy behind it. The only more advanced element of the Hurricane design was the use of the powerful water-cooled Merlin engine, that far outstripped the contemporary engines of the period, and allowed for a streamlined front fuselage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, GPM, please stop to underrate P-40s. And Hurricane weren't never 'ouperformed' by C.200, on the contrary, they were outperformed, as the commander of 150° Gruppo understood already in March 1941.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane more modern? 

message: Substituted at 22:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Macchi C.200. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014121943/http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/article.asp?id=tracey to http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/article.asp?id=tracey
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Saetta means arrow (Latin "sagitta")
Using "saetta" to mean "lightning" only occurs metaphorically poetically, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.94.137.142 (talk) 11:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know it wasn't meant metaphorically or poetically? After all, it's an airplane, not a literal arrow. Anyway, I've tagged the translation for a reliable published source. Translations are by their nature imprecise, and often subject to disputes. In the absence of a reliable source specifically stating a name's intended meaning, it's often better not to include a translation at all. BilCat (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saetta means arrow