Interesting comments on Marchetti handling qualities, but they paint a picture which is surely the same for any reasonably high performance aircraft, particularly one optimised as a trainer for budding fast jet pilots. I speak with some 3000 hours of very happy and safe flying on the type, most of which has been hand flying my own aircraft, an autopilot-less early “A” model with the less forgiving wing, over the last 33 years, and also with hundreds of hours on later models including the 260TP.
The Marchetti is a very docile aircraft if flown with respect for its limitations, just as most aircraft are. The 1g stall arrives with more than sufficient aerodynamic warning; so too does an accelerated stall. Even if you are oblivious to the very adequate warning horn and light as well, the aeroplane recovers immediately and rewards gentle handling with minimum height loss. However if you choose to ignore the flight manual and pull hard on the recovery at low level the secondary stall will bite you, but who would ever handle an aeroplane like that? The figures quoted by n5296s in his (or her) critique do seem high and I wonder whether the aircraft flown was either badly rigged or had the pitot-static valve selected in the emergency position which does give exaggerated ASI readings because of the low pressure regime in the cockpit caused by poor canopy sealing. I hesitate to suggest it was the result of the kind of ham-fisted handling technique that might be ignored by Cessna's relatively benign and customer friendly aerodynamics purposefully provided and at the expense of the kind of performance and handling qualities one expects of bespoke Italian machinery.
If an aeroplane looks right, it should fly right; on both accounts in my view, particularly for non military owners, the Marchetti has virtually no competition.