More Italian Fighters and a Bomber Maybe?

[tedrbr]

Paris just called.  They are trying to figure out to whom on these boards they can surrender to.

[titanic3]

they can surrender to all ppl playing AH lol

Sacre Blu! (not sure if i spelled right)

[skycaptn]

You pplz keep mentioning numbers produced as if its a limiting factor for involvement in this game... do yourself a favor crunch the numbers on how many ostiwinds where produced and involved in combat.

[Krusty]

It doesn't matter what we already have, or WHY we have it (and some are in there not because they're common, but because they needed to be competitive in early AH1 days).

It does matter what we get in the future, and WHY we get it.

You really can't account for the choices made over 5 years ago when AH came out. You CAN account for the new choices made now, and in the future.

[skycaptn]

no YOU cant.. you cant decide jack squat about what is IN or isnt IN this game Krusty.  You have exactally as much power here as a numbers person actually according to HTC's rules of input if i recall us multi year vets have very little input.

All we do here is speculate and at some small level satisfy our unheaded pleads for aircraft we will never see.

On that note we need the B-29

Krusty the WWII expert

[EagleDNY]

IMHO -

The Re.2005 and G.55 are very close in performance to the C.205, so I'm not sure we'd gain much having these added.  They all use the same engine (a DB605 clone) and other than having a bit more armament (an extra 20mm and the ability to carry bombs) I'm not sure there would be much to gain from all the modeling effort.

The SM.79 might be interesting to play with if we had the right variant.  The early war models would be easy meat, but there were some later variants with more powerful engines and a forward firing 20mm cannon.  The SM.79 was supposedly unparalled as a torpedo bomber (think JU88s on steroids).  Again, I'm not sure we'd gain much from all the modeling effort that would be required.

EagleDNY
$.02

[Krusty]

Eagle, the G.55 would have more cannons, more ammo, and have a better performance above 15k (where a lot of the bombers were).

"skycaptn" you're simply not seeing the point. I'm not saying I have any control over their decisions. I'm saying YOU don't understand that the reasons they MAKE decisions can change. The problem lies not on my end for your lack of comprehension.

[EagleDNY]

Krusty, you get 1 more 20mm cannon, and a higher service ceiling in the G.55 vs the C.205 (41K vs 37K), but other than that the difference looks to be pretty small.  The "extra ammo" I expect is from the 3rd 20mm cannon since you get 200 rnds in each of the wing mounted cannons on the C.205

The C.205 is a bit faster (399 vs 391 mph), but that might be the result of the extra weight.  Both rides are using the same engine - a Fiat RA.1050 RC58, which is a clone of the DB605A-1.  The G.55 has the greater wingspan, so I expect you are right about the high altitude performance, but the climb performance I am reading about leaves a bit to be desired (6000m in 7 min, 12 sec / under 3K ft/min which I know I can beat in the 205).  

I'll try it out if is shows up, but there are probably much better rides out there to spend the modeling time on.

[Krusty]

The DB605 engine was quite powerful. I think it'd climb better than 3k fpm. Hell the C205 does over 4k fpm below 5,000 feet alt.

It's a bit heavier, but the weapons are internal so there's not any additional drag (unlike 109 gondolas -- probably one major reason LW pilots loved it). The wing guns would have 250 rpg and the hub I have read also had 250rpg.

50% more firepower and it doesn't run out before the other guns. I'd call that a big improvement against any target

I don't know much about the performance, the climb the weight etc, but I think the big wing and the other subtle differences meant it could turn better than the C2 and it was more stable while turning.

I wonder if it had longer range than the C2?

[EagleDNY]

Slightly longer range for the G.55 - 746 miles on internal fuel vs 646 for the C.205   Re.2005 is like 786 miles on internal fuel.  

I wonder if they had different blower gears or something for the motor for better high-altitude performance.  I also wonder what octane fuel the Italians used and if they had a high-octane fuel for high-altitude.

[Krusty]

Considering the time they were produced I'd say they were using B2 fuel (about 90 octane??). The engine might have been geared for higher alt, yes, as different 109s had different gearings.

If not then it might just have been a bit of streamlining, making the airframe less draggy at higher alt = more speed, maybe.

[Debonair]

no wai:eek: drag changes with altit00ds? no wondar roflcopers only fly low:noid:noid:noid

[Krusty]

I mean it's more streamlined, period. And this means at higher alts it'll be faster (where the air is less dense). It was just a guess.

[EagleDNY]

The G.55 has a larger span and more wing area than the C.205, so I think we'd be seeing differences more along the lines of the difference between the 190D9 and the TA152.  From what I'm reading the G.55 has a slightly higher wing area than the Re.2005 as well.  

Hey, if they show up, I'll try 'em.  I try to fly axis rides a lot just because I think they are harder to master and be successful in - having a few new ones available wouldn't bother me any.

EagleDNY
$.02

[TwinBoom]

once again krusty ur wrong on the d520 it was a remarkable plane
they were defeted simply due to skill and quantity of the luftwaffe

a german late war arena horde if you will

but it was a very important part of ww2 and if it was crap as u put it the germans woulda just scraped them or destroyed them
but they were used as trainers by the germans

secondly they saw much action with other countries and the
french freedom fighters so in closing

add it and the g55 if nothing else but for scenerios and early and mid war
arenas to fill the large gaps in inventory