Author Topic: G.55 Centauro Lobbying Thread (Read 11137 times)

Gianlupo · « **Reply #90 on:** March 24, 2007, 10:15:47 PM »

Good idea!!!

P.s. they have both the Reggiane in TT, but the 2005 was a latter addition.

1K3 · « **Reply #91 on:** March 24, 2007, 10:35:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gianlupo

Ike, it would be nice to have the Re.2005, too, but it was really built in too few number and served in 1 squadriglia only (a staffel, in LW terms... only 12 operational, really too few...), it'll never make it in AH.. but if you want to download Target Tobruk....

You just had to kill it didnt you;)

1K3 · « **Reply #92 on:** March 24, 2007, 10:39:15 PM »

Ahem........

Can someone post charts of G.55???

Climb rate
Speed
comments
comparisons vs other aircraft

???

This thread is meaningless without it!

humble · « **Reply #93 on:** March 24, 2007, 10:40:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ball
LOL

in your exact words...

dont want me to reply to such BS?

dont post it...

because, that is absolute bull ****.

Put them in the context they were written in....

Developing an airframe normally took roughly 2 yrs from conception to the 1st production run. Both german front line fighters were actually prewar designs. For some reason the germans never really supported proper development of alternate platforms. so the 1943 luftwaffe was flying the equivelent of the PzIIIJ which while perfectly adequate was at the end of its design life. Meanwhile the Tiger was already in service as was the PzIV (with the Panther otw). The G55 actually represented a significant gain in both immediate capability and a platform for growth.

It had a cleaner airframe, better wing loading, greater rudder authority and significantly better firepower. Had it been rolled into production it would have appeared in reasonable numbers by late summer of 1943 at the latest. If you review the various white papers on the air war over europe they all tend to view the 6/43-5/44 timeline as the true demise of the luftwaffe. Due in part to the relative ineffectiveness of the 109 in the west.

Obviously this is a "what if" scenario, but to me this is one of the great things about a simulation of this type. The G.55 is an intriguing option that will not only be very competitive (and widely used) but also highlight one of the little known "alternative history" threads. Had the G55 been adopted its very very possible the US would have had to abandon daylight bombing in 1943......

humble · « **Reply #94 on:** March 24, 2007, 10:41:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3
Ahem........

Can someone post charts of G.55???

Climb rate
Speed
comments
comparisons vs other aircraft

???

G.55

One of many.......

Gianlupo · « **Reply #95 on:** March 24, 2007, 11:01:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 1K3

Ahem........

Can someone post charts of G.55???

Climb rate
Speed
comments
comparisons vs other aircraft

???

This thread is meaningless without it!

Ike, please, don't think I'm too harsh, but.... it'd help a lot if you actually read a thread, sometimes.... Data were posted by Krusty in first post and discussed in the following posts, as comparison to other aircraft... and, just above, in this page, I wrote I'm gonna post as much stuff as I can, as soon as I can scan/translate it...

Squire · « **Reply #96 on:** March 24, 2007, 11:52:23 PM »

"Had the G55 been adopted its very very possible the US would have had to abandon daylight bombing in 1943....."

I think your mistaking something for an Me 262, which is the only a/c that could have had the effect you are implying.

The G55 was a fine fighter, 1st class, one of many that both sides flew, lets not get carried away into fanboi-fantasy-camp over it.

...and the Fw190 was the premier bomber killer for the LW in 1943/44, and was even more heavily armed than a G55 was. Calling it a "pre war design" is beyond cherry picking your data. You can hardly compare the Fw190 prototype to what was flying in 1943.

I will leave it at that, since this isnt the thread for it.

1K3 · « **Reply #97 on:** March 25, 2007, 12:01:59 AM »

I meant that i want to see climb/speed charts for G.55.

quintv · « **Reply #98 on:** March 25, 2007, 12:32:42 AM »

If the U.S.N had bought prototype G.55s as planned and had them at Pear Harbor, we probably would have won the war.

Mulligan · « **Reply #99 on:** March 25, 2007, 12:42:15 AM »

Bad bad place!

Mulligan:lol

Krusty · « **Reply #100 on:** March 25, 2007, 12:54:09 AM »

Okay, now, let's not get too far off topic.

Bubbajj · « **Reply #101 on:** March 25, 2007, 01:14:08 AM »

What's "CT"???

Krusty · « **Reply #102 on:** March 25, 2007, 01:21:50 AM »

Combat Tour. That which HTC has been working on for us subscribers, where realistic bombers fly realistic missions with realistic opposition, and a linear mission progression and character development (of sorts).

There's an entire forum devoted to it.

Gianlupo · « **Reply #103 on:** March 25, 2007, 06:38:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by quintv
If the U.S.N had bought prototype G.55s as planned and had them at Pear Harbor, we probably would have won the war.

(What are you laughing at??? It's true!!!

)

1k3, I'm afraid I can't help you with those, I have any... I know that HT has a flight manual of the G.55, don't know if there are charts, there.

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty

Okay, now, let's not get too far off topic.

Good idea!

Ball · « **Reply #104 on:** March 25, 2007, 07:07:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
Put them in the context they were written in....

It doesnt matter what context they were written in. There is nothing you could put about the G.55 to justify it being "the single most important fighter of the entire war".