Fiat G.55 I centauro

[Anaxogoras]

what really shocked me was the g.56 data. one prototype built over 60 years ago and only flown a few times and i have the data on it. that is just really damn cool to me. if only someone would build the g.56 for one of these games. the g.56 would really be a treat to fly.

It's already been done.  The Ultrapack2 mod for Il-2 has it.

[madrebel]

hmm i was unaware of that i'll have to check it out.

[oakranger]

Here is the best source to know about the G.55


Posted Today, 05:13 PM
The best single source is "Air War Italy 1944-45" by N.Beale, F.D'Amico & G.Valentini [Airlife 1996] and I would recommend this book to anybody wanting to learn more about this theatre/period of the war. It is primarily a day-by-day account of Luftwaffe & ANR operations from June 1944 to May 1945 and includes various Orders of Battle that make the following mention of the G.55:

31st May 1944

    * I° Gr.C equipped with 22 Fiat G.55's of which 7 were serviceable
    * II° Gr.C equipped with 8 G.55's of which 3 were serviceable (not operational)


Early July

    * I° Gr.C equipped with 32 Fiat G.55's & Macchi C.205's of which 10 were serviceable


31st July 1944

    * I° Gr.C based at Vicenza and equipped with 18 Fiat G.55's of which 9 were serviceable


"Camouflage and Markings of the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana 1943-1945" by D.D'Amico & G.Valentini [Classic, 2005] includes two tables which include the status of G.55 aircraft by mid-1944:

    * G.55 coded "3" MM91060 operational
    * G.55 coded "7" MM91064 in repair
    * G.55 coded "9" MM91070 at the factory
    * G.55 coded "11" MM91072 operational
    * G.55 coded "12" MM91073 operational
    * G.55 coded "13" MM91074 operational
    * G.55 coded "6" MM91075 operational
    * G.55 coded "5" MM91097 unknown
    * G.55 coded "?" MM91100 unknown
    * G.55 coded "8" MM91101 unknown
    * G.55 coded "?" MM91102 unknown


...and one week later:

    * G.55 coded "3" MM91060 operational
    * G.55 coded "7" MM91064 operational
    * G.55 coded "11" MM91072 operational
    * G.55 coded "12" MM91073 operational
    * G.55 coded "6" MM91075 operational
    * G.55 coded "5" MM91097 operational
    * G.55 coded "8" MM91101 unknown
    * G.55 coded "2" MM91110 operational
    * G.55 coded "4" MM91111 operational
    * G.55 coded "10" MM91116 operational
    * G.55 coded "13" MM91117 operational

[Boozeman]

 

Well, I hope they don't think its going to create some sort of revolution in the LW MA's either...  I'm all for bringing every aircraft that was used into the game, in their due time.  Given this aircraft had negligible influence on anything, was represented in very low numbers, and has very little documented combat history, I'd say bring it on, after just about every other aircraft I can imagine.  Certainly the C200 and the C42 should be in game months before the G55.

You may laugh, but I'd put up a bet that 90-95% of all sorties in AH are logged in the mains...any takers? 

Of course it won't be a revolution in the LWAs - I bet no plane still missing would anyway, or it will be perked to death (B-29 anyone?). Thing is, it would be a viable LWA plane, and also a great mid-war plane. Negligible influence and low numbers combined with little documented combat history are a zero weight argument when we have Brewsters (numbers), Ta152 and Wirbelwind (all of them) in game - they still are great addtitions.

On the other hand why, make the C.200 and the like a pritorty over a G.55? Just because you can do a few odd scenarios per year, with very limited actaual availabillity?
 

[Stoney]

You may laugh, but I'd put up a bet that 90-95% of all sorties in AH are logged in the mains...any takers? 

Of course it won't be a revolution in the LWAs - I bet no plane still missing would anyway, or it will be perked to death (B-29 anyone?). Thing is, it would be a viable LWA plane, and also a great mid-war plane. Negligible influence and low numbers combined with little documented combat history are a zero weight argument when we have Brewsters (numbers), Ta152 and Wirbelwind (all of them) in game - they still are great addtitions.

On the other hand why, make the C.200 and the like a pritorty over a G.55? Just because you can do a few odd scenarios per year, with very limited actaual availabillity?
 

Because I was suggesting priority based on historical significance, and nothing else.  I'll disagree with the Brewsters--they had a large production run and very well documented combat history in almost every theater of the war.  Ta152 and WW are certainly debatable.  I'd bet that once the shine of a new plane wore off in the LW MA, the G55 would accrue more sorties in the SEA than the MA in a year.

[Boozeman]

Because I was suggesting priority based on historical significance, and nothing else. 

A rather subjective measure. I'd base priority on what would benefit the game most on a daily basis. The G.55 wins hands down against the C.200, G.50 or Cr42.

I'll disagree with the Brewsters--they had a large production run and very well documented combat history in almost every theater of the war.  Ta152 and WW are certainly debatable. 

AFAIK, the Brewsters we have were made exclusively for Finland in quantities of less than 50 aircraft. And they also only served in Finland. The Brewster you are thinking oft is not modeled (yet).

I'd bet that once the shine of a new plane wore off in the LW MA, the G55 would accrue more sorties in the SEA than the MA in a year.

You can't be serious. 

 

[Stoney]

A rather subjective measure. I'd base priority on what would benefit the game most on a daily basis. The G.55 wins hands down against the C.200, G.50 or Cr42.

Just the one I contend should be used--my opinion, nothing else...

AFAIK, the Brewsters we have were made exclusively for Finland in quantities of less than 50 aircraft. And they also only served in Finland. The Brewster you are thinking oft is not modeled (yet).

True enough.  But, how many G55s served in combat units?  About half the Finnish compliment of Brewsters?  How successful was it in combat?

You can't be serious. 

  I am serious, but I could be wrong.  We'll never know until its in-game.

 
[/quote]

[Anaxogoras]

Stoney and I are in agreement.

[jolly22]

WOW!!! I added this post back in July 09!!! How did this get back up here?? ( sarcasm )  haha   <<S>>

But I'm still with the idea.

[jolly22]

" I am serious, but I could be wrong.  We'll never know until its in-game."

Then put it in the game !!

[Motherland]

You can't be serious. 

How often do you see the Bf 109G-6?

 
  Not everyone is focused on Late War GI Joe action uber rides.    epic flying mounts are two games down and on the left.    

You're barking up the wrong tree buddy  
The G.55 would be a) not a popular scenario aircraft and b) not a popular MA aircraft. That's why I'd rather see others

[jolly22]

buts its variety, we need more variety in the game, MOST of the planes are either american or german planes, So we only have 2 italian planes??? something like that. I think we need more variety.

[Enker]

buts its variety, we need more variety in the game, MOST of the planes are either american or german planes, So we only have 2 italian planes??? something like that. I think we need more variety.

What about the 109's that served in the Italian Air Force? Aren't those considered Italian planes due to the fact that they were operated by the Italians? Variety, shmehsshmyetee. Bring on the LaGGs and Ki-43s.

[Stoney]

buts its variety, we need more variety in the game, MOST of the planes are either american or german planes, So we only have 2 italian planes??? something like that. I think we need more variety.

Do you even play this game?

[Boozeman]

True enough.  But, how many G55s served in combat units?  About half the Finnish compliment of Brewsters?  How successful was it in combat?

With 270 produced, I'd say it's a safe guess they had more than 22 in service. Maybe our Italian guys can provide actual numbers. Also, how do you measure success in combat? What's the benchmark?

How often do you see the Bf 109G-6?

Not a good comparison, when you have F4s, G14s and K4s freely available. A better measure is the C.205...it's a rather safe bet to say that the G.55 would surpass C.205 usage by a significant margin.

The G.55 would be a) not a popular scenario aircraft and b) not a popular MA aircraft. That's why I'd rather see others

With "a" you may be correct, but "b" is highly questionable. For a start and the sake of discussion, at what MA usage levels does a plane become popular in your opinion? And what (fighter!)planes do you think would be more popular?

What about the 109's that served in the Italian Air Force? Aren't those considered Italian planes due to the fact that they were operated by the Italians?

Nope.