Fiat G.55 I centauro

[Wmaker]

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.

While I do think that G.55 shouldn't be any kind of priority and that CR.42, G.50 or C.200 should be added long before it, I think G.55 would see "ok" use in the MA. I also think that the usage of the C.205 is a good indicator on how much it would be used and C.205 had 4398 kills last tour. I'd say that it would see at least 100 times more sorties in the MA than in the SEA in a year. SEA sees use a few hours a week, the MAs are there 24/7 after all. The C.205 had 3839 deaths last tour...so at least that many sorties were flown and I'm sure some managed to RTB too. Sooo....lets be a bit conservative and calculate 3500x12. That's 42000 sorties. So 1/100th of that would be 420 sorties. Tough call.

[Stoney]

While I do think that G.55 shouldn't be any kind of priority and that CR.42, G.50 or C.200 should be added long before it, I think G.55 would see "ok" use in the MA. I also think that the usage of the C.205 is a good indicator on how much it would be used and C.205 had 4398 kills last tour. I'd say that it would see at least 100 times more sorties in the MA than in the SEA in a year. SEA sees use a few hours a week, the MAs are there 24/7 after all. The C.205 had 3839 deaths last tour...so at least that many sorties were flown and I'm sure some managed to RTB too. Sooo....lets be a bit conservative and calculate 3500x12. That's 42000 sorties. So 1/100th of that would be 420 sorties. Tough call.

Math conceded...

[jolly22]

i have to bring this plane back up again....Its just a beast plane. You guys are underestimating how well it will do. I guarantee it will be a great plane!

[Boozeman]

i have to bring this plane back up again....Its just a beast plane. You guys are underestimating how well it will do. I guarantee it will be a great plane!

Well, for a start, how good do you think it will be? Can you give a rough idea? To what plane would it come closest we already have? Just for reference.
I have drawn my picture already, but I'm curious about your estimates... 

[jolly22]

to a 262..........no but more serious I'd say the A6M,Niki (Not counting gun differential) or maybe the yak.

[Boozeman]

to a 262..........no but more serious I'd say the A6M,Niki (Not counting gun differential) or maybe the yak.

Well, A6M and Yak - nope, very different in perfomance and capabillities.

The Niki though...yeah thats more like it. Of course there are some differences in performance and performance envelope, but the feel would be quite similar.
G.55, probably an ENY 10-15 bird in LWA.

[Motherland]

The G.55 would probably be somewhere in performance between the Bf 109G-6 and the G-14. Considering its contemporary (C.205) is slightly worse than the G-6.

While I do think that G.55 shouldn't be any kind of priority and that CR.42, G.50 or C.200 should be added long before it, I think G.55 would see "ok" use in the MA. I also think that the usage of the C.205 is a good indicator on how much it would be used and C.205 had 4398 kills last tour. I'd say that it would see at least 100 times more sorties in the MA than in the SEA in a year. SEA sees use a few hours a week, the MAs are there 24/7 after all. The C.205 had 3839 deaths last tour...so at least that many sorties were flown and I'm sure some managed to RTB too. Sooo....lets be a bit conservative and calculate 3500x12. That's 42000 sorties. So 1/100th of that would be 420 sorties. Tough call.

One of the things you have to consider is that aircraft added later on seem to not be used as much as ones that have been in from the beginning (like the C.205). Those that fly based on performance just don't' seem to adjust well.

[Boozeman]

The G.55 would probably be somewhere in performance between the Bf 109G-6 and the G-14. Considering its contemporary (C.205) is slightly worse than the G-6.

It's not that easy though. If you take the 205 as baseline, the G6 does outperform it somewhat, but the 205 wins big time in terms of firepower, ammo load, and, to a lesser degree, endurance. Of course you can pump up the G6 with gondolas and a DT to outdo the 205 in these areas, but then the performance is compromised compared to the 205. The problem - you cannot have both... but the G.55 can solve this rather well.

Just for a raw refernece:

A 109G6 with gondolas and a DT weighs 8070 lb
A G.55 fully loaded weighs 8197 lb.

Both have the same engine, so P/W is almost the same : 5,47 to 5,55 lb/hp
However, the G.55s wingloading is much lower: 47 to 36 lb/ft²
 
In that configuration, the G.55 would be about 10 mph faster than the G6 and still about as fast as the G6 with the empty DT-rack.
Moreso, the G.55 carries more ammo (650 to 480, 740 to 600) and is very close fuel wise (46 to 52 mins MA endurance)

Power wise, it will do what a pumped up G6 will do, but still has LESS wingloading than a 109F4, instead of more than a 190A5, like the G6 in that case.

Sounds like a mean little fella...   


 

[Motherland]

It's not that easy though. If you take the 205 as baseline, the G6 does outperform it somewhat, but the 205 wins big time in terms of firepower, ammo load, and, to a lesser degree, endurance. Of course you can pump up the G6 with gondolas and a DT to outdo the 205 in these areas, but then the performance is compromised compared to the 205. The problem - you cannot have both... but the G.55 can solve this rather well.

I don't see how the C.205 wins 'big time' in firepower. It has 2 MG151/20, with 250 rpg, true, but they're also wing mounted, and mounted far out on the wing unlike the Fw 190. And 50 RPG is really not all that much, especially considering how far short the C.205 falls of the G-6 in performance (the C.205 and the Bf 109 F-4 have overlapping speed curves up to 19k, and the Bf 109F-4 outclimbs the C.205 from 7k up! That's with a DB601!).

I heavily detest the G-6 - G.55 comparison being made with gondolas and DT... since the firing times are nearly the same, 1 MG151/20 is 'good enough' (the G.55 certainly wins in this area though...) and in the MA the internal load on a G-6 is plenty if you climb out using cruise settings (which I do).

However, the G.55s wingloading is much lower: 47 to 36 lb/ft²

Combat load wing loading according to Wikipedia for the 109G-6 is 40 lb/ft^2 and the G.55 Serie 1 is 34 lb/ft^2 (lighter loads than you used obviously), which, while still leaning to the G.55, is closer. However, interestingly, Wikipedia also lists the power loading for the G-6 and G.55/1 to 330 W/lb and 308 W/lb respectively.
Also, interestingly enough, Wikipedia lists the G.55 as SLOWER than the G-6, both with a DB 605A-1, (albeit the G.55 with the license built copy)- 398 to 387 mph respectively.

The G.55 would undoubtedly be better than the C.205 or Bf 109G-6... to what extent is arguable... but I have to heavily doubt it would be better than even the G-14 (which would be the pumped up G-6 you alluded to). And, being a new introduction, and being nothing special in the LWMA, I really have to doubt that it would see any more usage than the C.205 or the G-6.

[Boozeman]

I don't see how the C.205 wins 'big time' in firepower. It has 2 MG151/20, with 250 rpg, true, but they're also wing mounted, and mounted far out on the wing unlike the Fw 190. And 50 RPG is really not all that much, especially considering how far short the C.205 falls of the G-6 in performance (the C.205 and the Bf 109 F-4 have overlapping speed curves up to 19k, and the Bf 109F-4 outclimbs the C.205 from 7k up! That's with a DB601!).

Wait, don't you think that 2 x Mg151/20 with 500 rounds significantly outgun a single 151/20 with 200 rounds at best? In my book that a 2x increase in firepower and
and 2,5x incrase in ammo load (leaving the 12,7 mm out ouf the equation). In overall terms of perforamance, the F4, G6 and 205 are quite close. Sure the 205 ist the worst of the lot, but the margins are rather small. At least much smaller than the big difference in Firepower. 

I heavily detest the G-6 - G.55 comparison being made with gondolas and DT... since the firing times are nearly the same, 1 MG151/20 is 'good enough' (the G.55 certainly wins in this area though...) and in the MA the internal load on a G-6 is plenty if you climb out using cruise settings (which I do).

I disagree. If you realistically want to compare the planes, you have to account for those differences in the capabillities too. Otherwise you'd have to recalculate G.55 perfomance with just 75% fuel and 1/3 of the ammo...
 

Combat load wing loading according to Wikipedia for the 109G-6 is 40 lb/ft^2 and the G.55 Serie 1 is 34 lb/ft^2 (lighter loads than you used obviously), which, while still leaning to the G.55, is closer. However, interestingly, Wikipedia also lists the power loading for the G-6 and G.55/1 to 330 W/lb and 308 W/lb respectively.
Also, interestingly enough, Wikipedia lists the G.55 as SLOWER than the G-6, both with a DB 605A-1, (albeit the G.55 with the license built copy)- 398 to 387 mph respectively.

I think Wikipedia is refering to a clean G6, my numbers include the gondolas and the DT. For the G.55, I used the max.TO weight, not loaded weight.       

The G.55 would undoubtedly be better than the C.205 or Bf 109G-6... to what extent is arguable... but I have to heavily doubt it would be better than even the G-14 (which would be the pumped up G-6 you alluded to). And, being a new introduction, and being nothing special in the LWMA, I really have to doubt that it would see any more usage than the C.205 or the G-6.

Wait, you admit that it is a better plane than a G6 and C.205 but will not be used as much because it is a new addition? That's a rather strange argument, to be honest. Look at the P-47M that was recently introduced. It is used more than all other P-47s combined! 

As for the G14, well, it depends on what you want. If you want speed and accleration, the G14 is your plane of choice, if you want raw turn perfomance, the G.55 is your pick. And let's not forget, G14 is only for LWA, G.55 would also be eligible for the Mid War Arena. 

Or just look at the Niki. If you take each perfomance number by it's own, it is nothing special. It still has great appeal to the masses though. It must be the combination of all it's aspects. And that is where the G.55 has a lot of potential, not because it has a few über-killer features (it dosen't), but because it is a very well rounded plane overall. 

[Anaxogoras]

I'm sorry.  The N1K is not a well rounded aircraft.  It turns and has 4 cannons.  That is its appeal.

Can you explain why you used a G-6 with a drop tank and gondolas for your comparison?  Only the greenest noobs ever load both on their aircraft.

[Stoney]

I'm just curious...how many kills did the G.55 get during its time in the war?

[Motherland]

Wait, don't you think that 2 x Mg151/20 with 500 rounds significantly outgun a single 151/20 with 200 rounds at best? In my book that a 2x increase in firepower and
and 2,5x incrase in ammo load (leaving the 12,7 mm out ouf the equation).

No.
Especially when the MG151's are terribly mounted and only carry 1.25x the ammunition load of the single installation. I never said that they were equal, but I would not put the difference at 'substantial'. The C.205 has a considerable but not major advantage in firepower over the Bf 109G-6. The G.55 has maybe 2.75 the effective firepower of the G-6 but they still both have close to the same firing time, with the edge again going to the stromboli...

I disagree. If you realistically want to compare the planes, you have to account for those differences in the capabillities too. Otherwise you'd have to recalculate G.55 perfomance with just 75% fuel and 1/3 of the ammo...

They have the same capabilities. The G.55 is just better at some and the G-6 at others.

Wait, you admit that it is a better plane than a G6 and C.205 but will not be used as much because it is a new addition? That's a rather strange argument, to be honest. Look at the P-47M that was recently introduced. It is used more than all other P-47s combined!

I don't see D or N Jugs anymore. But do you see any more P47's as a whole than you used to? The M jug definitely took usage away from the rest of them, but did it take a significant amount of usage away from other planes? The M 'doesn't count' as it's a better version of what we have, while at the same time it's a perfect example because it's one of the better planes in the MA today, and it's still not all that much more common than the P47's used to be. At least from my observation.
Another example would be the B-239. It might be the best low/slow fighter in the game... the only competition it has is the A6M. How often do you see it?
The P39Q is another example. It's a perfectly capable, well rounded MW aircraft. Every time I take it up I marvel at how good it is, compared to how much you see it. It always does great in FSO. Yet how much do you see it in the MA?

Or just look at the Niki. If you take each perfomance number by it's own, it is nothing special. It still has great appeal to the masses though. It must be the combination of all it's aspects. And that is where the G.55 has a lot of potential, not because it has a few über-killer features (it dosen't), but because it is a very well rounded plane overall.

It's not a well rounded plane overall. It has no redeeming aspect, other than it turns OK and has 4 20mm cannon. Any plane that can turn with 4 20mm cannon is popular in this game. I mean, look at the Hurricane MkIIC...

[Krusty]

Motherland: Your claim that wing guns are in some way ineffective is simply false.

Look a the super popular Spitfires, the Ponies, the Ki84s, the Typhs/Temps, the Hurr2Cs, every plane with wing guns in this game.

Simply having the guns out past the prop doesn't negate the fact that the G.55 has 3x the hitting power in any given burst as the 109G-6, but with the same drag levels. The G-6 might match the hitting power (not the firing time, mind you) by taking gondolas, but the drag is so heavy that a plane with gondolas cannot hope to match a plane without. In several FSOs and scenarios this has been self-evident. Gondies mean your 109 falls hopelessly behind the rest of a formation, if the rest are "clean."

And 50 rounds is a big deal. Ask yourself what ammo load you take on that G-6? The 150rd option? Or the 200 rd option? The option we 109 pilots cried, begged, pleaded with HTC for, for a period of YEARS and YEARS.

Just for an additional 50 rounds. It's worth it

[jolly22]

a while ago i THINK i read that you cand mount 2 20mm on the wings.....I'm currently looking for that now.



EDIT: this is wiki, but its something.....

G.55 Serie I:

3 × 20 mm MG 151/20s, one engine-mounted (250 rounds) and two wing-mounted (200 rpg)
4 × 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the upper engine cowling (300 rpg)


Back up comfirms  This is at  
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/fiat%20g.55%20-%20specifications%20g.55/id/5045547
Fiat G.55 - Armament
3x20 mm Mg 151/20 cannon, one engine-mounted and two wing-mounted

4x12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine  <----------------------------------------i'm not sure if this is a secondary load option or with the 3x20mms