Italian Aircraft

[R 105]

 I know this Italian bomber is old and slow but I wish we had the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Tri-Motor. It would be a nice historic plane for special events and if we ever get the Tri-Motor JU.52 the SM.79 may be easy to model. 

[Karnak]

I know this Italian bomber is old and slow but I wish we had the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 Tri-Motor. It would be a nice historic plane for special events and if we ever get the Tri-Motor JU.52 the SM.79 may be easy to model.  

The two are completely unrelated.  It is like saying the Lancaster was easier because we had the B-17 or the P-38 was easier because we had the B-26 and C-47.  The SM.79-II's top speed of 270mph puts it on par with its contemporary medium bombers such as the Ju88 and faster than the He111 or Wellington.  270 is about 100mph faster than the Ju52.

Personally I would like to see the SM.79-II added much sooner than the Ju52 as the SM.79-II is the larger gap.

[R 105]

 Well I don't know squat about computer modeling, that is all on HTC to figure out. I just want the SM.79 because it would be cool.

[Slade]

Also HTC stated before that the only real requirement is that it flew in WWII, and that it saw combat.

Yay.

Please add it!  +1

[trap78]

+1 for the Macchi C.200



and the CR.72

[Ack-Ack]

After being reviewed by the German Luftwaffe they declared it better then the 109g6 in all aspects, why it was never produced by the germans is a wonder.

Production man hours took less to produce a Bf 109 than a G.55 by quite a large margin.

ack-ack

[Butcher]

Production man hours took less to produce a Bf 109 than a G.55 by quite a large margin.

ack-ack

I remember seeing the man hours diagram between the 109 series and Italian Series 4/5 fighters, Between G2-k4 the K I believe if I remember correctly took the least amount of time to build.

[Tracerfi]

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/sm84/sm84-7.jpg Photo of the SM-84

[Ack-Ack]

I remember seeing the man hours diagram between the 109 series and Italian Series 4/5 fighters, Between G2-k4 the K I believe if I remember correctly took the least amount of time to build.

I think it was something like 15,000 man hours to build a G.55 opposed to 5,000 hours for a Bf 109.

ack-ack

[Debrody]

I cant accept it, Akak.
The 109 was produced in large factories, in a production line. The G-55 was built in much lower quantity. You know, it takes less time to assebly a VW Golf than an Alfa...

Mario Bellagambi, italian ace and wing leader stated in 1944 July, about the planes his wing used that time:
"the Macchi (c205) performs well against enemy fighters, the G-55 is a garbage. True though, there are less and less Macchis remaining, while the G-55 is still in production"
In 1944 September, the whole ANR (Italian Air Force) got 109s as fighters.

[morfiend]

I think it was something like 15,000 man hours to build a G.55 opposed to 5,000 hours for a Bf 109.

ack-ack

  Yes I've read similar results,although I think it was closer to twice the hours than 3 times but I could be mistaken.

   It was also stated that disruption to assembly was unacceptable at that time.



   

[Butcher]

I think it was something like 15,000 man hours to build a G.55 opposed to 5,000 hours for a Bf 109.

ack-ack

I can't recall which 109, but I believe the k4 took 5,000 hours, G2 and G6 took far more hours, they too were quicker to build then Re.2005/G.55.

[Plawranc]

I would like the to add a G-55 as a bundle with a rework of the C2's

[bozon]

I think it was something like 15,000 man hours to build a G.55 opposed to 5,000 hours for a Bf 109.

ack-ack

Is it because the G.55 took 15,000 Italian man hours, while the 109 took 5,000 German man hours?

[Scherf]

Is it because the G.55 took 15,000 Italian man hours, while the 109 took 5,000 German man hours?