Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: jolly22 on July 01, 2009, 06:59:22 PM
-
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Fiat%20G.55%20I%20Centauro.htm
274 made and we need a new italian plane.
not bad guns and could be useful
-
I have to agree with this one, even tho it's been stated 1,000 times.
The G.55 would make a great addition to the game.
Jolly this plane will likely make it into Ah2 since, HTC has thought about adding it in the past.
-
Very low priority as it was insignificant in WWII. I'd much rather see the C.200, CR.42 or RE.2000.
-
Very low priority as it was insignificant in WWII. I'd much rather see the C.200, CR.42 or RE.2000.
"I see your wish and raise you mine"
I don't care anymore if any new planes get added I am thankfull HTC see fit to give us new ones when they do. I think the G55 would be cool as we are all but out of the good LW planes. But those listed by Karnak would be cool too. I think the main problem HTC has now about adding new planes is hard data on flight modeling. There is alot of info out there but you need to see whats fact and whats propaganda (or plain BS).
DuHasst
-
Very low priority as it was insignificant in WWII. I'd much rather see the C.200, CR.42 or RE.2000.
Honestly, i do think it would be cool to have the C.200. but It would be just like the P39 and B-25 when they were added. everybody begged for them, when they finaly came out hardley anybody used them. Its extremely rare to see a P-39 or B-25C in the MA. G.55 has firepower and i remember when there was a subscriber vote for the B-25. G.55 was on HTC's list.
-
And the A26 was on that list and the mass of idiots voted in a hanger queen....A26 would see alot of use in the MA. How many SEA events have been designed around the B25 or the P39?
-
How many SEA events have been designed around the B25 or the P39?
There are a LOT of SEA events with the B25C, and most of the Early War Pacific and the Eastern front scenarios have the P39 in them.
-
It's time for the G.55. No question about it.
I think
four MW/EW planes : one LW plane
is a good ratio.
B-25, P-39, I-16, Brewster. It's about time for a late war placater.
If only EW planes could be manufactured for the game at a rate proportionately higher than LW planes, I'd advocate even more EW filler per LW competitor, maybe something like 8 : 1. But at the current rate of plane development, I think the next plane added needs to be Late War. Even though the G.55 was a 1943 bird, let's have it anyway.
-
What's the historical significance of the G55 anyway? I've seen lots of posts in this thread over the years about the G55, and yet most history I've read doesn't really give it any mention. I'm all about adding every plane that saw use in WWII, but I can think of two dozen other aircraft I'd add first, based on historical significance. Some day, I'd say the G55 should be added, but what's the rush? What makes this one so special?
-
What's the historical significance of the G55 anyway? I've seen lots of posts in this thread over the years about the G55, and yet most history I've read doesn't really give it any mention. I'm all about adding every plane that saw use in WWII, but I can think of two dozen other aircraft I'd add first, based on historical significance. Some day, I'd say the G55 should be added, but what's the rush? What makes this one so special?
The reason this plane is not well know is because it was first completed right when Italy surrenderd. But the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana (Italians Air Force Loyal to Mussolini) got there hands on a whole bunch of them and fought alongside the Germans agaisnt the Allies. Fought in some major battles including The Battle of Rome. It was designed as a High Altitude fighter and great for gunning down bombers, I believe it also carried Torpedoes agaisnt enemy vessels.
-
I say yes! :aok Let HTC decide the priority of it's inclusion.
-
The reason this plane is not well know is because it was first completed right when Italy surrenderd. But the Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana (Italians Air Force Loyal to Mussolini) got there hands on a whole bunch of them and fought alongside the Germans agaisnt the Allies. Fought in some major battles including The Battle of Rome. It was designed as a High Altitude fighter and great for gunning down bombers, I believe it also carried Torpedoes agaisnt enemy vessels.
How many kills did it account for? Any history on the total number of sorties flown or other associated stats?
-
Very low priority as it was insignificant in WWII.
What about the Brewster?
-
What about the Brewster?
Brewster's combat history, while insignificant for the Allies, was very significant for the Finns, and is very well documented. It was one of their most important combat aircraft. There are more significant Italian fighters than the G55 not in the game.
-
What about the Brewster?
It made a huge difference in one area of the war.
I'd be fairly surprised if the G.55 got 100 kills. The Finns alone got 477 kills in the Brewster.
In addition AH has a number of dedicated Finnish players who have contributed a lot to the game. After 10 years I have no problem with HTC making an aircraft for the Finnish players as it is one that will be used and did play a large role in their air force.
To be blunt, whenever I see requests for things like the G.55, obscure things that had essentially no role in the war I am pretty sure it is just being asked for because it might be "uber" and the requestee has no real interest in the aircraft or its history.
-
Brewster's combat history, while insignificant for the Allies, was very significant for the Finns, and is very well documented. It was one of their most important combat aircraft. There are more significant Italian fighters than the G55 not in the game.
I'm quite sure if you ask some of our italian friends, they feel the G.55 is very significant for them also. And it was, along with the Re.2005, thier finest plane.
This far, each of the main actors in WW2 got thier native top aircraft modeled, except the Italians. Thats quite a gaping hole. Sure a C.200, G.50 etc. would be nice additions too, but only after the addition of the G.55.
[/quote]It made a huge difference in one area of the war.
I'd be fairly surprised if the G.55 got 100 kills. The Finns alone got 477 kills in the Brewster.
In addition AH has a number of dedicated Finnish players who have contributed a lot to the game. After 10 years I have no problem with HTC making an aircraft for the Finnish players as it is one that will be used and did play a large role in their air force.
To be blunt, whenever I see requests for things like the G.55, obscure things that had essentially no role in the war I am pretty sure it is just being asked for because it might be "uber" and the requestee has no real interest in the aircraft or its history.[/quote]
Sorry, but you seem to expand your criteria now. Neither the number of kills or the enthusiasm of a certain community have a direct connection to the historical significance or lack thereof.
And to be honest, your last paragraph shows that you somehow dislike the G.55. It meets all HTC cirteria for aircraft addition (and historical significane isn't one of them) and thats enough to have it on the same high/low priority list as any other plane that meets the criteria too.
-
I have no like or dislike for the G.55, it just never did anything that mattered and it was never significant anywhere. People asking for it are just asking for a superplane. There are many Italian aircraft that should be added before the G.55.
I can't imagine any Italian honestly thinks the G.55 was significant to them.
-
I'm quite sure if you ask some of our italian friends, they feel the G.55 is very significant for them also.
\
Well, lets see some history that makes it significant. Do they feel its significant merely because it has great performance numbers or because it did great things during the war? I can accept the fact that there weren't many produced--there are other aircraft in-game that have similar production rates. What I want to know is how it was used? How many kills did it achieve? How many aces did it produce? And, ultimately, just because a beligerent during the war produced an aircraft, its not automatically assured representation in this game. Lets first get the planes that created the history we all enjoy so much before we turn our attention to aircraft that existed, but were marginalized during the conduct of the conflict.
-
As many G.55s were made and used as were C.205s. It along with the C.205 made up the entirety of front line fighters after Italy surrendered. 50% of a frontline force... I know we're talking the IT air force here, nothing compared to the Soviets or the Yanks, but 50% of it, nothing to sneeze at.
I personally would like to see it in-game someday. It would probably replace my favorite ride (C.205).
-
And the A26 was on that list and the mass of idiots voted in a hanger queen....A26 would see alot of use in the MA. How many SEA events have been designed around the B25 or the P39?
A great majority of them. Outside of the Late War American/British Fronts. Russians used them throughout the entire war. B-25 could probably be used in almost any Scenario. But I do think we need the B-25J for later Scenarios.
-
Sorry to necro this thread, it appears to be the most recent on the topic of G.55 though. I've been collecting info on italian plans for awhile now and just received some info in the mail from the Smithsonian which is pertinent to this thread. I was going to bump the lobbying thread but that is just a flame fest.
Apologies for the image sizes. Due to the rather poor quality photocopies they sent me I scanned them in high detail to retain as much detail as i could. Anyway, enjoy.
g55 report 1 (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s186/madrebel/g55report1.jpg)
g55 report 2 (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s186/madrebel/g55report2.jpg)
g56 report page 1 (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s186/madrebel/g56report1.jpg)
g56 report page 2 (http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s186/madrebel/g56report2.jpg)
-
+1 HTC will prioritize as they wish so I don't see any point in arguing priorities. Does the plane meet criteria? YES. Does the plane fill a void in our planeset? YES (as another Non-American aircraft) Is the plane historically significant? Overall NO (YES for Italians, they didn't have a whole lot to be proud of during the war and this decent aircraft is one of their highlights). Also an Italian bomber would be nice to have (see relevant threads). I would also like to point out that indigenous French aircraft are under-represented in our planeset. (Anyone want to buy a french warbird? Good condition, only flown once....to deliver a surrender plea..... :devil :neener:) just a joke, :salute to our French associates.
-
I'm all for Italian planes. +
-
+1 HTC will prioritize as they wish so I don't see any point in arguing priorities. Does the plane meet criteria? YES. Does the plane fill a void in our planeset? YES (as another Non-American aircraft) Is the plane historically significant? Overall NO (YES for Italians, they didn't have a whole lot to be proud of during the war and this decent aircraft is one of their highlights). Also an Italian bomber would be nice to have (see relevant threads). I would also like to point out that indigenous French aircraft are under-represented in our planeset. (Anyone want to buy a french warbird? Good condition, only flown once....to deliver a surrender plea..... :devil :neener:) just a joke, :salute to our French associates.
the only organic french design worth of modeling would be the d520. the bloch aircraft are interesting. well armed but slow. some 400+ mb.152s were built and from what i've read some 29 mb.155s were built. These were still slower than 109E3s and E4s though. Although 2 hispano suiza 20mm cannons doesnt suck for such an early design.
then you have the maurane sualnier 406. Again though, this thing was slower than a hurricane mk1. It did have a cannon though and has some signifigance in that it was used by both the finns and the swiss. The finns actually made it into a not entirely terrible plane by installing russian klimov engines (license built hispano suiza 12Y engines). It was never a very good fighter though even with the uprated russian engines.
Another option, albeit a real historical reach, would be the arsenal vg.33. By all accounts the vg.33 was an exceptional design. 160 near completeion at the fall of france, unkown number completed. the follow up prototype was already completed that being the vg.39.
I'd love for one of these ww2 simulators, be it aces high, il2, or ww2ol but i would love to see someone build prototypes. Take the d520 and do the later 523 and 530 prototypes. Base the power curves on the russian license built engines with french super chargers. build the vg.33 and the later vg.39. slap in the american radials on the bloch planes etc. its not so much that i'm bored of the normal plane sets but i think it would be cool to do a tactical level simulation that takes a historical leap like heart of iron 2 does at a strategic level. german aircraft carriers, french fighters, etc. i think that would be cool.
</digress>
-
Madrebel, those are very intresting scans of G.55 data. In case HTC does not have them yet, those climb and speed charts go a long way in helping to model the plane accurately. I suggest you send these pictures or maybe copies to HTC directly for consideration.
Thank you very much for your effort and contribution ! :salute
-
The G.55 would not be a super plane. It would be better than a C.205, but without an engine upgrade over the standard DB605A, it's another "midwar" fighter. The G.50, Mc 200, and Cr.42 are far more important for filling out the MTO planeset.
-
The G.50, Mc 202, and Cr.42 are far more important for filling out the MTO planeset.
Unfortunately, the stats on these planes just don't encourage the same type of enthusiasm, even if they were the meat and potatoes of the Italian Air Force, for pretty much the entire war. It'd kind of be like a U.S. fanboi clamoring for the P-63 but not the P-40.
-
Unfortunately, the stats on these planes just don't encourage the same type of enthusiasm, even if they were the meat and potatoes of the Italian Air Force, for pretty much the entire war. It'd kind of be like a U.S. fanboi clamoring for the P-63 but not the P-40.
Yeah, and I meant to say Mc 200, not 202. :)
-
G55, well it was the best AC for the Italian next to MC 205 and Reggiane 2005. First saw action in the Battle of Rome, armament: three 20 mm Mauser MG Cannon, two 12.7 -mm, two 160kg bombs and the G.55S carried a torpedo. However, it was shot lived AC as vary few where produced and saw little combat (April 1942-1943 when they surrender).
There where some still in production after the surrender if Italy. As a small number where still flying under Fascist Aeroonautica Nazionale Repubblicana along side the LF.
-
The G.55 would not be a super plane. It would be better than a C.205, but without an engine upgrade over the standard DB605A, it's another "midwar" fighter. The G.50, Mc 200, and Cr.42 are far more important for filling out the MTO planeset.
Being better than the C.205 is quite a statement though, fixing the biggest deficies it has, and further addig to it's strong points. Though a midwar plane, it would be very competent in the LWAs.
-
As many G.55s were made and used as were C.205s. It along with the C.205 made up the entirety of front line fighters after Italy surrendered. 50% of a frontline force... I know we're talking the IT air force here, nothing compared to the Soviets or the Yanks, but 50% of it, nothing to sneeze at.
I personally would like to see it in-game someday. It would probably replace my favorite ride (C.205).
'50%' if you ignore actual ratios of the aircraft, the older types still in use, and, especially, all of the 109's the ANR got from Germany... :)
(YES for Italians, they didn't have a whole lot to be proud of during the war and this decent aircraft is one of their highlights).
Beside the fact that the Italians had much more significant aircraft, this comment is just...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Anyway, you guys realize that, whether or not it was better than any Axis aircraft of its day, its day was 1943, right? Its competition would have been the Bf 109G-6 and the A-4 through -8 190's. We're not talking about a Kurfurst/Dora killer here.
-
'
Anyway, you guys realize that, whether or not it was better than any Axis aircraft of its day, its day was 1943, right?
Of course we do. I think no one is claiming über-performance, but there is no doubt it has an excellent set of overall qualities.
-
Of course we do. I think no one is claiming über-performance, but there is no doubt it has an excellent set of overall qualities.
There are people in this thread as well as many others who have called it a non-American late war aircraft as merit for inclusion.
-
There are people in this thread as well as many others who have called it a non-American late war aircraft as merit for inclusion.
Sure, once in a while some guys can get too enthusiasic, but the main theme of the G.55 supporters is that it's a very capable midwar plane (more capable than a 205, 109G2/6 or 190A5 that do all rather well in LWA) - no more, no less.
-
I don't see the G.55 adding any special event playability. The G.50 and C.200, on the other hand, would make for an awesome Malta event.
-
I don't see the G.55 adding any special event playability. The G.50 and C.200, on the other hand, would make for an awesome Malta event.
the only battle that it would work is the Battle of Rome. After Italy surrender, some G.55 fought along side with LW and some had LW markings too.
-
I don't see the G.55 adding any special event playability. The G.50 and C.200, on the other hand, would make for an awesome Malta event.
I think the majority of players do not care very much about scenarios.
-
I think the majority of players do not care very much about scenarios.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
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.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
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.
+1
When i think of getting a new AC, i am thinking of scenario events not the MA. I do not know how you can justifye of not have something like B-29 with having something that balance the game that can take it on.
-
G55, well it was the best AC for the Italian next to MC 205 and Reggiane 2005. First saw action in the Battle of Rome, armament: three 20 mm Mauser MG Cannon, two 12.7 -mm, two 160kg bombs and the G.55S carried a torpedo. However, it was shot lived AC as vary few where produced and saw little combat (April 1942-1943 when they surrender).
There where some still in production after the surrender if Italy. As a small number where still flying under Fascist Aeroonautica Nazionale Repubblicana along side the LF.
actually the ANR, specifically II Gruppo Caccia, flew G.55s post armistice.
-
Madrebel, those are very intresting scans of G.55 data. In case HTC does not have them yet, those climb and speed charts go a long way in helping to model the plane accurately. I suggest you send these pictures or maybe copies to HTC directly for consideration.
Thank you very much for your effort and contribution ! :salute
thanks. i was really quite shocked when they responded. I didnt tell them i was researching to write a book or researching for anything specifically. i'm just a guy that likes warbirds trying to learn everything i can about the italian fighters.
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.
i sent off requests to the national archives yesterday. if i get anything from them it won't be for at least 3 weeks but i'm hopeful they have more data similar to this on the reggianne fighters. really hopeful they have rate of roll data for all the fighters as i've never seen that data anywhere for italian fighter planes.
-
Anyway, you guys realize that, whether or not it was better than any Axis aircraft of its day, its day was 1943, right? Its competition would have been the Bf 109G-6 and the A-4 through -8 190's. We're not talking about a Kurfurst/Dora killer here.
:rolleyes:
Not everyone is focused on Late War GI Joe action uber rides. :O epic flying mounts are two games down and on the left. :joystick: :neener:
Hearts of Iron II is a great game Mad, glad to see someone esle out there plays it. :joystick: :rock
-
Look's cool i like it
-
actually the ANR, specifically II Gruppo Caccia, flew G.55s post armistice.
You may be right. trying to dig up some info on it.
-
http://www.comandosupremo.com/RSI.html *edit had the wrong link*
loss reports for the ANR may be tricky to find though. i'm unaware of how that reporting was done and who it was reported too.
-
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.
-
hmm i was unaware of that i'll have to check it out.
-
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
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
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? :devil
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?
-
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? :devil
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.
-
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. :huh
-
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. :huh
I am serious, but I could be wrong. We'll never know until its in-game.
[/quote]
-
Stoney and I are in agreement. :rofl
-
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.
-
" I am serious, but I could be wrong. We'll never know until its in-game."
Then put it in the game :P!!
-
You can't be serious. :huh
How often do you see the Bf 109G-6?
:rolleyes:
Not everyone is focused on Late War GI Joe action uber rides. :O epic flying mounts are two games down and on the left. :joystick: :neener:
You're barking up the wrong tree buddy :rolleyes:
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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... :)
-
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!
-
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...
-
to a 262..........no but more serious I'd say the A6M,Niki (Not counting gun differential) or maybe the yak.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm just curious...how many kills did the G.55 get during its time in the war?
-
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...
-
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
-
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
-
Motherland: Your claim that wing guns are in some way ineffective is simply false.
Please point out where I said this? I said that a centrally mounted cannon is MORE effective, especially when the guns are SO far out on the wing. I never said that guns in any installation were ineffective. In any case I was talking about the C.205 not the G.55 (though I imagine that the G.55 would be around the same place to circumvent firing through the propeller arc).
50 rounds really isn't that much... I get the same amount of kills/sortie (adjusting for skill) in the G-6 and G-14 now as I did before the 200 round option was made available. It is more... .25 times more... but not that much.
Jolly, the G.55 Serie 0 (pre production) had 4 SAFAT's and 1 MG151/20 instead of the 2 SAFAT's and 3 MG151/20 of the G.55/1
-
then lets take the G.55/1 :)
-
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.
It is rather well rounded. Comapred to the Hurri2c, itt also adds some speed, and, look and behold, last tour the Niki had 2x the usage of the Hurri.
I took the gondolas and DT to have a sound base for comparison. Noob or not, if you want serious firepower and decent range, you need to take these option, or take another plane. It's that simple. My argument for the G.55 is that you have these things without the need to compromise perfomance.
-
I'm just curious...how many kills did the G.55 get during its time in the war?
I dunno, probably the same or more than the Ta152.
-
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...
They have the same capabilities. The G.55 is just better at some and the G-6 at others.
Sorry, I have to disagree again. Just because in theory the mounting on the 109 is better ( in my opinion only for shooting at very close distances), it will not change the facts I stated. The 205 still does damage quicker and much more of it in total. Beside that, there could be situations where you might just miss with the 20 mm in the 109, but you still might hit with 1 of the 2 in the 205. Shooting out of convergence is not always a bad thing. The G.55s setup is the best of both worlds. It's true that the firing time is very similar, but you forget that the targets will be destroyed 3 times faster. That is a huge advantage, and thus the G.55 is much more capable at killing targets, both in time and quantity.
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.
To be honest, yes, I do see more Jugs around. And a lot more used offensively as fighters. And those are like 85% M-Jugs. And it most probably cannibalized a lot of D-Pony usage (see Lusches most rescent ststs) among other planes. And I think you just made a very good point for the G.55. Indeed the M is no revolution for the P-47 lineup (think as N-Jug minus 500lb... it's not that much of a difference in 14-15.000 lb planes), yet it has tremendous success...I see no reason why the G.55 being much better than many "similar" planes, shouldn't make a noticeable impact.
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?
I agree that the P-39Q is way underused. There are many reasons for that: Difficult rear views for instance, but the main reason is that almost no one takes the time to get used to the tater. It has a steep learning curve, and most just give up on it, before the plane can deliver the results.
As for the Brewster, it does not do too shabby for a strictly EW plane. It does much better than many of it's contemporaries.
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...
Just for the record, the Niki has twice the usage of the Hurri - I guess 50 mph speed advantage OTD do make the Niki a more rounded plane.
And compared to the P-39Q, a well rounded plane in your opinion, the Niki is the superior plane overall. Yet it has no redeeming trait?
-
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...
:rofl
In this game, the N1K is one of the better "jack of all trades" aircraft.
-
:rofl
In this game, the N1K is one of the better "jack of all trades" aircraft.
Compared to what would be 'well rounded aircraft' (IMO at least), the Spitfire Mk XVI, Ki 84, and La 7, the N1K is significantly slower and has a lower sustained climb rate, and accelerates more slowly than all of them. The only advantage it has vs. these aircraft are turn radius with full flaps (second largest with no flaps) and armament.
-
Compared to what would be 'well rounded aircraft' (IMO at least), the Spitfire Mk XVI, Ki 84, and La 7, the N1K is significantly slower and has a lower sustained climb rate, and accelerates more slowly than all of them. The only advantage it has vs. these aircraft are turn radius with full flaps (second largest with no flaps) and armament.
Spit and LA carry have shorter legs, and all the planes you mention have much smaller ammunition loads / total firing time.
LA in particular gets squirrely in slow flight IMO.
KI and (especially) the Spit also seem much more fragile to me than the N1K.
IMO and YMMV.
-
I've been a proponent of the G.55 since the early Warbirds days. :)
All this talk of "importance" or "impact" and whatnot seems ridiculous to me. We got all of that a LONG time ago. We're well past the point of NEEDING anything that had ANY real significant impact (other than maybe the B-29. And, I suppose the Mig & Yak 3's. And if I'm feeling generous, the A-26. But that's it. ;) ) We're at the stage where what gets added is yet another model of something we already have, or something that's being added for completeness and will never be a big player outside of scenarios.
I could care less about the former but support the latter in all its forms. An early war piece o' crap that'll make for a great scenario? Hooray! A solid mid-war plane that'll see at least some use in more than one arena? Sounds great! Gimme more of both please, before we get another ... well hell, ARE there any more Spit or 109 or 190 versions left? We're swimming in a veritable Roman numerical alphabet soup of them. And don't get me started on the P-47s.
Really, it should come down to this simple fact:
The G.55 is the best looking plane not already in the game.
-
That would be pretty enjoyable. The Gruppo / Stormo C.205 needs a buddy !!!! :devil
-
+1 :noid
-
N-E-C-R-O...
-
N-E-C-R-O...
:huh
-
You bumped it without adding anything of substance..
Myself I'll say that you can't just pick historical significance or pure performance on their own. AH would definitely be more boring if either of those two had been taken as sole criteria for priority of new planes. Ideally you give players a bit of both. From all the G55 arguments on both sides, it sounds like 1 historically significant Italian planes would weigh as much in AH goodness as 2 G55. Either way you'd probably make a lot of people happy, esp Italians no doubt, if you added a G55 or a more historically significant model.
-
I'm going to add a +1 for the G.55 - I do think it is a good idea to have the 'ultimate' fighter of each nation in the mix for comparison, and I think the G.55 would get some use in the MA (at least as much as the C.205). I'd by flying, that is for sure. It should have sufficient firepower for buff hunting, and if the C.205 is any indication it ought to dive like hell and be controllable at speeds that would lawn dart any of the 109s.
-
its kinda funny to hear guys ask what is the significance or how many kills did it account for...HELLO we have the p-47n and the TA 152 in here.....i think between the two they account for 5 kills... TOTAL....oh and the production was less for each of those than the g-55... ++++1 for the g-55
-
The g-55 was Italy's most widely used fighter in '44 summer, along with the c-205.
+1
-
The g-55 was Italy's most widely used fighter in '44 summer, along with the c-205.
+1
Given they had only a handful of C-205's in the summer of '44, just how "widely" was the G-55 dispersed among Italy's air forces?
-
Would rather have updated macchi's and an Re.2001 with a Cant Z.1007(or the seaplane version of this, the Cant Z.506B
:cheers:
-
Given they had only a handful of C-205's in the summer of '44, just how "widely" was the G-55 dispersed among Italy's air forces?
lol in '44 summer the Italian Air Force had only 6 operational fighter squadrons.
The 1st Gruppo caccia had 3 squads, its 1st and 3rg squadriglia used g-55s, the 2nd used c205s. The 2nd Gruppo caccia had 3 squads too, if i am right, they were using g-55s, but they got 109 g-6s in july.
So in june the IAF had 5 squads of g-55 and 1 squad of c-205. No other fighters were used (for example, no re-2005, ca-314 etc).
The pilots liked the Macchi couse its superior low-alt performance, but the g-55 was better at high altitude.
-
its kinda funny to hear guys ask what is the significance or how many kills did it account for...HELLO we have the p-47n and the TA 152 in here.....i think between the two they account for 5 kills... TOTAL....oh and the production was less for each of those than the g-55... ++++1 for the g-55
You may want to check you numbers for the P-47N... And, even if you meant to say P-47M, it has a very well documented combat history. For example, we can track the fate of each and every aircraft by serial number. The G-55? No one really knows what happened to them, what they did, which units they served with. All we have is the expectation that its supposed to be a good performer or more specifically, that it has 3 20mm cannons, and therefore, should be included.
-
I don't think that's really the case Stoney. I know I personally want the G.55 for several selfish reasons other than "an extra 20mm." I tend to find the 2x20mm are quite adequate. Then again I fly 109s light and 190s light as well.
My reasons include:
1) better range
2) larger wing (better alt performance, perhaps better turning/stalls)
3) possible Serie 0 loadout of 4x 12.7mm Breda Safat (2 top, 2 bottom) and a 20mm hub all in the nose.
It along with the C.205 were the only 2 frontline fighters still fighting at the end of the war. After the C.202s were retired and after the Italian surrender, the C.205 and the G.55 served under the Luftwaffe command structure and continued the fight.
If I recall from reading up on it way back, the G.55 and the C.205 had comparable numbers. One had a bit more than the other. On top of that, it seems a number of C.205s served on the Italian side after its surrender (what do they call that? Co-beligerent? -- they fought allied with new national markings), meaning the axis side probably had more G.55s than C.205s because the 205 pool was dilluted more.
-
Krusty,
The italians got 109s after '44 late August, the c-205s and the g-55s werent used anymore.
The g-55 had an inverted gullwing (just like the b25 or the corsair), probably had better stability than the c205.
Stoney,
i see you really dont want the g-55 added. But i can tell you wich unit they served with.
I have fully detailed data from '44 May. In the 1st gruppo caccia, the 1st squadriglia (Asso do Bastoni) and the 2nd squadriglia (Arciere) were equipped with g-55s. The whole 2nd gruppo caccia had g-55s until the germans gave them messers. Then they gave their rides to the 1st gruppo caccia.
-
The g-55 had an inverted gullwing (just like the b25 or the corsair), probably had better stability than the c205.
That's not quite right Debrody... It had a flat section of wing, which was nothing new. Then outboard of that it angled up. this was far from a gull wing design. It was a narrowing of the wing root, to better blend in the fuselage and the wing, I guess. it also had a cranked leading edge, which might add to the illusion of a gull wing, but this was not the case.
(http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints-depot-restricted/ww2planes/ww2italy/fiat_g_55-01586.jpg)
(http://xoomer.virgilio.it/g55/images/G55-Prototype-a.jpg)
-
i see you really dont want the g-55 added.
Its not that I don't want to see it added. I think in an ideal world, every WWII era aircraft would be represented in-game. What I am critical about is the idea that this aircraft is significant enough to add to a limited planeset. It would, in my opinion, have marginally better performance than a C205--maybe. Given the empty weight of the 205 and G55 being practically the same, I'd opine that the G55 would probably wind up having equal to worse performance, once all that extra armament is added. In my opinion, people argue to have this plane added merely because they've heard its supposed to be some sort of uber 109 or something, with more guns. In fact, by the time it was rolling off the factory, it was already approaching obsolescence compared to its contemporary peers.
Finally, if we accept that HTC has a limited amount of resources for developing new aircraft for the game, I'd argue that this aircraft, based on its significance during the war, would not even be in the top 20 aircraft remaining to add to the game.
-
I tend to agree with you there stoney. You are also correct that it was a few mph slower than the C205 at FTH and max speed.
However, we all have our pet wants/needs. As busy as HTC is, it would make my day to have either the G.55 or the Me410 added to the front of the list. Much as I understand and appreciate the priorities they have, if they were to add these treats they would be well-used by one player named Krusty :D
-
Finally, if we accept that HTC has a limited amount of resources for developing new aircraft for the game, I'd argue that this aircraft, based on its significance during the war, would not even be in the top 20 aircraft remaining to add to the game.
i'm sorry stoney, but based on that argument alone...the b239, ta152, me163, me262 and p47m should not exist in the plane set...the "approaching obsolesence" argument isn't very valid either as history shows, many "obsolete" aircraft were used in the war efforts of several countries, some with relative success and others, not so much.
the basic structure of the g55 is close enough to the c205 that with proper data, coding it couldn't be any more difficult than the b-29 was.
-
I was almost sure thats a gullwing...
Btw, i can understand Stoney. But what we need then? The Meteor?
There are huge holes in the italian planeset, they need to be filled. True, the g-55 is pretty close to the c-205, but that also means its very easy to model. Also the c-205s 3d model looks old, could use a remodelling (along with several other rides).
So i think, that would be ideal, if we get the g-55 when we get the remodelled c205. Thats the most effective way to have the g-55.
-
i'm sorry stoney, but based on that argument alone...the b239, ta152, me163, me262 and p47m should not exist in the plane set...the "approaching obsolesence" argument isn't very valid either as history shows, many "obsolete" aircraft were used in the war efforts of several countries, some with relative success and others, not so much.
the basic structure of the g55 is close enough to the c205 that with proper data, coding it couldn't be any more difficult than the b-29 was.
Probably nothing is more difficult than building the B-29.
So where exactly should the G55 be plugged in? If you had to list the top 20 aircraft, not currently in-game, that should be added, and assign a priority to them, would the G55 make your list? It wouldn't make mine.
Also, could someone please point me to some sort of resource that actually shows the operational history of this aircraft. Because, unlike...the b239, ta152, me163, me262 and p47m..., I can't find anything about how many kills it had.
Finally, the obsolescence comment wasn't about its real-world performance per se... It was about the perception among some in the community that this aircraft is the hotrod of WWII Italian aircraft, and that its omission is denying them a competitive ride in the LW plane set or something. If we said, "sure, we can add the G55, but its gonna be just a bit slower and less maneuverable than the C205", would people be clamoring for it so?
-
I was almost sure thats a gullwing...
Look at the F6F wing construction--its very similar. Basically, the designers placed the dihedral out beyond the landing gear attach points on the spar.
There are huge holes in the italian planeset, they need to be filled.
I agree whole-heartedly, but its not the G55 that's causing the huge hole. Its the CR42, G50 and C200. Strangely, no one is campaigning for the most numerous and historically significant Italian fighters (after the C202). I wonder why?
-
I agree whole-heartedly, but its not the G55 that's causing the huge hole. Its the CR42, G50 and C200. Strangely, no one is campaigning for the most numerous and historically significant Italian fighters (after the C202). I wonder why?
couse its an american game. Thats why we have as many p47s as russian rides. Anyway, the Fiat Cr-42 would be über-cool.
-
couse its an american game. Thats why we have as many p47s as russian rides. Anyway, the Fiat Cr-42 would be über-cool.
Well perhaps, but of those that are arguing for the G55, many are European, but some are American. Regardless, why would anyone that's interested in seeing the Italian plane set expanded not ask for the CR42, C200, or G50 before the G55? After all, the highest scoring Italian ace got famous in a CR42.
-
So where exactly should the G55 be plugged in? If you had to list the top 20 aircraft, not currently in-game, that should be added, and assign a priority to them, would the G55 make your list? It wouldn't make mine.
my list wouldn't be based on "that would be kewl" to be honest...it would include the he-111, mig series, lagg-3, curtiss hawk, 109g6/as, 190a4, a6m3 and a few others...i understand the lack of good documentation hampers the introduction of some aircraft but...
-
If that post is referring to me... now, should i ask for the re-2001, the g-50, c-200, cr-42, s-79 etc etc, one after one? Who would support me? Who wanna fly an early war ride in the late war arena (except the fanatics)?
Dont let me wrong, they are cool rides, the re-2001 and the cr-42 are my favourites couse the hungarians used them a lot.
-
If that post is referring to me...
my list wouldn't be based on "that would be kewl" to be honest...it would include the he-111, mig series, lagg-3, curtiss hawk, 109g6/as, 190a4, a6m3 and a few others...i understand the lack of good documentation hampers the introduction of some aircraft but...
No, not calling either of you out. That was a rhetorical question. The G55 gets asked for because people think it will be an Italian Spit 16/La-7/[insert FOTM LW hot rod]. It doesn't get asked for because people want to "round out" the Italian plane set. If some of these people that argue for the G55 (and I mean specifically those like the OP of this thread) wanted to "round out" the Italian plane set, they'd want to include those more important, early war rides. This is all about getting more hot rods into the game. For scenarios and events, those early Italian rides would have a huge impact on Mediterranean setups.
-
Stoney, you put far too much credibility on the Cr.42. (not to side track, just a short comment)
I have campaigned numerous times for the C.200, the G.50, and other earlier models.
However the Cr.42 was obsolete before the war started. It was on its way out. By the time Italy really joined the fight its frontline fighters were all C.200 and G.50, with C.202s starting to take over.
The Cr.42 was a training plane during WW2. While it was numerically the most produced plane in Italy, most of these were before the war and exports. Those kept were used as trainers and third-rate ground attack to strafe troop positions with the 2x cowl MGs. They tried to use it as a night fighter but it was so obsolete it couldn't hunt down the bombers it was chasing.
I don't know if your story about the ace is wrong or if it's counting spanish civil war kills and other pre-war efforts. He certainly didn't make top killer in a cr.42 during WW2 against western allied planes.
As far as WW2 goes it's a nonentity, really.
Debrody: That's not a gull wing.
A Gull wing reverses its anhedral/dihedral, often to change the plane of the wing with the actual mounting point on the fuselage. Ju87s, F4us, B-25s (to a very small extent) have these.
(http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/chance_corsair.gif)
(http://cfd243.cfdynamics.com/airtoair/store/cw2/Assets/product_full/03bomber-b25mitcha.jpg)
(http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/indiabasin/464/ju_87.jpg)
Neither the F6F nor the G.55 have gull wings. Also the frames may externally look similar but it is not the same frame as the C205. it is different in shape and thickness, the curves are all different, the cockpit placement different... It has more room in the nose for many more guns. They had 2x 12.7mm guns on top of the nose and 2x underneath the nose. the only reason they removed these and put 2 of the guns in the wings was because they were hard to service that way. When they moved the guns to the wings they changed them to MG151/20s. It would be just as much effort to make as any other plane. You couldn't recycle the 3D shapes is what I mean.
-
lol ok, i got it...
I was almost sure thats a gullwing...
I have some original photos, and from those angles it almost looked like a gullwing.
-
Stoney, I also have to disagree with your assessment of why folks ask for it. You seem to be under the impression folks only ask for it because they think it's uber.
The only folks that really know about it are the ones that care a bit about Italian aircraft in WW2. Most of the folks that ask for it seem to understand the situation and its real world peformance. We (I include myself) seem to want it out of interest/passion/love of the plane, rather than "I want to beat the other guys with a super plane!" or anything like that.
I think what you have described really does apply, just not to this plane. It applied to the P-47M (where it has such a large placebo effect and so much false hype preceeding it, by reputation alone). End result is 47M is a few mph faster than the 47N.
I don't think that's the case with G.55 requests. Look at it. It's as elegant as a spitfire or a Mitchell IMO. Doesn't it stir the imagination and inspire the lust for blood (the blood of pixellated aircraft)?*
*Paid for by the Krusty for G.55 committee.*
-
I love the look of the G.55. I want it, and have asked for it for years. And I'm American.
The fact the Luftwaffe was ready to cancel the 109 in favor of the G.55, simply adds to the intrigue. The G.55 was probably the best Axis prop driven fighter design of the war. The only thing that precluded the preceding action was the production time. The G.55 took about 3X longer to manufacture than the Bf-109.
-
I love the look of the G.55. I want it, and have asked for it for years. And I'm American.
The fact the Luftwaffe was ready to cancel the 109 in favor of the G.55, simply adds to the intrigue. The G.55 was probably the best Axis prop driven fighter design of the war. The only thing that precluded the preceding action was the production time. The G.55 took about 3X longer to manufacture than the Bf-109.
That may have been a debatable statement in 1943... But the German designs far surpassed it later on. At the time it was a larger airframe that allowed more expansion moving forward. The fact that the guns were all internal helped, as well!
-
However the Cr.42 was obsolete before the war started. It was on its way out.
CR.42 was certainly obsolete already before the war started but unfortunately for Italian fighter pilots, it most certainly was "on its way out". Cr.42 was still in production when C.200 production ceased.
The Cr.42 was a training plane during WW2. While it was numerically the most produced plane in Italy, most of these were before the war and exports. Those kept were used as trainers and third-rate ground attack to strafe troop positions with the 2x cowl MGs. They tried to use it as a night fighter but it was so obsolete it couldn't hunt down the bombers it was chasing.
I don't know if your story about the ace is wrong or if it's counting spanish civil war kills and other pre-war efforts. He certainly didn't make top killer in a cr.42 during WW2 against western allied planes.
As far as WW2 goes it's a nonentity, really.
In the war CR.42 was first and foremost a fighter and far from nonentity. It saw significant action. It saw action in Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Malta, Africa and with the Hungarian Air Force.
Saying that it was a nonentity training plane during WWII is complete nonsense.
-
Suggested reading:
(http://www.aviationsupermart.com/Shared/images/Osprey/OSPACE90.jpg)
-
That may have been a debatable statement in 1943... But the German designs far surpassed it later on. At the time it was a larger airframe that allowed more expansion moving forward. The fact that the guns were all internal helped, as well!
Considering the Germans were going to put the DB 603 in the airframe for production.....the test aircraft for the line outperformed the 109K and G, as well as the 190A5. Tank took the DB603 and redesigned the 190 into the 152 instead, when they realized they could make 3 109's for every 1 G.55.
Also, the type was introduced in 1943. At that time, it was the best axis prop. Its performance wasn't matched until the 190D.
-
Considering the Germans were going to put the DB 603 in the airframe for production.....the test aircraft for the line outperformed the 109K and G, as well as the 190A5. Tank took the DB603 and redesigned the 190 into the 152 instead, when they realized they could make 3 109's for every 1 G.55.
Also, the type was introduced in 1943. At that time, it was the best axis prop. Its performance wasn't matched until the 190D.
Again, debatable in 1943, not later. It was already matched by the C.205. You forget it was not a fast airframe. The 205 was faster than it already, and out before it as well.
The type was slow, it wasn't good at altitudes where allied fighters were escorting allied bombers.
While it was planned ahead to try the DB603, this would likely never have happened. They also "planned" the DB603 in a lot of things. That did not make the engine show up any sooner. Even the Me410 was planned to have the DB603, but never did, not even in 1944. The Italians showed a lack of infrastructure to produce their own engines quickly enough. Look how long it took to get the DB601 clone up and running!
It (the G.55) could manuver better than a 190. However it wasn't fast or high enough to take the fight where the 190 and 109 were going.
If this, if that, if then, maybe it could have been a contender. As-is it wasn't better than anything across-the-board. It had desirable characteristics, and that is why one guy on the German side wanted to build it. However that was not an official statement nor was it ever in the plans for Messerschmitt to work on them. It's all conjecture. Going off the actual performance of the actual production model (not a 1-off test plane) it was nice but not worth the time and effort for no real speed gain.
Where it WOULD have paid off was in the closing days of the war -- where they could have packed larger and larger engines in without changing the frame as much, where they could have packed more and more guns internally to kill bombers, etc. That again is all what-if, though.
As it stood, as a production model that saw combat, it was nothing great and nowhere uber. It is a sweet ride, though. I would like to see it.
-
They also "planned" the DB603 in a lot of things. That did not make the engine show up any sooner. Even the Me410 was planned to have the DB603, but never did, not even in 1944.
<sigh>
Me410 most certainly had DB603s.
-
CR.42 was certainly obsolete already before the war started but unfortunately for Italian fighter pilots, it most certainly was "on its way out". Cr.42 was still in production when C.200 production ceased.
Production for what means? Not for Italian Air Force needs, that's for sure. It was being exported. As you mention Hungary used it. Other nations did too. Ones that could or did not build their own air forces. Those being produced were being exported and the plane was not a frontline fighter.
When the war started in 1939 Italy had about 250 of the biplanes in service. They had some raids into Southern France. They moved about 50 planes to Belgium to help with the BOB but they were there only 3-4 months, suffered large casualties, and claimed serious over-exaggerated victories.
They helped the war in N. Africa until Hurricanes showed up and they were relegated to ground strafing duties. This as early as 1941, mind you. As early as spring 1941 they were being transitioned to ground attack duties and monoplanes were replacing them as quickly as possible. Throughout 1941 they continued to transition. After the battle of El Alamein only 82 were left to retreat back to Italy (spring of 1942).
In 1940 over Greece they had some success against far worse airframes, but as soon as the RAF showed up with Gladiators and later on Hurricanes, the tables turned significantly.
In East Africa a small group held out until late 1941 but were finished off by November of that year.
After 1941 they were not sent into combat as fighters. They were relegated to rear action duties, troop strafing, dropping very small bombs in anti personnel duties, etc.
They were as obsolete as the Stuka. Mind you the Stuka served on after it was withdrawn from front-line duties in BOB as well. It was never sent into the front line action again, though. The same goes for the Cr42.
Calling it a frontline fighter is like calling the Lysander a frontline attack plane for the RAF.
-
<sigh>
Me410 most certainly had DB603s.
I'm sorry, getting my numbers mixed up on the DBs... I retract the comment as I meant 605 apparently.
-
Stoney, I also have to disagree with your assessment of why folks ask for it. You seem to be under the impression folks only ask for it because they think it's uber.
*Paid for by the Krusty for G.55 committee.*
Undoubtedly, SOME might want it in the vain hope that it'll transform them into uberpiloten. However, there are more than one stripe of kitty playing the game.
My own interest is in the fact that it's anothoer DB-engined aircraft mounted to a different airframe. It'd be really interesting to compare and contrast to the beloved 109G-14.
I need to run the wingloading numbers - I suspect they're better. Likewise, the firepower is better internally. OTOH, the roll inertia HAS to be up (but does the aileron design offset the loss in roll agility - something none too great on the 109 as is?) and the weight has to be up as well. I note the top speed is lower than the belowed G-14. Climb rate looks diminished as well, since, (and without benefit of looking it up) the g-14 exceeds 3500 ft/min all the way up to 20k and this pig's taking 7+ to get to 20k.
-
I note the top speed is lower than the belowed G-14. Climb rate looks diminished as well
Naturally the G14 came later. This is a 1943 design. There was no MW50 for Italian rides, either. Compare it to a G6 without MW50 and you'll see it's much closer. With the Italian power restrictions and engine tolerances, though, the boost would be lower than a G-6 and the WEP limited to 5 minutes most likely (like the C205).
-
Production for what means? Not for Italian Air Force needs, that's for sure. It was being exported. As you mention Hungary used it. Other nations did too. Ones that could or did not build their own air forces. Those being produced were being exported and the plane was not a frontline fighter.
When the war started in 1939 Italy had about 250 of the biplanes in service. They had some raids into Southern France. They moved about 50 planes to Belgium to help with the BOB but they were there only 3-4 months, suffered large casualties, and claimed serious over-exaggerated victories.
They helped the war in N. Africa until Hurricanes showed up and they were relegated to ground strafing duties. This as early as 1941, mind you. As early as spring 1941 they were being transitioned to ground attack duties and monoplanes were replacing them as quickly as possible. Throughout 1941 they continued to transition. After the battle of El Alamein only 82 were left to retreat back to Italy (spring of 1942).
In 1940 over Greece they had some success against far worse airframes, but as soon as the RAF showed up with Gladiators and later on Hurricanes, the tables turned significantly.
In East Africa a small group held out until late 1941 but were finished off by November of that year.
After 1941 they were not sent into combat as fighters. They were relegated to rear action duties, troop strafing, dropping very small bombs in anti personnel duties, etc.
Like I said, it indeed was obsolete but unfortunately for Italian fighter pilots it was indeed used as a frontline fighter and served as one in BoF, BoB, Malta and Africa.
CR.42 units: http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/falco_ra.htm (http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/falco_ra.htm)
The CR.42 Falco (Falcon) was the last of the great biplane fighters entering flight testing in late May 1938. It was a successor of CR.32 that had claimed great success in the Spanish skies during the civil war.
The CR.42 was manufactured in larger numbers than any other Italian fighter, remaining in production as late as 1943. Extremely light on the controls, universally viewed as a delight to fly, superbly agile and innately robust, the CR.42 synthesised a decade-and-a-half of continuos fighter development; it was a thoroughbred with a distinguished pedigree carrying fighter biplane evolution to its apex. But its intrinsic qualities were those demanded of an earlier era in aerial warfare than that in which it was to find itself. The CR.42 was nevertheless to see combat throughout WWII and, curiously, was to fight against the Luftwaffe, alongside the Luftwaffe and with the Luftwaffe itself, singing the swan song of the fighter biplane while doing so. http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/falco.htm (http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/falco.htm)
They were as obsolete as the Stuka. Mind you the Stuka served on after it was withdrawn from front-line duties in BOB as well. It was never sent into the front line action again, though. Last significant front line action of the CR.42 took place as late as October 27th '42 during the Battle of El Alamein.
Once again, complete nonsense. Stuka saw heavy use almost throughout the WWII in Europe.
Detachment Kuhlmey is a good example of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_Kuhlmey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detachment_Kuhlmey)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-727-0297-09A%2C_Russland%2C_Erich_Rudorffer%2C_Ju_87.jpg)
Operational Stuka during the summer of '44 in Immola, Finland. They bombed Soviet concentrations during Stalin 4th offensive on the Karelian Isthmus.
-
Stoney, I also have to disagree with your assessment of why folks ask for it. You seem to be under the impression folks only ask for it because they think it's uber.
Krusty, I'm purposefully trying to exclude folks such as yourself and some of the others, from my general statements. That being said, go back and read some of the first dozen or so posts in this thread, combined with Jolly's propensity to spam the wishlist with gadget planes in general, and I hope you understand the context of my argument.
And the CR42 was one of the most important R.A. aircraft with respect to its history in aerial combat.
-
Wmaker: I think you know my intent but I'll clarify: anywhere the stuka had to fight its way through enemy lines to deliver its payload. The wide open, gap-filled front on the Soviet battlefronts allowed to to get in and drop unopposed many times. It clearly "served" through til the closing years of the war, but at reduced capabilities and with zero life expectancy in the face of any enemy air cover. Bf109s and Fw190s replaced it as soon as they could. The fighter bomber was at least able to defend itself if attacked, whereas the stuka could not. You see the same shift on the allied side as well.
Also your quote there is a bit exaggerated. Production stopped well before that. What they did was have a trickle coming off the production lines for exports and then in 1943 they made a special "night harrassment" version that was just a psychological warfare "pest" plane -- and only 150 of those were made. Hardly "remained in production til 1943" as most production phased out before the war, and the remainder of the wartime production stopped as quickly as the C200 and G.50 could be started -- in 1941 and early 1942.
Stoney: Fair enough on your first part. Wrong on your last line. No more the "most important R.A." plane than the Jenny was the most important USN plane. Most numeric, but mostly prewar. Mostly unused. Mostly a trainer. You have to consider that a couple thousand planes is a small amount by most air force standards. During WW2 the most produced plane was the C.202, with 1700 built. You combine both C200 adn G.50 and it still outnumbers both of them. In that regard we have the most important war-time Italian plane (going by numbers alone). There are still holes, oh yes indeed. We need to round out the earlier planeset a lot. Sadly, the Cr.42 is about as important to the cause as the Gloster Gladiator is to the RAF. Am I against the plane? Not just by itself. Am I against the claim it was an important plane in the fight against the enemy? Very much so yes.
-
...mostly prewar. Mostly unused. Mostly a trainer...
No, I meant in combat. Surely someone has a reference that shows which aircraft in the R.A. got kills so we could see its relative worth?
-
Its not that I don't want to see it added. I think in an ideal world, every WWII era aircraft would be represented in-game. What I am critical about is the idea that this aircraft is significant enough to add to a limited planeset. It would, in my opinion, have marginally better performance than a C205--maybe. Given the empty weight of the 205 and G55 being practically the same, I'd opine that the G55 would probably wind up having equal to worse performance, once all that extra armament is added. In my opinion, people argue to have this plane added merely because they've heard its supposed to be some sort of uber 109 or something, with more guns. In fact, by the time it was rolling off the factory, it was already approaching obsolescence compared to its contemporary peers.
Finally, if we accept that HTC has a limited amount of resources for developing new aircraft for the game, I'd argue that this aircraft, based on its significance during the war, would not even be in the top 20 aircraft remaining to add to the game.
It seems to me that your calling the 205 not a good plane? I've seen the that thing absolutley destroy plenty of people. PLUS, im not saying it should be added JUST because of the stats, but also because of diversity.
-
Wmaker: I think you know my intent but I'll clarify: anywhere the stuka had to fight its way through enemy lines to deliver its payload. The wide open, gap-filled front on the Soviet battlefronts allowed to to get in and drop unopposed many times.
I suggest you do some reading about Stalin's Fourth Strategic offensive and especially the use of VVS during it.
Also your quote there is a bit exaggerated. Production stopped well before that. What they did was have a trickle coming off the production lines for exports and then in 1943 they made a special "night harrassment" version that was just a psychological warfare "pest" plane -- and only 150 of those were made. Hardly "remained in production til 1943" as most production phased out before the war, and the remainder of the wartime production stopped as quickly as the C200 and G.50 could be started -- in 1941 and early 1942.
Like I said it was produced till 1943. And it is totally false to say that most of the production was phased out before the war. Here's a table on CR.42 production from Ali d'Italia CR.42-book:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/CR42Production.jpg)
As can be seen, bulk of CR.42s were produced after Italy declared war on France and Britain on 10th of June 1940. On that date, R.A had 300 CR.42's which was half of the total strenght of its fighter units.
Sources: Ali d'Italia CR.42-book and Osprey's CR.42 Aces of the World War 2.
No more the "most important R.A." plane than the Jenny was the most important USN plane. Most numeric, but mostly prewar. Mostly unused. Mostly a trainer.
As the above shows...like I said before this is complete nonsense. Once again, unfortunately for the Italian fighter pilots, CR.42 was very much a frontline fighter when Italy went into war. So much so that half of Italy's fighter strenght was comprised of CR.42s.
-
Again, debatable in 1943, not later. It was already matched by the C.205. You forget it was not a fast airframe. The 205 was faster than it already, and out before it as well.
The type was slow, it wasn't good at altitudes where allied fighters were escorting allied bombers.
While it was planned ahead to try the DB603, this would likely never have happened. They also "planned" the DB603 in a lot of things. That did not make the engine show up any sooner. Even the Me410 was planned to have the DB603, but never did, not even in 1944. The Italians showed a lack of infrastructure to produce their own engines quickly enough. Look how long it took to get the DB601 clone up and running!
It (the G.55) could manuver better than a 190. However it wasn't fast or high enough to take the fight where the 190 and 109 were going.
As it stood, as a production model that saw combat, it was nothing great and nowhere uber. It is a sweet ride, though. I would like to see it.
#1. The DB603 was mated with at least 3 G.55 airframes and flown. Top speed was 427 mph level at 20K. So you're wrong there, it did happen. It was called the G.56 among the Luftwaffe.
#2. The G.55 I Centauro had a top speed at around 20K of 391 mph. The 190D9 was topping out at 426 mph at 19K, so relatively comparable, with the aforementioned better maneuverability to the G.55. Also the Germans tested it against the C.205, and found that it had much better performance at altitude than that airframe. You can easily look up the results on multiple sites. This is why they voted to produce the G.55 in Germany, though the war turned and they reversed that decision in order to produce 109's at a higher rate, since the G.55 took 3X longer to machine.
#3. The Me410 did see DB603 engines.
-
It's the 603G that never happened.
-
wow, why did someone have to bring this thread back to life
-
wow, why did someone have to bring this thread back to life
Just so you would have the opportunity to say something stupid like that :ahand
-
Two G.56 prototypes were indeed built.
-
bump from way back.
-
bump from way back.
But why?
-
bump from way back.
Holy necro-bump!!!
I'm not sure why there's a rule against this - only that it causes widespread angst when I do the same thing.
-
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Fiat%20G.55%20I%20Centauro.htm
274 made and we need a new italian plane.
not bad guns and could be useful
+1
-
Holy necro-bump!!!
I'm not sure why there's a rule against this - only that it causes widespread angst when I do the same thing.
Yeah If you go too far back with a necro bump(like 9 years)
-
I thought it was a joke because I made an original G.55 post few years back that I bumped, and this one was bumped shortly after.
Pretty humorous way to keep the g55 in the limelight.
-
Iway to keep the g55 in the limelight.
Which is necessary due to its non-existent record during the actual war.
-
I was going to post a wish for the G55 and to a lesser extent the Re.2005 but I did a search and there was already a wish in the box.
SO G55 US ALREADY! :furious
-
Holy necro-bump... And, yes, we need about six or eight g.55s to participate in the next late med scenario, that and some 88's carrying Henschel missiles.
-
+1
-
+1 definatly , some good reading on this plane on the web .... :aok
-
The Fiat G 55 is a great plane.I believe that the La 7 was made in only a few numbers and yet we have it. We have four P-40's and there's hardly a difference in them (I said hardly a difference).From what I've read, the G-55 was a better plane than the C205. At any rate, we could use another Italian fighter.
-
Something like 7,000 La-7s were made, though only two or three hundred had the three cannons.
The rare, low use birds we have in AH are the Ar234B, Me163B and Ta152H-1. The Brewster was low production, but used heavily.
-
The G 55 would be a very competitive fighter. I believe the 205 is highly under-rated and might be one of the better perk farmers in the game. So would be the G 55.
-
Necro-Bump.
Seriously one of my favorite planes. And I honestly believe that this plane could be "the new A6M/C2". Granted, not many were made, and the records are low, but shoot, variety is key to this game. And having another Italian fighter would be nice. Would add variety to FSO.
-
Why do you think it would be the next a6m? I mean, the wing loading is a good deal higher at about 8200lbs/227sf. The zero has less than half the all up weight and more wing area.
Don't get me wrong, I think, given its speed, firepower, and wing loading, it'll be a highly viable lw bird -and I want it-but it's not going to be the turny bird the zero is...
-
Why do you think it would be the next a6m? I mean, the wing loading is a good deal higher at about 8200lbs/227sf. The zero has less than half the all up weight and more wing area.
Don't get me wrong, I think, given its speed, firepower, and wing loading, it'll be a highly viable lw bird -and I want it-but it's not going to be the turny bird the zero is...
Usage wise, sorry. Should have clarified.
-
I'm thinking, with the three kanonen, the top speed, and the wing loading, this thing might be awfully g-10 ish, only better in turn. Of course, lots of people thought that about the Yak-3, too.
If they'd just gimme a g-14/as or a g-10, I'd be happy, but no... Because eny is too low on both, probably, and I like to fly junk.
-
The G.55 was a really good fighter in 1943. Its hallmark was being better than the 109G-6. It would be average/mediocre in the LW main.
-
The G.55 was a really good fighter in 1943. Its hallmark was being better than the 109G-6. It would be average/mediocre in the LW main.
Serie I had 3x20mil, 2x12.7, a top speed of 417 with wep, and a wing loading of about 34 psf. That looks like a competitive set of numbers -certainly an interesting set. G.56 supposedly ups the top speed to something like 440mph but wasn't produced. I'd love to have it and see how it stacks. It sure would be a fun add for Med scenarios -in tiny numbers, of course. Along with numerous Beaus...
-
To be blunt, whenever I see requests for things like the G.55, obscure things that had essentially no role in the war I am pretty sure it is just being asked for because it might be "uber" and the requestee has no real interest in the aircraft or its history.
Direct hit.
...Yes let's have the C.200 which saw a ton of service and not another late war fighter with a quote about how many were built to deflect the # that actually saw any service or combat (which is always puny).
-
Perhaps a CR42 as well... That c200 reminds me a lot of a ki-43 on paper, though the ki is a little faster. Still, similar armament and nice low wing loading s... The c200 would probably be a nicely turny bird.
-
Direct hit.
...Yes let's have the C.200 which saw a ton of service and not another late war fighter with a quote about how many were built to deflect the # that actually saw any service or combat (which is always puny).
I somewhat agree with that statement, but to a certain degree. (The Ta-152 for instance, only 40 some produced i believe) This game needs variety. Having an Italian fighter that fought against American bombers with 2 squadrons would be a decent addition. I legitimately believe this aircraft could be a favorite.