Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Butcher on April 07, 2011, 02:25:59 PM
-
Aces High has been getting a lot more of high alt buff raids in the game, however there is an extremely limited amount of fighters able to intercept with a decent gun package to make a difference. My wishlist is a plane thats able to serve the Late war Arena (actual people will fly it).
Here's some details on the Fiat G.55 -
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/FIAT_G-55_Centauro_%281%29.jpg/800px-FIAT_G-55_Centauro_%281%29.jpg)
The Fiat G.55 Centauro (Italian: "Centaur") was a single-engine single-seat World War II fighter aircraft used by the Regia Aeronautica and the A.N.R. (Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana) in 1943-1945. It was designed and built in Turin by Fiat. The Fiat G.55 was,[2] probably the best type produced in Italy during World War II, but it did not enter production until 1943.[3] During its short operational service, mostly under the Repubblica Sociale Italiana insignia, after the 8 September 1943, this powerful, robust and fast aircraft proved itself to be an excellent interceptor at high altitude.[4] In 1944, over Northern Italy, the Centauro clashed with British Supermarine Spitfire, P-51 Mustang, P-47 Thunderbolt and P-38 Lightning. Italian fighter pilots liked their Centauro but by the time the war ended, only less than 300 had been built.[2]
Data from "Centauro - The Final Fling"[23]
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 9.37 m (30 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 11.85 m (38 ft 10 in)
Height: 3.13 m (without the antenna mast) (10 ft 3¼ in)
Wing area: 21.11 m² (227.23 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,630 kg (5,798 lb)
Loaded weight: 3,520 kg (7,760 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 3,718 kg (8,197 lb)
Powerplant: 1× Fiat R.A 1050 Tifone (license-built Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1) liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 1,085 kW (1,475 hp)
Performance
Maximum speed: 623 km/h (337 kn, 387 mph (417mph with WEP)) at 7,000 m (22,970 ft)
Range: 1,200 km, or 1,650 km with two 100 l (26 US Gal) drop tanks under wings (545 nmi, 627 mi (or 891 nmi, 1,025 mi with drop tanks ))
Service ceiling: 12,750 m (41,830 ft)
Rate of climb: 5 min 50 sec at 6,000 m (Dimensione Cielo, Caccia Assalto 3 Edizioni Bizzarri, Roma 1972, pag. 15) ()
Wing loading: 154.0 kg/m² (34.15 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.308 kW/kg (0.190 hp/lb)
Climb to 7,000 m (22,970 ft): 8.57 min
Armament
G.55 Serie 0:
1 × 20 mm Mauser MG 151/20 cannon, engine-mounted (250 rounds)
4 × 12.7 mm (.5 in) Breda-SAFAT machine guns, two in the upper engine cowling, two in the lower cowling/wing roots (300 rpg)
G.55 Serie I:
3 × 20 mm MG 151/20s, one engine-mounted (250 rounds) and two wing-mounted (200 rpg)
2 × 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the upper engine cowling (300 rpg)
Provision for 2 × 160 kg (353 lb) bombs on underwing racks (N.B. Egyptian and Syrian aircraft used Machine guns in the wings instead of cannon)
-
I would like to fly this one. :)
-
Can't go wrong with more Italian Planes. :x +1
Tac on the CR.42, the SM.79 and BR.20 to that list as well. :D
-
past discussion
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,268008.0.html
-
+1
-
Heck yes for this!
-
Been asked before, not as long ago.
+1,
but i would say Re 2001, cr-42, etc etc... this bird was really close to the c-205. Maybe we can get it when the c20x series get an update.
-
While I like this plane and would love it in-game.... It wasn't "high alt" -- it topped out 22k. Higher alt would need to have better power output up to 25k-30k... 22k is around typical 20k-range of most LW aircraft and they were suffering there. They really needed more power higher up.
Aside from that I'd love to see this plane, as limited as its combat history is.
-
OH HECK YEAH!
-
+1 - I'll still fly her.
Where is this picture from? The last thread had some beautiful pics from the air museum in Rome.
-
I'm not going to start here, and just rely on my previous comments...
-
big plus 1 :aok remember one thing, wep on the g-55 was luft field kit mod or when aircraft was serviced and rebuilt after sept 43.....these did not count as a new aircraft as it was a rebuild/remanufacture. and you know how AH is with field kits, did some have them yes,will we??
-
There are differing levels. There's "stuff pilots just did" and there's official changes made at a depot level before distributing out to units, and the like.
If it was a standard modification then chances are we'd see it (hypothetically) in game.
The strafer nose on the B-25C started out as a field mod then became a standard option. For example.
-
...started out as a field mod then became a standard option. For example.
Kind of like fake boobs...
-
standard modification?did someone actually say that? for the axis late in the war,with shortages of man power,machinery,fuel,transportation systems and everything elsr,there were NO standard modifications.if you look in terms of actual aircraft,vehicles and guns that have been found and restored,you will find that the axis used whatever they had that could work and every model of everything evolved and changed as time went on...example,when ball bearings were not available they used other types of bearings,when aluminum was not available,they used wood,and im not talking std specs....case in point,the restoration of me262 jet trainer from willow grove pa,the bucks county team found that wood was used on internal bulkheads when the spec was for aluminum.....AND many recoeds from the 1944-45 period are missing...destroyed in the war....like we know that the ta-152c was made in production series..but not how many or if there was combat as the records dont exist..same for the arado 234c,and the arado 335,and did the me263 ever fly?(prob not) but we really dont KNOW,records destroyed.
-
Alpini, I don't think you have a good grasp on things. There's a difference between genuinely creative repairs processes and "just randomly cobbling stuff together"....
You seem to think that the chaos at war's end means lack of production. That's not the case.
Getting back on target here:
The G.55 used the same engine as the C.205. The C.205 was cleared for WEP even in 1943. Therefore the G.55 was cleared for WEP. There was no kit or modification, it was simply higher settings that the Italian engine (IT built clone of the DB601) was allowed to run on for a limited 5-minute duration.
-
Sure is a plane I would love to see :)
-
+ 1 :aok
-
One plane.......
Five b29 victims in one night
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/J1N-2s.jpg/800px-J1N-2s.jpg)
-
One plane.......
Five b29 victims in one night
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/J1N-2s.jpg/800px-J1N-2s.jpg)
what the hell is that plane?
looks like a japaneese copy of the 110 with a single tail and the ki-84's radials.
-
what the hell is that plane?
looks like a japaneese copy of the 110 with a single tail and the ki-84's radials.
Nakajima J1N Gekko / IRVING
http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/nakajima_j1n.php
-
One plane.......
Five b29 victims in one night
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/J1N-2s.jpg/800px-J1N-2s.jpg)
A B-29 could outrun that thing it only does 315
-
A B-29 could outrun that thing it only does 315
Unlike AH, bombers didn't run at full power, even in combat.
-
A B-29 could outrun that thing it only does 315
Not sure what information you are looking at but it does 417 with wep at Alt.
-
Not sure what information you are looking at but it does 417 with wep at Alt.
I'd be astounded if that were the case. No Japanese fighter, to my knowledge, broke 400mph in level flight during WWII. There is a chance some Ki-84s did, but I've seen no documentation of it. Certainly an early war twin engined fighter did not.
315-330mph sounds about right for the J1N1.
-
I'd be astounded if that were the case. No Japanese fighter, to my knowledge, broke 400mph in level flight during WWII. There is a chance some Ki-84s did, but I've seen no documentation of it. Certainly an early war twin engined fighter did not.
315-330mph sounds about right for the J1N1.
Wrong thread bud.
-
They do it the same way I catch b29s and ar234s with a 110g.
Climb to 34k feet and perform a 500fpm descent when you get visibility of the b29s.
For the ar234 you need to really maximize the efficiency of your chase such that they run out of altitude while you are still at 15k feet and you can close on them as they fly level at sea level.
-
They do it the same way I catch b29s and ar234s with a 110g.
Climb to 34k feet and perform a 500fpm descent when you get visibility of the b29s.
For the ar234 you need to really maximize the efficiency of your chase such that they run out of altitude while you are still at 15k feet and you can close on them as they fly level at sea level.
b29s are extremely tough challange in chasing, I once had the dubious fun of escorting "air spawned" b29s and above 25k a Hellcat was easily outran, we couldn't climb and stay with them while the defending force was already well above the bombers and waiting.
-
One plane.......
Five b29 victims in one night
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/J1N-2s.jpg/800px-J1N-2s.jpg)
If its anything like all the other jap fighters, 1 20mm from the b29s tail gun will set that thing burning.
-
+1
-
such a beautiful plane, oh how I wish for Christmas :\
-
Bringing down the G.55 wish again, I did some research and well over 245 were built and served in quite a few squadrons for Northern Italy during WW2.
Although its not a Late war monster, it would be at the tail end of Midwar/ Early Late war.
-
+1000000000
And it might even help sate my lust for the Re.2005.
-
+1000000000000000000000000 :aok
but we need also new 3D model of 205 and 202...and Tempest.... :bolt:
-
+1000000000000000000000000 :aok
but we need also new 3D model of 205 and 202...and Tempest.... :bolt:
and the yak and the list goes on and on
-
and the yak and the list goes on and on
of course!! ive only forgot the others one"
-
+1
-
If its anything like all the other jap fighters, 1 20mm from the b29s tail gun will set that thing burning.
Get a book and try reading something for yourself before spouting something you heard about Japanese aircraft on the History Channel. Most if not all of the second generation Japanese aircraft had pilot armor and self sealing fuel tanks (albit bit not as much or as effective as there Allied counterparts)
But a nice try at baiting none the less. I mean I fell for it.
-
But a nice try at baiting none the less.
Same to you bud. Notice the date of the post, and the Persona Non Grata.
-
Now, now, no bickering.
One thing I'd love for the G.55 is the Serie 0 option.
The first planes had a hub 20mm gun, but 4x 12.7mm Breda SAFAT MGs, two on top of the nose and two below the nose, all synchronized.
Later models removed these lower 2 guns, due to difficulties in accessing them for servicing and reloading. Probably for lack of firepower, too. They put the cannons in the wings.
Serie 0:
4x 12.7mm
1x 20mm
Serie 1:
2x 12.7mm
3x 20mm
It would be a nice option like the 7mm wing guns on our C.202 and C.205, not the most powerful, but interesting for variety.
-
Now, now, no bickering.
One thing I'd love for the G.55 is the Serie 0 option.
The first planes had a hub 20mm gun, but 4x 12.7mm Breda SAFAT MGs, two on top of the nose and two below the nose, all synchronized.
Later models removed these lower 2 guns, due to difficulties in accessing them for servicing and reloading. Probably for lack of firepower, too. They put the cannons in the wings.
Serie 0:
4x 12.7mm
1x 20mm
Serie 1:
2x 12.7mm
3x 20mm
It would be a nice option like the 7mm wing guns on our C.202 and C.205, not the most powerful, but interesting for variety.
I haven't found any with the 7mm wing guns, but I have seen both Serie 0 and Serie 1 in combat (squadron size) It certainly would be interesting to see differences in flight performance between the two.
-
I think he meant it would be interesting to see both options for the G.55, simmilar to the 7mm guns in the wings of the C202 and 205.
-
I think he meant it would be interesting to see both options for the G.55, simmilar to the 7mm guns in the wings of the C202 and 205.
Difference is I seen photos of both options in the G.55, I cannot show proof c202/205 had different options, then again this thread is about the G.55 which had both series in combat.
I can prove the C.205 had drop tanks in combat, although the handful of 2-3 photos have circulated the internet for years, its not exactly 100% proof, however what else can anyone go on since there is no actual proof or data, even then it was common in north africa, not afterwards.
Want to lose the 7mm option for the C202 and C.205 get your own thread for it, not the topic which says Fiat G.55, different aircraft and production model.
-
Difference is I seen photos of both options in the G.55, I cannot show proof c202/205 had different options, then again this thread is about the G.55 which had both series in combat.
I can prove the C.205 had drop tanks in combat, although the handful of 2-3 photos have circulated the internet for years, its not exactly 100% proof, however what else can anyone go on since there is no actual proof or data, even then it was common in north africa, not afterwards.
Want to lose the 7mm option for the C202 and C.205 get your own thread for it, not the topic which says Fiat G.55, different aircraft and production model.
Butcher, you're either tired, drunk, senile, or trying to pull the same crap you did in the Panzer III thread.
I said nothing about wanting the 7mm's removed from the C.202 and C.205. I simply tried to clarify what Krusty was saying, as you seemed to be confused (you still seem to be confused), and then you proceded to hijack your own thread with meanderings about lack of proof, drop tanks, and hijacks.
-
Butcher, you're either tired, drunk, senile, or trying to pull the same crap you did in the Panzer III thread.
I said nothing about wanting the 7mm's removed from the C.202 and C.205. I simply tried to clarify what Krusty was saying, as you seemed to be confused (you still seem to be confused), and then you proceded to hijack your own thread with meanderings about lack of proof, drop tanks, and hijacks.
You are Hijacking my wish thread with your own gibberish attempt to troll, not the place - I answered to Krusty's Post above ^.
You don't have a clue about what Krusty is talking about, or the C.202/205 rather.
-
No, you're being dense.
Krusty didn't say a thing about the G.55 having the 7mm, he said it would be good to have both the series 0 and series 1 armament as options. He is saying the Series 0 armament would be similiar to the 7mm option on the C.205, in that it is less powerfull, though still respectable, and an interesting combination.
One thing I'd love for the G.55 is the Serie 0 option.
...
It would be a nice option like the 7mm wing guns on our C.202 and C.205, not the most powerful, but interesting for variety.
He clearly meant the series 0 armament would be good to have, similar to the 7mm wing guns on the C.205, for, and I quote, "variety".
I haven't found any with the 7mm wing guns, but I have seen both Serie 0 and Serie 1 in combat (squadron size) It certainly would be interesting to see differences in flight performance between the two.
This is where you got confused.
I think he meant it would be interesting to see both options for the G.55, simmilar to the 7mm guns in the wings of the C202 and 205.
Here is where I tried to help clarify for you.
Difference is I seen photos of both options in the G.55, I cannot show proof c202/205 had different options, then again this thread is about the G.55 which had both series in combat.
I can prove the C.205 had drop tanks in combat, although the handful of 2-3 photos have circulated the internet for years, its not exactly 100% proof, however what else can anyone go on since there is no actual proof or data, even then it was common in north africa, not afterwards.
Want to lose the 7mm option for the C202 and C.205 get your own thread for it, not the topic which says Fiat G.55, different aircraft and production model.
Heres where you freaked the **** out, and started babbling on about how you can't prove the C.205 had different options (unimportant, as we already have options for the C.205), drop tanks (entirely irrelevent to the discussion), and some how arived at the conclusion I was asking for the 7mm's on the C.205 and C.202 to be removed, despite the fact that YOU were the one who raised the issue of there not being any proof you've seen of the C.2 series having a 7mm option in this very post.
Butcher, you're either tired, drunk, senile, or trying to pull the same crap you did in the Panzer III thread.
I said nothing about wanting the 7mm's removed from the C.202 and C.205. I simply tried to clarify what Krusty was saying, as you seemed to be confused (you still seem to be confused), and then you proceded to hijack your own thread with meanderings about lack of proof, drop tanks, and hijacks.
Heres where I essentially say "wtf are you rambling on about? You just brought up two entirely new, previously undiscussed and entirely irrelevent comments, and then proceded to accuse me of bringing them up"
Butcher, you're either tired, drunk, senile, or trying to pull the same crap you did in the Panzer III thread.
I said nothing about wanting the 7mm's removed from the C.202 and C.205. I simply tried to clarify what Krusty was saying, as you seemed to be confused (you still seem to be confused), and then you proceded to hijack your own thread with meanderings about lack of proof, drop tanks, and hijacks.
You are Hijacking my wish thread with your own gibberish attempt to troll, not the place - I answered to Krusty's Post above ^.
You don't have a clue about what Krusty is talking about, or the C.202/205 rather.
:huh
-
Tank-Ace, you clearly are an expert at everything to do with world war two, what more needs to be said?
Krusty, how many c.202s had 12.7mm's in the nose and 7.7's in the wing? I alway's thought it was 12.7mm in the nose or 7.7, not both options? Don't recall many with both options, or photo wise.
-
Many of them, actually, had the wing guns. The 7mm wing guns were added onto the C.202 airframe early on because of the low firepower. It didn't really solve the problem. When the new engine was added to create the C.205 airframe, naturally the airframes modified had the 7mm wing guns already. These were removed and replaced with MG151/20s from Germany and the result is the common C.205 you are likely to come across in this game (cannon bird) but the wing guns were still there.
It might be interesting to look up the dates on the cannon introduction and production numbers, but I don't have that info on hand.
-
I am all for more Italian planes like the S.M. 79 bomber. Fiat also produced a radial fighter the G.50bis Freccia as did Macchi MC.200. However these radial Italian plane did not have near the performance of the C-202 C-205 or the G.55 in speed. I still think they would still have a place in the game and we can never have too many cool old plane.
-
Butcher you need some ankle spray? :rofl
-
Many of them, actually, had the wing guns. The 7mm wing guns were added onto the C.202 airframe early on because of the low firepower. It didn't really solve the problem. When the new engine was added to create the C.205 airframe, naturally the airframes modified had the 7mm wing guns already. These were removed and replaced with MG151/20s from Germany and the result is the common C.205 you are likely to come across in this game (cannon bird) but the wing guns were still there.
It might be interesting to look up the dates on the cannon introduction and production numbers, but I don't have that info on hand.
I could probably look that up, I have extensive information on the Italian airforce etc, production numbers I can find but not sure about the cannons etc.
-
+1 for fiat G.55