Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Krusty on March 22, 2007, 12:21:59 PM
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I wish I had better news for you on that Wmaker but I'm afraid we don't have a new kite for this release. Unfortunately, the terrain work has just taken a lot longer than we anticipated and even then, we were only looking at another updated airframe to fit the schedule.
The good news is that we do agree with you that a new airframe is overdue and we were discussing that at our meeting this morning. After this release that will be Waffle's next task while the rest of us put our collective efforts towards CT. We decided that we'd let the subscribers pick the next plane so I've been thinking of some various ways to have a run-off poll on what that should be. I'll be making a post on that in the near future. Now would be a good time to get your Brewster lobby mobilized.
G.55! G.55! G.55!!!!!!
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1174583649_g55.jpg)
Engine: 1475hp DB 605A
Dimensions: 38ft 10in span, 30ft 9in length, 10ft 3in height.
Weights: Empty: 2900kg; Loaded: 3710kg
Max speed: 385mph.
Initial climb: 3300 fpm.
Service Ceiling: 42,650ft
Range: 994 miles
Armament: 2x 12.7mm Breda SAFAT under the nose cowling, and 3x MG151/20s with 250 rounds per gun (2 in wings, 1 in nose).
First flight: April 30 1942. Sent to the front line as early as August 1943.
It may look like a 205, but it has a larger wingspan and wing area, better high-alt performance, was better streamlined than the C2, and had more firepower.
So show your approval for the G.55 now! It may be one of the options in the vote, if enough folks support it!
-
In the specs for armament it says, "...3x MG151/20s with 250 rounds per gun (2 in wings, 1 in nose)." Does that mean that the cannon in the nose will have 250 rounds/gun same as the cannons in the wings? Or will it have a smaller loadout similar to the 109's. (i.e. F4,G2 200 or 150 rounds/G6,G14 150 rounds)?
250 rounds for the nose cannon seems like a lot.
-
That means the cannon in the nose also has 250 rounds!
I remember reading that on a source or two. That's what made me stop and think "wow, that's cool, don't have to worry about 1 gun running out before the others!"
Consider that the nose has much more room than the 109s do. 109s are cramped and could barely fit 13mm guns without adding bulges to the cowling. The G.55 and C205 cockpits were pushed much further back, allowing for heavier guns at an earlier time, and (I'm guessing) allowing for larger ammo storage for spinner-mounted guns.
-
Thanks for this thread, Krusty!!! :)
Just one thing: you're right about the nose cannon, but, AFAIK, the wing cannons had only 200 rounds each! ;)
Btw, another thing that should be remembered: although I'm not sure it ever made use of them, it could bring bombs (like the .202 - and this model did use them, so, please, give us them! - and the .205), up to 160 kg under each wing.
It was produced and saw action even after the armistice in the Nazi occupied North Italy, and 250+ were built
EDIT: I checked better, you're right Krusty, it should be (not totally sure yet) 250 rounds per cannon
-
Also, the G.50, which this design was loosely based on, could carry 2 underwing bombs. One source says 160kg bombs.
You can see the bomb racks here (http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=0682137&WxsIERv=Svng%20T-55%20Pragnheb&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Vgnyl%20-%20Nve%20Sbepr&QtODMg=Ivtan%20qv%20Inyyr%20-%20Frncynar%20%28YVEO%29%20%28pybfrq%29&ERDLTkt=Vgnyl&ktODMp=Frcgrzore%2011%2C%202004&BP=0&WNEb25u=Avpbyn%20Znenfcvav&xsIERvdWdsY=5&MgTUQtODMgKE=Ivtan%20qv%20Inyyr%20Nvecbeg%2C%20Vgnyl%20Nve%20Sbepr%20uvfgbevp%20zhfrhz&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=3591&NEb25uZWxs=2004-10-03%2000%3A00%3A00&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=1024&height=715&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Svng%20T-55%20Pragnheb%27%29%20%20BEQRE%20OL%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=3&prev_id=1035351&next_id=NEXTID)
Also, according to this site (http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/g55.php) it could use drop tanks, going from a range of 1200km to 1650km
1650km being 990mi, which matches the information from the book I quoted in the first post. This craft definitely had drop tanks. I just don't know what capacity they held.
EDIT: I was putting this post together as Gianlupo was replying. He beat me to it!
EDIT2: I know I've read that the wing guns had 250 rounds also, I just can't remember where I read it...
-
Yep, and even C.202 and C.205 were able to use drop tanks... but you know HTC politics, only if they were used on the field they will be added... and DT were rarely used on .202, AFAIK, while I don't know about the .205 (but I guess they weren't used at all)...
But for bombs, especially on the .202, things are quite different... :)
-
G.55 with drop tanks:
Some sort of 2-seat trainer version:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/g55/g55-15.jpg
Some sort of test done with streamlined tanks:
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/g55/g55-13_small.jpg
(sorry, can only get the thumbnail to show up on this one)
-
Looking at the camo, I'm afraid they are post war, Krusty... at least the first one, the second picture is really too small (but the insignia look like the post war ones)
-
You're right, the first one definitely looks post-war. The second one, it looks like it might be a war-time photo.
However, the design didn't change ever after the war, when they were exported to a small group of nations. They could still carry DTs :D
-
Yep, right, because that possibility was in the design from the beginning... Give us the bombs and DTs!!! :furious
:lol
-
I will say I was partial to the Re. 2005 over the G.55
"The Reggiane had good behaviour in close dogfight and, according to General Minguzzi, who flew both Re 2005 and Spitfire, was even better than the Spit in tight turns and handling."
but the G.55 sounds cool too ;)
-
I have to say, this is one fighter I hope to only see in AH after dozens and dozens of other units are added. Practically a historical non-existant. We already have the nearly non-existant C.205.
-
They defended Rome against the allies. Their losses were quite heavy. After that they flew alongside the Luftwaffe units (sometimes called "puppet units" because the LW were in command). In the MTO they had a small but noticable impact.
They were tested by the Luftwaffe and found to be better than the 190 and 109s at altitude. There's a reason folks claim this was one of the best fighters of the war!
Consider that the most common aircraft in the Italian Air Force was the C.200. Consider that only just over 1000 were built for that type. The second most common, the G.50, had maybe 800 built or so (rough numbers, going from memory from an old post where I looked them up).
Then consider that the C205 had about 200 made, and the G.55 a little less. That's 1/5th the number of the most common plane that served in Italy.
These numbers may look small compared to US and LW numbers, but in Italy they were a major force to be contended with, the G.55 and C2 alone equaling 40% of the C.200s produced! That's not even counting the C202s!
EDIT: My point is this: The numbers may look small, but they were a considerable percentage of the total serving fighters at the time.
-
Their numbers look small compared to the N1K2-J's numbers, let alone the US's, USSR's, Germany's or UK's.
Why do they look small? Because they are.
The G55 is a duplicate to the C.205 in service and use. The C.200 or CR.42 would be a lot better as they fill another hole, and early war Italian fighter.
Don't get me wrong, I am not going to post anti-G.55 diatribes if it goes in. I just think it should be VERY low priority.
-
You still have quite a way to reach the merits of our Brewster Lobbying Thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52235) ... Yield and vote for the Brewster!
-
The G.55 is to the C.205, as the 109K-4 would be to the 109G-6, only the K-4 would have 3 cannons instead of 1, and more ammo than a 190a8.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The G.55 is to the C.205, as the 109K-4 would be to the 109G-6, only the K-4 would have 3 cannons instead of 1, and more ammo than a 190a8.
That is irrelevant, in my opinion. Same service time, more or less, and both are last ditch, practically no combat Italian fighters.
-
Practically no combat? I don't see how you can claim that. The 205 saw a lot of combat. It was spread so thin (1 205 in a unit of 202s) that it didn't stop the war, but it saw lots of bloody combat, shooting down many p38s, p51s, and US bombers.
The G.55 saw so much combat it was decimated by sheer allied numbers over Rome. No combat? Then why were most of them destroyed in combat?
Of all of the G.55s made, only 1 survived the war. That speaks to me of "saw combat".
EDIT: That 1 was used as a template for post-war exports
I can see your point Karnak, but it did see action, and it did fight. It had decent numbers compared to other Italian planes at the time. There are only 2 italian planes in this game, and they're almost the same plane. We could definitely see more variety.
-
It is hard for me to count, what, 60 examples as seeing heavy combat because 59 failed to see the end of the war. (how many were destroyed on the ground or before delivery?) Consider the number of Bf109s, Spitfires or Yaks that were destroyed.
-
Hrm... yes.. use 3 of the most widely produced aircraft ever in all of history, and compare them to a country with little production capabilities.
What about the Gladiator then? Probably less than 100 saw service once the war started. Folks ask for it all the time.
You ask for the CR.42, but it was obsolete before the war started. The C.200 and the G.50 were the primary front-line fighters of the Italian Air Force during WW2, and early on they realized even these were obsolete.
What about the me410? That definitely has a home in Aces High, but only just over 1000 were ever built.
What about the Hs 126? Hell only 200-300 were made for that, it was a flying death trap, and almost impossible to fly, yet it definitely has a home in this game as a GV attacker.
The G.55 has a place in this game as a high-alt bomber attacker, with decent speed, armament, and large wings for the thin air. It was designed to take the fight to the US bombers and guess what we have in this game? In this game we have crap-loads of 20k+ bombers. It's got a home. It's definitely got a home.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
What about the Hs 126? Hell only 200-300 were made for that, it was a flying death trap, and almost impossible to fly, yet it definitely has a home in this game as a GV attacker.
Hs 126 was a recon plane, over 900 produced. And I never read any report that it was "impossible to fly".
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Practically a historical non-existant. We already have the nearly non-existant C.205.
Karnak, according to this way of thinking, we should have no italian planes at all!
During the period 1940-1943, the italian aircraft industry produced about 10000 planes, which is roughly what the US industry built in 1 month!
Comparing the production numbers of the C.205 or G.55 to what the Allied or even Germany did, can only lead to what many historians did... totally dismiss Italy's partecipation to WWII as "irrelevant"... luckily, this is not done anymore today.
I know this is not what you're trying to do, but I used this example to make you understand that your way of thinking is not correct, IMO.
C.205 and G.55 were two of the most important fighters fielded by Italy (sorry JB, the Re.2005 had too little numbers and use), and the did see a lot of use in combat... and they were produced in consistent numbers when compared to the italian production numbers (about 250 C.205, 150/200 G.55 - numbers for this model aren't sure due to bombing raids over the factories in late war period-)
Plus, this thread is for people who want to know more about this plane and to support it, if you have to say something against it, please, make it in Pyro's thread, not here.
And don't try to steal votes, Wasq, you bastige!!! :furious ;)
EDIT: Lol, Wasq, I didn't see it was an old thread! :) you cheated me! :lol
Edited again to erase some too hot-headed comments... sorry Karnak
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Hs 126 was a recon plane, over 900 produced. And I never read any report that it was "impossible to fly".
What am I thinking of? Waffle posted a pic of it. Hs129?
-
Krusty, Lusche, I think you mean the Hs 129, the 126 was a biplane... ;)
But, please, let's keep the discussion focused on the G.55!
-
agreed
-
And remember my comment. Until you reach 15 pages, G.55 is regarded as irrelevant. :)
-
Give it 5 years and it'll be at 30.
But we don't have to, because we'll be getting the G.55 soon :t
-
The most important Italian fighters were the CR.42, C.200 and C.202.
-
clearly the best of the italian fighters and deserves to be represented in this game.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The most important Italian fighters were the CR.42, C.200 and C.202.
No doubt about that. But that doesn't mean we can't ask for the G.55, that was, anyway, one of the best italian fighter, and, for 1943, surely some of the best of the war... that would add to the game, especially to MAs (yes, for AvA and SEA we need the CR.42 and C.200 - I want them too! -), a new ride capable of giving a challenge to the most (over-)used fighters.
And, one thing not to disregard, HTC already have the original G.55 manual, Gatt sent it to them some years ago... :)
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Krusty, Lusche, I think you mean the Hs 129, the 126 was a biplane... ;)
And you are now confusing the Hs 126 with the HS 123 ;) - 129 was a monoplane. The Henschel eins-zwei-drei was a biplane and indeed a ground attacker.
And back on topic G.55: while my "vote" will probably go to another plane, I will certainly not object if this little beauty will be introduced...
-
:lol You got me!!!
And thanks for your support, bro! :)
-
I fully support the G55,I have flown this A/C in another sim and it would be a great addition to the game.Maybe,just maybe,the axis might have a better chance in CT with the addition of the G55:aok
-
I'm in
-
Morfiend, which sim is that? I thought no one had the G.55....
Btw, thanks to you and Hawco for the support! :)
-
One of the MSFS versions has one. A google search turned up something about that, earlier today. I didn't think much of it at the time.
P.S. I was thinking HS-129B, I had to go look it up just now in a book. Only 800 made. More than I thought, but still a miserable excuse for production numbers, and it would still have a solid home in AH as a GV-plinker :)
-
Just as a further heads-up. The early variant was the G.55/0 (zero). It had only the engine-mounted MG151/20 20mm cannon, and the 2x SAFAT MGs in the nose. It was rather quickly supplanted with the G.55/1, which had 2 additional wing guns installed, bringing the total to 3 cannon, 2 MG. Most of the G.55s made were /1's, but some /0's were included in the first batch, just before the armistice.
Perhaps a choice in the hangar? Include both options, like the current C205 has 2 gun options as well.
-
it was a CFS3 addon,they had Me 410 aswell:aok
-
<-- starts to eye the 410 thread
(*ducks Gianlupo throwing a spinach pie at me*)
-
How many were made/used??
Mulligan
-
Krusty... keep ducking! :D
No, I meant... :) The G.55/0 were the pre production series, I think they were 12 about (going by sheer memory, I may be wrong) The first one was armed with the MG151/20 and ALL 4 Safat MGs in the nose... but this arrangement gave problems (5 guns and a total of 1400 bullets in the nose... :eek:) and 2 of the MGs were moved to the wing, were they remained till the I production series, when they were replaced by 2 MG151/20.
Mulligan, the production numbers are not sure, mostly because of the bombing raids over North Italy in the late war, but, for sure, 150 G.55 of I series were delivered to ANR (the fascist, north italian air force), plus the 0 series exemplars and then, some other tens were built, but it's not sure how many of them went into service (again, I'm going by memory). So we can say that 150/200 were used during the war, with the first one as the sure number, the latter just as hypothetical...
Morfiend, thanks for the answer! :)
-
G55, has my vote.
-
Krusty can you explain me why you started a pissing constest about the D520 and yet support the G55 ?
-
Thanks for the support, FTJR! :)
Straffo, my dear beyond-Alps cousin.... why don't you support my plane, too? :D
P.S. what pissing contest? I think the D520 was a good plane, I'd like to have simulated in any flight sim.
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Straffo, my dear beyond-Alps cousin.... why don't you support my plane, too? :D
P.S. what pissing contest? I think the D520 was a good plane, I'd like to have simulated in any flight sim.
As a personnal preference I prefer the Yak3 ,but any pretty plane is good for me and th G55 is for sure pretty (I won't say of this of the Me410)
This constest : http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=200470
-
Ah, cc, didn't see that thread.. I'll give it a read... and then I'll hit Krusty on his knuckles! :D
Yak 3 is not that beautiful.... :D the G.55 is better! ;)
-
What "pissing" contest... ?
You simply didn't like that I brought up some points against modeling the first French fighter (not that we need one) as the D.520.
As for Italian fighters: After they realized in 1940 that they needed modern fighters they began work on the C202. Macchi popped a DB engine onto a C.200 airframe, and miraculously it was a wonderful aircraft. Over 1500 C202s were made, almost as much as all G.50s and C.200s combined. It was the main front-line aircraft of the war, for the Italians after 1942 or so.
Guess what? We already have it modeled! And we also have the 205 modeled, less capable than the G.55 but still a decent aircraft for 1943.
So not only do we have the most common and representative aircraft for the Italians already modeled in-game, we also have another airframe that's slightly more representative than the G.55.
G.55 is just icing on the cake. We already have a foundation of sorts, and the C202 is used in scenarios and events regularly. This doesn't even compare to your D.520 thread.
So, let's have the icing on that cake! Bring on the G.55!
-
I have to say that adding a japanese plane like the Ki-44 or Ki-43 would be my preference...but I dont think it really has a shot at happening.
I think we should put a ban on any more US or German planes for a year or so.
We have way to many birds from the US and GER. Adding another true Italian bird would be great...and from the stats looks very impressive, and would have a lot of seat time I think in the MA. The only thing I think I would hate about that plane is the canopy!!!
-
:lol yep, it miss a bubble canopy.... but no one is perfect, isn't it? ;)
Thanks for your support, spread the voice and make the italian lobby (mafia? :D) grow, we have to counter a horde of Finns!
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
... and 250+ were built
This says it all. No.
-
I want a G.55 !!
-
Originally posted by Solar10
This says it all. No.
Does it, now?
Cr.32, 1200 built, most of those in the 30s, the later versions (with 4 guns) that saw service in WW2 numbered only 500.
Cr.42, 1700 built, many exported, but on the whole a very ineffective fighter (where its performance in Belgium was notably lacking aginst the RAF in 1940). It was obsolete before the war started and they knew this. It was relegated to ground attack and other light duties in N. Africa until retired.
G.50, 450 of the main type (G.50bis) were produced. It was the comptemporary of the C.200, and until the C.202 came into service it was one of the 2 main front line aircraft.
C.200, 1100 built, saw more combat than any other Italian type. The main frontline fighter until the C202 came around
C.202, 1500 built. That's right, one of the best front-line aircraft in the Italian Air Force, it fought in all theaters the Italians did, and only 1500 were built. More even than its predecessors, save for the obsolete pre-war Cr.42.
C.205, about 200 built. Production was still slow as the Italians surrendered.
G.55, between 150 and 200 delivered, more built but bombed at the factory. Production was still slow as the Italians surrendered.
So you say 200 "is nothing"??? 200 isn't "worth" being included in this game? Well, gee, that's 1/5th (20%) as much as the C.200, which saw more combat than any other IT type in the war. That's over 13% of the total C202 numbers. Still a significant number. If you add the G.55s and the C.205s together you get a major contribution to the front lines. 400+ aircraft, in an airforce consisting of only 2500 or so.
That's a VERY major chunk of the whole.
-
Nice! :)
No.... wait... I'm not sure I want an ambiguous looking guy to support my lobby...... that avatard is disturbing!!!!!! :O :D
Solar, again, look what I answered to Karnak about the production numbers... we have planes with far less than that figure in the game... numbers aren't relative in absolute, but relatively to the country.
EDIT: Krusty, you have to lose that nasty habit of posting while I'm doing it!!! :D
-
Heh, you have to stop that nasty habit of posting right after me? :t
Just hit refresh, type as fast as you can, and post, lol! Best way to avoid posting while I do :aok
-
Originally posted by Krusty
What "pissing" contest... ?
You simply didn't like that I brought up some points against modeling the first French fighter (not that we need one) as the D.520.
And yet you start again.
I'll be always astonished by your blindness and your egotism.
I want this plane as a tribute to the 100 000 soldier who have fallen in the "little event" that happened in 39/40 can you at least respect that ?
I guess no, you've proved repeatedly in the past you cant change your opinion.
-
We need a G.55 avatar to compete with the Brewster camp.
-
Nice idea geary, I'll try to make something! :)
-
How about this?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1174684342_voteg55.jpg)
-
Not bad, Krusty... but what about a better draw? I know it's not easy to find one, I'm looking for it.. :P
Anyway, until then....
<--------- :)
-
You don't like that image?
I got it from a larger one (750 wide) but it didn't have the wingtips to start with, so it feels a little "cramped".
How about this one, then?
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1174686174_voteg55_2.gif)
-
<---- Represent!
-
I say they're both nice, Krusty! :)
Why don't you yet wear one of them? :D
-
As soon as we get the skins pack released :P
I can't change my current avatar or I lose my suck-up powers, and the skins pack will never be released!!
-
Another Italian fighter would be in order... after the Brewster is out...
but it should rather be "one of the 2 main front line aircraft" the G.50 ;) ;) ;)
-
Blauk, I agree on that... as I said in the New plane election thread, why don't you change your agenda? We can join force and have the G.50, and we'll be both happy! :D
If not... you'll have to wait again for the Brewster... 'cause a Centauro is on the way!!!!! (I made HT an offer he cannot refuse.... (http://ia.ec.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/09/96/46m.jpg))
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v445/Khenlein/yak3-1.jpg)
-
Fiat G.55 sucks. Just like Fiat cars.
-
Originally posted by Ball
Fiat G.55 sucks. Just like Fiat cars.
Fix
it
again
tony
;)
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The most important Italian fighters were the CR.42, C.200 and C.202.
Actually the G55 was the single most important fighter of the entire war....in fact it might have changed the war entirely. By Mid 1942 many elements of the luftwaffe felt that the 109 had reached its development apex and that the 190 was lacking as a pure fighter. German pilots had been very impressed with both the 205 and the G55. The luftwaffe flew combat trials and actually recommended that the G.55 replace the 109 in german production. The G.55 was much more intricate and required more then double the man hours to produce. That combined with political realities scuttled the proposal.....but the G55 is probably the dominant midwar plane in the world. While it may have little numerical or "historical" importance it is an aviation milestone. If in fact it had been put in service by the germans it might have arrived early enough and in great enough numbers to have changed history. I would wager it would be one of the top 3 scorers in AH.......
-
G.55 would make a good perk plane:aok
-
Originally posted by humble
Actually the G55 was the single most important fighter of the entire war....
:rofl :rofl
no.. wait...
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
And the second most important fighter of the entire war was the CR.42. Used for longer and in greater numbers than any other Italian fighter.
(http://www.constable.ca/cr42.jpg)
Between them, the CR42 and G55 swept the allied air forces from the skies. Then when Italy decided to swap sides, the CR42 and G55 eliminated the LW.
In fact... the Brewster Buffalo was just a cleverly disguised Fiat G.55 - no surprise when you look at it's kills/death ratio.
-
Originally posted by Ball
And the second most important fighter of the entire war was the CR.42. Used for longer and in greater numbers than any other Italian fighter.
The CR42 was produced in numbers slightly higher than the C202, but most of these were pre-war, and they were far far obsolete before the war started. Italy's Air Force knew this at the time. It was built in higher numbers than any other IT plane, but did not see use more than the C.200, the G.50, the C.202, or the c.205/g.55.
It was confined to training, light attack, and even some night fighting, but it was just too poor an aircraft to keep up with anything else it would meet in the air.
Now, as for an ealier fighter, you come down to the G.50 or the C.200....
The C.200 was basically the dominant one, with Macchi being able to deliver them in larger numbers and faster. However, they had the same engine and the same armament, so I'd guess there was little to choose between the two.
Seeing that we already have a C.202, and a C.205, we don't want a monopoly of Macchis (say THAT fast three times!)
I'd say the G.50 would be a great candidate.
-
Originally posted by Ball
:rofl :rofl
no.. wait...
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
typical response from a 40 watt bulb. Easy to take it out of context. But at a time when the 109 was still considered one of if not the dominant fighter of the war the germans already realized the G55 was a huge improvement as an airframe. The germans never had a development option from 1943 on that could make an immdediate differance. Had the G55 iarframe been melded with the late war engines that went into the G10,14,K4 you'd have had a plane that could both take on the bombers as well as the ponys tempests spit XIVs etc...
Given the planes cowl room I bet you could even have gone to a 5 x 20mm with the late war engine power....
The G55 is probably on par with the F7F as the two planes that never really saw mass production but would have changed the overall capabilities dramatically. Had the Germans met the mid 1943 bomber stream with G55's the stategic airwar might have played out very differently....
-
The C.205N (none saw combat) did have side blister on the nose to add 2 more guns. I believe the G.55 had 1 craft at least tested with this configuration.
It wouldn't be without precedent to have that many guns in the nose. There just wasn't time to develop the design before Italy surrendered.
-
Humble...We're saying alot about the G.55...But, with the same motor(DB605A) as the later 109's, on an airframe as light, plus with all the same hvy armament, what exactly is a G.55 gonna turn like? Is it going to have the same torque characteristics? Is it gonna vert like a 109G-10 or K-4?
I would ask HTC, Pyro and gang, what kind of flight envelope it's going to have.
-
That's up to them to decide. However, the G.55 has larger wings (better high alt performance) and larger vertical stab than the 109s (less torque effects) and just as effective a rudder and elevator set. It had not only a nose gun, but internal wing guns (no -25mph drag from gondolas!!!) and far more ammo (750 rounds 20mm, and I'm guessing 800+ rounds 12.7mm) than contemporary LW planes. Most LW planes have 150 rounds 20mm internal. Even with just a nose gun, the G.55 would have 250 rounds for the same gun setup.
It has a marked improvement in punch and stopping power, IMO, coupled with better high alt performance, this would probably translate to much better turning capabilities.
Probably. I don't know for sure.
I don't think it would fly like a 109 any more than our current C2 flies like a 109. I think it would have its own "feel" in flight.
Consider that the F6F and F4u have comparable performance specs, but have totally different "feels" when you fly them in-game. I think this plane (if added) would be unique in how it flies.
-
Eye candy
(http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/haven/2470/centauro.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Fiat_G.55_cover.jpg)
(http://www.gavs.it/chisiamo/img/g55.jpg)
(http://galeon.hispavista.com/fockewulf190i/img/WebG-5518rojo%20ingles.jpg)
Fiat G-55 Series I, 1º Gruppo Caccia, of 1ª Squadriglia, at Reggio-Emilia, in June of 1944
(http://digilander.libero.it/torpedoclub/ANR%2013.jpg)
(http://www.diethelm-glaser.de/modelle/flugzeuge/deutsch/pics/d-fiat-g55-2.jpg)
Last one is a pic of an old Revell model kit. I put it there to show the interesting/odd angle of the wings. Similar to the He100D, where it has a flat central spar and then upward dihedral after that. Also it shows the DTs
:D
-
SA-WEET!!!!!
Total walkaround of a G.55 in restoration. There are none that survived the war. They're taking a post-war version and reverting it (it had a different engine and a 4-bladed prop, but the rest was identical).
Page after page of walk-around detail!! HERE!!!! (http://www.ams.vr.it/AircWalkAround/Museo%20Vignadivalle/Fiat_G.55/Fiat%20G.55%20Centauro%20pag%2001.htm)
-
Along with G.55, can we have Reggiane Re.2005? This is the Axis Spitfire:t
(http://www.icarusgold.com/s/re-012.jpg)
(http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/reggiane/re2005.jpg)
-
I myself admire the G.55 but lets get some proof of it, I've done my part in providing information about the Plane and actually found the oh-so popular Brewster to be MEDIOCRE , get some links on some of these threads spread information, not just the sweet chant 'SUPPORT THE G.55!' It's the only way we can get the G.55 mates, get some links and information out to other threads.
EDIT: Get information to other threads, plus, good work on getting the information...so far :)
-
Gee, I dunno.. posting the specs, debating the armament loadout, discussion the number that served in relation to the entirety of the IT air force, and clarifying how much action and how much of an impact it made, might be considered "support".
EDIT: Oh, and discussing performace, differences between this and 109s, and some debate about the flight modeling, which we've also done.
And, if you read the first 3 pages, we've done all of that, already :aok
-
Originally posted by humble
typical response from a 40 watt bulb. Easy to take it out of context.
LOL
in your exact words...
Originally posted by humble
Actually the G55 was the single most important fighter of the entire war....
dont want me to reply to such BS?
dont post it...
because, that is absolute bull ****.
-
I'd have to disagree with Humble's comment. I would think it was not an important fighter in the war. No more than the C.202 or C.205. Not important, in the grand scheme of things I mean.
Certainly not as important as the 109, spitfire, p-51.
But to the Italians, it was considered the best of the best.
Now, in a what-if situation, it could have become very important, indeed even the LW's frontline plane. But that never was the case, and with the beuracracy of the RLM it would never have happened.
-
Ah, luckily you posted again, Ball, so I have not to go back... ;)
Yes, Humble exaggerated a bit, but it was right in one thing:
By Mid 1942 many elements of the luftwaffe felt that the 109 had reached its development apex and that the 190 was lacking as a pure fighter. German pilots had been very impressed with both the 205 and the G55. The luftwaffe flew combat trials and actually recommended that the G.55 replace the 109 in german production. The G.55 was much more intricate and required more then double the man hours to produce. That combined with political realities scuttled the proposal....
RLM did start a "Centauro project" for the mass production of G.55 in Italy and in Germany. The RLM was impressed by the capabilities of the plane and its possible evolution, so impressed that they sent 3 DB603 in Italy to be mounted on 3 G.55 of the 0 series (the preproduction series). 1 of them was completed and transferred to Reichlin, the experimental center of LW... they really wanted to produce the G.55, 'cause they did recognize its full potential.
As for the confrontation with 109, Frode, the Centauro was a bit slower than the Gustav, but more stable and more maneuverable. I have some publication about the G.55 and I'm gonna post excerpts here in the forum but they're mostly in italian, so I need to translate them, it'll take me a while :) So we can make happy even our friend Willfly ;) (btw, Krusty, this one --->(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Fiat_G.55_cover.jpg) is one of them! :D)
Ike, it would be nice to have the Re.2005, too, but it was really built in too few number and served in 1 squadriglia only (a staffel, in LW terms... only 12 operational, really too few...), it'll never make it in AH.. :) but if you want to download Target Tobruk.... :D
Re.2005
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/853_1174795119_re.2005.jpg)
G.55
(http://www.evil-turkey.de/TW/images/tt_g55S1_001.jpg)
-
You just had to post that, didn't you? Now I need to mop up this drool...
Is that book any good? I can't tell from the image if it's a decent book or just one of those paper-back pamphlet-style books.
-
Not the best source you can find around... a honest paperback ;)
I wanted to show 1K3 the Re.2005, can't find the picture in TT forum, maybe they have removed it now... but the Centauro was there... :D
-
Funny how they keep spending years and years to add new aircraft without filling in the major gaps first, or without updating the obsolete flight engine. Is it still on 0.64?
Anyways, The Re2005 is in the game, but the wing guns are gondolas, which add drag, and the ammo count is very low (120 for the nose, less for the gondolas, I think).
That game doesn't do any airframe justice, so I'll hold back any comments about how it flies in TT.
IMO, the 2005 is rather ugly as hell, lmbo! I like the looks of the Re 2000, the radial engined version. THAT had style, and class. Almost looked like an old P-36 Hawk or something.
-
IIRC it's 0.65, now, and they're waiting for a major update.
Krusty, you're confusing the Re.2005 with the Re.2001. The latter had 2 gondola-mounted MG151/20 in its night fighter configuration, 60 rounds each. The Re.2005 was equipped with 20mm cannons inside the wings, just like the G.55 (don't ask me now how many rounds, I just don't recall it! ;))
-
Oh, sorry then. I remember flying one of them in Target: Tobruk.
Well, enough with the Reggiane! Back to the Fiat!
-
Good idea!!! :D
P.s. they have both the Reggiane in TT, but the 2005 was a latter addition.
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Ike, it would be nice to have the Re.2005, too, but it was really built in too few number and served in 1 squadriglia only (a staffel, in LW terms... only 12 operational, really too few...), it'll never make it in AH.. :) but if you want to download Target Tobruk.... :D
You just had to kill it didnt you;) :p
-
Ahem........
Can someone post charts of G.55???
Climb rate
Speed
comments
comparisons vs other aircraft
???
This thread is meaningless without it!
-
Originally posted by Ball
LOL
in your exact words...
dont want me to reply to such BS?
dont post it...
because, that is absolute bull ****.
Put them in the context they were written in....
Developing an airframe normally took roughly 2 yrs from conception to the 1st production run. Both german front line fighters were actually prewar designs. For some reason the germans never really supported proper development of alternate platforms. so the 1943 luftwaffe was flying the equivelent of the PzIIIJ which while perfectly adequate was at the end of its design life. Meanwhile the Tiger was already in service as was the PzIV (with the Panther otw). The G55 actually represented a significant gain in both immediate capability and a platform for growth.
It had a cleaner airframe, better wing loading, greater rudder authority and significantly better firepower. Had it been rolled into production it would have appeared in reasonable numbers by late summer of 1943 at the latest. If you review the various white papers on the air war over europe they all tend to view the 6/43-5/44 timeline as the true demise of the luftwaffe. Due in part to the relative ineffectiveness of the 109 in the west.
Obviously this is a "what if" scenario, but to me this is one of the great things about a simulation of this type. The G.55 is an intriguing option that will not only be very competitive (and widely used) but also highlight one of the little known "alternative history" threads. Had the G55 been adopted its very very possible the US would have had to abandon daylight bombing in 1943......
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Ahem........
Can someone post charts of G.55???
Climb rate
Speed
comments
comparisons vs other aircraft
???
G.55 (http://www.answers.com/topic/fiat-g-55)
One of many.......
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Ahem........
Can someone post charts of G.55???
Climb rate
Speed
comments
comparisons vs other aircraft
???
This thread is meaningless without it!
Ike, please, don't think I'm too harsh, but.... it'd help a lot if you actually read a thread, sometimes.... Data were posted by Krusty in first post and discussed in the following posts, as comparison to other aircraft... and, just above, in this page, I wrote I'm gonna post as much stuff as I can, as soon as I can scan/translate it...
-
"Had the G55 been adopted its very very possible the US would have had to abandon daylight bombing in 1943....."
I think your mistaking something for an Me 262, which is the only a/c that could have had the effect you are implying.
The G55 was a fine fighter, 1st class, one of many that both sides flew, lets not get carried away into fanboi-fantasy-camp over it.
...and the Fw190 was the premier bomber killer for the LW in 1943/44, and was even more heavily armed than a G55 was. Calling it a "pre war design" is beyond cherry picking your data. You can hardly compare the Fw190 prototype to what was flying in 1943.
I will leave it at that, since this isnt the thread for it.
-
I meant that i want to see climb/speed charts for G.55.
-
If the U.S.N had bought prototype G.55s as planned and had them at Pear Harbor, we probably would have won the war. :cool:
-
Bad bad place!
Mulligan:lol
-
Okay, now, let's not get too far off topic.
-
What's "CT"???
-
Combat Tour. That which HTC has been working on for us subscribers, where realistic bombers fly realistic missions with realistic opposition, and a linear mission progression and character development (of sorts).
There's an entire forum devoted to it.
-
Originally posted by quintv
If the U.S.N had bought prototype G.55s as planned and had them at Pear Harbor, we probably would have won the war. :cool:
:rofl :rofl :rofl (What are you laughing at??? It's true!!! :D)
1k3, I'm afraid I can't help you with those, I have any... I know that HT has a flight manual of the G.55, don't know if there are charts, there.
Originally posted by Krusty
Okay, now, let's not get too far off topic.
Good idea! :aok
-
Originally posted by humble
Put them in the context they were written in....
It doesnt matter what context they were written in. There is nothing you could put about the G.55 to justify it being "the single most important fighter of the entire war".
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The CR42 was produced in numbers slightly higher than the C202, but most of these were pre-war, and they were far far obsolete before the war started. Italy's Air Force knew this at the time. It was built in higher numbers than any other IT plane, but did not see use more than the C.200, the G.50, the C.202, or the c.205/g.55.
It was confined to training, light attack, and even some night fighting, but it was just too poor an aircraft to keep up with anything else it would meet in the air.
It was in service in 1939 and served in 'training events' like the Battle of Britain, North Africa and Malta (where did you get your info from?). Over 1,000 aircraft were built and served throughout the war.
Therefore i think that makes it a far more important Italian aircraft to add, and if the G.55 is added before, it would be the equivalent of adding the Gloster Meteor before the Hawker Hurricane ;)
-
If the G.55 gets added I see it getting pwnd by C.205's... I see top speed listed as 385 for the G.55 and 400 for the lesser C.205 not to mention the weight issue. I think the P-39 and my He-111 have a better shot at making it. But don't let me distract your discussions...
-
Originally posted by humble
Actually the G55 was the single most important fighter of the entire war....
Originally posted by humble
Obviously this is a "what if" scenario, but to me this is one of the great things about a simulation of this type. The G.55 is an intriguing option that will not only be very competitive (and widely used) but also highlight one of the little known "alternative history" threads. Had the G55 been adopted its very very possible the US would have had to abandon daylight bombing in 1943......
What if? the Fiat G.55 made a huge impact.
Here it is raising the flag over the Reichstag in 1945: -
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1174827510_reichstag.jpg)
When the USAF wanted to test the F-22, in a little known test they flew a squadron of them against a Fiat G.55. I have managed to secure the test film from this amazing event: -
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1174827554_fiat22.gif)
Also, many things have been heavily influenced by the design of the Fiat G.55, i think you will agree that the similarities between these and the Fiat are incredible - it is almost impossible to tell them apart: -
(http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/images/747-400F_topshot_375.jpg)
(http://dept.kent.edu/afrotc/Visitors/Multimedia/Photos/B-2%20Over%20Clouds2800.jpg)
(http://www.puzzlehouse.com/images/webpage/stonehenge.jpeg)
-
lol :lol
-
Lets put this thread into perspective and move it to the 'wish list' along with all the other aircraft that had such an impact as a production run of 130 would produce. I mean even Germany was able to produce 1,400 some 262's and those were extremely rare to actually run across.
-
Ball - Brilliant Sir, simply Brilliant.
-
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!Great stuff Furball
Pipz
-
All right, cool it. Way off topic. Don't need a b***c fest inside a legit lobbying thread.
Ball, if you want a nice break-down of the Cr.42 history, please check this webpage.
http://www.comandosupremo.com/Cr42.html
I found it quite interesting.
Note that quite a number fo the Cr.42s were exported. Over 400+ were lost in the retreat in Africa. After 1942 they were reduced to trainer or (a small group) night fighters -- but they couldn't catch what they were chasing at night.
They "served" until 1944 only because the Luftwaffe used them as trainers, liason aircraft, and tried to equip them with night attack gear, but only to be replaced with Ju87s.
Surely an interesting aircraft. NOT a front line aircraft. A second-rate light-attack aircraft. No more important, than (for example) the Fw189 was.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Surely an interesting aircraft. NOT a front line aircraft. A second-rate light-attack aircraft. No more important, than (for example) the Fw189 was.
Thanks for the link.
It was a front line fighter. It was only in 41 that they used it as a ground attack aircraft. How can you claim it is no more important than the Fw189?
Turning back to the Regia Aeronautica, its first operations in World War II took place after 6/10/40 against France and were effected by the CR.42s of 53° Stormo (150° and 151° Gruppi) and of 3° Stormo (18° and 23° Gruppi). A couple of days after also the 13° Gruppo in Libya started operations against British forces. On the French front, the CR.42s claimed ten victories against five losses, but these must be read as optimistic, a 1:1 ratio should be closer to the truth. In Africa, the most intense operations took place in Somalia and Ethiopia and there, the Comando Africa Orientale Italiana had 36 CR.42s available employing them from 3 to 8/19/40 and obtaining air superiority against the RAF. But the losses and the attrition was great and, notwithstanding the further 51 CR.42s delivered by transporting them dismantled inside the S.82s, the isolation of the AOI begun to be a heavy necessity to be overcome and from 1/41 the aircraft available steadily diminished, going down from 26 on 1/10, to only five by mid-April. The two only surviving CR.42s managed to fight up to 10/41, but by 11/27/41 the AOI was lost, and 87 CR.42s with it.
Another operation that took place by late 1940 was the infamous Corpo Aereo Italiano (C.A.I.). The propaganda operation designed to have Italian aircraft operating against the RAF on the Channel was ill conceived and conducted and showed at full the defects and the approximation of the Regia Aeronautica. The FIAT CR. 42s operating with C.A.I. were fifty, belonging to 18° Gruppo. On 10/19/40 they transferred on to the Belgian airfield of Ursel. The first action took place on 10/29, when 39 CR.42s escorted the Br.20s over Ramsgate. On 11/11 the bombers were escorted over Harwich by 40 CR. 42s but were intercepted by Spitfires and Hurricanes causing the loss of three CR.42s, while another nineteen were forced to crash-land in Belgium due to lack of fuel caused by the combat. The last action of November took place on the 29th between Margate and Folkstone with a combat against Spitfires that caused the loss of two more CR.42s (the British losses are still uncertain, if any). On 1/10/41 the CR.42s began to come back to Italy. Lack of heating equipment, open cockpits, primitive radio sets, in addition to an absolute lack of navigational capacities of the Italian pilots (a specific training was undertaken only after 1942) transformed this operation in a real nightmare for those involved!
A front where the CR.42 operated in better conditions from the start was the North African one. The 127 "Falco" available in 13° Gruppo, 10° Gruppo and 9° Gruppo operated against an enemy equipped with the Gloster Gladiator, an equivalent biplane fighter. The first combat on 11/19/40 involved the Italian units and the Australian 3 Sqn. RAAF and this was followed by other combats on 12/10 and 12/26. Notwithstanding further CR.42s sent from Italy (among them those of 18° Gruppo, coming from C.A.I.), the Italian retreat and the loss of Cyrenaica by 2/41 brought to the loss of over 400 aircraft, many of them destroyed on the ground in front of the enemy advance. With the arrival of German troops and the start of the new offensive, the main task for the CR.42 biplane begun to be the close support to the ground units and when, on 4/41, the first CR.42 AS arrived (AS = Africa Settentrionale), equipped with sand filters and attachment points for two bombs, the switch of role was clear. The enemy had Hurricanes by now and the CR.42 surely was more useful in the ground support role. Thus, used more and more exclusively on this role with 160° Gruppo, 158° and 159° Gruppi (constituting 50° Stormo Assalto), 101° Gruppo Assalto and 15° Stormo Assalto, the CR.42s followed all the North African campaign showing on many occasions the bravery of its pilots and by early 1943 the surviving 82 examples were sent back to Italy from Tunisia.
We have to give a look also at three other important theatres of operations: Greece, Crete and Malta. The operations against Greece involved 46 CR.42s of 150° Gruppo at first against Greek aircraft and later against the RAF. Almost twenty Fiats were lost by the end of the campaign. The operations against Crete in late 5/41 were supported by the biplanes of 162a and 163a Squadriglia used as fighter-bombers. The offensive against Malta started since the first day of war and involved the CR.42s of 17° Gruppo, 9° Gruppo (before going to Libya) and 23° Gruppo. After a full year of war the RAF had claimed 16 confirmed destroyed CR.42s over Malta. 7 additional were claimed as probables and 6 were claimed as damaged. Totally RAF made claims for 106 confirmed, 47 probables and 38 damaged over Malta. It was a wearing war and only by 1942 the CR.42s were fully replaced by the Macchi C.202s and the Reggiane Re.2001s.
-
Let me rephrase. I worded that poorly.
It was a front-line aircraft, in the regards that it filled the gap until they could get the G.50s and C.200s out.
"Front line" to me indicates it was the tip of the spear, taking the fight to the enemy aircraft, and shootin down the enemy aircraft. It did not perform well, and losses were high even when they were relatively successful. It was dumped into ground support because there wasn't anything else it could do, and they're not going to just dump 1000+ aircraft when a war is going on. They're going to use them in reduced capacity, whatever that may be.
To me, being pushed from fighter to ground attack (especially when so lightly armed in the first place) because of inferiority is a demotion, removing it from the "front line" fighters category. That's how I see it. Sorry if my wording was confusing.
The same way that the Hurricane was deemed inferior and too slow and underpowered, and relegated to ground attack roles (heh, contrary to its role in THIS game, eh?).
As an aside: The "front line" fighters, IMO, were the C.200, G.50, and C.202.
-
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
Or one mans second rate fighter is another's front line.
IE
Brewster for the Finns.
P-39 for the Russians.
Krusty do you ever tire of being wrong?
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Ball
It doesnt matter what context they were written in. There is nothing you could put about the G.55 to justify it being "the single most important fighter of the entire war".
"might have been" would have been better wording....but the underlying premise remains valid. The mere fact that the germans even considered it illustrates just how serious the problem was. For the G.55 to "win" the recomendation it had to clearly beat the 109 (G4) by a substantial margin.
In 1943 the air war over western europe was still winable by the germans. Had the G.55 entered widespread service it might have actually tipped the balance back to the germans. Both the german and italian pilots in Italy/med felt the G.55 {and C205} clearly outclassed the 109's.
As a side note the G55/II did have 5 x 20mm and did fly in 1944. Kurt Tank continued to lobby hard for the G55 well into 1944 but it was never put into production.
-
Originally posted by humble
"might have been" would have been better wording....
:aok
-
-
-
-
-
i'm honoured.
i think that is the first time a thread i have posted in has been called serious. :t
-
-
:noid What happened here:confused:
-
-
And on that note i think their is a fight outside the HTC office:D
heres the video feed
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r10/tomovuk/24.gif)
and onto the Weather:
it is currently raining bats over here on the east coast:D
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r10/tomovuk/avatar11.gif)
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol :lol
-
-
Sigh.....
I hope we could discuss the topic at hand without the usual j**king... it seems it's impossible...
A plea to everyone (E V E R Y O N E): could you please keep your personal business out of this thread? If you want to talk about the plane, or even put in some joke (Ball, you forgot the picture in which the 55 is teaching Wright brothers how to take off... :D), you're very welcome, if you have to insult each other and being mean, please, don't post here.
Originally posted by Ball
Therefore i think that makes it a far more important Italian aircraft to add, and if the G.55 is added before, it would be the equivalent of adding the Gloster Meteor before the Hawker Hurricane ;)
If you're right about this (and maybe- just maybe! ;)- you can be), then I think this is the right time to reverse the HTC airplane-adding policy! Give us the 55!!!
:D
-
Bring the G.55 to aces high!
But in order to get it in, we will have to sabotage the P-39 thread!
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201519
-
In reply to Ball's post:
But we already HAVE the hurricane. In this case it's the C202 :P
Since we already HAVE one of the major primary "lesser" fighters in the game, we can get the more exotic ones ;)
So, we've already got the ground work, the scenario plane (the c202), that's used for most occasions. Sure we could add others, even we'd argue for the c200 and g50. But, with at least 1 main supporting craft already in the game (c202) we can get a little more exotic in our requests :)
-
Good point Krusty! :)
EDIT: Just gave a look at the P39 thread... Ball, you little punk!!! :lol Go away from my thread!!!
-
that role is filled by the C.205, sorry :)
-
I dunno.. I kind of feel gyped on the 205, because they just took the 202 and tweaked some points. It wasn't really a new plane (no more than the 47D-40 was newer than the D-25).
-
Then, as I said, we only need to reverse HTC aircraft-adding policy.
Now go away, punky, make your own Meteor thread!!! :D
-
A good site for G.55.:aok
http://xoomer.alice.it/g55/index.htm
And a pic:D
(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2969/g551yp6.gif)
Summary of report on German tests at Giudonia during 1943
The G-55 was seen as most favourable of the tested Italian planes
G-55:
- Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
- High forces on the aileron.
- Effect of rudder could be better.(G.55/I is better)
- Plane curves very good and narrow.
- Slightly uneasy in "mid position" (shooting position).
- Pitch to any side could not be noticed, similiar to Spitfire.
- Moderate pilot view on take off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Worse pilot view than the German planes.
- Aeronautical not as good as German planes.
- Not useable as fighterbomber with bomb under fuselage.
- Equal to German planes in climb and high altitude performance.
- Inferior in speed by 25 km/h, but Italian produced DB 605 delivered 100 PS less than the German.
- Superior in armament and range to the German planes.
- Ability to install DB 603 without bigger modifications.
- Was evaluated as best Italian plane in the trials.
Macchi 205 V:
- Armament: 4 12.7 mm MG.
- Unstable in lateral axis.
- Very high effect of rudder.
- Tendency to "Uberziehen" (stall ?).
- Forces on aileron and rolling good.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Will be only produced in small numbers since it is a temporary solution.
Macchi 205 N:
- Armament: 1 MG-151/20 and 4 12.7 mm MG.
- Mass production variant of DB 605.
- Good rudder effect.
- Was smoothly in "mid position" (shooting position).
- Rolling good.
- Rudder forces a little smaller than for Bf 109 G-4.
- Cooler too small for constant climbing and use in tropical environment.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
- Wing not solid but made of three parts, plane not suited for fighter-bomber use.
Reggiane 2005:
- Armament: 3 MG-151/20 and 2 12.7 mm MG.
- Aeronautical attributes were sufficient.
- Curves well, rolling like Bf 109 G-4 with rudder forces a little less.
- Take-offs and landings easy.
- Pilot seat a little too far away from control stick.
- Not suited as fighter-bomber due to size and location of cooler.
- Moderate pilot view on take-off, during flight limit to front above, good to sides and backwards.
The German's suggested that the G.55 become the standard fighter of the axis nations, replacing both the Bf109 and Fw190 because of its superior performance. This was not practical because of the ease of production of the Bf109 mentioned before.
From:http://www.ww2aircraft.net/
-
CPW, I'm checking the info you found on the first website, I'm not sure they're right... I have one of his books (and another one, too, but I can't remember where I put it... :p), maybe he didn't check toroughly his sources...
Apart from this... welcome onboard! Feel free to use my avatar and signature! :)
-
All Italian airplanes look the same.
Apart from the CR42.
Lets add that instead.
-
Looking at the above diagram, I can't help but notice that the Italians didn't even bother building both gear struts.
How could you put your faith in such sloppy engineering?
I'll stick with the P-39 and B-25, thanks. At least I know they have enough wheels to take off and land.
-
Interestingly enough, it seems the Serie 0 had 4x Breda SAFAT guns in the nose. Two above the cowling, and two underneath.
See this image of one of the early prototypes:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1174939985_g55-prototype-a.jpg)
I got this from the "election" thread, where somebody posted a URL. I went to check it out.
In that image you can see a gun "trough" where the bullets would exit the cowling (you see them usually on TOP, though).
I always thought the Serie 0 had 2x 12.7mm. Seems they had 1x 20mm in the hub and 4x 12.7mm (2 top, 2 bottom) in the nose.
In the Serie 1 (or is that Roman Number "I"???), they removed the 2 lower guns because they were too hard to get at and maintain/repair, and put a 20mm in each wing.
So, theoretically, if we got this plane, and if it had 2 gun options, one would be 2x 12.7mm and 3x 20mm (Serie 1, the more common), and the other would be 4x 12.7mm and 1x20mm (Serie 0, the early version).
-
Krusty, check your PM's.
-
<--- 2 days til voting starts, skin pack avatar can wait.
-
Good decision Krusty!
And.. err.. uhh... I've already written about the prototype weapon layout.... :p
Furball: go shaking your belly elsewhere, just vote for my plane! ;)
Furboll: look better, it has anti-G pads underneath, in case of gear failure... and, as a combat tactic, pilots could use them to make fuzzy maneuvers to disorient their enemies...
Pyro, vote for the G..... er... sorry old habits die hard! :D
-
Pyro will vote for something that has a chance, your G.55 will be D.O.A.
-
Huuuu... what the hell is D.O.A.???? Something you eat? uhhh.... "will be", you say???? So it's gonna win! Good! :D
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
And.. err.. uhh... I've already written about the prototype weapon layout.... :p
Sorry, I remember now that you refreshed my memory. I recall reading that it was on the prototype, but I didn't know it was on all "Serie 0" craft.
DOA is a medical term. It means "Dead On Arrival" -- when the ambulance gets to the hospital, the patient died before arriving.
Not to be confused with "G.55," though. I can see how he'd make that mistake, because they both have 3 characters. VWE, the trick to prevent from getting those two terms confused is to remember that the airplane has one consonant and two numbers, whereas the medical term has one consonant and two vowels.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by VWE
Pyro will vote for something that has a chance, your G.55 will be D.O.A.
I don't think Pyro's vote will count for more than a single vote as it is a community vote... :) Anyway, the Brewster will win, but I'll cheer you guys up when your plane gets culled on the first round... (just kidding, after Brewster and P39 the G.55 will get my vote, unless the G.50 is offered. :))
-
IN!
Bring on the G.55!!!!!
-
If... BIG if the G.55 gets culled quickly, I'll move on to 410 and B-25 and P-39.
However, I think the G.55 will make the top 4 finalists. I think the Brewster will be dropped halfway through (there aren't THAT many Finns to vote on it :t ), and the B-25 and the P-39 will be the planes to beat.
Much as I love the idea of the 410, I don't see enough support for it. I predict it will be culled halfway through, as well.
-
Hey, noticed that since there are already a couple of good Italian Fighters(C.202-C.205) Why did'nt you guys ask for a good multipurpose attack/bomber like the S.M. 79?
http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79.html (http://)
-
The SM.79 has a role in scenarios, for sure... However, it wasn't really multipurpose (unless you count bomber/torp bomber?), and it carried about as much as the Ki67, only much slower than any other bomber in this game, and with less defensive capabilities.
Frankly, it would be slaughtered even in scenarios :cry
That, and either the G.50 or the C.200 (either) would really round out the IT planeset nicely, though.
EDIT: Let me put it this way: Would you vote for the SM.79 if the P-39 was another option?
What if the P-39 gets done, but the B-25 is in the vote list?
What if the P-39 and the B-25 and the Brewster, and the 410, and the G.55, and the Pe2, and the Ki44 all get done, one after another, and the vote is down to He111 or SM.79?
Nobody's ever going to vote for the SM.79, frankly.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
That, and either the G.50 or the C.200 (either) would really round out the IT planeset nicely, though.
I'm all for a G.50. After Brewster wins this one, of course. :)
-
Naturally ;)
Of the two, I'd like to have the Fiat, just because we already have 2 Macchis in the game, if we had 3 folks might accuse us of monopoly, or being unoriginal!
-
Krusty, what you've pointed out is true...But, as it is, we're all seeing 6-7 contenders vying for 1 spot.
What we really need most, is something that fills the holes we have in our planesets( most notably EW/MW.) And not just for scenarios or the AvA arena...We have to consider the EW/MW arena's too. The S.M. 79 would give EW a much-needed filler, with it's dual bomber/ Torp capability. Plus, in EW especially, It's 270 mph. top speed would not be that slow.
The G.55 MIGHT squeeze into MW, but on the whole, it won't really contribute much to that arena, being yet another 380 mph. class fighter. We already have the P-51B, FW-190A5, Typh...you see where I'm going?
-
Here's the problem with your idea:
The MA doesn't *have* any holes in the planeset. It has no planeset!
The MA is the MA. All planes are available on all sides. No early VVS fighters? Well, all the *other* early fighters are available.
You can only have holes in a planeset if you have structured planesets -- which naturally means thinking about scenarios (the only place where you will find planesets, really).
In the MA world it doesn't matter what we get. If you only think of the MAs, then you just have to vote what you think would be "most fun."
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
CPW, I'm checking the info you found on the first website, I'm not sure they're right... I have one of his books (and another one, too, but I can't remember where I put it... :p), maybe he didn't check toroughly his sources...
Apart from this... welcome onboard! Feel free to use my avatar and signature! :)
Agree and Thx!!! Hope we can fly it.:D
And I wish the G.55 in AH can take external fuel tanks:t
Maybe a G.55/S,too:D
(http://www.italiankits.it/Immagini/Rubriche/g55s.jpg)
(http://www.pandora.nu/yazzaka/file/jpeg/G55S-2.JPG)
-
In the MA is where most of the planes In-game see most of their flight time.
If you consider where the vote's being held...you'll see what I was alluding to. It's gonna come down to the 80-90% of the player base that don't go anywhere near the AvA or SEA. If it has a lower ENY value than the 109, It will get grounded earlier in the fast-filling LW arena's, so most won't fly it as often. But, Alot depends on the modeling...If it comes out as a 109 clone from Fiat, or if it's definetely superior. (This, we have to wait for the folks at HTC to decide.)
EDIT: This is in regards to the G.55...for scenarios and AvA, the S.M.79 would have been much more needed, along with the G.50 or S.M. 200.)
-
CPW: Cool pics!
However, I don't think we'll ever get it. It's a special test craft, modified with 2 radiators instead of one (notice the torp goes between them?). It never went into production.
-
Its really amazing that almost exactly half of this thread is you and Gianlupo chattin back and forth... :rofl
-
Maybe, maybe not. Aside from "that thing" (now handled), it has pretty much stayed on topic, revolving around the G.55 and the Italian air force in specific.
Folks reading it all the way through will discover a lot of information about not only this aircraft, but the general makeup and size of the entire IT air force in WW2.
It's not as if we've been saying "Hi, how's the wife? Kids doing okay? Lovely weather we have here, no?". It's had less participants than most O' Club threads, but it's been good for the dissemination of knowledge.
-
VWE, what's your problem? You don't like the plane and/or thread, so why do you keep posting here? Go somewhere else, thanks, we don't need you.
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
This, we have to wait for the folks at HTC to decide.
Well, they should decide basing on performance! ;) :D So it should be a bit slower than a G6 (high altitude), have a better handling and a better maneuverability and be more stable (again, at high altitude).
-
I'm for the G.55 or the Yak, my problem is I'd rather see a Mig introduced before the Yak & since it's not on the list, my support will fall behind the G.55
Unfortunately I can't vote until I get back from my vacation so I'll miss at least the first round of voting.
-
Thank you Brenjen.
I hope we can go past first round without trouble, but don't miss the other votes, we'll need your support, then! ;)
-
Originally posted by Ball
:aok
The point I was trying to make is that from mid 1943 on the entire fighter development program focused on fighting bombers...not fighters. The 190 was a dog up high and needed extra armor as a buff killer. The 109 was only marginally capable at high alt and was limited by both the airframe itself and the need to fill multiple roles. The G.55 would have enabled the germans to address all there needs with one new airframe that could easily accomidate both the weaponry and engine upgrades thru 1945.
Additionally it had a signifiacnt advantage in both service ceiling and range which would have greatly increased the luftwaffes flexibility in countering the "loose escort" tactics employed by the americans. For the luftwaffe to actually recommend that the G.55 replace the 109 the g.55 had to be clearly dominant....
Personally I'd much rather see the P-39Q25....but the reality is the G.55 is probably both the most dominant mid war bird and a plane worthy of recognition. If we can only get one plane right now the g.55 provides a plane that will not only see tremendous use but is also one of the best designs of the war....
-
Then, Humble, just vote for the 55, it's the best and only choice you can do! ;)
-
Another text from ww2 aircraft net.
By jank
In a little known mission, on August 4, 1944, an Aeritalia test pilot who apparently was an allied spy flew a G.55 across enemy lines. The plane was taken to England and evaluated at the Tangmere test facility. The incident apparently caused the Germans to halt further Aeritalia/Fiat production which ended in September of 1944.
I have never seen any of the test documents but I understand from others who know more about this episode that the Brits were quite impressed (one characterization I heard was "shocked") with it in relation to the Spitfire.
Below is a picture of the captured G.55 with British markings:
(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4184/g55siraffs0.jpg)
An old model:D
(http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4529/f430zp1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
VWE, what's your problem? You don't like the plane and/or thread, so why do you keep posting here? Go somewhere else, thanks, we don't need you.
Well, they should decide basing on performance! ;) :D So it should be a bit slower than a G6 (high altitude), have a better handling and a better maneuverability and be more stable (again, at high altitude).
I'm not sure it would actually be slower. The G6 went through a number of modifications and addition of MW50 etc. The germans actually flew the tests vs a G4....I dont think the G6 was actually in service at the time. I do know the G55 was run at lower settings then both the 190 and 109. It was a bit heavier and had larger wing area but also was much more streamlined. I dont think it would be all that much slower given the same engine specs...especially if you put gun pods on the G6 to equalize firepower...
-
For comparison:
109G-6 about 10mph shy of 400mph at 22k
109G-2 about 10mph past 400mph at 22k
G.55 about 15mph shy of 400mph but at a lower alt (?? not sure)
-
How about the Performances data from G.55 site?
Max speed at 6000 m (19685 ft)
604 km/h (375 mph)
Max speed at 7000 m (22966 ft)
623 km/h (387 mph)
Max speed at 8000 m (26247 ft)
630 km/h (391 mph)
:confused:
-
Those are not that great of numbers and unless your a 325th chicken tail you won't take it up that high. What's its speed on the deck to 10k? That is where I'll see most of its use and that is where it'll get slaughtered.
-
Originally posted by CPW
I have never seen any of the test documents but I understand from others who know more about this episode that the Brits were quite impressed (one characterization I heard was "shocked") with it in relation to the Spitfire.
I heard that they test fought it against an Avro Anson and the G.55 lost.
-
Now that's just mean, funny, but mean.
(http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/avro-anson-02.jpg) :lol
-
Originally posted by CPW
In a little known mission, on August 4, 1944, an Aeritalia test pilot who apparently was an allied spy flew a G.55 across enemy lines. The plane was taken to England and evaluated at the Tangmere test facility. The incident apparently caused the Germans to halt further Aeritalia/Fiat production which ended in September of 1944.
I have never seen any of the test documents but I understand from others who know more about this episode that the Brits were quite impressed (one characterization I heard was "shocked") with it in relation to the Spitfire.
Never heard that the test pilot was a spy! :) AFAIK, he was contacted by men of the Regia Aeronautica Cobelligerante, infiltrated in North, and was asked to bring a G.55 in the south (all the G.55 were brought in the north, after the armistice and the factory was in Turin, so none was left in the South), because the Allies wanted one for evaluation. He was asked to bring with him a british captain evaded from a concentration camp... Agostino Serafini (that's the pilot's name), took the british in his lap and flew the plane (the MM 91150) to South Italy, were he surrendered it to the Allies... the plane was brought to Tangmere, but I have never seen anything about the testing... it would be nice to see those charts.. maybe we can ask at the http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ site, they may have access to them.... or maybe someone else on this board can..... (hint hint! :))
The data on that site about speed seems to be correct, I have contacted the webmaster and he told me he has this Air Enthusiast International, May 1974 he claims to be the most reliable source about the G.55 Serie I... anyway, my sources say 605 km/h at 6.000 m, 620 at 7.000, so the range is that.
Humble, AFAIK, it was a G6... the test was done in February 1943, italians and germans flew each other's planes... that's what written in N.Arena, Fiat G.55 «Centauro» - Fiat G.59, Mucchi editore, 1994:
«regard the Messerschmitt Me 109/G.6, the G.55 had a longer range, superior ceiling and better stability. The Centauro had a slightly inferior speed than Gustav till 8.000 m, speed that was matched again above that altitude, where the climb rate was higher than that of the german plane, it had a higher payload and a more powerful armament, a sturdier frame. Climb to 6.000 m was just 20'' slower than G.6» (sorry the translation it's probably not perfect, but the data are correct ;))
-
How about G.55's dive speed limit? Re2005 seems can dive to 980km/hr.I want to know it:t
-
Right now I can't tell you anything sure. Yes, the Reggiane could dive fast, but it had troubles caused by structural weakness of the tail section (aerodynamics flutters), and they were all grounded for solving this problem.
The G.55 was more resistent than the Re.2005, it had no problem in dives. I don't know what was the Vne in dive, I guess it can reach a high speed... I'm sure Gatt can answer this question, he has the data! ;)
-
EDIT: BAH! Gian beat me to it.
Originally posted by CPW
How about G.55's dive speed limit? Re2005 seems can dive to 980km/hr.I want to know it:t
Actually the Re2005 had structural problems, especially with the higher speed engine. It was the most fragile of the 3, and the LW found it structurally unsound for the speeds it was travelling at, or somesuch wording. That would imply, to me, that it was not a good diving plane.
Then, the G.55 is supposedly one of the stronger airframes. It should dive well, but it's got a big wing (more drag)... The P-47 has a big wing, but a LOT more weight to pull it along in a dive. I think it would dive well but not great.
-
(http://www.waffenhq.de/specials/jap-flugzeuge-ww2-03.jpg)
(http://lynx.uio.no/jon/gif/aircraft/me410.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdsoverwanaka.co.nz/photos/2006_yak3m.jpg)
-
QuintV, all of those have their own threads, and have nothing to do with this aircraft or its service. Thank you.
-
Well, this time you beat me to it, Krusty! ;)
Quintv, you seem to be a man who change ideas quickly, you were all for Yak 3, now you have 2 more candidates and, judging from avatar, the Japanes planes seem to be in pole position...
Anyway, please, stop SPAMMING this thread, go somewhere else and post pictures in the right threads.
-
Seems to be a lot of "sabotaging" or "bashing" going on by a few folks, that want to get their vote to win at the expense of everybody else.
Just keep the thread on-track and we can avoid that unpleasant aspect.
-
I voted Yak-3 and will keep voting Yak-3 until it gets eliminated by the AMerikun hordes. (http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/cool/cool0008.gif)
-
Good work... as long as you don't waste your vote on the G.55!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Seems to be a lot of "sabotaging" or "bashing" going on by a few folks, that want to get their vote to win at the expense of everybody else.
Just keep the thread on-track and we can avoid that unpleasant aspect.
I would say that you are the one dancing around bashing people. You have gone on to tell others that there choices have bad reasoning, called me ignorant, told others they are bashing when it is you doing it.
"Expense of everybody else" is a bit of a large assumption. I guess we will find out who the "everybody else" is when the voting gets done.
My bet is that it is a Japanese fighter, or an allied bomber that will get the nod. But then again, that will not be "everybody else" because it does not agree with your all encompassing vision of how the world is, now does it....
-
I called you ignorant for sayng the G.55 wasn't important. In such a sweeping ruling, we know you only want AMERICA PLANEZ!@11!!, as your friend Ball has posted.
So, now, the only planes this game can ever have are the ones produced by the largest, most industrial nations on the planet? Then we have to remove half the planeset, we never get the Italian, the Romanian, the Finnish, or hell even the Japanese aircraft! It's not like these were industrially rich nations, right?
In Italy alone, the entire air force of the whole war was less than what the US made in 1 day. Still, it was a major front, and they put up major resistance as best they could, until the surrender, and then beyond the surrender.
My comments in the Pe-2 thread were specific to the Pe-2. I never said his choice was bad. In fact quite the contrary. I said his arguments were poor.
EDIT: I have always supported the Pe-2, and have requested it myself many times.
P.S. I wasn't thinking only of you, by the way, when I made that last reply. Go ahead and bash the other planes in your threads if you like. Nobody will stop you. It's the sabotage (not you) that is disruptive.
-
If I can bend your ears for a minute...
I went in for a little bit and voted, and while I was there, someone asked me what scenario's/snapshots we could use the G.55 for.
I told him I was'nt sure, I'd ask y'all on the boards.
EDIT: I can kick back for a little while for the reply, I've already voted for my pick.
-
Uh gee, for the opening of the CT that would be nada...
-
Anything involving bombers over Italy after '43. If it's got a C205 in it, it would have the G.55 as well. Consider that the AvA for the past week was running an Italy map with C205s vs USAF fighters.
Anything near northern Italy as well, if you staged a bomber run to the Southern tip of Germany, you could see G.55s as well.
It could have a supporting role in a number of scenarios, like the C.202 does now. For a starring role, it would be more limited to Italian maps. However, there are plenty of opportunities for that as well, and we have a very nice map of Italy, also.
P.S. last FSO revolved around late-war planes in Italy. The G.55 would have been MOST welcome to us axis pilots struggling at high-alt for 3 weeks straight.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
In Italy alone, the entire air force of the whole war was less than what the US made in 1 day.
That is incorrect. The US never built 2500 aircraft a day.
-
I wonder. How many different plants were there in late '43? GM, Ford, Grumman, Boeing.... And so on and so forth.
-
If you want to dive into the production books you are more than welcome... Flat out, we never produced that many aircraft in a day.
-
IIRC (which i probably don't) the highest American prouduction of aircraft in a single year during the war was something in the order of 93,000 (in 44, i think but am again probably wrong).
-
That is pretty close Furbie... I don't have the books in front of me, or I might consider sitting down and actually looking.
-
1 vote for the G.55 here.
shamus
-
It was 1 month, about, Bodhi. Krusty misreported what I wrote somewhere in these thread... during the 1940-1943, the italian aircraft industries built about 10000 planes, which is roughly what the US could produce in about 1 month.
Shamus, thanks for the support. I believe more people than I thought voted for the 55... maybe we can make it to next week! ;)
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
It was 1 month, about, Bodhi. Krusty misreported what I wrote somewhere in these thread... during the 1940-1943, the italian aircraft industries built about 10000 planes, which is roughly what the US could produce in about 1 month.
Shamus, thanks for the support. I believe more people than I thought voted for the 55... maybe we can make it to next week! ;)
1 day.... 1 month it doesn't matter to Krusty. He knows everything.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Somewhere up above was discussion on ammo load:
In the G.55 Serie I (WWII production series):
3x20 mm MG 151/20 cannons, one engine-mounted (250 rounds) and two wing-mounted (200 rounds each)
2x12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine guns in the engine cowling (300 rounds each)
Provision for two 160 kg (353 lb) bombs on underwing racks
Very nice loadout. Not quite what was listed by some above, but still very nice gun package.
-
Lol, I know, I wrote that, Tedrbr! ;)
I edited the Wiki entry, it was mostly lacking and in some data incorrect. As for the ammo load, those are the most probable figures, even though it could have carried 380 rounds in the hub cannon.... but I'm not sure about this. Maybe Gatt will help me with this.
-
Wing cannons had 250 rounds each, I believe.
-
Ah, no, Krusty, unfortunately it seems 200 is the correct number.
-
Krusty on the CR42: -
Originally posted by Krusty
Surely an interesting aircraft. NOT a front line aircraft. A second-rate light-attack aircraft. No more important, than (for example) the Fw189 was.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169628
Originally posted by Krusty
Cr42s and C200s and G.50s were all the mainstay fighters during the war.
-
LOL,
See what I mean. The guy is so used to talking out his arse that he can not even support his own statements.
Pathetic.
-
Krusty on the G.55
Originally posted by Krusty
"While the G.55 was probabily the Standard fighter of the IAF during WW2"
Hardly!! Way more c.205s were made than were made with the G55, and the c.205 was a rare bird itself!
No, if you're looking for standard Italian planes during the second world war, you need to look for the G50, the CR 200 or maybe (maybe) the Re2000 radial series.
Only reason people want the G55 is the same reason people wanted the P38G. They think it will out fly and out shoot any other plane in the game. We have enough uber planes by my counting.
I hope we never get it. But that's just me.
You can see it here @
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=145428
-
Could you please talk about the plane? And if you've already said all you have to about it, could you please avoid posting just for your personal wars? Thank you.
-
Gianlupo, I am here to ensure that Krusty's misconceptions and completely wrong facts are corrected.
As for you, I sincerely hope they come up with more Italian Fighters in the future. As there are plenty of examples that made a significant contribution to the war effort.
-
who is Bodhi? :rofl
-
bohdisaatvah...won't you take me by the hand. he's a character in a song and also in a 1991 movie called point break, I think he swaps spit with that metrosexual keanu reeve.
-
I refuse to reply to a griefer.
Ball: That post was a while ago, before I did much reading about the Cr42. I have since discovered it had a minimal role (at best) during the war. It was built in large numbers, but then so were T-6 Texans.
P.S. if you look at the date on that post, it's 2005. Also if you look right under my post there's a reply from Gatt
"Check better your books Krusty (if you have any): the G.55 was definitely not an uber fighter. It mounted the DB605A-1 engine and weighted more then a C.205. Its max speed at 22-23K was 385mph TAS. More or less like an early 109G-6. But it was stable and its punch was deadly. Hardly an uber ride. But above all it was a beauty:"
I did read up more on it, later. At the time I was uninformed, and new little about the G.55 and other Italian rides. I'd only read a couple of short descriptions in books, nothing in-depth.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I refuse to reply to a griefer.
I may be a griefer to you, but I am not a liar like you.
-
Hrm.. some griefers just can't wait for their PNG, I see.
Please, by all means act childish and throw insults because you have a petty moment.
-
What do you read? "The Big Book of Aeroplanes"?
You said this only a couple of months ago
Originally posted by Krusty
I had read the 130-ish number as well, but I had read that, similar to the C205, more were made than saw combat. The logistics in Italy were atrocious, often when C205s were shipped out, only 1 would go to a squadron, and some would get none. I read the G.55 was even worse because it was right before the armistice that it was introduced, and after the armistice the production lines were .... inefficient, to say the least.
EDIT: don't get me wrong, I'd fly it often if we had it in-game. 3x MG151/20s and 2x 13mms!!
-
Yes, I did Ball. And it seems fairly correct. The G.55 situation was worse than the C.205, and less did see combat than the C.205. Production slowed terribly, but it kept up. Those were the two "late" war aircraft, even though production was hard for both of them.
(*shrug*) not sure why you quoted it, it's already been said.
P.S. I said "I've read that 130 number as well" -- but have read a lot of numbers, 130 being the lowest, 200 being the highest. Sources vary on that subject.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Hrm.. some griefers just can't wait for their PNG, I see.
Please, by all means act childish and throw insults because you have a petty moment.
Throw insults? It seems to me that you were the one that started with the ignorance comment. Since then, you have been proven wrong on many if not most occasions on this discussion and that you talk out both sides of your mouth with completely opposite statements.
You want me to lay off, then admit you are wrong.
-
Can we get a forum admin in here, please? I have been civil and forgiving, but this is insane.
-
But it contradicts you saying that it had plenty in service?
-
I don't think it does, Ball. It was considered the main front line aircraft after '43 and into '44. I kinda think that means "plenty" --- yes yes this can be read many ways. "Plenty" is subjective.
Read into it what you will.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Can we get a forum admin in here, please? I have been civil and forgiving, but this is insane.
Krusty, from what i see all that is happening is argument and counter argument. No good whining for an admin when someone follows up one of your statements and you are the one to claim they are "sabotaging" and "griefing".
I think i am going to get out of this thread. It is going in circles with people not bothering to read the facts.
and sorry gian, i know you desperately want this plane :(
-
I hope this thread won't go any lower than it did....
Anyway....
In my opinion, number of aircraft produced, of aircraft that were delivered, of units mounted on the plane should have little importance in deciding what plane to add to MA... the bulk of the game still rotates around MAs, i.e. an a-historical environment.
So, once demonstrated that a plane actually served during the War, having an effective role for its nation, I think that the discussion about it had to be put on the technical ground, not the historic one.
From this point of view, the Centauro is a plane that can be voted for MAs, right now, without further waiting.
Don't worry, Furby, it has little chances anyway. ;)
P.S. Lol, I think I had to post this on Bodhi's thread and what I posted there, here... oh well... too many threads with the same actors! :D
-
What counter-point, ball? What counter-point was being made, amidst the calling of names?
Re-read my posts in this entire, long, thread. You can see that they are not concrete. They change as new little bits of info are produced. What, aside from an argument on whether this plane is worthy of being in AH, is he saying? He has not said "no, that engine was wrong" nor has he said "oh, no, it didn't have those guns, the wing was smaller, it flew worse at altitude" -- he has not provided any points to "counter" with -- just griping. The majority of this thread has been constructive, a gathering of information. What does Bodhi do? He posts "bashing" threads (destructive) spreading misconceptions for 2 planes he doesn't want to see in-game.
I honestly don't care what he votes. I never said I cared. He simply hasn't provided a single "point" this entire time, and on top of it craps a brick when I don't "agree" with him.
Now, this may sound harsh, and perhaps it is a little (I'm looking at it making sure it won't offend much before I hit SUBMIT). However, he has supplied this forum with nothing but bashing since the vote came up. He hasn't taken a stand on what he likes. He's just started trashing other peoples' contributions.
I would be perfectly content if he'd have quoted 5 books saying when and where the G.55 was used, give us an insight to the pilots flying it, and so on and so forth. Instead, we get this.
Sorry if that's how it is, and I didn't want that for this thread.
-
Originally posted by Squire
"Had the G55 been adopted its very very possible the US would have had to abandon daylight bombing in 1943....."
I think your mistaking something for an Me 262, which is the only a/c that could have had the effect you are implying.
The G55 was a fine fighter, 1st class, one of many that both sides flew, lets not get carried away into fanboi-fantasy-camp over it.
...and the Fw190 was the premier bomber killer for the LW in 1943/44, and was even more heavily armed than a G55 was. Calling it a "pre war design" is beyond cherry picking your data. You can hardly compare the Fw190 prototype to what was flying in 1943.
I will leave it at that, since this isnt the thread for it.
I dont ever get "fanboi" about anything....The 190A3-4 was the frontline counterpart to the G.55. The 190 was a much better plane then the 109 overall IMO. However the 190 "morphed" and the A8 was significantly less effective then the A4 (best 190A series IMO). The 190 was never effectivr at higher altitudes. The G.55 was designed specifically as a true interceptor. It had the range & ceiling as well as the firepower. Both the 190 and the 109 suffered when "upgunned"...
In 2/43 the G.55 was as good as it got from an axis perspective (for a bomber interceptor). If you consider that the G.55/II did actually fly in 1944 its very possible that a 5 x 20mm option would have seen service in 1944 as well. This was a production plane ready to go that was specifically designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor. Something that neither the 190A4 or 109G6 could do effectively in 4/43....not 8/44 when it was a bit to late to matter.
-
Krusty provide a point where I bashed another aircraft.
You opened with your very first reply with personal attack in a thread I started. Notice I did not attack you in any way in this thread until well after you commenced your attacks.
I provided factual statements regarding both aircraft. The Brewster and the G.55. Never once did I "spread misconceptions" about any aircraft, where as you said, "I just didn't want you spreading misconceptions about the G.55 around, making others think it was a Ta152 when in fact it was a 109G6 (rare v. common).
Can you actually really honestly believe that? 148 delivered aircraft. Doubts that half of those even saw combat!
I provide a factual counter argument to your erroneous statement, The Ta152 saw about 50 examples produced and delivered... roughly. Thats 33% of the total number of G.55's that were delivered. The 109G6 saw roughly 11000 aircraft produced. It was the most common built 109. The G.55 total production (even counting aircraft not delivered and on assembly line) is 2.7% of the 109G6 production. The Ta152 total represents .4 % of the 109G6 production.
and you ignore it. The one thing I did miss on that though was that atleast 168 examples of the Ta152 were produced or in final stages of production. Aircraft number 168 "Green 9" was even captured by the British on an airfield.
My problem with you is spin. You have not provided hardly any factual statements regarding the G.55. Instead you cry like a girl when I finally get nasty back to you.
My bad, I did not know I was dealing with children who can dish it out, but can not take it.
Gianlupo atleast has taken the time to study the G.55, and I very much respect his opinion on it as it is well informed and he is very respectful about it.
Mark my words Krusty. I am not going to pick at you anymore. I will however correct your mistaken facts on EVERY single post I come across from now on. You want to play games and spin, well, I will play a better game, and prove just how wrong you are on almost every subject you post about.
Have a nice evening
:)
-
So, by me saying it's ignorant that you claim the G.55 was all but absent in the war, that's an attack... Hrm..
Let me look this up in the dictionary... goes something like
Ignorant: Lacking knowledge.
You made a sweeping judgment on an aircraft you apparently knew nothing about, despite a long thread supplying the entire forum-going population with info.
That's not a personal attack, and FYI almost every post you have made on the matter has hinted at or included explicit attacks. Would you rather I used "your *****rdly knowledge" [EDIT: Won't let me type it, the word that senator got in trouble for using, similar to N-word] or "your lack of comprehension" or "your lack of information?" All of them simply imply you didn't have the info needed to say what you did.
"Can you actually really honestly believe that? 148 delivered aircraft. Doubts that half of those even saw combat!" Almost all of them, considering they served for over a year and a half without much of a production line to recoup losses. Served until late 1944 as the main front line fighter of Italy.
"I provide a factual counter argument to your erroneous statement,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ta152 saw about 50 examples produced and delivered... roughly. Thats 33% of the total number of G.55's that were delivered. The 109G6 saw roughly 11000 aircraft produced. It was the most common built 109. The G.55 total production (even counting aircraft not delivered and on assembly line) is 2.7% of the 109G6 production. The Ta152 total represents .4 % of the 109G6 production.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
You provide... random numbers? (forgive me, let me explain)
I didn't reply, because you didn't make a point. You're comparing the G.55 to the 109G6 and then comparing THAT to the Ta152 as compared to the 109G6. It's like comparing a japanese zero to a P-47. Both nations had different production capabilities. Compare the Ta152 to the 109G-6. Then compare the G.55 to the C.202. Splitting the difference on the reported numbers (from 130 to 200) say there were 150 G.55s, compared to 1500 C.202s. That's 10%. If you consider that the C202s were phased out after the armistice, and only C205s and G.55s continued, the 205s made up 250 and the G.55s used (split the difference) 150. That's 37% of the entire front line force after 1943. I only tossed in that "Ta152" reference because the Ta152 was rare. I wasn't making a direct % correlation between the two. Ta152 rare, G.55 not rare. That was my point, and it had nothing to do with total numbers, but the numbers help the G.55 when you add them up.
"My problem with you is spin. You have not provided hardly any factual statements regarding the G.55."
Every statement I've made has been fairly accurate. It seems the wing guns had 200 instead of 250. I thought only the prototype had 4 12.7mm guns, but apparently the entire Serie 0 had them. Other than that I've made no huge, boastful claims.
Re-read this thread. I've not said anything that wasn't pretty close to all the resources we've shown in this thread. Funny how when I supply you information you sh** on me, but when Gianlupo supplies you the same information you're nice. Rather hypocritical, though, if you ask me. I don't care, honestly, except you keep twisting the facts in the process. You keep saying I'm spinning the facts, keep saying you've given me counter-points, keep saying that I'm wrong wrong wrong. So re-read the thread and see what I've typed. Please point out why you've got a bee in your bonette, show me a thread where I've posted something wrong or false. We'll put this to bed once and for all.
-
yak3 vote for it
-
I'd like to thank everyone who supported this plane. It was a nice dream... too short, but so nice.
I'm gonna support the Yak 3, now, it seems it's the best furballer we can have.
Wait... better to have another furballer or more targets?? Go, B 25, go! :D
-
Must I switch to the A-26? If 14 laser beams is what you want on your arse. 14 laser beams is what your gonna get. :aok
:noid
-
"Yes JB11. Come over to the Dark Side." --- 'Vader
-
Originally posted by Krusty
show me a thread where I've posted something wrong or false. We'll put this to bed once and for all.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=197840
Krusty's Statement:
"We won't get it. Only about 50 were made, most if not all of those sat in a factory after the switch. It's doubtful even a handful ever saw action, from what I've read. It just wasn't developed in time." regarding the G.55
Fact:
148 G.55 were delivered to the ANR, 15 more were destroyed by US bombing raids and, when the factory was captured, 37 more exemplars were ready, while 73 were still on the production line, at various degree of completion.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194474&highlight=Ploesti
Krusty's Statement:
"Oh, FYI: The B24s weren't 30 feet off the ground. That's patently absurd, as most buildings are higher than that. By "low" they were talking 3-4k, but the bombers were scattered across different altitudes, up to 12 or 14k, if I recall properly."
Fact:
To achieve surprise, the B-24s, designed for high altitude attacks at 18,000-feet and above, attacked at 200-feet, with some formations ending up at 30 to 50 feet.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=172702&highlight=me109
Krusty's Statement:
"The N and Q models didn't show up til the end of the war" regarding the P40
Fact:
XP-40Q, 2 built... Never saw service.
P-40N: In service by May of 1943, not at the end of the war. Heavily used in SWPA, CBI and MTO theaters. Two of the three squadrons of the highest scoring fighter group in the Pacific (the 49th FG) flew P-40Ns right up until late summer of 1944.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199824&highlight=production
Krusty's Statement:
"They were not a production model" regarding the Ta152-C
Fact:
"There is photographic evidence that production of the C-1 series was also begun by ATG in Leipzig, as well as the Siebel Factory in Halle-Schkeuditz." Focke-Wulf Ta 152 by Dietmar Harmann
Want me to go on?
-
Why does it matter. The G55 is out of the race.
-BB
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Fact:
148 G.55 were delivered to the ANR, 15 more were destroyed by US bombing raids and, when the factory was captured, 37 more exemplars were ready, while 73 were still on the production line, at various degree of completion.
Gee... apparently you didn't read this entire thread. You're b****ing at me... for agreeing with you?
Fact:
To achieve surprise, the B-24s, designed for high altitude attacks at 18,000-feet and above, attacked at 200-feet, with some formations ending up at 30 to 50 feet.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to believe that B-24s plowed through 20-foot+ haystacks at 170+mph without cartwheeling into the ground. I don't care what the adrenaline-rushed crews claim. I don't care what you say on that, common sense dictates it doesn't happen without the nose compacting in and the plane shuddering into the ground. We've covered that. I'm not changing my mind for the time being. Totally removed from this conversation, that you're b****ing at me for.
Krusty's Statement:
Fact:
XP-40Q, 2 built... Never saw service.
P-40N: In service by May of 1943, not at the end of the war. Heavily used in SWPA, CBI and MTO theaters. Two of the three squadrons of the highest scoring fighter group in the Pacific (the 49th FG) flew P-40Ns right up until late summer of 1944.
I've read several books that say otherwise. Some from the library over the years, but one I've got with me. Let me quote it.
"By late 1943 and early 1944 it was clear to all, manufacturer and users alike, that unless something was done, once and for all, to boost the performance of the Warhawk, its days were numbered. This is not surprising, for by that time much improved fighters were in service with the Axis air forces, in whatever theater they were deployed. Significant design changes were not possible without causing at least temporary chaos to the production lines, leading to the decision to build a new type. Thus the P-40N came into being, the last production version and also the most extensively built, with more than 5,000 manufactured in several variants".
Late 43 and early 44. Other books I've read have also said that the P-40N was too late to help much, despite being built in large numbers.
Again, Totally removed from this conversation, that you're b****ing at me for.
Fact:
"There is photographic evidence that production of the C-1 series was also begun by ATG in Leipzig, as well as the Siebel Factory in Halle-Schkeuditz." Focke-Wulf Ta 152 by Dietmar Harmann
First of all, almost everybody out there claims the 152C-0 wasn't a production model. No C-1s were ever finished/shipped/whatever... So.. why are you mentioning the C-1? When discussing the 152 I was talking about versions that actually flew and fought (and the relationship to their chances of getting into this game). I don't want to get into it, but dude, who cares if the C-1 went into production if nothing ever came out the end of the production line? IMO if the "production line" doesn't "produce" any finished version, it really wasn't "in production" to begin with. <-- this said after-the-fact.
Again, Totally removed from this conversation, that you're b****ing at me for.
You have been b****ing at me in this thread and another (both about the G.55) for NO REASON. You have been insulting me for NO REASON.
Under the pretense that I've been making sh** up about the G.55 in this thread and another, you have attempted to rip my head off, for....
what?
You can't provide one link from the 2 threads in question, instead scouring old threads (some from 2005 in the last attempt before this) to find and twist anything out of shape, some way to make me look like I've been "lying" as you put it. Instead, I refuse to believe that a bomber can fly through a hay bale at well over 100mph without crashing; I provided a recognized statement, posted in almost every book in the world, that the ta152c-0 wasn't a production model (and the talk never turned to a c-1 model that was never made, btw); I have read many books that state the P-40N was too little too late, and quoted one for you here.
You're stirring up old sh** and just making yourself look bad man. Nothing I've said has been wrong, misleading, a lie, or anything of the sort. You've simply latched on to every little thing you can for some unknown reason, and try to cobble them together, but it just doesn't hold water.
And while you're at it, stop b****ing at me about the G.55. Any time you "counter" with something, I've already supplied that info in this very thread. You're just repeating me, saying I'm wrong, and you're right. Your whole beef was about this plane, and what I said about it. Well, read this thread and you'll see it's all there.
I'm done with your illogical ranting.
1) You pull up an obscure fact that was neither here-nor-there for the 152c comment. Why? It didn't change the outcome. It was a minor point. None were made.
2) You may blindly believe any report a pilot tells you, if you wish. Pilots in the VVs found the Hurricane a poor turning aircraft. Do you believe them? Doesn't matter. I choose NOT to believe what, to me, is fanciful tales of 100,000lb planes flying so low they crash into things, and then miraculously DON'T crush their front end in, or DON'T kill their engines, or DON'T hit the ground, bounce, then blow up. I don't care what YOU believe. *I* believe this wasn't the case, and will do so for the immediate future.
3) You try to pull up some quote about the P-40s, let me show you the entire quote:
Not really. The N and Q models didn't show up til the end of the war, and they were still inferior to the P51s, P47s, F4us, etc that had already been fighting for years.
The aircraft was hurt from the start, like the P39. It was just behind the curve as the war started, and only fell behind from there. It got improvements, but not enough and not fast enough to be competitive.
So, even if I'm mistaken by quoting many books which all say the same thing, you can't blame me for getting a date wrong, if it's a common misconception and perpetuated ad nauseum in print. The REST of my post was still correct, and I notice you didn't give me any credit for that.
So, 1, 2, 3 attempts ... to what? You're not discrediting me.. You're just b****ing at me.
-
It is now 100% clear to me that you will not admit when you are wrong. That in and of itself is plain baffling. Here nor there, believe what you choose. Just remember I will continue to provide facts when you post wrong info. (even though it seems to be a waste of time, I will not allow others to be deluded by incorrect info.)
As for you thinking I am making myself look bad, I disagree. Judging by the number of positive PM's I have received over the past few weeks regarding correcting your facts, I would tend to think more people support me. Alas, though, I get this nagging feeling that I am wasting my time, anytime I engage in a discussion with you it is like beating my head against a brick wall. I believe it is insanity when one does the same thing time and time again expecting different results yet the result is always the same. That if anything makes me look plain stupid for trying to be reasonable and correct inconsistencies and facts. My attempt to get you to see the right side and for you to learn to be able to just admit you are wrong are apparently wasted efforts.
Have fun in your little world Krusty.
:)
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
It is now 100% clear to me that you will not admit when you are wrong.
That's your problem... You've been on this little crusade to try and prove me wrong.... on what???
Because I don't buy a story about B24 pilots? So sue me!
I supply the most commonly accepted/printed comments on the 152c and the p40N. Frankly I was right on the 152c poitn. On the P40N it doesn't matter if I got a date wrong -- because I didn't harp about it and push the point when I was corrected. You, on the other hand, hold grudges, and harp about the same perceived slights over and over without end.
You ever notice I haven't said anything about the P-40N since that thread? You, on the other hand, after having it pointed out to you using logic, quotes, and reasoning, still refuse to let up on your "crusade to show krusty he's wrong."
I was wrong on the P-40. Frakking sue me. It's told that way in most of the books. I was corrected right afterward, and guess what?? SHOCKER OF SHOCKS! I didn't do anything to suggest I was going to think about considering even pushing the matter.
What I have a problem with is you focusing on every little side-comment you've ever made to me that didn't really affect my point at all. You get bent out of shape because I don't reply to a comparison of apples and oranges. You think you "pwnzred" me by making an obscure comment about the Ta152C-1, which.. uh.. "started" production but never finished any. Which, essentially, proved me right, and had no sway in the topic at hand.
I don't know why you've got this bee in your bonnet. You're the only one pushing the issue. You're the only one fabricating and implying there's something going on. I leave it to you to figure this out on your own: you're seeing things that just aren't there. You're scrambling for any spec, any hint, to help you have your fun. I don't care. It's merely an annoyance. However, it is a sign that you have gone way out of your way to find any obscure line, quote, misquote, whatever, to try and throw it in my face.
-
I'm switching to the P-39 I think, although the A-26 would be nice. How 'bout you?
-
I had better not say. I was falsely accused of lying about my last "favorite."
EDIT: this thread is dead. I'm merely trying to put this vendetta he has to bed, once and for all. It saves me aggravation later on, if this gets settled now.
-
Originally posted by TracerX
I'm switching to the P-39 I think, although the A-26 would be nice. How 'bout you?
G.55 was always my second choice.
A-26 always my first.
Anything left but the B-25 and He-111 pleassseeee!!!!!
-
Yak 3 or Me 410
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I had better not say. I was falsely accused of lying about my last "favorite.".
Lying... how about we just leave it as you know f all and that you talk out your butt.
I think that'd best close it.
sorry am drunk at breck, but could not resist.
-
Actually, it doesn't.
You "blew up" at me during this thread (and the "vote no" thread, 2 parts of the same discussion), and yet haven't been able to point out ONE reason why. Nothing DURING this thread has been mentioned. I've asked you directly, show me a quote from this thread that's provided false information on the G.55. You, instead, go back to old threads (one from 2005!!!) that have nothing at all to do with this thread.
Frankly, you "exploded" for ... apparently nothing. You blew up in this thread, but not over anything IN this thread.
I think *that* about closes it.
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
G.55
(http://www.evil-turkey.de/TW/images/tt_g55S1_001.jpg)
Great IL2 skin, my background of the day.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Actually, it doesn't.
You "blew up" at me during this thread (and the "vote no" thread, 2 parts of the same discussion), and yet haven't been able to point out ONE reason why. Nothing DURING this thread has been mentioned. I've asked you directly, show me a quote from this thread that's provided false information on the G.55. You, instead, go back to old threads (one from 2005!!!) that have nothing at all to do with this thread.
Frankly, you "exploded" for ... apparently nothing. You blew up in this thread, but not over anything IN this thread.
I think *that* about closes it.
You must consistently walk around with a blanket over your head.
And FYI, I never exploded, although... I seem to remember looking back a few threads with all your expletives being blanked out.
Nice try... actually not really, but believe what you want.
Have a nice day in your "little" world. :)
-
:lol
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Great IL2 skin, my background of the day.
It's not IL2, Frenchy, it's Targetware, more precisely the Target Tobruk mod. If you have the chance, try it, it's a nice sim and that mod is particularly well done, a bunch of italian players work on it and are doing a great job. The G.55 will be released at the end of April.
-
Again, who is Bodhi? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
It's not IL2, Frenchy, it's Targetware, more precisely the Target Tobruk mod. If you have the chance, try it, it's a nice sim and that mod is particularly well done, a bunch of italian players work on it and are doing a great job. The G.55 will be released at the end of April.
I downloaded targetware a while ago. I might give it a try towards may.
-
At first, storch, you'll find it hard. The FM is more difficult than the AH one, and there are less "helping features" (e.g. the map doesn't show the position of your planes and there's no radar), but I think it's worth a try. Unfortunately, the arenas aren't much crowded (very few people, in fact ;)): you'll find more people around 9 PM GMT +1 in TT arena.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
148 total aircraft... come on, this is a waste of time for HTC to be considering. There are far more variants that need representation than a very limited hardly standardised fighter!
"Very limited hardly standardized fighter" <-- this is why that statement was ignorant. It would be saying the same as "the model T was an insignificant vehicle" or "nobody knows how wings produce lift" -- by doing some reading you find that it just isn't true. Ignorance isn't an insult, it was a fact.
You quickly went on to impugne MY honor, without hesitation no less.
Originally posted by Bodhi
Even with 250 aircraft, it is a waste of time. (and if you care to look at the numbers cited they add up to aabout 250 aircraft)
As for calling me ignorant, I have a much better tendency to back up my statements with facts than your assumptions. So tread lightly.
Then after I provided accurate information you replied as such:
Originally posted by Bodhi
Krusty, the saddest thing here is that you are so full of caca del toro that you could not move unless a dung beetle picked you up and rolled you into a ball....
Come on and get a basic understanding. The G.55 was a too late, not enough produced, and DEFINITLEY not an impact on the war.
I am tired of listening to your inane rantings. You know crap all, your assumptions are flawed and you generally have no clue. That you have survived this long is proof that God has a heart for idiots.
and
Originally posted by Bodhi
you started with insults...
I finish.
Spin it how you like, you are still a factless imbecile.
and more:
Originally posted by Bodhi
What are you taking? Honestly, I want to see how the hell this turned into you being the victim? You came into this thread and called me ignorant. If that is not starting something, I really do not know wtf is.
I provided production figures put in place by your buddy Gianlupo. You want to argue that, talk to him. As for you saying that I am not listenening, I have seen your reasoning. You want the G.55 because it will have a chance for the Italians to fight and be competitive even though it was hardly a blip in the war. I have maintained it is such a limited production aircraft, that there are other more important aircraft that should go in game first.
The why the hell are you here telling me something different then... seriously, what are you on?
Misconception...? Again, what are you on?
The Ta152 saw about 50 examples produced and delivered... roughly. Thats 33% of the total number of G.55's that were delivered. The 109G6 saw roughly 11000 aircraft produced. It was the most common built 109. The G.55 total production (even counting aircraft not delivered and on assembly line) is 2.7% of the 109G6 production. The Ta152 total represents .4 % of the 109G6 production.
DING DING.... that logic of yours is FLAWED as usual. They were BOTH rare when compared to the 109G6.
You are not straight forward. You skew everything to your point of view. If you do not have a fact you make it up. Thats the number one problem with you and why people just can not stand to see you in a thread. Even when you are wrong you maintain your innocence and try to skew that into an attack on you.
Frankly I am very tired of you and your factless statements and spin.
Ohh, and the G.55 does not belong in the game. It was a limited number side show.
directly insulting and attacking me, for providing the same frakking info you did. P.S. this is your bogus numbers "apples and oranges" comparison.
Posts like this:
Originally posted by Bodhi
I am 100% not against adding Italian aircraft. If you want to add an Italian aircraft though, then add the CR.42 and SM.79.
Both served in significant numbers. Hell a CR.42 is in a museum over in England after it was shot down during the Battle of Britain.
That is the way it should be. Insignificant, hypothetical uber planes should have lower priority than the real in your face aircraft that were there and fought in numbers.
Don't lend you credibility and simply reinforce my "ignorance" statement. You simply lacked information on the G.55 almost completely. It had been posted many times by several people that the G.55 was not "hypothetical" nor was it "uber" nor was it "indignificant". You really had no idea what its stats were, it seemed. Otherwise you'd never have called it "uber" or "hypothetical" or "insignificant" (although you could qualify this last one with "in comparison to 'nation x')
I'm just going to paste your typical responses from "Vote no to g.55" and this thread.
Originally posted by Bodhi
1 day.... 1 month it doesn't matter to Krusty. He knows everything.
Originally posted by Bodhi
LOL,
See what I mean. The guy is so used to talking out his arse that he can not even support his own statements.
Pathetic.
Originally posted by Bodhi
I may be a griefer to you, but I am not a liar like you.
Originally posted by Bodhi
Throw insults? It seems to me that you were the one that started with the ignorance comment. Since then, you have been proven wrong on many if not most occasions on this discussion and that you talk out both sides of your mouth with completely opposite statements.
You want me to lay off, then admit you are wrong.
Originally posted by Bodhi
Lying... how about we just leave it as you know f all and that you talk out your butt.
I think that'd best close it.
sorry am drunk at breck, but could not resist.
Originally posted by Bodhi
You must consistently walk around with a blanket over your head.
And FYI, I never exploded, although... I seem to remember looking back a few threads with all your expletives being blanked out.
Nice try... actually not really, but believe what you want.
Have a nice day in your "little" world. :)
Oh.. yes.. we can all see how you "never exploded"....
All of this in 2 related threads, yet when I call you out, and flat out say "show me where" -- you can't provide a single quote, a single example of anything that's wrong, a lie, etc. I haven't even insulted you, unless pointing out that you didn't read the info on the g.55 in the first place is an insult. You scanned the "number produced" and claimed it was a hypothetical insignificant uber plane. None of that holds up if you read page 1 of this thread. You simply grabbed the number and said "vote no" -- but then you said the other things which were wrong.
-
This thread is so done, you can't even put a fork in it.
-
krusty, do you have a whiny high pitched voice? you mis-spelled impugn
-
(http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/crybaby.jpg)
Although sometimes a male, Crybaby is usually a female, and often a close ally of Innocence Abused. When teased or attacked Crybaby will pitch a loud public temper tantrum, holding his/her breath and kicking his/her feet. If that defense fails she will run to Nanny for comfort.
-
ain't that the truth :rofl
-
Skuzzy, you got a wooden stake around to drive into this thread?
(http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/sick0004.gif) (http://www.thesmilies.com)
-
Thx Gialupo, seems they improved since I last checked two years ago.
-
I am the typo king, furby!
As for bodhi, I've proven over and over that I've been civil and forgiving and have only supplied accurate information, and yet he persists in his childish insults. What happened to the times when you could post on a forum without being attacked for no reason.
As I've proven here in these past few posts, I've asked Bodhi to show me where or why he has attacked me in these threads, and he cannot provide an answer. He is simply a griefer, attacking for no reason.
-
Voted B25 again this round for Toads' father and Toad.
How can this group of informed people ignore the fact that the B25 was probabley the most widely used of all the aircraft on the list proposed by Pyro.
So.....imho since it was used everywhere in great numbers in many variants using logic and reasoning it should be included in this fine game.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
and have only supplied accurate information
Except where bombers, their relative speeds, durability, altitudes, real life combat actions, or performance is involved. :rolleyes:
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1175537462_crybabykrusty.jpg)
-
^^^^^
Now I'm giddy with laughter.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1175537462_crybabykrusty.jpg)
:rofl Dude, you have way too much free time.:rofl
Putting the AH BBS on the PC is brilliant!
-
(http://www.reelfilm.com/images/ruthless.jpg)
Give the money to the clown!
Ruthless People Posting.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Except where bombers, their relative speeds, durability, altitudes, real life combat actions, or performance is involved. :rolleyes:
FYI: Bodhi exploded in this thread, threw accusations at me about falsifying information about the G.55 and when I ask him where, when I get sick of his bull, and call him out on it, he can't provide anything.
He tries to dig up a post I made 2 years ago, not that it has any relevance. His claims and accusations were made about the contents of this and the "vote no" thread.
And yet, when called out he can provide nothing.
He threw accusations out, and when I said "where, show me" he shut up real damn fast about it and just started spitting out taunts. To me, he's full of chit. I have tried to be more than forgiving. I haven't called him a single name or made any insults. Instead I find nothing but insults and childish replies in almost every reply.
The only reason I've forced the matter like this is to prove he has no grounds for being upset at me as he claims.
EDIT: If he's had a bad month, or his GF left him, or be broke a bone and is in pain, or has issues with his mother, you know these can all be explanations for him b****ing at me, but don't expect me to take it sitting down if it has nothing to do with what's being discussed.
-
Originally posted by Hajo
How can this group of informed people ignore the fact that the B25 was probably the most widely used of all the aircraft on the list proposed by Pyro.
Um, because, from the original and current list, it wasn't.
#16 Bell P-39 Airacobra/P-63 Kingcobra 12,897 (9,584/ 3,313)USA, Russia Single-engined fighter & fighter-bomber
#20 Petlyakov Pe-2 11,427 USSR Twin-engined light bomber
#27 North American B-25 Mitchell 9,816 (in all versions combined) USA Twin-engined medium bomber
And because, some of realize that the B-25's performance numbers in relation to:
low flight speed (slower than B-26, A-20, and Boston III),
low climb rates (less than B-24, about half that of B-26), and
low ord load-outs (again, less than B-26, less than A-20, B-model B-25 same as Boston III"s load)
...will ensure that after the initial weeks after release and being used for target drones by everyone else, the B-25's will be relegated to the back of the Hangar in LW, to be pulled out only in EW and a few SEA events from time to time.
-
(http://www.geocities.com/johnvan52/itchy.gif)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
FYI: Bodhi exploded in this thread, threw accusations at me about falsifying information about the G.55 and when I ask him where, when I get sick of his bull, and call him out on it, he can't provide anything.
He tries to dig up a post I made 2 years ago, not that it has any relevance. His claims and accusations were made about the contents of this and the "vote no" thread.
And yet, when called out he can provide nothing.
He threw accusations out, and when I said "where, show me" he shut up real damn fast about it and just started spitting out taunts. To me, he's full of chit. I have tried to be more than forgiving. I haven't called him a single name or made any insults. Instead I find nothing but insults and childish replies in almost every reply.
The only reason I've forced the matter like this is to prove he has no grounds for being upset at me as he claims.
EDIT: If he's had a bad month, or his GF left him, or be broke a bone and is in pain, or has issues with his mother, you know these can all be explanations for him b****ing at me, but don't expect me to take it sitting down if it has nothing to do with what's being discussed.
I don't think, from talking to him, that he's really upset with you, per se. He does have a valid point when he questions the accuracy of many of your claims, and the manner in which you defend them when corrected or disputed. If he wants to call you a liar, I can't find fault with him. He may lack a little tact in doing so, but you're as guilty as he is. Remember Ploesti?
On topic, I wish to take a moment to offer my condolences after the death of the G.55 pipedream, even though I'm completely unmoved.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1175537462_crybabykrusty.jpg)
LMAO :D :rofl :rofl :aok :cool:
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
On topic, I wish to take a moment to offer my condolences after the death of the G.55 pipedream, even though I'm completely unmoved.
Thank you very much, Hub! Sigh, sob! :cry
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I don't think, from talking to him, that he's really upset with you, per se. He does have a valid point when he questions the accuracy of many of your claims,
Really? Does he? He listed 4 items in this thread. One was outdated about the G.55, which I have not perpetuated in THIS thread. In THIS thread all of my data has been as accurate as possible, up to and including AGREEING Bodhi when he supposedly countered my point with production numbers of the G.55. If you look you'll see that he simply posted the numbers which I already posted in this thread.
So this should have no bearing in why he's griping at me. He's only repeated numbers we already listed in this thread.
Another was irelevant about Ta152C-1s having production lines but never having actually produced any planes. I'm sure in his mind that was a victorious point, but it had zero bearing on the discussion at hand. I said the Ta152C-0 wasn't a production plane, and he said the C-1.... basically wasn't one either.
So this should have no bearing in why he's griping at me. It's a tangent.
It didn't counter or add to the point at hand. It was a nice side note, but in no way was it a debate, argument, or ground-shaking rebuttle.
Then there's Ploesti. There were no photos in that whole long debacle of a thread that showed B-24s flying less than 30 feet off the ground. There were some low flying B-24s, and I never disputed that. However, I will not believe (at this point in time) the pilot tales of crashing into hay bales, and flying so low that the top dorsal turret could fire into hay bales as it flew by (a gun position which doesn't depress below 0 degrees). Nor will I believe Soviet accounts that the spitfire and the hurricane were not manuverable aircraft, because it's all subjective. That is my opinion, and I have said as much, and my opinion on that matter won't change. So... Bodhi holds a grudge and attacks me for an opinion I hold? Is that it? Go back and read the Ploesti thread. I got yelled at because I dared not believe the word of the pilots that flew it. I also don't believe reports that claim 190s could out-turn spitfires with ease. It's a biased claim, which doesn't explain the entire story.
So this should have no bearing in why he's griping at me. If he's calling me a liar and a spreader of falsehoods, he hasn't been able to find one fact. *IF* he hates me because of my opinion, he is biggoted and weak minded. I don't think that's the case. I leave this out of why he's griping at me because it is opinion.
If not, the only other point he's brought up was a VERY obscure one about P-40N production dates. Aside from the date, my post was fairly accurate, and the date was mis-quoted from several popular books. Could be considered a common misconception. I was corrected by Widewing immediately after, and have since not posted that quote again. Where have I been spreading lies? Where have I been conjuring falsehoods? I quoted something going from multiple books, and was corrected. He makes it out to be a much bigger deal than it was.
In fact, he was searching for my name and for "109" strings, trying to find something to hurl at my face about 109s. I've posted quite a bit in my time here about 109s, 190s, and many other aircraft, and even when he was SEARCHING for something to throw in my face, all he could find was an obscure P-40N comment.
So this should have no bearing in why he's griping at me. He had to go and search to find something after-the-fact, and couldn't come up with anything.
and the manner in which you defend them when corrected or disputed.
Inaccurate to say that. If I'm corrected by a valid source I will not defend a position proven wrong. However, Bodhi (on this whole G.55 topic) has been hurling insults more than actually trying to prove a point. He didn't provide anything to this thread which wasn't already IN this topic. The way I've defended myself here has been to ask him politely why where and when, and he has replied with more insults.
If he wants to call you a liar, I can't find fault with him. He may lack a little tact in doing so, but you're as guilty as he is. Remember Ploesti?
Yes, I do remember it as a matter of fact. I am not the guilty party here. I was posting constructive, and factually correct information in this thread and in another thread about the G.55. He goes ballistic, on that premise. However, he cannot find any reason when I ask him multiple times.
What can be inferred from that, other than he was attacking me because he felt like it, unprovoked, and that he had no basis for the attack? <-- this description sounds to me like I'm the victim in this one.
Of all of the examples listed above, the only one that might have any "teeth" is ploesti, only fact of the matter is no photos showed the bombers scraping wheat grass and I refuse to believe it happened until I see it. Now if he's griping at me, and starting fights based on this opinion, he can suck a lemon for all I care. If that's not the case, then he has provided NO explanation, and I have repeatedly asked in a polite way why he has done this.
I wanted to get to the bottom of this and put this puppy to bed once and for all, however, he cannot find the bottom. I'm of the opinion there was no "bottom" to this to get to. He can find no reason.
Certainly, if there IS a reason, it has nothing to do with anything in the G.55 threads, and as such Bodhi has started a fight under false pretenses in an otherwise peaceful discussion.
Please re-read this thread, and show me something I've done wrong, other than point out that Bodhi wasn't in posession of all the facts when he started the "vote no" thread --- WHICH, fyi, the Finns did in the "vote no to brewster" thread, and Bodhi didn't start World War 3 in there. He gets corrected in there, and in this "vote no" thread -- but decides to take up a fight in this one. :rolleyes:
-
Gianlupo better luck next time.
Bronk
-
Wow, holy wall of text Krusty.
I don't hate ya. I feel sorry for yas man.
But hey, you go ahead and believe you are in the right. It's easier if your world has total ageement.... :rofl
I will be off in reality the next few days! :aok
-
I've not insulted you once or called you one name, and I am greeted with lies and abuse. I demand an explanation or an apology. You have so far been unable to provide the former, but I will take the latter.
Originally posted by Bodhi
Krusty, the saddest thing here is that you are so full of caca del toro that you could not move unless a dung beetle picked you up and rolled you into a ball....
[...]
I am tired of listening to your inane rantings. You know crap all, your assumptions are flawed and you generally have no clue. That you have survived this long is proof that God has a heart for idiots.
Originally posted by Bodhi
you started with insults...
I finish.
Spin it how you like, you are still a factless imbecile.
Originally posted by Bodhi
What are you taking? Honestly, I want to see how the hell this turned into you being the victim? You came into this thread and called me ignorant. If that is not starting something, I really do not know wtf is.
[...]
The why the hell are you here telling me something different then... seriously, what are you on?
[...]
Misconception...? Again, what are you on?
[...]
You are not straight forward. You skew everything to your point of view. If you do not have a fact you make it up. Thats the number one problem with you and why people just can not stand to see you in a thread. Even when you are wrong you maintain your innocence and try to skew that into an attack on you.
Frankly I am very tired of you and your factless statements and spin.
Originally posted by Bodhi
1 day.... 1 month it doesn't matter to Krusty. He knows everything.
Originally posted by Bodhi
LOL,
See what I mean. The guy is so used to talking out his arse that he can not even support his own statements.
Pathetic.
Originally posted by Bodhi
I may be a griefer to you, but I am not a liar like you.
Originally posted by Bodhi
[...]
You want me to lay off, then admit you are wrong.
Originally posted by Bodhi
Lying... how about we just leave it as you know f all and that you talk out your butt.
I think that'd best close it.
sorry am drunk at breck, but could not resist.
Originally posted by Bodhi
You must consistently walk around with a blanket over your head.
And FYI, I never exploded, although... I seem to remember looking back a few threads with all your expletives being blanked out.
Nice try... actually not really, but believe what you want.
Have a nice day in your "little" world.
I reiterate:
I've not insulted you once or called you one name, and I am greeted with lies and abuse. I demand an explanation or an apology. You have so far been unable to provide the former, but I will take the latter.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I've not insulted you once or called you one name, and I am greeted with lies and abuse. I demand an explanation or an apology. You have so far been unable to provide the former, but I will take the latter.
:rofl
Yeah Bodhi! Apologise!
-
Originally posted by Shifty
:rofl Dude, you have way too much free time.:rofl
Putting the AH BBS on the PC is brilliant!
zOMG! it looks like Bodhi's avatar on the left too!
-
Come on krusy, I know your holding back... give us a real good meltdown! I mean tell us what you really think...
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Gianlupo better luck next time.
Bronk
Thank you, Bronk, ! :)
Now, please, someone lock this thread... it's meaningless now.
-
krusty why keep on talking its not working for you. this has been the same crap over and over
-
"kil0", if you look, it has been the same crap. All of it from Bodhi. He owes me an apology.
-
People need to move on, the plane lost in the poll. Get over it.
-
This thread is no longer about the plane. This thread is about calling Bodhi out on the floor about his BS now. He was way out of line, but as usual nobody is going to do anything about it.
Except me. I demand an apology.
-
Psst.........
Let it go, it's just making you look like a clown.
No pun intended.
;)
-
The longer you keep this thread alive, Krusty, the worse it makes you look. Do you want to keep demanding that apology?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Dead thread posting!:aok
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
The longer you keep this thread alive, Krusty, the worse it makes you look. Do you want to keep demanding that apology?
-- Todd/Leviathn
This from you?
Go ahead, read this entire thread. You just came in to support your squaddie, I know. If you read the entire thread you might find you have nothing to support. He was way out of line the entire time.
EDIT: Removed a line that *might* be taken as an insult. As you can see, Bodhi has the market on insults cornered in this thread. Don't want to take that from him, might make him look "good".
-
And the thread goes on and on.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Why isn't this thread locked?
-
Gotta post some jiggly boobies first, then it will close... or when krusty finally does his meltdown post.
-
Bodhi's the one that melted down in this thread. IF it gets locked, it will be because Bodhi started a fight without cause, creating false reasons after-the-fact to justify it (Bush should hire him!).
-
Now, now krusty... stick to something you know and not what you think...
-
VWE, have you read this thread, or are you just coming in at the end to stir up more trouble?
Please answer before I reply.
-
LOL how cute... you even put it in your sig.
-
But of course... I find it hilarious that he's done things that would get most people PNGed, has done them without rebuke, and tries to laugh them off as unimportant when called to answer for it.
So funny it's sig material.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Bodhi's the one that melted down in this thread. IF it gets locked, it will be because Bodhi started a fight without cause, creating false reasons after-the-fact to justify it (Bush should hire him!).
I know Bodhi fairly well and I'll put $1,000 on the fact that he: 1.) Has NOT "melted down". 2.) Instead, he's laughing his butt off. Krusty, with the amount of duplicate threads on this plane, it was a poor attempt at "promoting the plane".
-
Originally posted by Krusty
But of course... I find it hilarious that he's done things that would get most people PNGed, has done them without rebuke, and tries to laugh them off as unimportant when called to answer for it.
So funny it's sig material.
The sig doesn't have any of the things you've mentioned above Krusty. It just has one of your own tirades.
-
Guys, quit trying to talk him away from the ledge....ever hear the term "give him more rope"? I think that is why this thread is still alive in the first place, anyone who has been around these boards for any length of time knows Krusty's penchant for...errrr....exaggerating the facts.
Jump clown-boy jump!
EDIT:
Originally posted by Ball
zOMG! it looks like Bodhi's avatar on the left too!
Thanks for recognizing my creativity!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
But of course... I find it hilarious that he's done things that would get most people PNGed, has done them without rebuke, and tries to laugh them off as unimportant when called to answer for it.
So funny it's sig material.
PNG? He has just counter argued. While you stood there screaming.
-
Krusty... you had 3 threads nuked by Pyro before Bodhi even posted a message in here.
This sums it up really: -
Originally posted by Bodhi
Throw insults? It seems to me that you were the one that started with the ignorance comment. Since then, you have been proven wrong on many if not most occasions on this discussion and that you talk out both sides of your mouth with completely opposite statements.
You want me to lay off, then admit you are wrong.
Originally posted by Krusty
Can we get a forum admin in here, please? I have been civil and forgiving, but this is insane.
-
Krusty, you play a computer game and post in an online game forum. You take your name from a fictitious cartoon clown and fly around in pixellated pretend planes in your free time.
Nobody is "impugning" your honor, and certainly nobody is going to apologize to you for some perceived slight that you have taken very, very seriously. You're a pretend clown flying pretend planes! You're arguing over the Internet!
:aok
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
krusty I'll bet the farm bodhi is laughing at your posts. I know I am. back away from the edge and get a chuckle out of the thread yourself. it's funny stuff.
-
Furball, I had 1 thread edited, at MY request no less, because somebody else started a fight. Since then, Bodhi has started a new fight.
Oh, and FYI: calling me a long stream of unending insults and names does insult my honor, Levi. Maybe you don't have any, but then nobody cares what you type anyways.
I provided factually correct information, Bodhi didn't read it, came in here posting what I'd already said, and said he was trying to correct me (having posted what I already posted).
Guess who comes off as an arse? Bodhi does. On top of that he spews endless insults to me this entire time, then when I calmly ask him why, he gets all flustered and can't answer. He had not ONE valid reason to start any trouble, yet he did. Further, he goes searching after-the-fact to try to find some reason to have started trouble in the first place, but only comes up with lame unrelated examples. Thats' the best he could "dig up".
Facts are:
Bodhi starts a fight
Bodhi spews insults
Krusty stays calm, utters not one instul or name
Krusty tries to figure out why Bodhi is acting like this
Bodhi laughs it off and ignores the issues.
So Bodhi starts trouble for his own perverse pleasure. You might want to reconsider who you have as a squadmate.
-
Hey Krusty,
I know it is hard, but how about the facts please:
1. To be non combative in another person's thread, I started my own thread on why I did not support the G.55.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201910
2. You immediately throw in an insult by calling me ignorant for citing the facts on production numbers.
3. I provide counterarguments that you can not counter.
4. You start to spin this into being a victim as you can not back up your facts.
5. BBS is now laughing at you for having a meltdown.
I actually was grinning thinking about this thread, and just showed it to some others in the shop I am at, and they are now laughing their collective arses off at you too.
You da man! Thanks for the smile.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I actually was grinning thinking about this thread, and just showed it to some others in the shop I am at, and they are now laughing their collective arses off at you too.
Is that the shop where THIS (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=202017) is happening?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
2. You immediately throw in an insult by calling me ignorant for citing the facts on production numbers.
False. Your numbers were correct. Your numbers matched those in this very thread (how many times do I have to say it? READ this thread!). Your comments about the aircraft were ignorant, not about the numbers produced. I made no insult by saying you were ignorant. Were it you, the F-bomb would have been tossed about 5 times and you'd have used words like "moron" "fool" "you're an a**" and other things -- gee, sort of like what you used in the quotes of you I posted above. Ignorant isn't an insult. It was what you were regarding the G.55. The numbers are the same as in this thread, and nobody EVER disputed the number. Your comments about it being an "uber hypothetical and all but nonexistent" aircraft were ignorant.
3. I provide counterarguments that you can not counter.
Where? You provided NO counter arguments. Had you read this thread (I'm still not convinced you've done it yet) you would find anything you've said has already been said here. You're repeating me, pretending you're refuting me. If A = B, then A !=B must be false. You're using warped logic to substantiate your argument.
5. BBS is now laughing at Bodhi for having a meltdown.
Fixed.
You started an inflamatory thread (P.S. read the rules, no trolling) posting false information about an aircraft. You didn't bother reading the very informative thread you were bashing, in the first place. When I correct you, you cling to some sort of numbers comment -- which only is a repeat of what I've already posted.
You hide behind a wall of torrential insults to cover your own embarrasment for sticking your foot in your mouth -- starting an argument on false pretenses then seeing that there was no grounds for it in the first place (seeing this, if you ever read this thread, I mean).
Your immature name calling may please yourself, but how old are you, man? What kind of a childhood did you have? Did you torture small animals? Kill the neighbors' cats and bury them?
The fact that you start a fight with no basis, try to make up a basis after-the-fact to cover your own shame, and then hide behind a mask of supposed laughter, indicates you have strong mental issues that would be best taken up with a therapist.
Your goading only makes you look like a sad sap. Oh, and calling in your BK squaddies to try and defend something.... which has only 1 side so cannot be defended... is also sad. I notice none of them (aside from Ball) showed up until I called you out, and you had no explanation for your action.
-
Let's see who's had the meltdown, shall we?
Originally posted by Bodhi
Krusty, the saddest thing here is that you are so full of caca del toro that you could not move unless a dung beetle picked you up and rolled you into a ball....
[...]
I am tired of listening to your inane rantings. You know crap all, your assumptions are flawed and you generally have no clue. That you have survived this long is proof that God has a heart for idiots.
Originally posted by Bodhi
you started with insults...
I finish.
Spin it how you like, you are still a factless imbecile.
Originally posted by Bodhi
What are you taking? Honestly, I want to see how the hell this turned into you being the victim? You came into this thread and called me ignorant. If that is not starting something, I really do not know wtf is.
[...]
The why the hell are you here telling me something different then... seriously, what are you on?
[...]
Misconception...? Again, what are you on?
[...]
You are not straight forward. You skew everything to your point of view. If you do not have a fact you make it up. Thats the number one problem with you and why people just can not stand to see you in a thread. Even when you are wrong you maintain your innocence and try to skew that into an attack on you.
Frankly I am very tired of you and your factless statements and spin.
Originally posted by Bodhi
1 day.... 1 month it doesn't matter to Krusty. He knows everything.
Originally posted by Bodhi
LOL,
See what I mean. The guy is so used to talking out his arse that he can not even support his own statements.
Pathetic.
Originally posted by Bodhi
I may be a griefer to you, but I am not a liar like you.
Originally posted by Bodhi
[...]
You want me to lay off, then admit you are wrong.
Originally posted by Bodhi
Lying... how about we just leave it as you know f all and that you talk out your butt.
I think that'd best close it.
sorry am drunk at breck, but could not resist.
Originally posted by Bodhi
You must consistently walk around with a blanket over your head.
And FYI, I never exploded, although... I seem to remember looking back a few threads with all your expletives being blanked out.
Nice try... actually not really, but believe what you want.
Have a nice day in your "little" world.
Oh, that's right. Bodhi had the meltdown.
-
Yay! 300 posts!
-
Oooo OOOOoooo oOOOoooo Idea!!!!
close this thread!!!!
-
Husky if you don't have anything to add, please don't post. Bodhi has been a jerk-off in this thread. I asked him why. He pissed his pants trying to make up an excuse why. Then he pretends he's the victim.
Find one post in here, made by Krusty, where I'm upset (like Bodhi), spewing insults (like Bodhi), diverting the issue (like Bodhi), and being a total griefer (like Bodhi).
There isn't one post by Krusty that fits this bill. EVERY post by Bodhi fits it. Yet, when I point this out, guess what? People try change the subject.
Frankly, Bodhi has acted like a griefer. In the past, such folks had forum privs revoked. My how times change.
-
Ok Husky wont post anymore:D
-
Originally posted by Krusty
(http://www.dcvote.org/images/dcist_crying_child.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Furball, I had 1 thread edited, at MY request no less, because somebody else started a fight. Since then, Bodhi has started a new fight.
Hmmmm, at YOUR request ehhh.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Hey Krusty,
I know it is hard, but how about the facts please:
1. To be non combative in another person's thread, I started my own thread on why I did not support the G.55.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201910
2. You immediately throw in an insult by calling me ignorant for citing the facts on production numbers.
3. I provide counterarguments that you can not counter.
4. You start to spin this into being a victim as you can not back up your facts.
5. BBS is now laughing at you for having a meltdown.
I actually was grinning thinking about this thread, and just showed it to some others in the shop I am at, and they are now laughing their collective arses off at you too.
You da man! Thanks for the smile.
:aok
Yep, I still know Bodhi. :cool:
-
You can see when a person is in the last stage of a meltdown, because they talk about themselves by their own name, as a third person.
-
Originally posted by krusty
Before you go posting ignorantly as such
Originally posted by krusty
I made no insult by saying you were ignorant.
You need to spend some time with a therapist...
-
Nice to see we can all air our differences in an adult manner :rolleyes: