Author Topic: G.55 Centauro Lobbying Thread (Read 11129 times)

Krusty · « **on:** March 22, 2007, 12:21:59 PM »

Quote

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!!!!!!

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!

LancerVT · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2007, 12:35:08 PM »

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.

Krusty · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2007, 12:36:06 PM »

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.

Gianlupo · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:01:00 PM »

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

Krusty · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:02:34 PM »

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

Also, according to this site 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...

Gianlupo · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:09:39 PM »

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...

Krusty · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:19:04 PM »

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)

Gianlupo · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:26:00 PM »

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)

Krusty · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:28:36 PM »

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

Gianlupo · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:30:29 PM »

Yep, right, because that possibility was in the design from the beginning... Give us the bombs and DTs!!!

JB73 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:38:24 PM »

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

Karnak · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2007, 01:52:44 PM »

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.

Krusty · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2007, 02:01:20 PM »

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.

Karnak · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2007, 02:29:25 PM »

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.

wasq · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2007, 02:33:23 PM »

You still have quite a way to reach the merits of our Brewster Lobbying Thread ... Yield and vote for the Brewster!