Fiat G.55 - Italy's Centaur of WW2 

Bismarck - Military Aviation History Bismarck, it's accept. Pardon your lack of english knowledge. Keep up the good work. Edit: 2nd of June 2020- Idk why I posted this comment but I'll leave it here, sorry Bis for acting like a brat and anyone who comes across this comment

Are you still in Italy, i live on the Alps in Trentino, there is a plane museum near the Trentos airport

You forgot to link the Spaviro, by the way.

it seems frederico want to have a sexy time with the red pants, hobo beard guy

You should come to the UK and visit some of the museums here. Quite a few. Quite big. Plenty to see and talk about. Awesome videos, keep it up please.

Not exactly, sir. The Re2005 had the wing plant design quite similar to the Republic aircrafts. In my opinion that fighter was the most advanced among engine prop. fighters of Axis. Of course, we had no possibility to produce them in significant numbers. That is all. Greetings from Italy. Bye.

@@vincenzodimattia3710 I really like the MC 202 / 205 but everyone talks about the G55 and Re2005... was the MC205 so much inferior? Also those three looks quite similar not copys but have some common design i feel, especialy if i look at the canopy.

@@ZunaZurugi Good morning, friend. May I ask where are you from? Yes, the design of those three hunters was similar enough. And it's true there weren't many differences amongst them. With that formula wasn't possible to do anything else. In addiction, the Italian manifacturing system wasn't ready or capable to furnish a large number of aircrafts.

@@vincenzodimattia3710 Im just from germany :D

What do you think about the Italians? Do you know the Place that they have in history? Be quite please!!

Setting aside the political decisions of their leaders (though I suppose that's symptomatic) if the Italians could have gotten out of their own way just think what could have been in so many arenas.

@@carebear8762 I'd take the politics of mussolini any day over the suicidal "leaders" of the EU or america.

Some of the Italian planes were also dam ugly

@@sarahnikas1344 About suicidal leaders of one's country, Mussolini is the very best champion about it

Viridis XIC That little plane was on the verge of being fastest & sturdiest of WW-2. No doubt

Zumzifero very true

For making crappy cars.

El Rondo ferrari, lamborghini, bugatti, maserari, fiat, lancia, alfa romeo: are we a joke to you?

@@antaridae A BIG JOKE! A stock $60K Corvette can blow the doors off most of them and Corvettes rarely break. German and Italian engineering is a joke. If Toyota built a super car is would bury the German and Italian junk. German engineering was a myth then and it's a myth now. Yankee ingenuity and Japanese honor and diligence beats German incompetent over-engineering and Italian flair every time. Keep in mind, BMW means Big Money Wasted, Buy More Warranty and Bavarian Murder Weapon Fiat means, Fix It Again Tony. The rest of the Italian cars are over priced junk. Real men bang the wives of the wimps who drive super cars.

El Rondo you don’t even know what you are talking about, most of the brands i said don’t even produce sport cars...

Better with a british engine tho.

Mikhailia Gacesa very similar to American fighter P- 39 HITLER was a buffoon. Germany was being assailed by many bombers at least twice a week. He wants to use the new jet fighter as a bomber.

Mikhailia Gacesa what was the American fighter very similar to this one. P-39 ? Aerodynamics by BELL AIR CRAFT: Spendid, was listening to one on RU-vid. Little plane scared the bejesus out of me. Unbelievable power coming out of that little plane

in 1943 to be specific.

@@davidvance6367 The P-39's only issue was that it was optimised for Low-Altitude dogfights which rarely if ever happened on the Western Front, so the USAAF disliked it for its lacklustre performance at altitude that combat took place. On the other hand the Soviets adored it. On the Eastern Front all Dogfights took place below 4km since rather than Bomber Hunting/Escorting most of the air war was covering/intercepting CAS at low altitude. P-39's in Soviet service shredded 109's and 190's, the top Soviet aces all scored the most shootdowns in P-39's.

@@davidvance6367 That's a historical lie .Hitler was told the Me 262 could be a fighter bomber & needed one to penetrate Allied defense by speed alone ,for D- Day .Every 5 was committed to fighter defense. Germany needs offense .

not the best, but definitely up there

KI-61 AND A6M3: HOLD MY SAKE

Don't forget the KI-84

@keith wilson N1K2-J

Guys, sparviero142 means February 1943, so only designs from 1943 count. So no Ki-84's and N1K's without floats.

@@shaunaemery9618 f4u4:aha, i am coming

What's sad is that some Re.2001 survived the war, and a couple had been used for some year by the metereological service of the Aeronautica Militare, but after that they had been simply scrapped. At the time preservation was not a thing (even the race plane Macchi M39 currently on display had been recovered in a ditch years later).

I was making a search about it on internet and I actually found that there is a surviving Reggiane 2000 in Sweden, at the Swedish Air Force Museum in Linkoping with Swedish markings. Some Reggiane were actually exported to Sweden and Hungary. There is also a Reggiane 2002 (without wings and engine) with German insignia at the Musee de la Resistance in Limoges (France). Another part of a Re2002 is at the Volandia Museum. In 2013 a Re2000 was raised from the bottom of the sea in Portovenere and will be restored by the Museo Storico dell'Aeronautica.

Dovrebbero aver restaurato un Reggiane 2001, non so se sta già in esposizione. L'ultima volta ho visto che avevano hai posizionato il carrello retrattile, ma mancava ancora il mezzo

@@emmedigi89 I am counting two Re 2000, a complete one in Sweden and fuselage in Italy and said to be under restoration. I count one Re 2001, which is the corroded example raised from saltwater. I see two Re 2002, both just fuselages--one in France and one in Italy under restoration. There is one Re 2005 in Italy and it is just a partial fuselage.

@@FiveCentsPlease yes, you are actually right. The restoration of the Italian Reggiane has been completed few months ago and it is now on display at the Italian Air Force museum

Same for me. I was expecting something similar to a Hawker Fury bi-plane (Developed into the Hurricane) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Fury ...

I thought, the bomber was a biplane.

A biplane with 3 20mm mg151 and 2 12.7mm machine guns would terrify even a b29

@Hog Nutz The G.55 subpar? It was considered the best axis fighter by the german test pilots! It was better than a contemporary 109, but way more complex to produce

@Hog Nutz The Centauro had almost double the firepower of a BF 109! And the range didn't really matter considering it was built mainly to intercept bombers! And if i recall correctly it had a superior range than a 109 anyway! What are you talking about?

​@Hog Nutz BF 109 G-6 (contemporary to the G.55 Serie 1): 2 x 13 mm MG 131 machine guns and one 20 mm MG 151 cannon. Range: 560 km without fuel tanks. G.55 Serie 1 (production version): 2 x 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT machine gun and 3 x 20 mm MG 151 cannons. Range: 1200 km Read the reports by Petersen, Milch, Galland and Tank: they even convinced Goring to start production in Germany

@Hog Nutz Also every German pilot that tested it noted that while being heavily armed, it handled better than the contemporary variant of the 109 and the 190 at every altitude!

​@Hog Nutz the gross weight of a 109 G-6 was around 3140 kg G.55 Serie 1: around 3,520 kg Where did you get your information? I'm genuinely curious, you seem to be quite confused about this machine. I used to work at the Museo Storico A.M. of Vigna di Valle (the one in the video), so i'm familiar with those peculiar planes

The biggest mistake for Italy was, being blinded by the success of Spanish Civil War. They thought their air force to be competitive and not to modernize and revolution italian aircraft. The Fiat g55 was true competitive in the time back then. But if you imagine, that equal planes were built by the allies 1, 2 years earlier and Germany even sent the me262 to service, the g55 would have been already obsolete by the end of war. The jet era was coming. So the Italians, in development and production capacity were like 10 years behind the others in relation to those 2 years in war where technology was evolving rapidly.

@@italianoetnico.calabreseve9262 In short, yes, although it was a deep rooted problem. This particular situation was caused by years of negligence and corruption by the government, to the point where having all three of FIAT, Aeronautica Macchi and Reggiane OMI building their own aircraft would take less time and resources than providing each manifacturer with the machinery and know-how to all build the best one out of the serie V fighters. This whole system was as dysfunctional as it could be, although it did cast some very beautiful airplanes in the process.

Swiss engineers would like a word.

These comments got a laugh out of me. Germans and Swiss battling it out for over-engineer of the year award. They even have a name for it in watch-making: complications. Meanwhile the Italians go home for lunch, and wine and maybe start back later, maybe not. Civilised people those Italians.

@@ThreenaddiesRexMegistus Panther and Tiger: Good quality because they don't break down. T34 and Sherman: Good quality because they are easy to repair.

@@asmundukkelberg8741 The Panther and Tiger especially were renowned for mechanical unreliability. It’s actually been estimated that more Tigers were lost to mechanical issues and wear than Allied guns.

And the LACK of fuel

They would have been wise to have stayed out of WW1 and WW2.

@@lancejackson3524 Absolutely

Is your icon Charon from Fallout 3 wearing Enclave Armor?

Spot on. Add that the Re.2005 had been already selected as the replacement of the Re.2001 as embarked fighter-bomber on the carrier Aquila (since the Re. 2005 could carry a torpedo from the start).

Italian military production was rife with corruption, so it's hard to say why they did anything.

@@princeofcupspoc9073 Lack of raw materials, rather then corruption, I would say

@@giulianoilfilosofo7927 Not really corruption, more like that the hrad industries had too much power on the fascist regime, you could call it corruption but it was just how the regime worked

If I remember correctly the Re.2005 was the better diver.

Sexy beast.

Yes it was! I'd give my left arm to fly that thing for an hour!!!!!

Its Fiat...thats why!

You've never seen the Re.2005 before?

Both the ME 262 and the ME 163 were actually pretty bad they were the product of rushed wartime design

Smigol Time! How many museums do you imagine have a G.55?

guess 1 or 2, why do you ask?

Because I don't find it surprising that he might go to an Italian aviation museum to see what must be a pretty rare Italian aircraft I know you were just joking around though. No big deal.

He´s in the EU...

i meant that he has money and time to go anywhere he wants... and m jealous bout it,especialy about the time :v

Duececoupe looks very similar to the American P-39

Solito commento che solo un italiano può fare.

@@mikyruna Il solito commento che solo un Italiano che ha studiato, può fare❗Abbia una piacevole giornata.

Too bad for them their pilots weren't as good at flying them as the Germans or the British. The North Africa-Mediterranean campaign might have had a very different ending.

@@rimshot2270 the pilot were good but the plane were shit...until 1942ish but they did not built enough of it

@@user-kk6yg7ds9z RAF pilots reported that Italian fighter pilots liked to "mix it up" rather than sty in formation like the Germans, which made it easier for the British to handle them.

The spitfire mk IX was superior to the Fiat g.55

The French air force was transitioning to a newer generation of aircraft (as had the Luftwaffe in 1937-38 and the RAF in 1938-39) . So the French were, having considerable difficulty in equipping squadrons with new aircrafts as well as maintaining operational ready rates. In early 1940, some French squadrons ran in-commission rates of barely 40 percent. In may 1940, the output had reached 619 combat aircraft per month produced in France (and 170 additional produced in the US on French orders). Therefore, France not only was outproducing Germany with modern combat aircrafts in this period but was the number 1 manufacturer in the world, unfortunately, it was too late. Of their 28 Fighter groups: 16 had the obsolete Ms406, of which 8 were re-equipping with the Dewotine D520 4 had Hawk 75s 8 had Bloch 151 and 152s Of those, on paper, only the D520 were able to compete with the Bf109e on equal terms. The Ms406 was manuverable but slow, the Curtiss Hawk was not much faster than the Ms406 and was underarmed and the Bloch 151, altough sturdy and well armed, was a very slow climber and had poor agility. However, even in those conditions the French campaign had been incredibly costly for the Luftwaffe. 28% of its front line strength, 1401 aircrafts, were destroyed 672 were damaged, making 36% of the Luftwaffe strength lost or damaged. Luftwaffe's casualties amounted to 6,653 men, including 4,417 highly trained aircrew. All losses that costed dearly in the subsequent Battle of Britain. The single day in which the Luftwaffe lost more aircrafts in the entire war had been 10 may 1940, with 308 aircrafts lost in 24 hours. At the time of Dunkirk the Luftwaffe was near to exhaustion and the Allied gained air superiority, but the situation on the field was so compromised that it made no difference.

@@sonoitalianoful No it took many more hours to produce a G55 than a BF109, that's why germany didn't thought of starting the production to G55

@@carta8399 ho migliorato la conoscenza personale di questo velivolo,facile da produrre rispetto al macchi 205 certamente,ma mai sotto questo aspetto rispetto ai bf109,anche lo spitfire era molto difficile da produrre e quindi costosissimi,aggiungo qui quanto ho appreso da wikipedia : "Lo impiegammo in combattimento due o tre volte per intercettare i bombardieri alleati che attaccavano le città del nord Italia, ed in tale ruolo si comportò abbastanza bene. Aveva un'ottima maneggevolezza, una eccellente stabilità e un potente armamento. Il discorso variava se però ai bombardieri si sostituivano i caccia alleati fosse anche il pur pesante e poco agile Lightning P.38. Infatti, oltre i 3.000 m. il G.55 accusava la sua pesantezza d'ali e la mancanza di una adeguata potenza surplus del motore in rapporto al peso del velivolo, che lo trasformava in un caccia di media classe e come tale non particolarmente competitivo al confronto con il mediocre ma potente e veloce P.38, con il massiccio ma rapido ed esuberante P.47 e con il velocissimo, agile e poderoso P.51. Il velivolo risentiva, come tutti i caccia italiani dei difetti e dei pregi che essi avevano in comune: buona maneggevolezza, brillante predisposizione acrobatica, splendida linea aerodinamica che si contrapponevano alla limitata consistenza operativa per il quasi completo sfruttamento della potenza motrice disponibile, per la costituzione non particolarmente robusta ad un prolungato sforzo d'impiego, per le difficoltà di manutenzione, per la scarsa efficienza del sistema d'armamento causa di numerosi inceppamenti, per l'insufficienza degli apparati di puntamento per il tiro, per il discontinuo rendimento dei collegamenti radio, tutti elementi che avevano la loro importanza nel combattimento e contribuivano in misura determinante a stabilire il reale valore combattivo di un caccia. Se venivano a mancare tali caratteristiche, il caccia non poteva più configurarsi in modo esatto come tale, poiché era più rispondente ad un veloce aeroplano da turismo, acrobatico, esuberante come potenza e consumo, ed eccessivo sicuramente come prestazioni fornite. Non vorrei essere tacciato di pessimismo, ma le mie convinzioni sono maturate progressivamente allorché all'esperienza entusiasmante ed indimenticabile fatta in guerra col Messerschmitt, ho aggiunto nel dopoguerra, la conoscenza ancor più incisiva e traumatizzante del Thunderbolt e del Mustang che più volte avevo affrontato, combattuto e vinto

@@carta8399 ho migliorato le mie conoscenze sul g55 liberandomi del tanto di propaganda fiat ,era piu facile che rispetto al mc205 o allo spitfire produrlo ma un disastro rispetto ai tipi tedeschi e poi prestazionalmente non era un gran che,aggiungo questo ritratto che ne fece un pilota tratto da wikipedia : "Lo impiegammo in combattimento due o tre volte per intercettare i bombardieri alleati che attaccavano le città del nord Italia, ed in tale ruolo si comportò abbastanza bene. Aveva un'ottima maneggevolezza, una eccellente stabilità e un potente armamento. Il discorso variava se però ai bombardieri si sostituivano i caccia alleati fosse anche il pur pesante e poco agile Lightning P.38. Infatti, oltre i 3.000 m. il G.55 accusava la sua pesantezza d'ali e la mancanza di una adeguata potenza surplus del motore in rapporto al peso del velivolo, che lo trasformava in un caccia di media classe e come tale non particolarmente competitivo al confronto con il mediocre ma potente e veloce P.38, con il massiccio ma rapido ed esuberante P.47 e con il velocissimo, agile e poderoso P.51. Il velivolo risentiva, come tutti i caccia italiani dei difetti e dei pregi che essi avevano in comune: buona maneggevolezza, brillante predisposizione acrobatica, splendida linea aerodinamica che si contrapponevano alla limitata consistenza operativa per il quasi completo sfruttamento della potenza motrice disponibile, per la costituzione non particolarmente robusta ad un prolungato sforzo d'impiego, per le difficoltà di manutenzione, per la scarsa efficienza del sistema d'armamento causa di numerosi inceppamenti, per l'insufficienza degli apparati di puntamento per il tiro, per il discontinuo rendimento dei collegamenti radio, tutti elementi che avevano la loro importanza nel combattimento e contribuivano in misura determinante a stabilire il reale valore combattivo di un caccia. Se venivano a mancare tali caratteristiche, il caccia non poteva più configurarsi in modo esatto come tale, poiché era più rispondente ad un veloce aeroplano da turismo, acrobatico, esuberante come potenza e consumo, ed eccessivo sicuramente come prestazioni fornite. Non vorrei essere tacciato di pessimismo, ma le mie convinzioni sono maturate progressivamente allorché all'esperienza entusiasmante ed indimenticabile fatta in guerra col Messerschmitt, ho aggiunto nel dopoguerra, la conoscenza ancor più incisiva e traumatizzante del Thunderbolt e del Mustang che più volte avevo affrontato, combattuto e vinto

@@sonoitalianoful Sì, un ottimo aereo se inserito nel contesto dei velivoli italiani, non top di gamma per il suo tempo di certo, e comunque difficile da produrre e costoso insomma

Germans used the P40 tank until the last day of the war (IE two German manned P40 had been destroyed by the advancing British on the Pontebbana road on 25 may 1945). Another piece of Italian equipment normally used by Germans were aerial torpedos. The Luftwaffe F5W aerial torpedo, the most used by the Germans in WWII, was imported from Italy, it was the Italian Whitehead 170/450/5,46 torpedo.

@ Neal Scroggs- It was offset as you have observed (same as Reggiane), but no problem with landing gear retraction.

It was much more dangerous to land a Bf109 (narrow and notoriously weak undercarriage).