![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The three view is unfortunately of the G91Y, yet the data table is for the more common R variant. Has anyone got a usable R 3 view, or can post Data differences for the Y? Kitbag 12:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Some old talk about this table: Talk:Aeritalia G.91/Full Spec
Note: The extensive draft has been moved to Talk:Aeritalia G.91/draft, as it was overwhelming this talk page. AKRadecki Speaketh 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I expect that wiki-sherifs now will been happy. And i expect too, that someone that show good will not lasts too long to 'rewiev' it (go figure about NATO requests what hell of 'rewiev' is needed), not like happened with B-50 and CF-104.
PS. someone has one time more definitively disgusted me with last 'heroic action'. There are many wrong things with wikipedia, and not guiilth of mine, sorry.-- Stefanomencarelli 10:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I made some partial reverts on the modiphics soon happened after i dared to post part of the draft. Obsviously i cannot understand how nobody cares nothing until i write in a draft or talk, and cames swiftly to 'collaborate' when the stuff is posed in the main page.
BTW: the AGARD was led by V.Karman. This was not a marginally information. Bignamini was a test pilot simply decisive for the Gina success. Also this cannot be omitted. Another point, the task of project a light fighter was not a simply one at all, just like to project now a minicar like Opel Smart. These and some other omissions needed to be rettified to make a comple article, that this one of G.91 is far away to be.-- Stefanomencarelli 14:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is another trolling statement. Not all the edits are good enough to be considered OK, or vandalism doesn't exist. If you are not able to edit something without harming the text, nobody ask to you to interest in it. But if you want to see some 'not duplicated' text you have to see the whole G.91 contribution i made.-- Stefanomencarelli 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this plane a genuine new design? It looks like some kind of remote F-86 Sabre derivative. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This was a design from scratch- it is a good 2.5m less in wingspan and length than the Sabre Dog. There is a passing resemblance to the F86D, but no more than the similarity between a Boeing and Airbus design. The design teams work within available data, which is why there sometimes appears to be a 'fashion' in aircraft shapes. Kitbag ( talk) 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, let me quote you the Matricardi/Angelucci Sampson Low Guides book: " 'Small Sabre' was the nickname given by N.A.T.O. to the Fiat G.91, because of its outward resemblance to the North American fighter."
-- Gian piero milanetti ( talk) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph says that this aircraft won a NATO competition in 1953, but the second paragraph says that design began after NATO submitted specifications in December of that year. The design could not possibly have been completed in less than a month. So, when did design begin and finish? Axeman ( talk) 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't quite make sense of the production totals, the lead says 756, the infobox says 770, other language wiki articles vary as well. Perhaps we need to clarify the production section? I have a good reference for the German aircraft so I thought I would list these known facts on this page. If anyone can add sourced information to this list then we might be able to sort it out. I've nicked the list from the article, German information (and Portugese disposals) are from: Jackson, Paul A. German Military Aviation 1956-1976. Hinckley, Leicestershire, UK: Midland Counties Publications, 1976. ISBN 0-904597-03-2
I make that 461 aircraft built for the Luftwaffe with 317 of them built in Germany. A production table like the one used at Lockheed F-104 Starfighter#Production summary table and costs would help a lot with this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I have serial numbers for 299 Italian aircraft:
By MSN
(Not sure if MM6440 exists) Not sure if this all helps or confuses. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Have stolen the table from the F-104 article. Have left numbers in just to show where we are supposed to add them! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Type | Fiat | Dornier | Conversions | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
G.91 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
G.91R/1 | 50 | 0 | 50 | |
G.91R/1A | 27 | 0 | 27 | |
G.91R/1B | 50 | 0 | 50 | |
G.91R/3 | 50 | 295 [1] | 345 | |
G.91R/4 | 50 | 0 | 50 | |
G.91R/6 | 20? | |||
G.91T | 77 | 0 | 77 | |
G.91T/1 | 70 | 22 [1] | 92 | |
G.91T/3 | 0 | 0 | ? | ? |
G.91PAN | 16 [2] | 16 | ||
G.91Y | 66 | 0 | 66 | |
G.91YS | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
TOTALS | 443 | 317 | 16 | 746 |
I'm still working on the production numbers and have been steadily working through the article, mainly adding German service history. I am finding that reading the article is generally 'heavy going', perhaps it's just me! I would like to split the G.91Y information off and expand it into its own article where it can have its own full specifications and history listed (including the mysterious G.91YS evaluated by Switzerland). The 3-view is of a G.91Y and this would also take the 'Y' figures out of the production numbers. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As Gary has stopped work on his sandbox, I'm going to try to work on the sandbox on my userspace to get it ready for mainspace. (Gary has specifically asked that I not work on his userspace without prior approval, including on the G.91Y, hence I have to use my own space to continue the work.) As always, any help from other users is greatly appreciated. - BilCat ( talk) 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This article states: "The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable." Really? Some sort of NATO kamikaze aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.70.3.197 ( talk) 19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
In light of the aircraft's "lackluster" or even more evocative "pig"-like performance, the glowing description in this article of its mighty British engine seems curious: "The challenge of providing an engine that matched the requirements of lightness and power, reliability and ease of maintenance was solved by using the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet." Pretty funny stuff - Wiki is always good for a chuckle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 ( talk) 01:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
German planes used pig emblems during the spanish civil war and during WWII ("Luftwaffe Emblems 1939-1945", Hikoki Publications, 1998, pages 56 and 68). Also a comment on the performance of the aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.110.214 ( talk) 17:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The three view is unfortunately of the G91Y, yet the data table is for the more common R variant. Has anyone got a usable R 3 view, or can post Data differences for the Y? Kitbag 12:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Some old talk about this table: Talk:Aeritalia G.91/Full Spec
Note: The extensive draft has been moved to Talk:Aeritalia G.91/draft, as it was overwhelming this talk page. AKRadecki Speaketh 13:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I expect that wiki-sherifs now will been happy. And i expect too, that someone that show good will not lasts too long to 'rewiev' it (go figure about NATO requests what hell of 'rewiev' is needed), not like happened with B-50 and CF-104.
PS. someone has one time more definitively disgusted me with last 'heroic action'. There are many wrong things with wikipedia, and not guiilth of mine, sorry.-- Stefanomencarelli 10:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I made some partial reverts on the modiphics soon happened after i dared to post part of the draft. Obsviously i cannot understand how nobody cares nothing until i write in a draft or talk, and cames swiftly to 'collaborate' when the stuff is posed in the main page.
BTW: the AGARD was led by V.Karman. This was not a marginally information. Bignamini was a test pilot simply decisive for the Gina success. Also this cannot be omitted. Another point, the task of project a light fighter was not a simply one at all, just like to project now a minicar like Opel Smart. These and some other omissions needed to be rettified to make a comple article, that this one of G.91 is far away to be.-- Stefanomencarelli 14:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is another trolling statement. Not all the edits are good enough to be considered OK, or vandalism doesn't exist. If you are not able to edit something without harming the text, nobody ask to you to interest in it. But if you want to see some 'not duplicated' text you have to see the whole G.91 contribution i made.-- Stefanomencarelli 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this plane a genuine new design? It looks like some kind of remote F-86 Sabre derivative. 82.131.210.162 ( talk) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This was a design from scratch- it is a good 2.5m less in wingspan and length than the Sabre Dog. There is a passing resemblance to the F86D, but no more than the similarity between a Boeing and Airbus design. The design teams work within available data, which is why there sometimes appears to be a 'fashion' in aircraft shapes. Kitbag ( talk) 13:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, let me quote you the Matricardi/Angelucci Sampson Low Guides book: " 'Small Sabre' was the nickname given by N.A.T.O. to the Fiat G.91, because of its outward resemblance to the North American fighter."
-- Gian piero milanetti ( talk) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph says that this aircraft won a NATO competition in 1953, but the second paragraph says that design began after NATO submitted specifications in December of that year. The design could not possibly have been completed in less than a month. So, when did design begin and finish? Axeman ( talk) 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't quite make sense of the production totals, the lead says 756, the infobox says 770, other language wiki articles vary as well. Perhaps we need to clarify the production section? I have a good reference for the German aircraft so I thought I would list these known facts on this page. If anyone can add sourced information to this list then we might be able to sort it out. I've nicked the list from the article, German information (and Portugese disposals) are from: Jackson, Paul A. German Military Aviation 1956-1976. Hinckley, Leicestershire, UK: Midland Counties Publications, 1976. ISBN 0-904597-03-2
I make that 461 aircraft built for the Luftwaffe with 317 of them built in Germany. A production table like the one used at Lockheed F-104 Starfighter#Production summary table and costs would help a lot with this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I have serial numbers for 299 Italian aircraft:
By MSN
(Not sure if MM6440 exists) Not sure if this all helps or confuses. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Have stolen the table from the F-104 article. Have left numbers in just to show where we are supposed to add them! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Type | Fiat | Dornier | Conversions | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|
G.91 | 3 | 0 | 3 | |
G.91R/1 | 50 | 0 | 50 | |
G.91R/1A | 27 | 0 | 27 | |
G.91R/1B | 50 | 0 | 50 | |
G.91R/3 | 50 | 295 [1] | 345 | |
G.91R/4 | 50 | 0 | 50 | |
G.91R/6 | 20? | |||
G.91T | 77 | 0 | 77 | |
G.91T/1 | 70 | 22 [1] | 92 | |
G.91T/3 | 0 | 0 | ? | ? |
G.91PAN | 16 [2] | 16 | ||
G.91Y | 66 | 0 | 66 | |
G.91YS | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
TOTALS | 443 | 317 | 16 | 746 |
I'm still working on the production numbers and have been steadily working through the article, mainly adding German service history. I am finding that reading the article is generally 'heavy going', perhaps it's just me! I would like to split the G.91Y information off and expand it into its own article where it can have its own full specifications and history listed (including the mysterious G.91YS evaluated by Switzerland). The 3-view is of a G.91Y and this would also take the 'Y' figures out of the production numbers. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
As Gary has stopped work on his sandbox, I'm going to try to work on the sandbox on my userspace to get it ready for mainspace. (Gary has specifically asked that I not work on his userspace without prior approval, including on the G.91Y, hence I have to use my own space to continue the work.) As always, any help from other users is greatly appreciated. - BilCat ( talk) 03:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This article states: "The competition was intended to produce an aircraft that was light, small, expendable." Really? Some sort of NATO kamikaze aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.70.3.197 ( talk) 19:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
In light of the aircraft's "lackluster" or even more evocative "pig"-like performance, the glowing description in this article of its mighty British engine seems curious: "The challenge of providing an engine that matched the requirements of lightness and power, reliability and ease of maintenance was solved by using the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus turbojet." Pretty funny stuff - Wiki is always good for a chuckle! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 ( talk) 01:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
German planes used pig emblems during the spanish civil war and during WWII ("Luftwaffe Emblems 1939-1945", Hikoki Publications, 1998, pages 56 and 68). Also a comment on the performance of the aircraft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.110.214 ( talk) 17:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)