Fiat G91 ''Gina''

[Jeffry Fontaine]

If you're going to stuff a F414 in it, you'd be better off starting from the G.91Y, IMHO.

Are there any other candidate engines that would fit the G91 airframe?  Something other than GE or PW?  Maybe something from RR?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Never heard of them until this morning when I read about this company producing a Fiat G-91Y in 1/48th scale in the discussion forums on ARC.  It appears to be a multi-media model kit, here is a link to the discussion topic with images of the master on ARC.



Search results provide no link to a web page, just an eMail address for now adv.models@libero.it


ADV also produces another model that is available in resin.  It is a full size resin (1:1 scale) F-104 Starfighter Control Stick Grip

[Army of One]

Few months ago there was a great article in SAMI in the circuits n bumps series....classic models updated....the chap did one on an Airfix Gina...turned out lovely....he did a really good job....

[Dragon_3]

Hi folks,
nice to see a discussion about the G91, she was a very beautiful a/c, thanks to the genius of engineer Gabrielli, the father of a long series of airplanes, up to the C27J Spartan, derived from the old G222...
I've a book on the history of the Aeritalia factory, it says that the G91Y was offered also to Israel: let's imagine one in IADF colors...
The "Yankee" was fitted with just 2 pylons under each wing, each one rated for 454 Kg, but the version offered to Israel was fitted with 2 extra external pylons to carry small AAM (Sidewinders or so).
According to some rumours from people inside the Italian Air Force, inside the a/c there was really no space for avionics, and you'll need to add a "spine" (like some F16) or a huge "hump" (like the late versions of the Skyhawk) to fit some modern hardware on it...
The landing gear is very similar to the F86, with the wheels retracting under the belly, and a pair of airbrakes just in front of them, so there's no space for plylons under the fuselage, until you "stretch" it.
But the F5 has a similar belly configuration, so let's think about a G91Y with a stretched fuselage and a pylon just in front of the main landing gear, you could also relocate the air brakes to the sides of the fuselage (as in the T45); then add a small radome (the G91Y har three fotocamera in the nose) for a small radar or a E/O nose (like the RAF Harrier), a long spine for avionics on the upper fuselage, 2 wingtip rails for AAM and 2 external pylons (maybe the small external pylons of the Harrier), then paint the whole thing in Israeli camouflage...

WOW!!!!

Best regards...

[Weaver]

How about this for a late-1970s upgrade?

Start with a long-fuselage G-91T and use the rear cockpit for electronics in the manner of the Mitsubishi F1. Fit a RR Adour 871 engine, which gives an extra 1000lb of thrust, plus it's a bit heavier to balance the extra gear forward. Replace the cameras in the nose with a Ferranti LRMTS, then fit a Jaguar-derived nav-attack system. Add chaff/flare launchers on the sides of the rear fuselage.

[rickshaw]

I think you'd need a bigger wing if you want to carry more stores and equipment otherwise the extra weight would start to impact badly on the performance - afterall it was only designed as a "light weight fighter".   As the G91 was based on the F-86 (it shows most strongly around the tail area IMO), why not fit a bigger F-86 wing, like that fitted to the F-86D or even the F-86L?

[Weaver]

Wing Loadings:

G-91R (176.7 sq.ft wing):

Empty (7,207 lb) = 40.78 lb/sq.ft
MTO (12,500 lb) = 70.74 lb/sq.ft


G-91Y (195.16 sq.ft wing):

Empty (8,598 lb) = 44.06 lb/sq.ft
MTO (19,180 lb) = 98.28 lb/sq.ft


Those are by no means excessive, so I think it could stand a modest amount of extra equipment if you don't go mad.  It also raises the interesting possibility of fitting the big -Y wing to the lighter -R fuselage. The Adour is only about 300 lb heavier than an Orpheus, so adding another 300lb of equipment is still less than half the empty weight increase involved in going from the -R to the -Y for about the same dry thrust increase (the Adour weighs more if you want afterburner, of course). I am going off the idea of using the two-seater though.

[GTX]

How about a carrier based version of either the G.91 or my preference, the G91Y (twin engine safety)?  Maybe used by Italian Navy or Brazilian Navy or Argentine Navy?

Regards,

Greg

[Weaver]

The thing that's always struck me about the G-91Y, and it's a question that Fiat's marketing men evidently couldn't answer either, is why on Earth, other than patriotism, would you buy one if you could get the F-5E instead?

[rickshaw]

The thing that's always struck me about the G-91Y, and it's a question that Fiat's marketing men evidently couldn't answer either, is why on Earth, other than patriotism, would you buy one if you could get the F-5E instead?

Industrial self-reliance?
Balance of exchange problems?
Local employment policies
Keynesian "pump priming"?
Pork Barrelling?

All spring to mind as possible reasons.  However, I think you'll find number 2 is the one that mattered most to a cash strapped Europe in the 1950s and 1960s (particularly when the US is paying for them anyway).

[Weaver]

The thing that's always struck me about the G-91Y, and it's a question that Fiat's marketing men evidently couldn't answer either, is why on Earth, other than patriotism, would you buy one if you could get the F-5E instead?

Industrial self-reliance?
Balance of exchange problems?
Local employment policies
Keynesian "pump priming"?
Pork Barrelling?

All spring to mind as possible reasons.  However, I think you'll find number 2 is the one that mattered most to a cash strapped Europe in the 1950s and 1960s (particularly when the US is paying for them anyway).

All of those come under "patriotism", which perfectly explains why the Italians would buy them. My point is that I can't see why any unbiased buyer would choose them in the 1970s (which is when -Ys were on the market), given that the F-5E was available by then. The F-5E was MUCH faster, a serious fighter, and could still do the same strike job, all on the same engines....

[rickshaw]

The thing that's always struck me about the G-91Y, and it's a question that Fiat's marketing men evidently couldn't answer either, is why on Earth, other than patriotism, would you buy one if you could get the F-5E instead?

Industrial self-reliance?
Balance of exchange problems?
Local employment policies
Keynesian "pump priming"?
Pork Barrelling?

All spring to mind as possible reasons.  However, I think you'll find number 2 is the one that mattered most to a cash strapped Europe in the 1950s and 1960s (particularly when the US is paying for them anyway).

All of those come under "patriotism", which perfectly explains why the Italians would buy them. My point is that I can't see why any unbiased buyer would choose them in the 1970s (which is when -Ys were on the market), given that the F-5E was available by then. The F-5E was MUCH faster, a serious fighter, and could still do the same strike job, all on the same engines....

Mmm, I'd class "balance of payments" under economics, not "patriotism".  If you have no foreign exchange, you can't buy anything, no matter how good it is.

[Weaver]

The thing that's always struck me about the G-91Y, and it's a question that Fiat's marketing men evidently couldn't answer either, is why on Earth, other than patriotism, would you buy one if you could get the F-5E instead?

Industrial self-reliance?
Balance of exchange problems?
Local employment policies
Keynesian "pump priming"?
Pork Barrelling?

All spring to mind as possible reasons.  However, I think you'll find number 2 is the one that mattered most to a cash strapped Europe in the 1950s and 1960s (particularly when the US is paying for them anyway).

All of those come under "patriotism", which perfectly explains why the Italians would buy them. My point is that I can't see why any unbiased buyer would choose them in the 1970s (which is when -Ys were on the market), given that the F-5E was available by then. The F-5E was MUCH faster, a serious fighter, and could still do the same strike job, all on the same engines....

Mmm, I'd class "balance of payments" under economics, not "patriotism".  If you have no foreign exchange, you can't buy anything, no matter how good it is.

Weeeeell, I was using "patriotism" loosely to cover "national self-interest" reasons. Basiucally, there's always some non-technical, non-military reason to buy home-made stuff. Might not be a good reason, but it's always there....

What I'm trying to say is that the G-91Y is not a very attractive aeroplane when compared against the early 1970's competition, and the fact that only Italy bought it, even though Italy is an enthusiastic arms exporter, is effectively the proof of that.

[rickshaw]

Oh, I agree that the F-5, particularly the "E" outperforms the Gina without a doubt.  Carries a hell of a lot more further, faster and can out fight the Gina.  The F-5 is really a very neat design.  It's a shame the "G"/F-20 never got a guernsey.  But as you note, there are reasons why nations make procurement decisions other than on purely military or even purely economic terms.  [JMN]We should though be clear what those are, thats all.[/JMN] 

Oh, an the Gina's really better looking than an F-5 and being Italian, we all know that style is more important than substance...

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

One of the very first What If's I posted here a long time back was a Spanish G-91Y from the little Matchbox kit. Like my good friend Cap'n Radish, I've built the Occidental G-91 aswell. Never used so much filler on one kit - truly dreadful fit. If I ever build a What If Gina, it'll almost certainly be in Royal Auxilliary Air Force markings and glossy 1960's style RAF camo..... Mmmmm 

Ian