Fiat G91 ''Gina''

[Mike Wren]

just flicking through the new Warpaint book on the Gina & it mentions a few proposed/cancelled users that I've never heard about:

Cancelled:
France
Greece - 2 supplied then cancelled

Proposals:
Iran
Austria
Norway
Argentina
Switzerland (single- & later twin-engined versions)
US Army (everyone knows about)

so quite a few there to be getting on with...    hopefully Revell will re-issue their kit

[Radish]

That little 1/72nd kit from Revell is nice.
I've the Occidental/Heller kit in 1/48th that needs a lot of work.
The first I've got building (but it's TWO YEARS!!) since I started, is a RCAF CF-91.
Quite fancy one in Norwegian or Danish colours.
Is it big enough to carry an Exocet?
What can be done to update it?
And Matchbox did a G-91Y that wasn't bad.
I must admit I have a sneaking like for the Gina, ever since building the Airfix kit when it first came out.
Did it in USAF colours too.
Fancy a SEAsia camo-job on a Gina? South Vietnam?
Carrier-born??
:ar:  

[Bryan H.]

OK, two ideas that haven't been mentioned yet...

US Army Antarctic/polar region G.91 (ca.1965) - overall gloss olive drab with hi-viz fluorescent orange wing panels & tail; hi-viz national markings (star & bars) and yellow US Army markings.  Put some sort of skis on the landing gear & maybe RATO rockets.  Underwing pylons could carry; sleds, flares, equipment/supply pods, fuel tanks.  The STOL/rough field performance, simple design & recon nose would make it useful for recon/scouting work in the difficult Antarctic environment.  B)  

US Army floatplane G.91 - put two floats in place of regular landing gear; US Navy can also use it after they cancelled the Sea Dart project.  Lots of different color scheme possiblities.      

Or a Tophe special...  a center fuselage pod with the cockpit & engine but booms on the wings going to the back with a high tail; similar in layout to the OV-10 Bronco or Venom/Vampire!    B)

Bryan

[Jeffry Fontaine]

There was mention of "Hellfire" & "Brimstone" AGM mounted on a G-91 on the other thread about the "Holy War."  This would be a most effective use of the use of the G-91 after several years of fleet upgrades and modernization programs. 

A G-91 with upgraded avionics, glass cockpit, and double, triple, or quadruple launch rails for the Hellfire and Brimstone weapons would be appropriate along with a couple of Stinger AAM or a Sidewinder or two for taking out those pesky Hinds, Hips, Havocs, & Hokums while cruising around busting up tanks for the guys on the ground. 

[Bryan H.]

There was mention of "Hellfire" & "Brimstone" AGM mounted on a G-91 on the other thread about the "Holy War." This would be a most effective use of the use of the G-91 after several years of fleet upgrades and modernization programs.

A G-91 with upgraded avionics, glass cockpit, and double, triple, or quadruple launch rails for the Hellfire and Brimstone weapons would be appropriate along with a couple of Stinger AAM or a Sidewinder or two for taking out those pesky Hinds, Hips, Havocs, & Hokums while cruising around busting up tanks for the guys on the ground.

Here's my ultimate G.91R Gina.  ^_^  The primary mission would be a light attack/COIN/"sovereignty enforcement" fighter for colonial service.  The light, simple design w/ good STOL & rough field performance well suits it for use under spartan colonial conditions.  I'll have to come up with some creative camo schemes for tropical environments.  B)

TNAI/Fiat G.91R bis (need to come up with a Texas Army Air Corps designation)

Engine: F404/F414 (with a redesign limited to the engine bay/tail)
Nose: photo-recon (retaining three cameras)
Electronics/Avionics:
- GPS
- multi-function HUD
- multi-function CRT HDD
- targeting pod (LITENING? on a short, dedicated fuselage or wing pylon)
- small internal ECM/IRCM suite
- other stuff (databuses, computers, other navigation systems...)
Weapons: 6 total pylon, not including targeting pod pylon (3 each wing, 2 inner pylons plumbed for fuel tanks)
- Guns - 4x .50 cal Browning MG's
- AAM's - Stingers
- Sidewinders
- Python III/IV's
- AGM's/bombs/rockets -
- Mavericks
- Sidearms
- Rockeye & BL.755 cluster bombs
- napalm
- Mk.80 series LDGP bombs (smaller Mk.81 & 82 bombs ususally carried)
- Hydra & Zuni rockets
- Hellfires
- Laser & GPS guided bombs

Of course, it'd be for the Texas AAC; mostly for colonial service but also as an aggressor.  

Bryan

[Radish]

I'm not sure, Bryan, if there's enough room under a G-91 wing for 3 pylons. But I'm thinking of wingtip missile rails, or I suppose they could be put on the conformal fuselage blister tanks, or even above the wing like on the Jaguar.

Great ideas.
Anyone chopped the top off a G-91 tail? Makes it definitely resemble a MiG-19 rear end (apart from a single engine, of course).
I'm putting a big box on the tail of my Gina.


Brazil would be a nice option (I can use the Portuguese stencilling then).

       

[Bryan H.]

I thought the G.91R/Y had six pylons; if it doesn't in reality, it does now!  ^_^  I'll just have to strengthen & lengthen the wing.

Bryan

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Radish,

In regards to your question; What would a G-91 Gina look like with a radar nose?  How about a close copy of the F-86D?  Since they are close cousins...

Bryan,

In regards to your question on the number of available pylons on the G-91, you would have to extend the wings a bit to get the number up to three per side, as it comes from the factory with only four pylons.  Remember it was designed as a "light attack" aircraft for close air support and not that neatness counts, but availability to service the target does.  Small, fast, maneuverable and a light weapons load would allow the Gina to operate from austere forward bases close to the battlefield and to be available on short notice to provide dedicated air support to troops in contact (something that the USAF would never do, heaven forbid, they might get mud on their shiny boots...). 

Since the G-91 was a direct decendant of the F-86 (Fiat did depot level repair work on the F-86 for USAF/NATO and learned how to take apart and put them back together) so it is no surprise that the landing gear arrangement is similar which precludes attachment of any pylon inboard near the fuselage unless it is positioned forward where it would allow carriage of only one missile, bomb or rocket.  This arrangement is similar to the original F-86 which did have the small inboard pylon for carriage of a single AIM-9 Sidewinder. 

If you are going to upgrade your G-91, extending the wings would be a good idea to allow for another pylon to be added.  Extension of the fuselage would also be a practical approach to the problem since that would allow for the carriage of more internal fuel and free up the wing pylons for more ordnance.  Now of course you get into the increased weight issue and so begins the downward spiral of a good practical aircraft design into an overweight glob of aluminum with wings.  But as a WHIF, it would definitely look good, no matter how impractical it would be in reality. 

[elmayerle]

As I remember the G.91PAN has a solid nose, not a recce one.  I would agree, though, that, for the speed range, a radome like the F-86D/K's would be quite suitable; though it wouldn't be 'til the 80's, at least, that a suitably small and lightweight radar would be available.

[Davey B]

Anyone know about a G91Y kit? Can't see one on any 'net listings, but thought that a twin-J85 installation would be able to haul more bombs (plus being more Americanized and thus easier for the US Army to get past Congress)

Dave  :ar:  

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Evan,

The G-91 PAN did indeed have a sharp, pointy little nose on it devoid of any cameras or electronics.  Since it was the aerobatic conversion of the standard G-91 Gina.  I had the Esci G-91 PAN kit many moons ago, it was molded in blue styrene and came with markings for one of the Italian Air Force aerobatic teams and it had little smoke tanks to attach to the inboard wing pylons.  I had hoped to make it as a standard G-91 but that project was overcome by moving back from Germany to the states in 1986.  Not sure what happend to the kit since the move. 

Davey,

The only G-91Y kit that I have ever seen in production was available from Matchbox in 1/72nd scale.  Not sure if it represented the actual production aircraft or just the prototype.  As far as availability of the kit, I have not seen it in a very long time on the shelf for sale.

[Bryan H.]

Bryan,

In regards to your question on the number of available pylons on the G-91, you would have to extend the wings a bit to get the number up to three per side, as it comes from the factory with only four pylons.  Remember it was designed as a "light attack" aircraft for close air support and not that neatness counts, but availability to service the target does.  Small, fast, maneuverable and a light weapons load would allow the Gina to operate from austere forward bases close to the battlefield and to be available on short notice to provide dedicated air support to troops in contact (something that the USAF would never do, heaven forbid, they might get mud on their shiny boots...). 

Since the G-91 was a direct decendant of the F-86 (Fiat did depot level repair work on the F-86 for USAF/NATO and learned how to take apart and put them back together) so it is no surprise that the landing gear arrangement is similar which precludes attachment of any pylon inboard near the fuselage unless it is positioned forward where it would allow carriage of only one missile, bomb or rocket.  This arrangement is similar to the original F-86 which did have the small inboard pylon for carriage of a single AIM-9 Sidewinder. 

If you are going to upgrade your G-91, extending the wings would be a good idea to allow for another pylon to be added.  Extension of the fuselage would also be a practical approach to the problem since that would allow for the carriage of more internal fuel and free up the wing pylons for more ordnance.  Now of course you get into the increased weight issue and so begins the downward spiral of a good practical aircraft design into an overweight glob of aluminum with wings.  But as a WHIF, it would definitely look good, no matter how impractical it would be in reality.

Maybe, the outermost pylons can be for light loads only (ie. 1x Mk.81 bomb, 1x 7-shot rocket launcher, twin Stingers, 1x Sidewinder... nothing big)  The changes to the wing would internal strengthening (and fuel), so no external wing changes.  The biggest redesign would be to the rear fuselage to fit a F414 engine.  I'd like to keep the original concept of the Gina...  Simple, lightweight attack/CAS fighter w/recon. capabilites and STOL/rough field capabilities.  I might add some simple ECM/IRCM systems to give it better survivability.  The biggest changes are to give it a little more weapons load and a modern engine w/ more punch.

Bryan

[Radish]

The G-91Y from Matchbox(1/72nd) was a typical kit from them, and quite accurate but simple. With a bit of "tarting up" it looked nice.
I'd think that some of the 2nd hand dealers would have copies.


Otherwise......G-91R-4+.......Uruguay!
           

[Mike Wren]

The only G-91Y kit that I have ever seen in production was available from Matchbox in 1/72nd scale.  Not sure if it represented the actual production aircraft or just the prototype.

ah, the 3rd kit I ever built    after an Airfix Skyhawk (still have that one on the shelf) and a red Arrows Matchbox Gnat... brings a tear to the eye...    

[elmayerle]

Bryan,

In regards to your question on the number of available pylons on the G-91, you would have to extend the wings a bit to get the number up to three per side, as it comes from the factory with only four pylons.  Remember it was designed as a "light attack" aircraft for close air support and not that neatness counts, but availability to service the target does.  Small, fast, maneuverable and a light weapons load would allow the Gina to operate from austere forward bases close to the battlefield and to be available on short notice to provide dedicated air support to troops in contact (something that the USAF would never do, heaven forbid, they might get mud on their shiny boots...). 

Since the G-91 was a direct decendant of the F-86 (Fiat did depot level repair work on the F-86 for USAF/NATO and learned how to take apart and put them back together) so it is no surprise that the landing gear arrangement is similar which precludes attachment of any pylon inboard near the fuselage unless it is positioned forward where it would allow carriage of only one missile, bomb or rocket.  This arrangement is similar to the original F-86 which did have the small inboard pylon for carriage of a single AIM-9 Sidewinder. 

If you are going to upgrade your G-91, extending the wings would be a good idea to allow for another pylon to be added.  Extension of the fuselage would also be a practical approach to the problem since that would allow for the carriage of more internal fuel and free up the wing pylons for more ordnance.  Now of course you get into the increased weight issue and so begins the downward spiral of a good practical aircraft design into an overweight glob of aluminum with wings.  But as a WHIF, it would definitely look good, no matter how impractical it would be in reality.

Maybe, the outermost pylons can be for light loads only (ie. 1x Mk.81 bomb, 1x 7-shot rocket launcher, twin Stingers, 1x Sidewinder... nothing big)  The changes to the wing would internal strengthening (and fuel), so no external wing changes.  The biggest redesign would be to the rear fuselage to fit a F414 engine.  I'd like to keep the original concept of the Gina...  Simple, lightweight attack/CAS fighter w/recon. capabilites and STOL/rough field capabilities.  I might add some simple ECM/IRCM systems to give it better survivability.  The biggest changes are to give it a little more weapons load and a modern engine w/ more punch.

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