Talk:Fiat G.91/Archive 1

Three-view
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

Stefano's draft
Note: The extensive draft has been moved to Talk:Aeritalia G.91/draft, as it was overwhelming this talk page. AK Radecki 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)


 * Stefo, why are you going after |User:BillBC?? What did he ever do to you? Per his contributions page, he's never even edited the same pages as you. Please leave the poor guy alone! - BillCJ 23:07, 16 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)


 * Okay you posted your text and it was edited - you can't just go back and reinsert the unedited text again, because someone edited your contribution. The original edit you made contained lots of great info and references too, but it also suffered from a lot of duplication with existing material and serious grammar and spelling issues that needed work. As it says on the edit form on every Wikipedia page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." - Ahunt 16:06, 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)


 * So as I understand what you are saying: anyone who edits anything you have posted is a troll? Is that right? - Ahunt 18:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

From the scrath or copycat
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)


 * It does resemble the F-86, and I've noticed that myself. However, all the sources I have read state it's a new design. It's possible the F-86 design was used as a starting point, but I haven't read that anywhere. - BillCJ (talk) 22:16, 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)


 * The Fiat design team used the same basic configuration of the F-86 for the G.91 because they had built F-86's under licence and because they knew the basic F-86 configuration would work for a quick and simple design without too much additional effort.


 * One of the requirements for what became the G.91 was that it was to be able to enter NATO service as soon as possible.


 * BTW, the projected replacement for the G.91 was the Hawker Siddeley P.1127 which went on to become the Hawker Siddeley Harrier.

Fiat G. 91 nicknames
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)


 * NATO does not assign nicknames to NATO aircraft. I'll add a disputed tag to the entry, and move it out of the Lead sentence. - BilCat (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

When did design begin?
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)

Production numbers?
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


 * Italian use
 * G.91 - Prototypes and pre-production aircraft. Total of 27 noted by Macdonald aircraft handbook 1964
 * G.91R/1 - 50 noted by Macdonald aircraft handbook 1964
 * G.91R/1A - 50 noted by Macdonald aircraft handbook 1964 (but could be a combination of G.91R1s and 1As?)
 * G.91R/1B
 * G.91R/6 - Noted as current production version 1964?
 * G.91T/1 - 40 aircraft said to be on order for Italian use in 1964 (not included in running total yet).
 * G.91T/3
 * G.91PAN  - Aerobatic display aircraft for Frecce Tricolori, converted from pre-production G.91s.
 * G.91Y - 67 built (cited by Taylor) 20 pre-production aircraft built noted plus order for 55 aircraft to be completed in 1972. Ref: Observer's book of aircraft 1972.
 * G.91YS - Prototype for Swiss evaluation (new build or converted?). Flew October 1970. Ref: Observer's book of aircraft 1972.
 * G.91YT - Projected two-seat variant, apparently not built? Ref: Observer's book of aircraft 1972.
 * German use
 * G.91R/3 - 50 aircraft built by Fiat at Turin, 295 aircraft built by Dornier under license (article text says 294?). (74 noted as delivered to Luftwaffe from Fiat and 240 built in Germany by 1964).
 * G.91R/4 - 50 aircraft built by Fiat at Turin (cancelled Greek/Turkish order)
 * G.91T/1 - 44 aircraft built by Fiat at Turin (six to Portugal in 1976), 22 aircraft built by Dornier between 1971-73. 44 for Germany noted as delivered, Ref: Macdonald aircraft handbook 1964.


 * Portuguese use
 * G.91T/1 - Six existing airframes from the Luftwaffe (as of 1976)


 * Running total: 461 (German use only)

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 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)
 * MM6238 to MM6287 G-91R-1 (50)
 * MM6288 to MM6289 G-91T (2)
 * MM6290 to MM6314 G-91R-1A (27)
 * MM6315 to MM6374 G-91T (60)
 * MM6375 to MM6424 G-91R-1B (50)
 * MM6425 to MM6439 G-91T (15)
 * MM6441 to MM6496 G-91Y (55)
 * MM6951 to MM6960 G-91Y (10)
 * MM54392 to MM54417 G-91T-1 (26)
 * MM565 to MM568 Prototypes (3)
 * MM579 to MM580 G-91Y Prototypes (2)
 * G-91R (Fiat built)
 * 1 Fiat prototype
 * 1bis MM565
 * 2 MM566
 * 3 MM567
 * 4 to 53 are MM6238 to MM6287
 * 0054 to 0089 are German G-91R-3 3001 to 3031 (qty does not match because some were written off before the 30+ number system was introduced)
 * 0090 G-91R-4 cancelled order to Germany some later to Portugal
 * 0091 to 0097 are German G-91R-3s 3032 to 3037 (qty does not match because some were written off before the 30+ number system was introduced)
 * 0098 to 0101 G-91R-4 cancelled order to German some later to Portugal
 * 0102 to 0108 G-91R-3 German 3038 to 3043 (qty does not match because some were written off before the 30+ number system was introduced)
 * 109 to 153 G-91R-4s German aircraft from a cancelled Greek and Turkish order some later to Portugal
 * 154 to 178 are MM6290 to MM6314
 * 179 to 228 are MM6375 to MM6424
 * G-91T (Fiat built)
 * 1 to 2 are MM6288 and MM6289
 * 0001 to 0044 are German G91T-1s 3401 to 3440 (qty does not match because some were written off before the 34+ number system was introduced)
 * 45 to 100 MM6315 to MM6370
 * 101 is MM6439
 * 102 to 118 are MM6371 to MM6437
 * 119 to 144 are MM54392 to MM54417
 * G-91Y
 * 2001 is MM579
 * 2002 is MM580
 * 2003 to 2057 are MM6441 to MM6495
 * 2058 to 2066 are MM6951 to MM6959


 * Good stuff, MM6951 was a G.91Y according to a quick search. I wondered if it was just me having trouble with this. There is a book listed in the references that could be handy. Would it help to try and construct a table like the F-104 one for eventual inclusion in the article? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree I dont think a production table would do any harm, oops its MM6440 i have a problem with it is the first production Y but I cant find a msn for it unless it was one of the prototypes re-serialed. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I make 461 + 299 = 760 which is in the 'ballpark' but between the two figures that contradict each other in the article (756 and 770). The R6 variant is a mystery as well as no one else appears to mention it. I'll start the table here and see how things develop. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Or 317 built by Dornier and 443 built by Fiat = 760 MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting warm I think, One G.91YS (if it was a new build) would bring the total to 760. I haven't checked the maths, table looks good. It's a bit laborious but if we could put a cite next to each figure it would confirm things, could be taken out before insertion in the article. Just wondering if someone altered the figures along the way? Not unknown round these parts!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dont think we are far of, I will add some refs tomorrow. Not sure if the Fiat owned prototype was the same as one of the Italian MM serialed ones, it it was different then that would add one. I removed MM6440 from the list to make the Ys 66 as I cant find any evidence it actually exists and I cant find a msn for it. Good work. MilborneOne (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * MM6640 was not a G.91 apparently but it was a Fiat G.50, MM6951 was c/n 2058. Interesting that the numbers we have come up with so far disagree slightly with previous figures. Italian aircraft are notoriously difficult to track but they do keep their MM number.


 * Some numbers here that look reasonably reliable, need to run it through a translator. The G91A seems to be a single aircraft modified with auto slats and the G91.N seems to be another modified aircraft (avionics I think). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    23:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Production table
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)

G.91Y split?
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)


 * I would agree on the split. Article gives the impression that the main user was Portugal from the size of the Portuguese service section, would not do any harm to provide a bit info from other users to provide more balance. MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will do the split in a bit, there seems to be a difference of opinion for the article name (even this one) i.e. Fiat or Aeritalia, will check first. Agreed on the article balance, when I added some headers it was apparent that there was only a couple of lines on German service. It's getting better though I think. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    18:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's 50/50 at the moment looking at my refs! Some say Fiat some say Aeritalia (Fiat). The prototype flew in 1966, Aeritalia was formed in 1969 but Fiat had built at least 20 by then. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    19:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Pick one you can always change it latter if others do not like it! MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree it's 50/50. I'd go with "Aeritalia", that way, with the original is at Fiat, we have both manufacturers covered. Btw,I had a sanbox on the G.91Y, but I had it deleted. If MILB1 could recover it, you're welome to use it, Gary, if you haven't started one already. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The deleted sandbox is at User:BilCat/Sandbox/Aeritalia G.91Y. - BilCat (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lost in the EC - Not that it matter because the link has gone blue! but I have restored it. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC x 3!)Yes, it can always be moved! Well I'm going for Fiat at the moment, I expect it won't go live till tomorrow evening (UTC) at the earliest, I'll have a look at Flight and see what they call it, might find some info as well. The interwiki links are similarly undecided! Just written the specs in and it really was a vast improvement over the single engine version. Will have a look at the sandbox version, thanks Bill, I've only got bare bones at the moment. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) Thanks Milb, my sandbox is just slightly further along than that ((but not much). On google hits the Fiat variation gets 11 times more than Aeritalia, not scientific but it is used sometimes (mainly at AfDs!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    20:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Found a great article in Flight, it will take longer than I thought! The 'YS' did exist, it had extra hardpoints for two Sidewinders (a la F-104S, although that S was for Sparrows!). I touched upon a line in Flight that said it would be called 'Aeritalia G.91Y' from 1971, as it is 2010 now we could go with that!! Wow, it's busy stuff tonight! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    21:43, 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)

Wonder what the pilots would say?
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)


 * The word "Expendable" means in this case that the nations which used it would be able to quickly and cheaply replace any lost in action, and was of similar design concept as the Folland Gnat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.5 (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The British-Powered Goliath!
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)


 * WP:SOFIXIT Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)    01:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that the G.91 was designed around the Orpheus and so the engine can hardly be blamed for any such shortcomings, true or imagined, of the aircraft.


 * As for the Bristol Siddeley Orpheus; "Lockheed's Vice President and head of the famous Skunkworks, Clarence "Kelly" Johnson stated; "These Orpheus engines ... have been the best engines the writer has ever used in a prototype aircraft. They were and are so good that it was decided at an early date to make all Jetstars from serial number two up capable of using two Orpheus engines (as an alternative to four American units). The Orpheus version ... is fully competitive in performance (except with one engine out) and will be offered to those who want its lower cost, simplicity, and - at least for some time - reliability".


 * Presumably Mr Johnson was in a position to know what he was talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.15 (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, the NATO specification for the aircraft that became G.91 specified the Orpheus as the multi-national writers of the specification unanimously voted for it as their engine of choice, and all the competing designs to the G.91 also used it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.156 (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ... and at the time the Orpheus had the highest power-to-weight ratio of any production gas turbine aircraft engine anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.158 (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

German pig emblem
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)