FIAT G-91 for US ARMY

[archipeppe]

In relation with the recent thread about Grumman A-6 for US ARMY, it worth to remember that during 1961 US ARMY evaluated four FIAT-G91s: two G91-R1 (4 browning) one G91-R3 (2 DEFA cannons) and one G91-T (two seat trainer for pilot's conversion).

The discussion about the A6 is here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13285.0.html

Such topic was already threated here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2979.msg23990/topicseen.html#msg23990

And here it is my personal contribution about the matter...

 

[Stargazer]

Very nice!! But from what I gather from the photos published at the time, the red areas were a little more orange like.

 

[Arjen]

Source.

 

[archipeppe]

Very nice!! But from what I gather from the photos published at the time, the red areas were a little more orange like.

It could be "optical orange" but it in effect it is more red than orange (despite what the photo shows) the G-91Rs delivered to US ARMY had the essentially the same paint scheme of Luftwaffe's ones with enlarged red areas under the cockipt and for the tail.

Anyway I think that Nico would help to better define the orginal paint scheme...

 

[Arjen]

Here's pictures of German G-91. Look orange to me.

 

[Nico]

Dear Peppe, Stargazer and Arjen,
as you know, all the matter of "red" in aviation world is a bit complicated.
In fact, there are two orders of problem: the first is a language problem and the second is related to photography.
In continental Europe in common parlance "red" is a tone like that of the various national flags but in the photography or printing world "red" is "magenta", quite darker and brownish. To avoid misunderstanding, anglosaxon peoples often use the term "orange" or "red-orange" to define the same colour of the flags.
For those familiar for this kind of matters, in USA "red" is the FS-11136 or FS-11105 that we in the Old Europe would call "dark red" and for us "red" is more similar to FS-21302 or FS-22190 (containing a hue of yellow)... I beg your pardon for this complicated explanation.
Four our interests, the matter appears to be even more complicated as there are the fluorescent color (DayGlo) as FS-38905 and FS-28913 (but there are others not appearing in my old FS-595a catalog). In black and white photographs red and orange-red appears as a dark grey shades, DayGlo reds and oranges have a different rendering, definitely more lighter and also in colour photography it is difficult to obtain a faithful reproduction.
About our G.91R tested in Alabama, I thing that Archipeppe is right. I have a slide taken on June 1971 (perhaps during Hanover Air Show, I dont rember) of a Dornier-built G.91T-3 modified for experimental purpose with an unusual nose probe, with nose painted in what probably is RAL 2005 Leuchtorange that, nothwithstanding the name, I remember was more red than orange (even more than we can see in the scan, as the slide was a bit faded after 40 years!). In Italy the fluorescent paint was the Rosso arancio fluorescente N. 24, definitely more red of the Giallo arancio fluorescente N. 25.
DayGlo Red in Italy was used for experimental and special purpose aircraft only (as navaid calibration aircraft) and was for sure a paint of that kind to be applied to the 'American' G.91.
Completely different was the colour usually applied to G.91T trainers for conspicuity purposes (Arancione N. 21, corresponding to FS-12246 for Aeronautica Militare, and - but I would appreciate confirms by Lyftwaffe-experten bloggers - RAL 2000 Orange or 2005 Leuchtorange for German aircraft).
Nico

 

[archipeppe]

Many thanks Nico for your explanation, and also for the unusal G91-T3 shot...

 

[Nico]

My dear Archipeppe,
the G.91T-3, vaguely resembling the G.91T-4, had a Dornier Logair nose probe (I dont remember the purpose of it).
Unfortunately, I found only one picture, captioned as MM.6286/NC.53 'before application of US Army logo'. In fact, the environment is decidedly Air Force and I think is the MM.6287/NC.53, the last G.91R-1 built (the subsequent lot was of G.91R-1A). The aircraft was 'factory fresh' without any code (perhaps only the NATO four-point star on the rudder, but I canot be sure due to low quality of the scan) but we cannot say if it later received USAF markings... When it was back in Italy was coded 2-33.
The only other picture of an 'American G.91' I have is another poor scan, depicting the G.91T-1 MM.6289/NC.2, coded US ARMY 0002, the aircraft was entirely silver aluminium with insignia red lightning.
Somewhere I had two other interesting picture of Italian aircraft in US markings: an MB.339 with Navy colours (but I dont remember if it was an actual aircraft, a mock-up or a model) of JPATS era or immediately before and an SF-260 (actual aircraf) with USAF codes, perhaps for the EFSA (Enhanced Flight Screening Aircraft) competition
Nico

 

[Arjen]

Nico, colours are notoriously difficult to pin down. Thanks for your explanation.

 

[archipeppe]

Many thanks Nico for these precious (and also unseen) G-91 shots, the first one is very impressive in front of B-52, F-104 etc.

Regarding the G-91T for US ARMY what is the paint scheme? To me it seems a light grey with some aluminium panels (air intake) or I misunderstanding?

 

[Nico]

Hi Peppe,
it seems to me that the second prototype of the G.91T wa painted overall in something less bright than the usual Alluminio. It was a paint of car type, a sort of metal pearl grey (in the words of automotive industry a 'grigio perla metallizzato). The lower skin of the air intake appear to be taken from another aircraft and was in the usual silver aluminium. Moreover, the lightning sported a shade of red a bit darker than that of the national roundel.
I hope te above will be useful for your work


Nico

 

[archipeppe]

Hi Peppe,
it seems to me that the second prototype of the G.91T wa painted overall in something less bright than the usual Alluminio. It was a paint of car type, a sort of metal pearl grey (in the words of automotive industry a 'grigio perla metallizzato). The lower skin of the air intake appear to be taken from another aircraft and was in the usual silver aluminium. Moreover, the lightning sported a shade of red a bit darker than that of the national roundel.
I hope te above will be useful for your work

Absolutely useful, I was just thinking about start a 3-views of the G-91T.
If I understand well the "light grey" it should be the same utilized by FIAT 600 and 500s of that times. ;D

Stay tuned for furhter artworks...

 

[archipeppe]

Here it is the G-91/T already tested by US ARMY during 1961.

 

[archipeppe]

The whole bunch of G-91s tested by US ARMY.

 

[Stargazer]

Very cool. Thanks!

 

[archipeppe]

Very cool. Thanks!

I'm glad that you appreciated them....

 

[Nico]

Ciao Peppe,
following my previous post, I found this SIAI-Marchetti SF-260D (then marketed as Agusta) with civilian registration but full USAF markings.
I have a faint recollection of a brief leasing of one or more aircraft to USAF (some
months or perhaps only weeks) for an evaluation related to the EFSA
(Enhanced Flight Screening Aircraft) requirement of circa 1989-1993. The aircraft, in case of
selection, was to be built by an american builder (my file reads Sabreliner)
as the Cadet.
What I said before is surely correct but, unfortunately, I'm not sure the picture was really related to the EFSA or another matter. The date of the slide is April 15 1990.
By the way, could be worth of interest remember that during Seventies (long before the mentioned EFSA) there were talks for a license
production of the SF-260 as the Waco SF-260A Meteor but I don't now if these
talks came to some form of fruition.
As you know, unfortunately for the Air Force Academy, the contest was won by the Slingsby T-76M-260 Firefly (Fournier design), acquired as the T-3A. Sabreliner opposed the decision with an issue of Domestic Source Restriction but at no avail.
Moreover, today in the "states" there are some SF-260 flying with USAF markings but those aircraft are registered to a private company without any link to the Air Force and markings and camouflage are bogus.
Nico

 

[archipeppe]

Ciao Peppe,
following my previous post, I found this SIAI-Marchetti SF-260D (then marketed as Agusta) with civilian registration but full USAF markings.
I have a faint recollection of a brief leasing of one or more aircraft to USAF (some
months or perhaps only weeks) for an evaluation related to the EFSA
(Enhanced Flight Screening Aircraft) requirement of circa 1989-1993. The aircraft, in case of
selection, was to be built by an american builder (my file reads Sabreliner)
as the Cadet.
What I said before is surely correct but, unfortunately, I'm not sure the picture was really related to the EFSA or another matter. The date of the slide is April 15 1990.
By the way, could be worth of interest remember that during Seventies (long before the mentioned EFSA) there were talks for a license
production of the SF-260 as the Waco SF-260A Meteor but I don't now if these
talks came to some form of fruition.
As you know, unfortunately for the Air Force Academy, the contest was won by the Slingsby T-76M-260 Firefly (Fournier design), acquired as the T-3A. Sabreliner opposed the decision with an issue of Domestic Source Restriction but at no avail.
Moreover, today in the "states" there are some SF-260 flying with USAF markings but those aircraft are registered to a private company without any link to the Air Force and markings and camouflage are bogus.
Nico

Thanks Nico,

I recall the same picture in an old "Volare" issue of that times.
If I remember well the caption talked about more or less 15 SF-260s brought by a private company to provide some in-flight training to the Air Force Academy cadets, it would explain both Air Force and civilian markings...

 

[Grey Havoc]

The Firefly. Now that was a disaster.

 

[F-14D]

The Firefly. Now that was a disaster.

(This will be controversial) It was a disaster only because many of the USAF instructors apparently didn't know how to fly an aerobatic light piston aircraft.

After the three crashes, T-3As were sent to Edwards AFB for testing, where no significant problems were found and in fact the aircraft were singled out for praise. No problems resulted. None of the alleged vapor lock or engine stoppage problems in normal operations could be reproduced. In one test, the aircraft were flown above their normal ceiling and then the throttle was chopped to idle and then left there while a rapid descent was made to ground level where on short final the throttle was rammed to full power for a waveoff-- no problems were encountered. As long as it was grounded anyway, some minor tweaks were suggested, but it was judged a fine training aircraft. USAF instead abandoned them them at the Air Force Academy and Hondo airport in Texas where they were left to rot until they were scrapped. Hundreds of pilots elsewhere in the world were successfully trained on an essentially identical aircraft.

Somewhat off topic, I admit, but since it came up I just wanted to stick up for a fine aircraft that it seems was innocent of what gave it such a bad reputation.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Interesting.

 

[firepilot]

The Firefly. Now that was a disaster.

(his will be controversial) It was a disaster only because many of the USAF instructors apparently didn't know how to fly an aerobatic light piston aircraft.

After the three crashes, T-3As were sent to Edwards AFB for testing, where no significant problems were found and in fact the aircraft were singled out for praise. No problems resulted. None of the alleged vapor lock or engine stoppage problems in normal operations could be reproduced. In one test, the aircraft were flown above their normal ceiling and then the throttle was chopped to idle and then left there while a rapid descent was made to ground level where on short final the throttle was rammed to full power for a waveoff-- no problems were encountered. As long as it was grounded anyway, some minor tweaks were suggested, but it was judged a fine training aircraft. USAF instead abandoned them them at the Air Force Academy and Hondo airport in Texas where they were left to rot until they were scrapped. Hundreds of pilots elsewhere in the world were successfully trained on an essentially identical aircraft.

Somewhat off topic, I admit, but since it came up I just wanted to stick up for a fine aircraft that it seems was innocent of what gave it such a bad reputation.

I flew out of Hondo in 2001 for that summer doing thunderstorm missions, and it was a shame to see all of those T-3s just sitting there. The problems were probably less about the aircraft, and more about the people being put into them as instructors.

 

[F-14D]

The Firefly. Now that was a disaster.

(his will be controversial) It was a disaster only because many of the USAF instructors apparently didn't know how to fly an aerobatic light piston aircraft.

After the three crashes, T-3As were sent to Edwards AFB for testing, where no significant problems were found and in fact the aircraft were singled out for praise. No problems resulted. None of the alleged vapor lock or engine stoppage problems in normal operations could be reproduced. In one test, the aircraft were flown above their normal ceiling and then the throttle was chopped to idle and then left there while a rapid descent was made to ground level where on short final the throttle was rammed to full power for a waveoff-- no problems were encountered. As long as it was grounded anyway, some minor tweaks were suggested, but it was judged a fine training aircraft. USAF instead abandoned them them at the Air Force Academy and Hondo airport in Texas where they were left to rot until they were scrapped. Hundreds of pilots elsewhere in the world were successfully trained on an essentially identical aircraft.

Somewhat off topic, I admit, but since it came up I just wanted to stick up for a fine aircraft that it seems was innocent of what gave it such a bad reputation.

I flew out of Hondo in 2001 for that summer doing thunderstorm missions, and it was a shame to see all of those T-3s just sitting there. The problems were probably less about the aircraft, and more about the people being put into them as instructors.

Most of the instructors came from the large transport community, and thus had little recent experience with light aircraft and little or no aerobatic experience.

In my opinion, it was less embarrassing to blame the a/c rather than admit the selection and training of the instructors was at fault, so they killed the T-3A. Army and Navy have done similar things throughout the years.