Why no Fiat G-91's

Bearcat SA · **Posted:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:24 am

Anyone know why there dont seem to be any of these still flying ..military or civil ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.91

Fouga23 · **Posted:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:06 am

There is one under long time rebuild to fly in the USA.

Old SAR pilot · **Posted:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:22 pm

That rebuild site is:
http://www.classic-jets.com/american/restoration.php

JBoyle · **Posted:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:06 pm

Why no Fiat G-91's

If they're anything like Fiat cars...probably rust. :mrgreen:

m charters · **Posted:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 8:56 pm

JBoyle wrote:

Why no Fiat G-91's

If they're anything like Fiat cars...probably rust. :mrgreen:

Based on the one i saw on the island of Santa Maria in the Azores, I have to agree!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36820&hilit=fiat

tom d. friedman · **Posted:** Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:07 pm

and to think fiat bought chrysler!! :lol:

Rob Mears · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:10 am

It is a beautiful design IMO. It certainly begs the question of where the surplus airframes are/were and what factors have kept them from popping up on the scene...anywhere, apparently (other than the Florida example).

Could be an exotic engine or lack of spares, etc. I'm guessing importation wouldn't be insurmountable. Who knows?

Rick65 · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 3:28 am

FIAT = Fix It Again Tony
I ve always liked the shark nose look of the G-91 but it might suffer from the not made here disease in the main warbird market.

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:09 am

JBoyle wrote:

If they're anything like Fiat cars...probably rust. :mrgreen:

Hmm, at least they probably didn't corner as badly as American 'sports cars' of the era.

On the topic, I'd agree with Rick that the NIH syndrome (often seen here on WIX, too) is a factor, while the relatively low number built and lack of jet warbirds in Continental Europe would perhaps be other factors? Portugal wouldn't, being a 'loosing war' aircraft, the Italians, more likely (the use by the Frecce being a double edged sword) don't have any jet warbirds and a very small warbird scene - excluding trainers and L birds, I'd guess less than a handful of types, over the last 40 years, and currently...

Regards,

ripcord · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:30 am

I recall a picture of an atomic test squadron that had at least one Fiat assigned to it. Was that aircraft part of the USAF inventory, or on loan from another country?

billtate · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:57 am

I believe I have seen the G-91 in US Army markings in the early sixties at Fort Rucker or Fort Eustis, VA

JBoyle · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 11:22 am

JDK wrote:

JBoyle wrote:

If they're anything like Fiat cars...probably rust. :mrgreen:

Hmm, at least they probably didn't corner as badly as American 'sports cars' of the era.

Regards,

What "sports car" would that be? Corvette was the only proper sports car made in America at that time.
The other "sporty" cars...Mustangs, Camaros, etc. were never marketed as "sports cars".
No real "car guy" would ever call them sports cars...with the possible exception of the Shelby modified Mustangs.
They were largly saloon-based (Falcon in the case of the Mustang) cars that could be had with a range of engines and options.
They're no more sports cars than the German/UK Ford Capri or Austrailian "muscle cars" (the type American know best from the Mad Max films) you might see in your adoptive home.
Comparing them to the small Alfas, Fiats, MGs, Austins Healys, Triumphs, Jaguars, and Lotus' just wasn't done.

Still, Fiats of the 60-70s were rust buckets.
I they used Russian steel (probably in payment for the 124 plant established in the USSR) and that along with little preventaive measures, made sure few survived. Rather like UK cars of the period....and American cars of the late 50s.
That is one reason why Fiat left the US market in the late 70s.

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:32 pm

JBoyle wrote:

What "sports car" would that be? Corvette was the only proper sports car made in America at that time. ... etc.

Having caught my fish, should I throw it back for another time? :lol:

JBoyle · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:36 pm

No need.
Just a bit of history lesson for you. You can't be correct all the time.

I'm always amazed at the willingness of some to cast their lines where they don't know the depth, or even if there are any fish there. :lol:

JDK · **Posted:** Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:43 pm

JBoyle wrote:

You can't be correct all the time.

I generally recommend one just sounds authoritative; so much easier...

Anyway, talking Ginas, as per Bill's post:

From:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showth ... p?t=103892

Quote:

The story of that photo is this:

Quote:

According to the Skyhawk organization web page: www.skyhawk.org/2C/productionhistory.htm, in 1961, two A4D-2 Skyhawks (BuNos 148490 and 148483) were borrowed by the U.S. Army and modified by Douglas for evaluation in competition with the Northrop N-156 (predecessor of the F-5) and an Italian Fiat G-91, for operations from unimproved airfields near front lines. Modifications of the Army Skyhawk included large dual wheels on beefed-up main landing gear mounts; a heavier wing to house the larger landing gear; and installation of an A-3 Skywarrior drag chute. Flown by Douglas test pilot Dru Wood, the modified "Army" Skyhawk won the competition, but the project was cancelled when Army funds were diverted to helicopter procurement.

The USAF protested to Congress, and Congress told the US Army there was no possibility of getting permission to buy a fixed-wing attack aircraft, and that the Army better stick to helicopters.

Thanks to Badger1968 in that thread - I'd not heard the story before. The Wiki page mentions it also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.91

Regards,

Warbird Information Exchange

Why no Fiat G-91's

Who is online