Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "The Plane That Was Meant to Win the War but Hitler Ignored" video.

That was the Macchi C.205. The G.55 had the same lenght.
36
The G.55 had a similar structure to US fighters. It was way simpler than a Spitfire IE.
4
The P38 failed in Europe. It was a good fighter when everything was OK, but it required too many complicate operations to make it ready to fight. Mind that the P51d, the best and better known P51 version, entered in combat only in mid 1944.
3
For the "development potential" it was the contrary. The Bf109g was already overloaded and couldn't grow further. For the G.55, the DB-603 engine was almost plug&play.
2
FW190A was not a good high altitude fighter, because the engine lost too much power. Bf109 up to the G version wasn't either, because of the too high wingload. The bigger wings of the G.55 solved this problem first (then, it was also more heavily armed and carried more fuel than the Bf109).
2
Mind that the production time of the Bf109 depended on the scale of production. The G.55 costed 15.000 man/hour at the start of the production, and the plan was to reduce them to 9.000 for a scale of production of about 200 airplanes/month. The Bf109, IN MAY 1944 (production times were longer in 1943) costed 9.200 m/h for 50 aircrafts/month, 6.500 m/h for 200 aircrafts/month, 3.800 m/h for 500 aircrafts/months. So, for the same scale of production and the same year, the G.55 was more time consuming to assemble, but not by that much. For a comparison, in January 1943 a P-47 costed 22.100 m/h. A year later it costed 9.100 m/h.
2
Mind that the production time of the Bf109 depended on the scale of production. The G.55 costed 15.000 man/hour at the start of the production, and the plan was to reduce them to 9.000 for a scale of production of about 200 airplanes/month. The Bf109, IN MAY 1944 (production times were longer in 1943) costed 9.200 m/h for 50 aircrafts/month, 6.500 m/h for 200 aircrafts/month, 3.800 m/h for 500 aircrafts/months. So, for the same scale of production and the same year, the G.55 was more time consuming to assemble, but not by that much. For a comparison, in January 1943 a P-47 costed 22.100 m/h. A year alter it costed 9.100 m/h.
1
@rodrigorincongarcia771 It was slower to build, but not "much". Mind that the production time of the Bf109, like for anything, depended on the scale of production. The G.55 costed 15.000 man/hour at the start of production, and the plan was to reduce them to 9.000 for a scale of production of about 200 aircrafts/month. The Bf109, IN MAY 1944 (production times were longer in 1943) costed 9.200 m/h for 50 aircrafts/month, 6.500 m/h for 200 aircrafts/month, 3.800 m/h for 500 aircrafts/months. So, for the same scale of production and the same year, the G.55 was more time consuming to assemble, but not by that much (and the Bf109 was particularly easy to build. The construction times of the FW109 were higher). For a comparison, in January 1943, a P-47 costed 22.100 m/h. A year later it costed 9.100 m/h. As for the war's outcome, it's obviously an exaggeration. No piston fighter in 1943 could have made any difference.
1
If you see close images (IE 2:58 ) , the canopy has straight sides, and the rear frame has inward curved sides. That means that the pilot could see between the canopy and the rear frame. Allied pilots that tested the Italian fighters confirmed they could see the tail, and the rear view, thus not perfect as in a bubble canopy (that was anyway dangerous in case of rollovers on landing) was better than in the Bf109.
1