Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario

[The Crossed Fox]

The Reggiane Re.2005 Saggitario
Wish #1

An Italian-built fighter plane, given the prestigious title of "The most beautiful fighter of Italy". Though its speed was slightly rated under that of the the Spitfire, its manueverability gave the Spits more than just a hard time in a chase. Standing alongside its sister fighters in , the Macchi C.202 and C.205, as well as the Fiat G.55 in its utilization of the Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine, it was more than capable of holding its own in the realms of speed with a good portion of modern aircraft of the day.

In the realm of firepower, this baby sported some serious guns;

2 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT Machine Guns
And
3 20mm MG-151 Cannons (One in the Prop-Hub, One in each wing)

Those cannons could rip a tank apart, literally! And not only could this baby blow you away like Al Capone with a Chicago Typewriter, but it could drop 800kg of High explosive on you if you're not paying too much attention.

Need some Background and History on this Deadly Beauty? Well the Sagittario was first sent to the city of Naples, given orders to defend the city from  B-24 bokbing runs. It was recorded that a pair of Saggitario's took down at least seven of the Liberators, with very little squadron casualties at missions end. They were then sent to go Head to Head against Sptifire Squadrons over Sicily (say that three times fast) in early July of 1943. It was said that the Saggitario squadrons had knocked 5 Spits out of the air, though only two of them were confirmed. Later on, a Dogfight occured between a Spitfire and a Saggitario, manned by Eugenio Salvi, ending in the Spitfires favor. However, the words of G. Capt. Duncan Smith, DSO DFC, speak in high reard of the Italian Aircraft. "The Re 2005 'Sagittario' was a potent aircraft. Having had a dog-fight with one of them, I am convinced we would have been hard pressed to cope in our Spitfires operationally, if the Italians or Germans had had a few Squadrons equipped with these aircrafts at the beginning of the Sicily campaign or in operations from Malta." After the Italian armistice in 1943 however, these planes saw very little action. They were left to rot in hangars, or used as targets for more technologically advanced aircraft. Not a single one exists today.

General Characteristics and Performance aspects

Crew: 1
Length: 8.73 m (28 ft 7.75 in)
Wingspan: 11.00 m (36 ft 1 in)
Height: 3.15 m (10 ft 4 in)
Wing area: 20.4 mē (219.58 sq. ft)
Empty weight: 2,600 kg (5,730 lb)
Loaded weight: 3,610 kg (7,960 lb)


Never exceed speed: 800 km/h (500 mph)
Maximum speed: 628 km/h at 2000 m, 678 km/h at 7,000 m[citation needed] (390 mph at 6,560 ft, 421 mph at 22,965 ft[citation needed])
Cruise speed: 515 km/h (320 mph)
Stall speed: 155 km/h (85mpth)
Range: 980 km (609 mi)
Service ceiling: 11,500 m (37,730 ft)
Rate of climb: 20 m/s (6.5 min. to 6,000 m)
Wing loading: 177 kg/m^2 max (36 lb/sq ft max)



The Pros of the Saggitario
==> High Manueverability
==> High Firepower
==> Great Aesthetics (Physical Characteristics)

The Cons of the Saggitario
==> Dive Instability (at high speeds)
==> Little Wartime Use
==> Moderate Top Speed

Why should this be added on to the list?
I believe that it would make a great and effective addition to the AH Arsenal. It's sleek, manuevarable, armed pretty well and has the potential to be a great Fighter/Attacker in several different scenarios. What does the community think? Please, express yourselves in a polite and constructive way.

[Krusty]

Of the 5 series of planes (G.55, C205, Re2005), the Re was the worst of the lot. It was deemed so unsuited to general combat that its tail sheared off at high speeds. The airframe was from an out of date radial engine, but unlike the C2, the said airframe wasn't strong enough to keep up.

There's a lot of propoganda and (IMO) outright lies about the 2005 on the Internet. A lot of folks claim it was an uber fighter, superb in every way and lethal against all. In fact it had lack of firepower (hence the need for 109-style underwing gondolas) and not very fast. Of the 3 "5 series" planes it was the one that was NOT going to be pursued.

[AWwrgwy]

That was an excellently presented wish.

Everyone should read this and emulate it.  Seriously.

On that criteria alone it should be added.



wrongway
(see? It works)

[Krusty]

I agree! Top marks on presentation! I simply disagree (respectfully).

[The Crossed Fox]

Thanks very much mates.
Also, thank you for that bit of info Krusty. After researching it a bit, it seems more more sources refer to tail shears than not. 

I'll be using this profile skeleton for every plane I do believe is worth putting on the wishlist, even if in some cases others do not believe them to be so. 

[Anaxogoras]

The correct use of 'you're' vs 'your' makes me shed a tear.

[Wmaker]

There's a lot of propoganda and (IMO) outright lies about the 2005 on the Internet. A lot of folks claim it was an uber fighter, superb in every way and lethal against all. In fact it had lack of firepower (hence the need for 109-style underwing gondolas) and not very fast.

It lacked firepower? In AH Breda Safat is rather similar to MG 131 in lethality. I find the lethality of the G-6/G-14 rather adequate especially considering the position they are mounted in. Every pic I've seen of the Re.2005 the cannons are located in the wings, NOT in underwing gondolas. So Krusty could you please tell me what is this source of yours which says that the cannons were mounted in gondolas?



If the cannons could be mounted into the wing why would they construct gondolas for them?

It's all rather relative of course, but the lack of firepower wasn't Re.2005's problem.

Also, what makes you think that the speed of the serial production Re.2005's wouldn't be very similar to that of the G.55? Every source that I've seen constantly mention higher speeds than for the G.55.

[Boozeman]

The 2005 was never based on a radial engine design. It's was actually its predesseor, the Re2001, respectively the Re2000.
Same goes for the gondolas, the 2001 had them, the 2005 had the guns in the wings.
The 2005 was condsidered superior to the 205 by the German evaluation, but not as good as the G.55. However it was considered good enough to put it major production, but the facilities were destroyed before significant numbers could roll out.

[Wmaker]

Same goes for the gondolas, the 2001 had them, the 2005 had the guns in the wings.

The night fighter version (Re.2001CN) had 151/20s in gondolas. The day fighter variants had 7.7mm Bredas in the wings.

[Krusty]

A sinlge 20mm nose gun proved inadequate as early as 1941.

You can get kills with it in AH, but that doesn't mean it's "good" .... You can still land kills with 2 50cals. Quite a light setup, though.

The 2002 only had about 170 made, most used by Hungary and Sweden. The performance of this radial version was sub-par, capping out about 330mph at FTH (most planes in AH break 330 at sea level, it seems). The 2005 numbered in the 40s produced, and top speed was closer to the 109F. It was manuverable, but that alone doesn't make or break a plane.

[Wmaker]

A sinlge 20mm nose gun proved inadequate as early as 1941.

You can get kills with it in AH, but that doesn't mean it's "good" .... You can still land kills with 2 50cals. Quite a light setup, though.

You don't have an argument here. Re.2005 is armed with three cannons. Your claims about them being gondola mounted is complete bogus. Why can't you admit that?

The 2002 only had about 170 made, most used by Hungary and Sweden. The performance of this radial version was sub-par, capping out about 330mph at FTH (most planes in AH break 330 at sea level, it seems). The 2005 numbered in the 40s produced, and top speed was closer to the 109F. It was manuverable, but that alone doesn't make or break a plane.

This thread isn't about Re.2002 but about the Re.2005. Nor am I arguing that Re.2005 should be in AH an time soon. I'm just, once again, correcting your totally inaccurate claims that really don't have anything to do with the real plane.

German's were interested of the Re.2005 and sent a specially prepared DB605A and VDM prop to Reggiane. With these the second prototype was said to have done 447mph at 7300m. Obviously serial production aircraft wouldn't be as fast but the first prototype did 421.6mph at 6950m with serial production DB605A-1 and Piaggio prop. Now, if that isn't fast for May 7th 1942 I don't know what is. (Source: Reggiane Fighters in action by George Punka).

I can't see a reason why the production aircraft wouldn't have had speeds at least similar to those of the Fiat G.55.

Krusty, why can't you just admit it when you are wrong?

[Krusty]

wmaker, your hostility and insulting tone/nature is confusing to say the least.

Production speeds for the 2005 were just shy of 400mph. The 109F-4 already had this speed and probably at a higher altitude, no less. Of the 3 "5 series" planes, the top speeds were all similar, but the other characteristics were different. Namely, the 2005, which was intended to be a ground attack plane, could NOT withstand the forces required to dive on a target (or dive away from a pursuing allied fighter). The chances were the tail would rip off before you could escape your attacker or make your attack run on whatever you were bombing.


Regardless of the guns being in the wings or under the wings, you have taken quite an antagonistic stance towards me.

I've been under the impression that the wing guns were 20mm gondolas or 7mm internals. I admit you might be right, but I still have some conflicting info. I've read a comment about the "latest model" having internal 20mm wing guns, but have also read that only pre-production models (prototypes, zero-models basically) ever saw combat. My previous post said they numbered in the 40s, but doing some more checking, apparently it's less than that. Of the 29 or so used, only 6 or 7 pre-production models were tasked to defend against B-24s. When italy fell there were only 13 available for Germany to sieze. There is a story of one 2005 not being able to shake a spitfire off its tail, but I don't know when/where this happens and what type of armament was used.

My comments about "light" armament was regarding a single nose gun, so hypothetically with 2 20mm wing guns that doesn't apply.

[Gianlupo]

Namely, the 2005, which was intended to be a ground attack plane

Krusty, please, quote your source for this statement.

[Wmaker]

wmaker, your hostility and insulting tone/nature is confusing to say the least.

My hostility?? I just said things as they are. It just seems that too often you just make things up as you go along and you been at it for years now. And this thread is a great example of that, as was the one where you just insisted on claiming that JU-88 bomb bay stored it's bombs vertically, and therefore couldn't dive bomb. You kept insisting otherwise and when you were proven wrong using primary source material you just quietly slipped out of that thread. I will continue call these errors out until you actually start checking the information you post and not just making bold claims as you go along without offering any substantial proof.

Production speeds for the 2005 were just shy of 400mph. The 109F-4 already had this speed and probably at a higher altitude, no less. Of the 3 "5 series" planes, the top speeds were all similar, but the other characteristics were different. Namely, the 2005, which was intended to be a ground attack plane, could NOT withstand the forces required to dive on a target (or dive away from a pursuing allied fighter). The chances were the tail would rip off before you could escape your attacker or make your attack run on whatever you were bombing.

So now you admit that I was right that the speed is similar to G.55? For F-4 there are host of different data available with differing FTHs to speeds up to as high as 670km/h at 6200m with WEP*. In AH 109F-4 isn't nearly that fast however. There are several sources which list G.55 speeds within few mph**(391mph). Re.2005's top speeds actually seem to be listed at rather high altitudes, a lot higher than the ones for the 109F-4. For example the same source as for the Fiat G.55's speed** lists the speed of Re.2005 as 391mph at as high as 7000m. So this source lists the speeds as exactly the same. Of course the speeds differ between individual airframes.

It was you who said that Re.2005 was the worst of the Series 5 fighters but you actually haven't provided a single shread of evidence about it. Quote a crediable source which discusses these tail shedding claims you make, same goes for this rather rediculous claim that Re.2005 was designed as a ground attack aircraft. Your whole premise that ground attack aircraft wouldn't be able to dive so comical that I won't even go there. Just for your information, Re.2005 was dived to 980km/h without damage. I sure you're gonna discredit the source for this one but if you do, the burden of proof is with you.


http://www.aldini.it/re2005/performances.htm

I admit you might be right, but I still have some conflicting info.

Is it this "conflicting info" that you base these claims of yours?? By all means POST this "conflicting info" you have! What is it? Where it has been published? Or if it isn't published, where have you gotten it? Please, post a source which claims that Re.2005 was designed as a ground attack aircraft??

I'm all ears.

*http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=21&L=1

**The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft by David Donald

[waystin2]

I feel the Sagittario would be a great add to the plane inventory.  Great presentation of your wish sir!