No, you've taken a distinctly HOSTILE attitude and it shows 100% through your posts in here. You're not even 1 step short of insulting me to my face, you're openly doing so.
I have no problem with you. I don't know you. But as long as you keep posting pure nonsense (saying things like Re.2005 was intended to be a ground attack plane) I will keep correcting. And, in those cases, as long as you refuse to admit you are wrong my tone will be abraisive, until you man up and admit you are wrong. This board is read daily by at least hundreds of users. We have enough myths regarding WWII aircraft as it is.
I thought you were above believing them, however.
I don't need to believe or not believe anyone. Reading your posts for over five years has given me more than enough insight to make up my own mind.
Wrong. The thread was getting out of hand and I took it to private message and explained I'd seen black and white footage of Ju88s supposedly dropping from vertical racks. I never received a response or ANY attempt at communications nor correction from the individual in question, and weeks later when I found a reference that showed the interior of a Ju88 bomb bay, yes they were horizontally spaced, the depths and dimensions still showed that you could not vertically dive bomb in a Ju88 any more than you could in a B24 or B17 without the bomb hitting something inside before coming out the bottom. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
How about saying "I stand corrected" publicly after repedeatly claiming total nonsense about something? Like it was said in that thread originally, dive bombing does not nessesarily mean 90-degree dive. Lusche posted primary source material desputing your claim.
How about your proof? Your quote showed up on one of the first GOOGLE links I searched for. Hardly concise. Hardly proof (a 10-second internet search?). Considering that the planes were grounded and many of them crashed, I think it's safe to say the tails-falling-off issue ruined this aircraft's career. They dove a single airframe, but of the 29 built, half of those lost their tails in flight. I consider that a major design flaw. Even if "fixed" eventually, it wasn't timely enough to allow the plane to serve any significant role in the war.
You obviously didn't read my last post properly. Only one plane crashed due to the tail's aeroelasticity. While the problem obviously didn't help Re.2005's career, other factors had a lot more to do with it (politics prior the problem was even discovered being just one thing). The mass balancing of the tail surfaces was adjusted and accourding the few test dives made after the modifications before the Italian armstice no problems occurred.
I never said there wasn't a problem. But you blew it totally out of proportion. You said "
It was deemed so unsuited to general combat that its tail sheared off at high speeds.". One plane was lost because of it, several were damaged. The fleet was grounded. The cause was found and after modifications, several test dives were done without any further problems. Italy signed the armstice.
My problem is these vast generalations you make that totally distort history. You said half of the Re.2005 lost their tails inflight. You still don't get what I mean? In reality only one plane was lost that way. You simply made it up that half of Re.2005s lost their tails as you typed. It is this kind of disinformation that IMO these boards do well without.
So I've had to make educated guesses over the years on some details that seem more likely than others.
If you only have a guess about something you've read along time ago, why do you feel compelled to post about the subject to this board as a fact?
I've read that in at least 1 book specifically, and another that implied as much also. The presence of a large centerline bomb backed this idea up, as most other IT planes had little to no air-to-ground ordinance. It is also the role that the radial-engined predecessors carried out as well (also carrying centerline bombs). I was under the impression they designed an attacker that they discovered flew a lot like a fighter in the case of the 2005, but that's my own conjecture.
How did it imply so? It didn't say it directly, right? I don't believe such nonsense has been published anywhere. You said
"Namely, the 2005, which was intended to be a ground attack plane, could NOT withstand the forces required to dive on a target". Can't you see that the whole premise here does not make any sense. How does a ground attack plane execute its attack run if it's so frail that it can't dive on a target be it ground target or aireal one? Also, strapping a bomb under a fighter does not suddenly make it a dedicated ground attack aircraft.
A quote from
Ali d'Italia #16 Reggiane RE 2005 handling the birth of the Re.2005:
The remote origins of the Re 2005 can be traced to the failure of the competition for fighter interceptors issued by the Ministry of Aeronautics on January 1938.Let's just say the fact that you decided that Re.2005 was designed as a ground attack plane from ground up just because a large bomb could be carried, explains a lot regarding your posts during these five years or so.
One plane. After about half of the existing planes had broken apart or crash in mid-flight. So the ratio of planes that crashed vs those that did is..... anyone? Probably 10:1 Frankly I don't care that one example survived a dive. The rest didn't. Look at early Typhoons. Some of the first combat losses were RAF flights diving on enemies and losing 2-3 tails in a sortie. It was considered a pilot-killer, and had to be redesigned/fixed. The fixed/redesigned later models didn't have the same problem, but then there were a lot more that served than there were that ripped their tails off which cannot be said of the Re2005.
Like I said, only one Re.2005 crashed due to the flutter caused by mass imbalance in the control surfaces. Exactly, look at the early Typhoons or early 109Fs for that matter. They weren't
"deemed unsuited for general combat" either, the problems causing the crashes were fixed and the production continued and both were succesful combat aircraft after that. Dangers like these have always been part of (especially) military aviation.
So please, take the holier-than-thou attitude BS and shove it.
Oh, the irony.
I can back up most of my claims, and forgive me if I say something as supposedly common knowledge (tails shearing off Re2005s) and feel secure in the statement.
How many tail(s) was it again.
for the record: I said unsuited for further development (much influenced by the immediate needs and the 2005's tail loss, the c205 was the fastest one out of the factories). I said it only matched 109F (1941) performance, never claimed it to be vastly inferior to c205 or G.55 performance (all were similar, I said), however in 1943 these top speeds were 2 years behind the times, and the Luftwaffe had already moved on to much faster planes, 109G-6s, G6/ASs, and 190A5s.
G-6/AS didn't enter service until late spring of 1944, but that's beside the point. Don't you see it's rather funny when you say "not very fast" as one objection for Re.2005's inclusion and still during the plane-vote you fiercely rooted for the G.55.
That was the reason why I said "similar speed as G.55".
You think I have an insulting tone because I say that something you post is nonsense (ground attack plane- claim). When it comes to insulting tone I suggest you re-read your own post and compare it to mine.
