Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: The Crossed Fox on April 12, 2009, 12:09:15 AM

Title: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: The Crossed Fox on April 12, 2009, 12:09:15 AM: (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/92/Reggiane_Re.2005_Sagittario.jpg/300px-Reggiane_Re.2005_Sagittario.jpg)

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 m² (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.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 12:28:26 AM: 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.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: AWwrgwy on April 12, 2009, 01:35:14 AM: 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)
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 01:56:55 AM: I agree! Top marks on presentation! I simply disagree (respectfully).
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: The Crossed Fox on April 12, 2009, 02:08:57 AM: 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. :aok

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. :salute
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Anaxogoras on April 12, 2009, 10:37:14 AM: The correct use of 'you're' vs 'your' makes me shed a tear. :cry
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Wmaker on April 12, 2009, 11:02:58 AM: Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 12:28:26 AM
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?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Reggiane_Re.2005_Sagittario.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Boozeman on April 12, 2009, 11:32:14 AM: 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.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Wmaker on April 12, 2009, 11:42:10 AM: Quote from: Boozeman on April 12, 2009, 11:32:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 12:33:00 PM: 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.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Wmaker on April 12, 2009, 05:43:59 PM: Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 12:33:00 PM
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?

Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 12:33:00 PM
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?
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 11:53:23 PM: 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.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Gianlupo on April 13, 2009, 05:10:35 AM: Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 11:53:23 PM
Namely, the 2005, which was intended to be a ground attack plane

Krusty, please, quote your source for this statement.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Wmaker on April 13, 2009, 12:04:08 PM: Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 11:53:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 11:53:23 PM
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/re2005/980km-h1.JPG)
http://www.aldini.it/re2005/performances.htm (http://www.aldini.it/re2005/performances.htm)

Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 11:53:23 PM
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 (http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=21&L=1)

**The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft by David Donald
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: waystin2 on April 13, 2009, 01:57:57 PM: I feel the Sagittario would be a great add to the plane inventory. Great presentation of your wish sir!
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Ack-Ack on April 13, 2009, 08:18:42 PM: Found this (http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5084) on another forum talking about the speed differences in various data for the Re.2005.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Boozeman on April 14, 2009, 04:12:10 PM: Quote from: Ack-Ack on April 13, 2009, 08:18:42 PM
Found this (http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5084) on another forum talking about the speed differences in various data for the Re.2005.

ack-ack

Great stuff, thx for sharing!

BTW...where is Krusty?
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Gianlupo on April 14, 2009, 05:26:27 PM: Well, I don't wanna pick on Krusty, but sometimes he should really check his sources before posting basing only on his memory...

Anyway, apart the incorrect data he posted that you, Boozeman, and Wmaker already detected, there's another correction to make:

Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 12:33:00 PM
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.

He's confusing the Re.2002 with the Re.2000. The 2000, the first of the Reggiane series, was the one sold to Sweden (60) and Hungary (70 built by Reggiane, plus the licence for construction in Hungary - at least other 160 -); the 2002 (twin with radial engine of the 2001), was produced in at least 140 exemplars at the Armistice data: production went on under German control, but the data are confused and it can't be said with certainty how many were produced after 8 September 1943. For sure, we can say that the Luftwaffe used them as assault planes, especially in France, against the "Maquisards", since it could carry a decent loadout (up to 650 kg of bombs and the usual armament of 2x12.7mm and 2x7.7mm, more than adequate for those that, today, we would call "counter-insurgency" operations).

As for the 2005, there are other incorrect data posted in this thread, not only by Krusty. I'll make some quick, sparse correction, after a quick glance at my books.

In the OP it's said it could carry 800 kg of bombs: in fact, it was able to carry up to 650 kg, but this possibility was never used. There's a never exceed speed of 800 km/h listed: in effects, while I've never saw any Vne indicated in books, the tail flutter Krusty was referring to (yep, they did happen) manifested themselves in the range of 750/800 km/h. Three of the Sagittarios, after deformations of the fuselage, were sent back to Reggiane, were it was devised a way to correct this flaw. Meanwhile, however, the Regia Aeronautica grounded all the remaining 2005, and that was basically the end of the operative life of the Sagittario, since the Armistice followed by few weeks. No 2005 was ever lost due to the flutter, it has to be said: and I don't think it would be a big issue for having it in the game... after all, every Japanese fighter have the same problem. Of course, the Sagittario was NEVER intended to be a ground attack plane, and it has an armament of 2x12.7 and 3x20 since the beginning (contrary to what happened with the G.55, whose first series was armed with 4x12.7 and 1x20). Oh, one more thing, the dive at 980 km/h was recorded by the on-board anemometer, but it's very likely that it was a false reading, just like the ones recorded on P-38s and P-47s, because the plane couldn't have survived in the transonic regimen.

All in all, the Sagittario was a very nice plane, but I think it shouldn't be in the game because of the very limited number of 2005 that entered service.... the G.55, on the other hand...... ;)
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Wmaker on April 15, 2009, 03:50:27 AM: Hello Gian!

Quote from: Gianlupo on April 14, 2009, 05:26:27 PM
He's confusing the Re.2002 with the Re.2000.

Yes he did, my head just automatically read "2000" right away as Sweden and Hungary were mentioned.

Quote from: Gianlupo on April 14, 2009, 05:26:27 PM
the tail flutter Krusty was referring to (yep, they did happen) manifested themselves in the range of 750/800 km/h. Three of the Sagittarios, after deformations of the fuselage, were sent back to Reggiane, were it was devised a way to correct this flaw. Meanwhile, however, the Regia Aeronautica grounded all the remaining 2005, and that was basically the end of the operative life of the Sagittario, since the Armistice followed by few weeks. No 2005 was ever lost due to the flutter...

As I'm sure you noticed I never claimed that it didn't happen, I just wanted Krusty to post a crediable source explaining exactly what was the case as he claimed this amoung other nonsense...

Quote from: Krusty on April 12, 2009, 12:28:26 AM
It was deemed so unsuited to general combat that its tail sheared off at high speeds.

...this quote above just happens to be rather far from the truth.

Here's are Major Vittorio Minguzzi's experiences of this fighter that was deemed so unsuited to general combat by Krusty:

"The aircraft is in ideal conditions at an altitude of 7000-7500 meters and can make repeated attacks on American heavy bombers in all positions and from all directions. ... I can therefore say that the speed and handling qualities are excellent even at 7000 meters and that compared to the Macchi 202, the Sagittario made two attacks in the time required by the Macchi 202 for single pass*." (Source: Ali d'Italia 16 - Reggiane Re.2005 by Gregori Alegi)

*He is talking about making a HO attack on the bombers and then getting back in front of the bombers for another attack.

The above quote isn't really that surprising but I just found it funny after Krusty's comments about not being able to dive on a target and that it was a ground attack aircraft. :lol "The aircraft is in ideal conditions at an altitude of 7000-7500 meters" :lol That is one high ground attack run. :)

Same source about the tail's vibration problems:

Surprisingly, Sagittario operations were not ended by overwhelming enemy superiority but by the reoccurrence of the rear fuselage aeroelasticity which had been noticed from the very first flight tests. Of the three aircraft scrambled on 21 August, MM.096101 returned with its rear fuselage severy damaged ... On 25 August, three 362° and single 369° machine scrambled, but Lt Dario Signorini was brought down near Piedimonte D'Alife by a formidable tailplane vibration while flying MM.092356. The aircraft was lost, but the pilot made a succesful parachute jump despite becoming unconcious.

After this episode, the Re.2005 fleet was grounded and two S.82 transports flew to Reggio Emilia two fuselages with severe structural damage - probably those of MM.096101 and 96103; MM.096106 was ordered to be returned to the factory on 28 August, but since it was flying again already on 6 September it is unlikely that it had suffered much damage.

The crisis was so severe that already 25 August De Prato carried out test dives at Guidonia. He then flew the aircraft, possible MM.096105, back to Reggio Emilia where three more dives were made on 27, 29 and 31 August. According to De Prato's 1950 account, the tests concluded that the "shaking" began at 660 kph true airspeed and that they were caused by inadequate dynamic balancing of the empennage. After appropriate modifications, De Prato dived the aircraft to 988 kph TAS, convincing himself that the structure of the Re.2005 was fully cabable of pulling g's, but that trouble arose when "such problems were multiplied due to uncontrolled maneuvers necessary in war situations."

So it seems that one Sagittario was lost to this phenomenon which was basically teething problem considering that the aircraft was in it's infancy. Typhoon and Bf109 had similar problems but from different reasons, they actually had to reinforce the tail structure. Re.2005 just had wrongly balanced tail control surfaces, which is one of the basic basic reasons causing flutter. Re.2005 just never had the change to prove itself because Reggiane got the short end of the stick in the political shambles that went on as these three aircraft manufacturers competed for a contract, party because of this reason and because of the war situation, it ran out of time.

Quote from: Gianlupo on April 14, 2009, 05:26:27 PM
Oh, one more thing, the dive at 980 km/h was recorded by the on-board anemometer, but it's very likely that it was a false reading, just like the ones recorded on P-38s and P-47s, because the plane couldn't have survived in the transonic regimen.

That of course could be. Personally I see 988 km/h TAS in the realm of possibility (with maybe some instrument error). Considering Re.2005's thin semi-elliptical wing and overall very aerodynamic shape it must have had very high critical mach figure. Bf109G-6 was diven to 906 km/h TAS in flight testing. Spitfire IX was diven to 975 km/h in a controlled test. And of course there's that account of the "unofficial piston engined aircraft speed record of whopping 1110 km/h by a Spit XIX by accident. Anyway, the point is that the plane could dive on a target and away from an attacker, which Krusty said it couldn't.

Again, the same source's technical description starts with the sentence:

Single-engine, single-seat fighter monoplane of all-metal construction.

No, not a ground attack plane, but a fighter. :)

Quote from: Gianlupo on April 14, 2009, 05:26:27 PM
All in all, the Sagittario was a very nice plane, but I think it shouldn't be in the game because of the very limited number of 2005 that entered service.... the G.55, on the other hand...... ;)

Well, I would never say never about any WWII combat aircraft. :) But yes, I agree that it shouldn't be added any time soon. But I have to say that both G.55 and Re.2005 would be my instant favourites if they would be added. They are just so beautiful and C.205 is too. I will start flying it after HTC updates the 3D model.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Boozeman on April 15, 2009, 04:46:04 AM: I dont see why the Re2005 should not be added only due too low production numbers. We have others with similar low numbers already in game.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Wmaker on April 15, 2009, 04:57:41 AM: Quote from: Boozeman on April 15, 2009, 04:46:04 AM
I dont see why the Re2005 should not be added only due too low production numbers. We have others with similar low numbers already in game.

Well, I said "any time soon" considering that we have things like, C.200, Me-410, KI-43, Pe-2, LaGG-3, Beaufighter, D4Y and G4M missing from the planeset. I think it's rather obvious that those should have a priority over planes like the Re.2005 or G.55.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Boozeman on April 15, 2009, 06:12:53 AM: Well, I think bombers should be considered seperatly from fighters, but of the fighters mentioned I can only see the Me410 to rival a Re2005/G.55 in usabillity.
Yes, I'm talking about MA usage. Thats where 95% of all sorties are logged. I'm not intrested in scenario usabillity - others may do so, though.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Gianlupo on April 15, 2009, 02:46:17 PM: Hello, Wmaker!

I knew what you were trying to do, don't worry. As for the incident, I have Alegi's book, no reason to doubt about it. Yesterday evening I read from Nino Arena's book about the 2005 and it didn't report any crash due to the flutter... being Alegi's book more recent, I guess he may have done a better research on this point.

As for the maximum speed in the dive, I agree with you, aside from any speculations about the correctness of the measurement (I still think many of those readings were erroneous), the point is proven: the 2005 could dive fast. :)

Finally, regarding the production number, Boozeman, it's true that we have in game airplanes that were produced in small number, but they are surely more than the Sagittario built; probably we should consider the percentage of a single type of airplane compared to the total national production to have a really meaningful parameter... anyway, I agree with WMaker, as much as I'd like to see the 2005 in game, it's not a priority. The 55 has much more chances to make it sooner.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Boozeman on April 15, 2009, 04:00:35 PM: I agree that the G.55 may have better chances to be included first, and I'd applaud it for sure. Though some guys state that the 200+ produced G.55 are to little to be included anytime soon. OTOH we have an ex-perked plane with production numbers well below 100, which probably had no more impact in the war than the Re.2005/G.55 and it's in the game for many years...
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM: Where am I? Busy. I have little free time these days. so if I opt to spend my 2 free hours trying to fly AH rather than checking the forums I miss a day on the forums. Then when I *am* on the forums I often have to focus on important stuff like the Tunisia scenario forums where we're doing important stuff, squad forums, and browsing the general forums after that.

I can't and don't check every thread I've posted in every time I log on.

"My hostility?? I just said things as they are."

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.

"It just seems that too often you just make things up as you go along and you been at it for years now."

A small group of dedicated griefers definitely want the community to think that. I can name the ringleaders of these griefers, and they are responsible for spreading specific lies and slander about me. I thought you were above believing them, however.

"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."

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. I took it off forum but I wasn't the one that "quietly slipped away" -- I was openly pursuing the discussion and was promptly ignored by somebody that wanted to start a fight but had no intention of staying in it.

"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."

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.

I know you've read a lot of books. So have I. I've been reading more books than I can recall the names of since I was 10 years old. I've read thousands of aviation books in my life. The difference is I'm not rich. You may be. You may be able to buy every book in existence and have it on a bookshelf for instant perusal, but I can not. Of the thousands of books I've read and enjoyed in my life, growing up 99.999% of them were library books. I surely don't have access to books from another state and read a decade ago, even if I WANTED to look for them. I've always had a memory for the details, but not the names. I still have an understanding of what took place and the general characters and timelines at play. However I couldn't give you times and names. Doesn't make the events wrong. So I do have a wide sampling on many matters aviation, but since we're talking decades of library use here, you know some authors are less reliable than others, and sometimes things are printed wrong (Janes, other similar books) or in misleading ways. So I've had to make educated guesses over the years on some details that seem more likely than others.

"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."

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.

"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."

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.

So please, take the holier-than-thou attitude BS and shove it. You want to correct something do so, but not while acting like a jackarse. 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. Might as well claim the P-51D was a high-alt fighter! Oh, wait, it was. You see my point. The rest of the matter was sharing some info with somebody else who asked about it. Aside from the guns, all the other info I've commented on is accurate (or in the role, attack vs fighter, at least plausible and i explained my position why I thought so when asked why I thought so)

2005 speed and guns:

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.

You are probably right about the guns, but I've explained myself on those in a much earlier post. Oh, and my Hungary/Sweden comment: you are correct, I was recalling the earlier 2000 version. However, the numbers for the 2002 are as miniscule as those of the 2005 (2002 built in the 40's), so maybe I was thinking of that as "the regianne where less than 50 were built" -- maybe my confusion with the gondolas stems from that.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: The Crossed Fox on April 17, 2009, 04:22:26 AM: Well, to throw out a couple of corrections here myself, I've looked up quite a bit on the stories and accounts of the Saggitarios (What little there were, at least) and I came across a few interesting things regarding the airframe and design of the initial example aircraft.

It was stated earlier in the thread that Major Vittorio Minniguzzi's accounts of the 2005 were that it was beautifully handled in lower speeds (Below 680KMH). This, was indeed true in his documentations of the aircraft. He also noted that its early example models suffered from "Flutter" in the rudders and rear fuselage. This had nothing to do with the aircrafts overall flight characteristics, but rather a flaw in the design of the fuselage all in itself. To rake away the muck though Krusty, as well as a select few others, I will say this.

The high speed flights, fighter tests (On the B24 Liberators), and tangles with Spitfires were all recorded after the fuselage deformity had been repaired and reinstalled into a new set of 40 or so examples. That was when the recorded 980 km/h dive test had been put up in the docs. The Re.2005, after its flaws had been taken care of, had actually been approved for mass production into the Axis squadrons. The two main reasons why they were not produced in time for the mid-war era are as follows...

Reason A: Allied bombings of the prominant Italian country had actually taken out the Reggiane factories set to produce the Saggitario. It was, in my total honest opinion, probably one of the primary targets of the Allies as they flew over Italian cities. Industrial facilities accounted for a great majority of Allied bombings throughout the entire war. Stop production, stop the resistance. Simplicity in itself.

Reason B: The well known armistice of Italy would've been within the realm of possibility in as little as 3-5 weeks from the time the Allies had bombed the area.

The only reason why less than 20 were around at Italy's end, was because they were all that were left after the destructive allied bombing wreaked havoc throughout their land. These babies, couldve been seen in the hundreds, if not thousands if Italy was able to preserve its Production facilities, I speculate.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, everybody...

TONE DOWN THE BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Please? It's really not fun seeing everybody argue over things like this.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Slade on April 17, 2009, 06:22:21 AM: Quote
Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario

This plane would be fun to fly. +1 :aok
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: slimmer on April 17, 2009, 06:57:14 AM: :aok
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Selino631 on April 17, 2009, 09:38:36 AM: I agree this plane would be good. But I would rather the G.55 or a Italian Bomber first
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Wmaker on April 17, 2009, 11:58:44 AM: Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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?

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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. :)

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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.

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
So please, take the holier-than-thou attitude BS and shove it.

Oh, the irony. :)

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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. :)

Quote from: Krusty on April 17, 2009, 02:20:24 AM
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. :D :rofl 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.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: AWwrgwy on April 17, 2009, 07:32:10 PM: (http://www.liberalstreetfighter.com/ee/images/uploads/8026-bigthumbnail.jpg)

I should have just let this excellently composed wish die.

But nooooooo.

You internet tough guys could give your ego's a rest. After all, you need be right.

What ever happened to, "I respectfully beg to disagree with your findings."?
Oh yeah. It's the intardnet.

:rofl

wrongway
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Wmaker on April 17, 2009, 08:10:18 PM: Quote from: AWwrgwy on April 17, 2009, 07:32:10 PM

You internet tough guys could give your ego's a rest.

I made myself pretty clear. If you can't read, nor understand, that is no fault of mine.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: frank3 on April 22, 2009, 05:59:53 AM: See, Italian planes only cause for trouble...

Add it!
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: l0newolf on June 21, 2009, 05:32:23 PM: yes this aircraft would be fun BUT notice in your persentation LITTLE WARTIME USE thats why i think AH wont put it on because it dident ahve much of a affect

sorry
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: Larry on June 21, 2009, 05:58:29 PM: Quote from: l0newolf on June 21, 2009, 05:32:23 PM
yes this aircraft would be fun BUT notice in your persentation LITTLE WARTIME USE thats why i think AH wont put it on because it dident ahve much of a affect

sorry

You should just stop.
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: MjTalon on June 21, 2009, 06:19:33 PM: This thread is heating up steadily.
:O
Title: Re: Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario
Post by: OOZ662 on June 21, 2009, 06:47:30 PM: Got my jiffypop ready.