# Reggiana 2005 Vs. Bf 109F



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 17, 2007)

Well, I guess here's another poll. Who wins?

For active service, Re 2005 loses.....a lot. But it's a plausible might have been.

Out of the 3 great Italian "Series Five" fighters, I picked the Re 2005, because on the Italian fighter poll on here it won.


----------



## Thorlifter (Sep 17, 2007)

Technically they are close, but the 109 was proven and the 2005 did practically nothing. Plus I have read where the 109F was the best handling of all the 109's. I have to go with Willy's baby here.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Sep 18, 2007)

I have to go with the Bf109 here...after all its my favorite plane...


----------



## Glider (Sep 18, 2007)

The only reason I went for the 2005 is the additional firepower. 3 x 20 instead of the one on the 109F gives you better options when taking on the Heavy bombers.
If it were fighter vs fighter then its probably to close to call, but there are other aircraft around and these should be taken into consideration.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 18, 2007)

> Plus I have read where the 109F was the best handling of all the 109's



I heard it from the 109 P-38 poll. 

So I chose it for a closer competition.


----------



## ccheese (Sep 18, 2007)

.


----------



## ccheese (Sep 18, 2007)

Thorlifter said:


> Technically they are close, but the 109 was proven



I gotta go with Thorlifter. The 109 was a proven aircraft.

Charles


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 18, 2007)

makes little sense.. the 2005 was little more than a prototype, plus it was more a contemporary of the Bf109 G2 than 109F.

Performance and weaponry were superior in the Reggiane, serviceability is unknown. 
One nasty thing they had in common was a certain weakness of the tail structure, fixed in later F with strenghtening rods while, to my knowledge, the correction in the Re 2005 was not implemented before termination of the project.

Definitely the two 'series 5' who saw some production and activity (The 'half 5' Macchi 205V and the Fiat G55) were superior to the 109F, although probably less pleasant to fly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 18, 2007)

I agree with Parm here that it really is not a good poll because the 2005 never really went anywhere. It truely is a what if situation.

Because of that though I will go with the 109 only becuase well I love the dame thing.


----------



## Marcel (Sep 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> .
> 
> Because of that though I will go with the 109 only becuase well I love the dame thing.


..and the Friedrich was really the best looking one of the bunch


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 18, 2007)

> although probably less pleasant to fly.



Why is that, just wondering?


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 19, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Why is that, just wondering?



Just a deduction...
The general WWII trend for fighters was that all 'new' airplanes were less pleasant and nastier to fly than their 'daddies', mainly because they were heavier (bigger engines and armament, ballast added to reset CG etc.) and had more power to manage in the same airframe (torque etc.) 

It happened with the 109 F vs G and K, Spit V vs IX etc., P51B vs P51D and so on.

Now, since the Friedrich was more pleasant than the Gustav mainly because of the added weight of the DB605 vs DB601, most likely the 'series 5' planes who were in the same weight and wingload range of the Bf109G were closer to the Gustav than to the Friedrich in terms of flight behaviour.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 19, 2007)

> P51B vs P51D and so on.



I heard that the gentle, trusty Allison was well liked and the new Merlin a tricky beast.

Of course some speedy pilots probably liked getting away from the underpowerd Allison and into something Reckless. 

I remember a qoute somewhere like this: Flying the P-51 Mustang was a whole new experience, even though I had already had some flight time in the P-40. The differance was that you flew the P-40, but you became a part of the P-51.

That's the Merlin model I think.

Now I'm sure some agree the FW 109D was pleasanter to fly than the FW 190A, but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Parmigiano (Sep 19, 2007)

Well, it goes in the non-measurable area...

By reading books, interwiews etc. the overall trend is that Bf109 G was nastier than 109F, Spit IX and XIV nastier than I and V, P51D than P51B and so on.
About the 190, I remember reading that the Dora was often reported as less friendly than the 190A, while definitely more performing. 

It seems that, in general, making the same planes heavier and more powerful had a direct impact on the 'pleasure' of flight.

Of course, it also seems that 'pleasure of flight' and 'combat effectiveness' are not always related, since no pilot in 1945 wanted to trade a Bf109K with a 109F!

This 'general trend' may not be valid if you compare different airframes (like P40 and P51, that were a couple of generations apart) or for specific models (i.e. apparently the P38 gained in both performances and pleasureness during her evolution)


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 19, 2007)

Thanks for clearing that about the FW 190. 

The P-47 was big all around. 

And then, after a certain point, they all became lighter. P-47N, P-51H, and Ta-152H were all lighter than P-47D, P-51D, and FW 190D. (How funny, all D's!)


----------



## CPWN (Sep 26, 2007)

I read some old discussion about Serie 5 fighters and have different opinion on the conclusion.

First,I don't believe Re.2005 can fly out the same top speed at three different altitudes,even P-51 can't make it.In Italian Wiki,it seems to say Re.2005 can reach to 678km/hr at 2,000m but only 628km/hr at 7,000m. Although some articles say Re.2005 has the fastest speed at high altitude,but German test report mention about only the G55 was competitive with its German opponents also in term of speed and climb rate at high altitudes still maintaining superior handling characteristics. 

Other resources report after Re.2005 could dive to 988km/hr in test flight,structure problems still remain in later air combat.These caused some pilots need to abandon plane in combat flight.When designer got idea,Armistice day was coming.Reggiane industry had no chance to fix whole bugs on Re.2005.

MC.205's top speed appeared at 7,500m but the plane almost lost control and easy to stall.Its performance dropped considerably over 8000 meters.

Maybe Fw190A can beat all Italian fighters at low altitude,but German needs to against Alliance bombers over 30,000feets,Fw190A also dropped performance considerably at high altitude.

Only G.55 got excellent performance at every altitude and heavy fire power.So,I think German choice is right and reasonable. G.55 is the best Axis fighter in 1943 and good enough to replace both Bf109G Fw190A.


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 5, 2007)

There`s a related content put up recently to my site :

Kurfürst - Bericht über Jagdflugzeug-Vergleichsfliegen bei der ital. E-Stelle Guidonia.
_


Bericht über Jagdflugzeug-Vergleichsfliegen
bei der ital. E-Stelle G u i d o n i a .


In der Zeit vom 18.2.1943 bis 21.2.1943 wurde in Guidonia
ein Vergleichsfliegen deutscher und italienischer Flugzeuge durch-
geführt. Von Jagdflugzeugen waren zum Vergleich mit Bf 109 G 4 und
Fw 190 A 5 folgende Flugzeuge vorhanden : Macchi 205 V, Macchi 205 N,
Reggiane 2005 und Fiat G 55._


----------



## Jank (Oct 6, 2007)

Can someone who reads German summarize the salient points?


----------



## userlyAfterse (Oct 7, 2007)

My mother dropped me on my head to many times.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2007)

Good bye


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 7, 2007)

LOL! His mother????


----------



## Glider (Oct 7, 2007)

Obviously she didn't drop him hard enough


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Oct 7, 2007)

Now, _that's_ not nice!


----------



## Jank (Oct 9, 2007)

Is anyone able to summarize the findings of the flight tests?


----------



## delcyros (Oct 9, 2007)

RE-2005: 
the flying abilities are (just or better nearly) statisfying. The plane curves well, rolling comparable to BF 109G4 with a lighter stick. Start landing easy and free from problems altough visibility is mediocre. Cannot be used as fighter bomber due to details of cooler installment.

trial comparison flight between Fw-190A5 and Re-2005:
During climb both planes do show equal performances (it is said that the RE-2005 did not utilize it´s max. power). In level flight at 6000m the Fw-190 appears to be faster, both planes do curve equally well.

Summerized on RE-2005. The G55 comes out favourably but still doesn´t show superiority. It seems that there is some notable softness as a weapon platform common for italian planes.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 10, 2007)

Here an english summary of the German evaluation test from the G55 site.

G55 - Aircraft History


----------



## Jank (Oct 10, 2007)

I once read about a captured G.55 that the Brits evaluated. They were quite shocked at the high level of performance.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 10, 2007)

Hi Parmigiano,

>Here an english summary of the German evaluation test from the G55 site.

Thanks! 

I'd add that English readers should be aware that it is not a summary of exactly the report reproduced on Kurfürst's site.

Here is a translation of some comments from the German report:

"General

The exterior form and the overall impression of the aircraft displayed there was good. The achieved performance is partially owed to the very small radiators. This applies especially to the Macchi 205 V and the Reggiane 2005."

Note: The Macchie 205 N overheated in the climb, so it seems obvious that "small" is used in the sense of "insufficiently dimensioned" here.

On the Fiat G 55:

"As a summary one has to state:

The Fiat G 55 is equal to the German fighters in climb and altitude performance, superior in armament and range, inferior in speed (currently 25 km/h), though it has to be considered that the Italian DB 605 yields 100 HP less.

Since according to the statement of the designer the DB 603 can be mounted without major changes, the aircraft greatly gains in attractiveness - considering the current performance -, as it with the DB 603 would be superior in any regard to all current fighters."

Note: The report is ambiguous about the supposed climb rate superiority at high altitude which would be a result of the Fiat's lower wingloading, noting a poorer power loading compared to the Bf 109 G-4 as counter-acting factor.

With regard to the characteristics of the Fiat G 55:

"The flying characteristics are not as good as those of the Bf 109 G-4 and the Fw 190 A-5."

The German interest in the G 55 was clearly motivated by the hope to be able to install the DB 603 with a 30 mm MK 108 engine cannon in addition to the two 12.7 mm machine guns in the cowl and to the two 20 mm wing cannon (that apparently were projected at the time the report was written).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Glider (Oct 10, 2007)

This makes sence as the standard G55 had 3 x 20 plus the 2 x HMG and the centre 20mm had a huge amount of ammunition (up to 380 rds) so weight and space wouldn't have been a problem


----------



## Civettone (Oct 10, 2007)

CPWN said:


> First,I don't believe Re.2005 can fly out the same top speed at three different altitudes,even P-51 can't make it.In Italian Wiki,it seems to say Re.2005 can reach to 678km/hr at 2,000m


You're right in your criticism.
I don't recall the details as I got an article on that on my other computer, which is out of order, rotten thing!, but in it it becomes apparent that the 678 km/h was not a standard speed and one which was attained once with a modified Re.2005 but ever since it has been taken as a standard speed in most literary. The Re.2005 had a maximum speed of around 640 km/h and at a medium just like with all the other DB 605A powered engines.

Kurfürst, I am happy to see that report on your website. Great stuff, thanks!
Kris


----------



## Kurfürst (Oct 12, 2007)

Glider said:


> This makes sence as the standard G55 had 3 x 20 plus the 2 x HMG and the centre 20mm had a huge amount of ammunition (up to 380 rds) so weight and space wouldn't have been a problem



... The report notes the following guns for the G - 55 they tested :

1 x 20 mm (Mauser MG 151/20) with 200 rounds
4 x 12.7 mm with 380 rounds

Correct me if I am wrong, I don`t know much at all about Italian fighters, but this is not at all that different from what LW fighters had at the time (ie. the G-6 was just being introduced at the time with 1x20mm/200rpg + 2x13mm/300rpg). In fact they note a new G-55 version in development, with 3x20mm (1 in engine, 2 wings) and 2 12.7mm guns in the fuselage. 

Note though that this is exactly the same armament as a G-6 with gondies - and that is 'off the shelves' and not just on paper yet in February 1943 ...

It appears to me that the Germans were rather interested in potential developments of the G 55 with a massively increased armament AND a DB 603 engine rather than it`s actual form. It puzzles me otoh why they would need one, if they wanted a heavily armed aircraft with a DB 603... well there`s the FW 190, already in production. 

I think the 'German interest' is a bit overstated - alternate 'Plan B's were constantly considered in the Luftwaffe, they had the Bf 109K-14 and the DB 605L in works just in case the Ta 152 / Jumo 213E fails to deliver - and you shouldn`t make too much of a conclusion from those rather regular 'brainstorming' meetings in the RLM. But, I haven`t seen any the other papers about those meetings myself telling about what Goering, Milch and Galland had on mind about the 'Italian connection'. I`d love to see those.

Oh, and I happy that could contribute my bit to this story, it`s always the best to reach down to the 'source'. I am glad you found it interesting.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 12, 2007)

Kurfürst, the licence production of the G.55 is explicitly mentioned in the biography of Milch. It is clear that Milch was clearly counting on it and it was more than just a possibility. It would have happened had Italy not surrendered. 

Also, the Germans were not interested in the G.55 with a 20mm gun and four MGs but in the G.55/II. That bird had the amazing armament of 5 - that is FIVE - 20 mm guns! Later the motor engine cannon would have been replaced by a MK 108. That would have made an amazing bomber destroyer for 1944.



> It puzzles me otoh why they would need one, if they wanted a heavily armed aircraft with a DB 603... well there`s the FW 190, already in production.


What do you mean, already in production?? 

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 12, 2007)

Kurfust,

My info says that the G55 was armed with 3xMg151/20 + 2x Breda 12,7.

One possibility is that they tested one of the 4-5 pre-production models (so called series zero) that sported 4x12,7mm in the nose + 1x20mm engine mounted.

But in that case, also consider that the first DB605 made in Fiat were restricted to 2600rpm instead of 2800, and the performances were directly impacted by that.

The normal production G55 (about 200 produced, 110 delivered) had 380 rounds for the engine cannon, 200 rounds each for the wing-mounted 20mm and 300 rounds each for the 12,7.

Anyway, even 2 x12,7 extra is a good 30% more firepower vs the 109G6, that also had the 12,7 pasted in a 'band-aid' way requiring the infamous bulges to accomodate the weapons.
Besides, this would be the same armament of the P38, that is generally considered 'extremely potent'.

FW190 with DB603: can you give more detail? I know only the 190C prototype that was discarded for the 190D, and was anyway 1944.

.. sorry, have to run , will be back later


----------



## Glider (Oct 12, 2007)

The prototype G55 had 1 x 20 and 4 x HMG two in the nose and the two in the wing later replaced by 2 x 20 giving the normal load of 3 x 20 and 2 x HMG.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 12, 2007)

Hi Kris,

>Kurfürst, the licence production of the G.55 is explicitly mentioned in the biography of Milch. It is clear that Milch was clearly counting on it and it was more than just a possibility. It would have happened had Italy not surrendered. 

Hm, in any procurement decision involving Messerschmitt aircraft, one has to take into account that Milch was a personal enemy of Messerschmitt.

Obviously, a DB-603-engined Fiat fighter would be a direct competitor to the DB-603-engined Me 209 ...

Here is a timeline I based on Irving's Milch biography (so be cautious about its accuracy):

xx.02.1943 German comparison report is prepared
xx.04.1943 Milch considers Me 209 and Me 410 to be the most important next-generation aircraft
22.05.1943 Galland test-flies a Me 262 prototype and reports to Milch
25.05.1943 Milch decides to cancel the Me 209 in favour of the Me 262, and not to build a new generation of piston-engined fighters at all
02.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims high fuel usage and doubtful altitude performance as disadvantages of the jet fighter
27.06.1943 Messerschmitt repeats comment on jet fighter fuel usage to Hitler
xx.06.1943 Messerschmitt claims Me 209 is 95% production-ready
xx.08.1943 Me 209 cancellation is revoked
07.09.1943 Messerschmitt suggests to Hitler to produce the Me 209 as fighter and the Me 262 as bomber
xx.09.1943 RLM staff and Galland oppose Me 209 after asked for opinion by Milch
27.09.1943 US troops occupy Foggia, Milch regrets that this ends his hopes of building the Fiat G.55
21.11.1943 Me 209 cancelled by Göring.

I wouldn't be surprised if the report on Italian fighters was at least partially motivated by Milch's desire to collect arguments for stopping the Me 209. If he thought it was best to skip the next generation of piston-engined fighters entirely, why his continued interest in the Fiat G.55 as next-generation piston-engined fighter just when he was battling Messerschmitt over Me 209 production?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Oct 14, 2007)

I choose Bf-109F because it was combat proven. That's it.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2007)

Nice summary Henning but you have to admit that it's pure conjecture. I also recall Göring and Galland all approving the licence production of the Italian aircraft. 
Also by your summary the hatred of Milch towards Messerschmitt is not that black and white. Milch does support the Me 262, just not the Me 209. If he really was against the Me 262 he would have gone for the He 280 or Fw 190. Yet there is no mention of this in Irving's biography.

I do agree however that the licence production of the Fiat was not top priority. There are only a very few projects which can have top priority and I can understand why planes like the Me 262 or He 177 would have gotten this instead.
Kris


----------



## HoHun (Oct 15, 2007)

Hi Kris,

>Nice summary Henning but you have to admit that it's pure conjecture. 

If you're dealing with historical accounts, critical assessment of sources is standard operating procedure. Milch was no disinterested observer, and his account would require caution even if it were published by a historian with a better track record than Irving 

>I also recall Göring and Galland all approving the licence production of the Italian aircraft. 

Do you have more details? That might be interesting ...

>Also by your summary the hatred of Milch towards Messerschmitt is not that black and white. Milch does support the Me 262, just not the Me 209. 

Oh, but it still was a battle for the control over Messerschmitt's plants and engineering capacity. Would Messerschmitt get it his way, or would Milch prevail?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Civettone (Oct 15, 2007)

Critical assessment for sure but that's not really what you were doing if I may say so. There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Milch wasn't serious about the 5-series and that it was just to obstruct Messerschmitt. It's conjecture to me.

And my source for Galland, Göring and Milch voting for the licence production comes from that text which has been quoted so many times. And particularly this part: 
_Oberst Petersen defined the G55 "the best fighter in the Axis" and immediately telegraphed his impressions to Goering. After listening the recommendations of Petersen, Milch and Galland, a meeting held by Goering on February 22 voted to produce the G55 in Germany._

And don't forget that Milch actually came to Rechlin to see the tests of the G.55.

Kris


----------



## HoHun (Oct 15, 2007)

Hi Kris,

>Critical assessment for sure but that's not really what you were doing if I may say so. 

I'm afraid critical assessment is exactly what I'm doing. You have to understand that I'm not saying that the G.55 production scheme was a tactical move against Messerschmitt's Me 209 production scheme for certain - I'm just saying the possiblity exists and cannot be ruled out. You have to consider Milch's motivation for a critical assessment, and he certainly was not impartial towards Messerschmitt.

This is not a consideration that leads to a definite conclusion, it's a consideration that warns against drawing conclusions.

>And my source for Galland, Göring and Milch voting for the licence production comes from that text which has been quoted so many times. 

Hm, I have to ask: where did that text come from? (If the source was already posted, I fear I have missed it.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Civettone (Oct 16, 2007)

> I'm not saying that the G.55 production scheme was a tactical move against Messerschmitt's Me 209 production scheme for certain - I'm just saying the possiblity exists and cannot be ruled out.


If you say it like that, then YES, it is indeed a critical assessment. 

It is indeed possible... 
Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 16, 2007)

There seems to be another reason why the LW finally abandoned the idea of producing the G55: the quoted text is taken from:

G55 - Aircraft History


"On 4 August 1944 a test pilot of Aeritalia, using one of the G55's ready to be delivered (MM91156), picked up an Allied spy in the narrow G55 cockpit and escaped beyond the front line. The aircraft (shown in fig. 3) was then captured by the Allied and shipped in England to be used for evaluations. This episode was relevant for the German authorities to decide to stop the Aeritalia production that definitively ended in September 1944."

There is also a picture of a G55 with English roundels, it would be interesting if anybody could confirm this from some other source (for cross-comparison)
Also it would be interesting to find the outcome of this 'evaluation tests' performed in England...


----------



## HoHun (Oct 16, 2007)

Hi Parmigiano,

>There seems to be another reason why the LW finally abandoned the idea of producing the G55:

Hm, if the G.55 would have been produced in Germany, there should have been no special concerns regarding the reliability (or lack thereof) of the factory workers.

>Also it would be interesting to find the outcome of this 'evaluation tests' performed in England...

Very good point - it's probably there, buried in some archive ... fascinating thought!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Oct 16, 2007)

Hi Kris,

>If you say it like that, then YES, it is indeed a critical assessment. 

Glad we reached agreement again 

A friend who is a psychologist once told me that "negative knowledge" - to know what one doesn't know - is one type of information that is difficult to handle intuitively for the human brain.

I think this transfers to the language - there is a clear term for "certainty", but there is none for "confirmed uncertainty" in the sense that we know with certainty that we are missing an important bit of information.

This makes "negative knowledge" difficult to communicate at times :-/

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 17, 2007)

HoHun said:


> Hi Parmigiano,
> 
> >
> Hm, if the G.55 would have been produced in Germany, there should have been no special concerns regarding the reliability (or lack thereof) of the factory workers.
> ...



I think that fear of mass desertion was not the main point: my interpretation is that if I have to develop and deploy a new fighter I also count on a surprise effect. If the enemy already can evaluate this machine even before I can field it in numbers, I lose this advantage and this can influence my decision to invest on the project.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 17, 2007)

But if that G.55 was taken by the allies, you won't be sharing new technology if a second or a third lands. So I doubt they stopped production because they feared the allies might get the upper hand in technology.

I think the real problem of that runaway pilot was that it was bad for fighter production and also shattered morale. These stories would definitely have inspired the other Italian workers.

But I think there's no doubt as to why production was stopped if you look at the date: September 1944. In that month many aircraft were taken out of production due to rationalisation. Italian fighters also fall in that list: it was economically not worth to ship resources to Italy for an insignificantly small fighter production.

Kris


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 17, 2007)

Yes, that's a good point: by sept 44 rationalization called for few types with dispersed production, plus Italy was not the safest place to build aircrafts because of the Partisans and the Allied troops already close to the North.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 17, 2007)

Hi Parmigiano,

>I think that fear of mass desertion was not the main point: my interpretation is that if I have to develop and deploy a new fighter I also count on a surprise effect. If the enemy already can evaluate this machine even before I can field it in numbers, I lose this advantage and this can influence my decision to invest on the project.

Hm, I don't think that was a factor in WW2. The Allies were ware of the long-nose Fw 190 almost two years before it actually went into production, and as far as I can tell, they had no advantage from that at all.

(In fact, tactical evaluation of captured aircraft so often gave misleading results that sometimes, I wonder who actually benefitted more ... the captor or the underestimated enemy 

I'd admit that the psychological impact would be greater if the new type arrives un-announced, though - as it was the case with the first Fw 190s in 1941.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 18, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> Thanks for clearing that about the FW 190.
> 
> The P-47 was big all around.
> 
> And then, after a certain point, they all became lighter. P-47N, P-51H, and Ta-152H were all lighter than P-47D, P-51D, and FW 190D. (How funny, all D's!)



Flying weights for the Ta's were between 650 and 1000 kg higher than for the 190Ds:

Fw-190D-9: 4270 kg
Fw-190D-12: 4430 kg

Ta-152 C-1: 5380 kg
Ta-152 H-1: 5220 kg
Ta-152 E-1: 5085 kg

Same for the P-47s, up to 3200 lbs heavier than the D model:

P-47D-10: 13,230 lbs
P-47D-40: 13,730 lbs

P-47N: 15,790 lbs
P-47N-5-RE: 16,400 lbs


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

A bit surprised to see the 152H and E weighing so much less than the C. The H had a bigger wing. The DB 603 didn't weigh much more than the Jumo 213E IIRC. And the 152E-1 also had the wing of the 152C. It also carried less armament but also the photocamera equipment weight quite a bit. So to see 300 kg difference between the C and E is beyond me...

Kris


----------

