RE 2005

davebender · Jun 13, 2012

The Re.2005 and P-47 were both expensive to produce. What made Republic designed airframes more expensive then contemporary aircraft such as the P-51 and Fw-190?

Shortround6 · Jun 13, 2012

"The designers at Reggiane took the airframe of a P-43"

That would be a little tough. The P-43 didn't fly until about year after the Reggiane 2000. They may have had a good look at a P-35 airframe though.

The cost may be because the the Republic aircraft used more pieces. Part of it is simply weight. Part of it ( for the Italians) is the lack of proper mass production tooling ( few jigs and fixtures and more hand work). Total fly away cost of the P-47 includes the P&W R-2800, the turbo, all the ducting, the fancy landing gear and the guns. Eight guns cost twice as much as 4 and 33% more than 6. And you need the firing solenoids, ammo boxes, gun mounts, gun heaters. etc.

Part of it may be basic design features. For the P-47 see: Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt

GregP · Jun 13, 2012

The wings ina P-47 are machined items. The spars and spar caps are amchined.

In a P-51, there is a flat Aluminum plate and four 90°-bent Aluminum plates riveted to it as spar caps to form an I-beam ... a LOT cheaper to make. other such examples exist and the P-51 WAS muach easier to make.

Dcazz7606 · Jun 13, 2012

Sorry, brain f*rt P-35 (Swedish EP1's). I seems after the USA sequestered all export fighters the Swedes gave the italians an EP1 to copy and improve and bought the same amount of Re.2000's to make up for the EP1's seized by the USA. Good catch!

Shortround6 said:
"The designers at Reggiane took the airframe of a P-43"

That would be a little tough. The P-43 didn't fly until about year after the Reggiane 2000. They may have had a good look at a P-35 airframe though.

The cost may be because the the Republic aircraft used more pieces. Part of it is simply weight. Part of it ( for the Italians) is the lack of proper mass production tooling ( few jigs and fixtures and more hand work). Total fly away cost of the P-47 includes the P&W R-2800, the turbo, all the ducting, the fancy landing gear and the guns. Eight guns cost twice as much as 4 and 33% more than 6. And you need the firing solenoids, ammo boxes, gun mounts, gun heaters. etc.

Part of it may be basic design features. For the P-47 see: Design Analysis of the P-47 Thunderbolt

Shortround6 · Jun 14, 2012

Dcazz7606 said:
Sorry, brain f*rt P-35 (Swedish EP1's). I seems after the USA sequestered all export fighters the Swedes gave the italians an EP1 to copy and improve and bought the same amount of Re.2000's to make up for the EP1's seized by the USA. Good catch!

that story seems a little strange too. According to "wiki" (correction requested)the Re.2000 first flew 24 May 1939, which means design work started in in 1937 or 38. Two years of more before the the Swedish planes were embargoed.

Seversky had sent several 2 seat demonstrator aircraft to Europe during the late 30s and the basic P-35 design first flew 15 August 1935 and even that was based off some earlier designs so the Italians certainly had plenty of chances to see a Seversky during the time in question but the Swedish planes had nothing to do with it.

Timppa · Jun 14, 2012

GregP said:
The P-47 was a flying brick? Maybe not.

The P-47N was the fastest fighter in mass production anywhere and could not be caught except maybe by prototypes and the P-47M. Everything else was slower..

Ya' think?

Wouldn't you think the Me262 was at least a little faster ?
Even considering prop planes, the Tempest and the La-7 were faster below 10,000 ft, and the P-51 with "purple peril" below 20,000 ft.

RE 2005

More options

davebender

1st Lieutenant

Shortround6

Major General

GregP

Major

Dcazz7606

Airman

Shortround6

Major General

Timppa

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads