Reggiane's Re.2005: The Archer

[Sagittario64]

hey everyone. im new here as you will figure out. i have an extremely intense passion(some say obsession) with technology of world war two, none more so than aircraft. My favorite WWII fighter is as you may have guessed it, the Reggiane Re.2005. Its a beautiful airplane, but i think it didnt get a good enough chance to prove how good it might have been. I know the 2005 faced P-40s, spitfires, and some early P-51s. but what im wondering is, how advanced could it be in 1944-45? when the p-51D came out, how would the 2005 fare against it? basically what im asking is, what would its combat history look like if Italy hadnt surrendered and had not replaced the 2005 with the DB603 powered Re.2006? would it still be as competitive with allied types in late 1944-early 1945 as it was in mid 1943? i know fictional matchups arent exactly writing history, but for me it would be nice to know if this beautiful machine could fight as good as it looked

 

[Thorlifter]

Welcome to the forum. I think the Re.2005 had every chance in the world of being a 1st class fighter. It had a great rate of climb, very good fire power with 3 20mm cannons and 2 12.7mg. The only draw back was a weak tail section which limited high speed maneuvers.

 

[Sagittario64]

Yeah i read in more than one place that its tail had a tendency to break off if it exceeded its maximum reasonable speed. But, in simple terms, a plane that can fly so fast that it can tear itself apart. whoo thats kinda awesome. The 605 was perfect for this airplane. I also read that the 2005 pilots were kind of aggressive with their tactics. i read that they would run head on at an allied bomber, firing all their guns. at the last moment theyd dive away.

 

[Thorlifter]

What is more awesome is a plane that can exceed maximum reasonable speed and the tail doesn't fall off.

 

[Sagittario64]

of course. i heard that a test flight of the 2005 included the pilot flying somewhere in the 900km/hr (or some other really fast speed) range and landing his plane intact

 

[rank amateur]

Yeah i read in more than one place that its tail had a tendency to break off if it exceeded its maximum reasonable speed. But, in simple terms, a plane that can fly so fast that it can tear itself apart. whoo thats kinda awesome. The 605 was perfect for this airplane. I also read that the 2005 pilots were kind of aggressive with their tactics. i read that they would run head on at an allied bomber, firing all their guns. at the last moment theyd dive away.

If I'm not mistaken the typhoon too had problems with its tail. Those were resolved. I don't see why the Reggiane company couldn't have done the same thing if they would have had the time and the resources

 

[Sagittario64]

If im not mistaken, the fact the italians managed to produce even 48 of them in the first place is astounding. i heard that the R&D for the regia aeronautica was short-sighted, underfunded, and not at all at the scale of the luftwaffe or the united states air forces. all ive heard about the wwii italian aircraft industry was that it was a god-awful mess compared to the german ruhr production centers and distribution systems. It is my firm belief that if as many re.2005s were produced as C.202s, the italians could (with better training too) have shredded allied air power during the invasion of sicily and italy, and the germans would have likely employed it in their own defense. Its a formidable bomber killer for this aspect: while the Bf.109Gs can boast 3 20mm cannons, they have to take on bulky armour and weapons to fit the bomber destroyer role. the re.2005 was designed around the DB 605 and the MG 151/20, so its performance is literally uninhibited by having three cannons, and if for some strange reason 20mm cannon packs were added under the wings in a 109 fashion, it could boast 5 20mm cannons, and i doubt that its performance would degrade to the degree that the 109's did

 

[tomo pauk]

Could you please provide some good info (ohter than 'I've heard') about Re-2005 with 5 cannons total?
Also, some good data comparing the performance of 3-cannon 109 vs. 3-cannon Re.2005?
You do know that MC.202 and Re.2005 were using different engines?

 

[Thorlifter]

I believe the MC.202 used a license built DB 601 and the RE.2005 used a license built DB 605, but Sagittario probably knows more about it than I do. If that is the case, The DB 605 had about 300 more HP, and while the 2005 weighed over 1,000 pounds more than the MC.202, it was still 40-50 mph faster. I have no idea about the cannon/mg setup or how it affected performance.

 

[Sagittario64]

The Reggiane 2005 was designed right from the get-go around the DB 605, even though it looks like the reggiane 2001. italian designers poured all their knowledge into this airplane, perfecting the wings, fuselage, tail, everything. and since the italian pilots were complaining about the poor armament issues, the 2005 designers, unlike what happened with the g.55(which originally had 1 20mm and 4 12.7mm), added the effects of very heavy weaponry into the fighter design. granted the bf 109 already had a cannon in the wings in the e model, but in the f model those were deleted in favor of a 1 cannon 2 machine guns layout. the 20mm cannon packs for the field kits solved this problem outwardly, but the increased drag and strain on the wings affected performance adversely, and the 3 cannon uparmoured 109s were generally seen as fodder for the p-51s if flown by non-expert pilots. the reggianes wing was designed with 20mm cannons already in the wings, or were designed well enough with provisions for them in mind. there was never a 5 cannon re.2005, i was just speculating on the firepower if the italians had done such a thing as to add 20mm cannon packs, like they did on some re.2001s. armament wise, the G/R 109s were slightly better than the re,2005s because although the cannons were the same exact thing, their MG 131s were better than the Breda SAFATs in the reggiane 2005. plus, there are accounts of re.2005s being able to easily maneuver with their best allied opponents, likely including the p-51s that might have been seen here and there in the 2005's zone of operations. the bottom line is, the re.2005 was designed like a high speed race car(with very good aerodynamics), but equally as a potent fighter with very heavy armament for its time and country of origin. im not overstating the re.2005 intentionally, im saying that it had much more potential than it was allowed during its limited career.

 

[tomo pauk]

Re.2001 was featuring a backward-retracting UC, so there were no problems to add gun gondolas - not the case for Re.2005, since it featured the widely-spread UC (not narrow, like Bf-109) that was retracting outwards. That layout was ill suited for for added gondolas, but Re.2005 didn't really needed it.
Re.2005 was able to do 630 km/h (yes, I do not believe in 680 km/h figure) - the 3-cannon Bf-109G is about there, if not better.
There is no point to speak bad about the armament of the G.55 - it was 3 x 20mm for all WW2 examples that saw action in the war. Plus a couple of HMGs - as good as Re.2005.
As for outmaneuvering the P-51, many planes were able to do that, yet that was about the only thing they could do better once in the air.
As for Re.2005 being designed as a high speed race car, that does not singles it out away from any fighter.

 

[Sagittario64]

You are right tomo about all that. I tend to put the re.2005 on a pedestal because i have such a liking to it. "desires cloud rational thoughts and logic", i believe someone once said

 

[krieghund]

The Reggiane 2005 was designed right from the get-go around the DB 605, even though it looks like the reggiane 2001. italian designers poured all their knowledge into this airplane, perfecting the wings, fuselage, tail, everything. and since the italian pilots were complaining about the poor armament issues, the 2005 designers, unlike what happened with the g.55(which originally had 1 20mm and 4 12.7mm), added the effects of very heavy weaponry into the fighter design. granted the bf 109 already had a cannon in the wings in the e model, but in the f model those were deleted in favor of a 1 cannon 2 machine guns layout. the 20mm cannon packs for the field kits solved this problem outwardly, but the increased drag and strain on the wings affected performance adversely, and the 3 cannon uparmoured 109s were generally seen as fodder for the p-51s if flown by non-expert pilots. the reggianes wing was designed with 20mm cannons already in the wings, or were designed well enough with provisions for them in mind. there was never a 5 cannon re.2005, i was just speculating on the firepower if the italians had done such a thing as to add 20mm cannon packs, like they did on some re.2001s. armament wise, the G/R 109s were slightly better than the re,2005s because although the cannons were the same exact thing, their MG 131s were better than the Breda SAFATs in the reggiane 2005. plus, there are accounts of re.2005s being able to easily maneuver with their best allied opponents, likely including the p-51s that might have been seen here and there in the 2005's zone of operations. the bottom line is, the re.2005 was designed like a high speed race car(with very good aerodynamics), but equally as a potent fighter with very heavy armament for its time and country of origin. im not overstating the re.2005 intentionally, im saying that it had much more potential than it was allowed during its limited career.

Hello, I think you'll find this link interesting about the German test comparison between the MC205, G55 and Re2005 against a FW190 and BF109G: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fiat-g-56-a-30628-2.html

 

[jim]

Re.2001 was featuring a backward-retracting UC, so there were no problems to add gun gondolas - not the case for Re.2005, since it featured the widely-spread UC (not narrow, like Bf-109) that was retracting outwards. That layout was ill suited for for added gondolas, but Re.2005 didn't really needed it.
Re.2005 was able to do 630 km/h (yes, I do not believe in 680 km/h figure) - the 3-cannon Bf-109G is about there, if not better.
There is no point to speak bad about the armament of the G.55 - it was 3 x 20mm for all WW2 examples that saw action in the war. Plus a couple of HMGs - as good as Re.2005.
As for outmaneuvering the P-51, many planes were able to do that, yet that was about the only thing they could do better once in the air.
As for Re.2005 being designed as a high speed race car, that does not singles it out away from any fighter.

Mr Tomo Pauk
630km/h was the speed of Fiat G55. How you explain Re 2005 have the same speed with the bigger and heavier Fiat on the same engine (1300hp)?
All accounts report the re2005 as the fastest of the series 5 fighters

Mr Saggitario64
Do you have information about re 2005 wing profile? It is claimed that its wing was especially efficient . Any book reference? ( besides italian books, i dont speak the language)
Re 2005 and 2006 are for me too , my latest fighter of preference from ww2 !

 

[Sagittario64]

wiki says:
"The sophisticated wing design, often described as elliptical, was actually semi-elliptical, with wing thickness tapering from 15% at the root to 8% at the tip. The structure of the three spars incorporated a "T" section. The triangular-shaped wing and tail control surfaces were mostly fabric-covered, and included all-metal two-part split flaps, and statically balanced ailerons. Fuel was carried in four self-sealing wing tanks, two forward and two behind, providing a capacity of 525 litres. The undercarriage included "wide-stance" main gear retracting outwards into the wings, and a fully retractable tail wheel. The Re.2005 was the only Italian aircraft of the war to have hydraulically activated flaps."

 

[tomo pauk]

Mr Tomo Pauk
630km/h was the speed of Fiat G55. How you explain Re 2005 have the same speed with the bigger and heavier Fiat on the same engine (1300hp)?
All accounts report the re2005 as the fastest of the series 5 fighters

Indeed, it was faster than G.55, but was it fastest? MC.205 has far less wing area (25% less?).
Anyway, it's all within 15 km/h, but far away from a 680 km/h figure from Wiki entry about Re.2005 - it took Germans to install a 1800 HP engine to propel their 109Gs to that speed.

 

[krieghund]

Here's some specifications from a different source. Notice that minimum speed is given.

 

[Sagittario64]

thats quite interesting. i guess speeds are the most uncertain topic of wwii aviation, because whenever you think you know it, some other source says otherwise

 

[Elmas]

First hand writings from the test Pilot.........but In Italian of course.......

RE 2005 - Sagittario

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks, Elmas