Reggiane Re 2000

[Smokey]

This is a really interesting aircraft. According to this website:

http://histaviation.com/Reggiane_Re_2000.html

At Guidonia the Re.2000 was evaluated by Colonels Tondi and Quarantotti, and displayed remarkable manoeuvrability. Indeed, its powers of manoeuvre were even superior to those of the Fiat CR.42 biplane against which it flew in a series of mock dogfights. Later, it was to be flown in mock combat against the Messerschmitt Bf 109 at Guidonia, and to emerge the victor when flown by both Italian and German pilots.

and

December 1939 also saw the arrival of a British Mission in Italy led by Lord Hardwick, the purpose of which was to purchase arms and particularly aircraft. Wing Commander H N Thornton, representing the Air Ministry, visited several of the Caproni factories, including the "Reggiane" works at Reggio Emilia. Negotiations were initiated for the purchase of Isotta Franschini marine engines, a thousand 20-mm cannon, 300 Ca313 light reconnaissance bombers, 100 Ca.311 trainers, and 300 Re.2000 fighters! On December 22nd, pilots Gray and Barnet accompanying the British Mission flight tested the Re.2000, and a month later, on January 26, 1940, the Director of Aircraft Contracts confirmed the British order for the "Reggiane" fighters. Surprisingly, on March 8, 1940, the German government signified its approval to the Italian government of the sale of Italian aircraft to Britain, but within a few weeks, on April 6th, this approval was withdrawn. Nevertheless, on May 15th Count Caproni and Lord Hardwick finalised a scheme whereby the aircraft would be sold to Britain by Portugal, the Caproni group having a Portuguese subsidiary, the Soc Aeroportuguesa. However, on June 10, 1940, Italy entered the war on Germany's side, and thus the devious schemes prepared to evade the German embargo on the sale of Italian aircraft to Britain came to nought.

Imagine the Re2000 with a Bristol Hercules engine

Allegedly the Reggiane Re 2000 was based on the Seversky P-35

Roberto Longhi, the chief engineer of the Italian firm Caproni-Reggiane created the Reggiane 2000 from the drawings of the P-35, with an improvement of its aerodynamic properties.

http://aerostories.free.fr/severskyP35/page10.html



http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Jakt/111J20.htm



Another member of this family is the PZL P 50 " Jarstrzab " (Hawk)

[Twitch]

Oooo nice pictures!!

[Dogwalker]

It was, by far, the best of the machines showed at the 1939 trials to choose the new monoplane italian fighter (since the SS4 never arrived to the trials). The first in 8 of 13 considered parametres, and the second in three.
According to the Evaluation Commission, it was even the best fitted for an industrial production
It's exclusion, officially caused by the fuel tank in the wings, judged insecure by the RA tecnicians, was due largerly to political reasons (being both Longhi and Count Caproni known as anti-fascists), infact Longhi's proposal to substitue it with a convenctional tank (that was subsequently used in Re-2001 and Re-2002 without problems), was ignored.

[cheddar cheese]

Yep, It was also liable to suffer from some minor structural problems I believe...

[Dogwalker]

I don't believe it.
It was subsequently fitted to be launched from a catapult, and the derived Re-2001 and 2002 were used as dive-bombers, with a 650 Kg bomb, without problems. Surely the C-200 was a more rugged machine, but the Re-2000 was not weak.
The foreign utilizers never reported structural failures.
It's only real fault was the adoption of the P XI engine. I never understood the motivation of this decision, since the Fiat A80, for example, had similar charateriscs and was more reliable (really, in 1939 was disposable even the outstanding Alfa Romeo 135 RC32, but clearly the aircraft was projected for the engines disposable at the time of the project, not at the time of the first flight).

[cheddar cheese]

Ahh interesting, must be another one of those myths thats come about and circulated..

[SM79Sparviero]

It's only real fault was the adoption of the P XI engine. I never understood the motivation of this decision, since the Fiat A80, for example, had similar charateriscs and was more reliable

It was not similar it was much heavier, with 18 cylinders Vs 14 cylinders of Piaggio PXI.The former engine didn't have the best power/weight ratio for a fighter without a turbocharger .
Alfa-Romeo 135 (=double Bristol Mercury) was not reliable in 1940 yet.

If you look for a good fighter-bomber with the Fiat A-80 18 Cyl engine you should remember Aeronautica Umbra AUT-18 , a strong assault aircraft which could do the same work as Breda Ba-65 with a maximum speeed of 480 km/h but it was rejected at the public competition.
Breda factories didn't have a good experience about aircrafts, they had built only hand grenades , machine guns light mortars, flamethrowers etc but they won the public competition.Wasn't it slight that Savoia family was one of the main owners of Breda factories?!

The problem is not an ideal anti-fascism.I don't really remember if engineer Longhi or count Caproni were anti-fascist but I think that this dilemma is futile:
Reggiane or Caproni factories could not pay as FIAT could, after the support of Agnelli family to the rising of Fascism ( neither the small Aeronautica Umbra could) , and Macchi and engineer Castoldi HAD to get some thanks for their work in Schneider throphy and the consequent propaganda gain for the fascist gouvernment.

Murphy's first law: "anything they are speaking about they are speaking about money"

[Dogwalker]

Originally Posted by SM79Sparviero

It was not similar it was much heavier, with 18 cylinders Vs 14 cylinders of Piaggio PXI.The former engine didn't have the best power/weight ratio for a fighter without a turbocharger.

70 Kg (a 10%) heavyer, with the same frontal area and a similar output (Piaggio P.XI having 1100 Cv only on the paper).

Originally Posted by SM79Sparviero

Reggiane or Caproni factories could not pay as FIAT could, after the support of Agnelli family to the rising of Fascism ( neither the small Aeronautica Umbra could) , and Macchi and engineer Castoldi HAD to get some thanks for their work in Schneider throphy and the consequent propaganda gain for the fascist gouvernment.

Murphy's first law: "anything they are speaking about they are speaking about money"

I don't know how much the name of Castoldi could have been important, certanly the name of Agnelli was, but Caproni and AUT were certanly not in the same situation.
Caproni, at that time, was the owner of a middle of the italian aeronautic industry, even bigger than the Macchi firm, and had his part of propaganda award to show (the still unbeaten ceiling record of Ca-161b)
However, Breda factory built the great part of C-202.

[Magister]

Dogwalker:

What is your opinion on the overall performance abilities of the Mc-205 vs the Me-109's and Fw-190's of early 1943?

[Dogwalker]

In my opinion the C-205 was somewhat similar to Spitfire IX, an intermediate emergency version that tend to be definitive.
A comparison could be done between Bf-109G (later versions) and C-205, since several italian pilots flew both.
According to them, the C-205 was better fitted for low and medium altitude interceptions. Below about 23000 ft it had a better handling, especially at high speed, a more "round" beavoiur, and was a god climber and a great diver.
Due to the high wingload however (higher than that of Bf-109G) it's handling decrease rapidly above 23.000 ft, so, for high altitude interceptions, the preference go to the Bf-109, that had even a 4000 ft higher ceiling.
Additional advantages of Bf-109G were the higher firepower and the water injection, Additional advantages of C-205 were the strong wide undercarriage, the ruggedness of the wings, a better rear visibility and a greater range. The Bf-109 was probably easier to repair.

For a Minister of Armaments the Bf-109 was surely preferable, since it was far easier to produce. For a pilot, it depends of the mission. My impression is that C-205 could provide a better survivability to the pilot.

Comparisons with the Fw-190 were far more difficult, since nobody flew both.

[merlin]

A thought to ponder - if the RAF had bought the Re 2000, it wouldn't have needed to go to the US (dates match) to order more P-40's from North American. Hence no P-51 as Northern American said, to the RAF, that we will design and build you a better fighter than the P-40!
Any comments?

[Jank]

With pilots of equal skill, which was the better air superiority fighter, the Curtiss P-40 or Macchi Mc-202?

[merlin]

What's the question about P40 v Mc202 got to do with the Re 2000? Not a lot - can we get back on the subject please!

[Tony Williams]

The Hungarian-built Hejja II (Re 2000 built under licence) was really interesting to armament historians because it was the only plane fitted with the 12.7mm Gebauer twin-barrel engine-driven gun (a 7.9mm version was fitted to Hungarian CR.32 planes).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Gatt]

Dogwalker,

the 190A5, the 109G-4, the C205V, the C205N, the G.55 and the Re2005 were all combat tested during february 1943 at Guidonia airfield by RA and Luftwaffe test pilots. I have a copy of the german original report, from Rechlin.

The best of the italian fighters was the G.55 but not as good as the 190A-5 in combat. However, remember that all italian fighters were tested at no more than 2.600rpm and 1.3ATA manifold pressure (and not at 2.800 and 1.42ATA), while the 190A-5's BMW801 engine was used at maximum allowed settings.

As far as the 205V is concerned I agree with you, below 20K it should have been better than the early Spitfire IX, but only if used with Hit & Run tactics.
However, it was probably easy meat for the late 1943 Spitfire IX with clipped wings, optimized for medium-low alt fighting. The Series III 205's firepower was enuff both for dogfights and buff hunting. And his 20mm ammo load was huge.

But as we know, 1vs1 fights are theoretical, good for flight sims (I enjoy them!). What matter in RL are numbers, organization, team tactics, radio coms and range.

<S!>