Reggiane RE-2007 - What if?

[Twitch]

The problem with neophytes and armchair engineers deciding what performance is or is not possible ascribed to blueprints done by experienced aero designers is worthless. As we all know the process of ANY aircraft reaching combat flight status from an initial design concept is a multi-faceted one. Every plane design is reworked and improved before metal is cut. Flight testing then brings out other modifications desired and prototypes evolve accordingly.

For anyone on forums like these to decide whether a design concept is valid simply is wrong and flawed as the final product will be different. And to pass judgement on preliminary designs from aero engineers with sucessful, proven in combat aircraft experience is sheer folly. We must be aware that basic design concepts and air ministry requirements from any country do not reflect final products.

[Dogwalker]

Originally Posted by Twitch

We must be aware that basic design concepts and air ministry requirements from any country do not reflect final products.

That's sure and, surely, Re.2007 (if existant) could be a great aircraft even reaching "only" 900 or 950 km/h instead 1050, or weighting 3000 kg instead 2500. A lot of good aircrafts gained some weight passing from the paper to the production, or achieved prestations that are not the expected ones.

[red admiral]

Power = Force * Velocity

Drag ~ constant * Velocity^2

Force = mass * acceleration

At maximum speed there is acceleration so sum of forces = 0

Total Force = 0

(Power / Velocity) - (Constant * Velocity^2) = 0

Power / Velocity = Constant * Velocity^2

Power = Constant * Velocity^3

Power^1/3 * Constant, k = Velocity

The constant value, k varies from aircraft to aircraft and is a measure of how aerodynamic the airframe is.

Me 262, 870kph with 2x900kg 004B engines
k = 870 / 1800^1/3 = 71.5
He 162, 890kph with 1x910kg BMW engine
k = 890 / 910^1/3 = 91.8
For 1050kph with the Re 2007 with 1x004B engine
k = 1050 / 900^1/3 = 108.8

Its not that unreasonable considering the similar size to He162, the incorporation of the engine inside the fuselage and the swept wing. Now if only they'd use the afterburner from the CC.2....

[delcyros]

That´s it. I think, despite some arguable points we do all agree that the RE 2007
cannot be a twin engined jet because of weight considerations. A single engined RE 2007 could fit the weights well. It´s performance do remain unknown but the figures are suspicious because of several reasons. Things are not that easy (the rapid drag increase at Mach 0.75 and higher is a serious problem) but the drag difference between Me-262 and He-162 (the latter beeing a lighter but otherwise comparable plane to the RE 2007) is 20.3 according to Red Admiral, while the diference between He-162 and RE 2007 is 17. Such an improvement is suspicious, both planes are ultralightweighted (weight does also play a role, a lightly loaden plane is faster than with heavier loadings), the RE 2007 beeing heavier by 20%! Swept wing may cause a significant drag reduction but do more have an effect on critical Mach numbers (they do not delete drag, they do only shift drag to another speed region). The He-162 already has a very high critical Mach number (thanks to it´s thin airfoils), we don´t know much about the crit Mach figure of the RE 2007. But what else is important for a fighterplane?
Beside of speed it is thrust to weight ratio.
With a single Jumo 004B the RE 2007 as proposed will have a ratio of 0.25. That´s significant lower than any ww2 fighter jets:

Me-262: 0.275
P-80: 0.28
Meteor MK III: 0.28
He-162: 0.3
Bell P 59: 0.44 (with 2 x GE Ia)

Acceleration, climb, take off distance would suffer.
(Only the Ar-234B fully loaden with bombs has a lower thrust to weight ratio)

[delcyros]

The problem I see with the drag figures posted are the altitudes. I again checked my books for this. The performance of the Jumo drops in altitude, 890 Kp thrust are at sea level only. The drag also is dependend on air density and Mach fraction. Both are neglected.

I found only one plane to have similar layout, weights and thrust ratios: It never flew. The BV P 211.01 project was a proposal for the Volksjäger competition which in the end was won by the He-162. For a number of weeks the BV P 211.01 was acknowledged as the better plane but it lost in the end.
A comparison with the RE 2007 is enlighting:

Both planes weight around 3.500 Kg
Both planes are driven by a single, low performance jet engine (BMW 003 or Jumo-004)
Both planes have a swept back, low wing configuration.
The BV P 211.01 is 32Kg lighter, has a 90 Kp inferior engine, has 750 Kg fuel and a 30 degrees swept back wing (armament 2 x 30mm MK 10.
Both planes have a long air intake (which results in 6-8% thrust loss according to tests with Jumo-004 B and Me-262 with intake pipes) but only the RE 2007 also has a long exhaust pipe (resulting in additional 5-7% loss in thrust). Odds are that both planes would fare comparably, how is the claculated speed for the BV P 211.01?
Can tell You: 860 Km/h @ 8.000 m. (~540 mp/h). Wind tunnel tests proved that the swept back wing did not made a big difference with the single Jumo-004B powerplant. I cannot imagine how the RE 2007 could reach 600 mp/h. 550 +-15 mp/h is more plausible, 600 mp/h might be achievable with a 1.200 Kp Jumo 004 E powerplant.

[DAVIDICUS]

Civettone, I think you may be right. A myth.

[Civettone]

I love Italian WW2 aircraft and especially appreciate the Reggiane 200* family.

But the Re 2007 story can be put together with the Ju 390 mission to the US or the 16 Hellcats shot down by a Japanese Ki-100. Great stories that catch and feed our imagination...

One element from the link I quoted stands out: The drawings and technical description were done after the war. The technical description, dated January 7th 1944, is written on Reggiane official paper but it’s the type of paper used by Reggiane in the post war years. The drawings were done by Mr. Cometti and, as stated by Mr. Cometti himself, they have done immediately after the end of the war in Europe (May 45).

In any case, it's one thing to draw a jet fighter, it's another thing to actually develop and build one. Longhi didn't have the know-how nor the resources to continue with the Re 2007. Especially the given performance stats (speed, range) combined with the heavy armament and the unnecessary swept-back wing make it clear that Longhi didn't have sufficient knowledge of jet aircraft technology.


Final considerations
1st. If built the RE 2007 could be considered the best jet fighter not only of WWII but also of the late 40s and good enough in the early 50s.
2nd. Having a quick look to the know cross section it’s easy to understand that it was impossible to use a RE 2006 frame in order to build the RE 2007. The wing is different, due to the arrowed and sweeped profile, and the fuselage is designed to fit a turbojet engine, quite different from a piston engine. So the opinion that the 2006 second prototype frame was used for the 2007 prototype is a fable written by someone for sure not expert of aeronautical things.
3rd. Com. De Prato says a quite interesting thing about the non existence of RE 2007. In the relatively little Reggiane environment it would been have impossible to hide such an important project and no designer or technician or test pilot remember anything about that. For sure we can exclude that such an operation could be done just by Ing. Longhi all alone.
Kris

[bigZ]

From what I have read the Re 2007 was a post war myth that was published in some magazine. If I can remember whereiread this I will copy the the quote and list source.

[Parmigiano]

Well, this may put another seal on the topic.

The site is dedicated to Reggiane, and for those who does not understand a word of Italian the summary is: there is NO minimal evidence that something like the RE2007 ever existed, as a prototype or project.

The whole topic is an after-war myth

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...69/RE2007.html