Reggiana 2005 Vs. Bf 109F

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

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]

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]

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

[Glider]

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?]

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]

.

[ccheese]

Originally Posted by Thorlifter

Technically they are close, but the 109 was proven

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

Charles

[Parmigiano]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

.

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?]

although probably less pleasant to fly.

Why is that, just wondering?

[Parmigiano]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

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?]

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]

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?]

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!)