vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I agree Kris, especially the Re.2005
Italian Aircraft of WWII
- Thread starter Ghostdancer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
good stuff
Kris
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
great stuff!
Kris
Kris
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
Those 109 comparisons are interesting.
I still hold my reservations about the 109 responsiveness because of the commonalities found in every account or description, even those posted here. I wouldn't hinge my views on one pilot's thoughts but rather several sources including the tactics used by the aircraft in combat and defensive tactics used to avoid attacks by the aircraft in question. Sometimes those can be more telling than what pilots have to say.
In all likelihood, a trained pilot learned to avoid scenarios that would challenge his limits in the cockpit.
That is to say that a trained pilot isn't likely to use his plane or put himself in a situation where he would not be able to control his aircraft, or allow him to maneuver to a better position.
You don't hop in a 109 and fly it like a P-51, or vice verse. Every plane has its strengths and weaknesses.
You might also look at the Ki-61 seeing as it was based on the 109, and what the Japanese had to do to it so it was a better fit for their needs.
In some reading i've also found that many Italian fighters out performed their contemporary 109 counterparts, at least in speed and in some cases climb, however those factors are not the only considerations for a combat ready aircraft.
Example: the Re-2000 was shown to outperform the Emil however was determined unfit for combat because of lack of self sealing tanks.
I still hold my reservations about the 109 responsiveness because of the commonalities found in every account or description, even those posted here. I wouldn't hinge my views on one pilot's thoughts but rather several sources including the tactics used by the aircraft in combat and defensive tactics used to avoid attacks by the aircraft in question. Sometimes those can be more telling than what pilots have to say.
In all likelihood, a trained pilot learned to avoid scenarios that would challenge his limits in the cockpit.
That is to say that a trained pilot isn't likely to use his plane or put himself in a situation where he would not be able to control his aircraft, or allow him to maneuver to a better position.
You don't hop in a 109 and fly it like a P-51, or vice verse. Every plane has its strengths and weaknesses.
You might also look at the Ki-61 seeing as it was based on the 109, and what the Japanese had to do to it so it was a better fit for their needs.
In some reading i've also found that many Italian fighters out performed their contemporary 109 counterparts, at least in speed and in some cases climb, however those factors are not the only considerations for a combat ready aircraft.
Example: the Re-2000 was shown to outperform the Emil however was determined unfit for combat because of lack of self sealing tanks.
the Re-2000 was a good deal slower than the Emil so not sure what you mean there. Fairly sure ti turned much better.
Does anyone have chart data on the Re.2005 by chance? I've looked everywhere and haven't seen anything like the previously posted g.55 and g.56 data. I have some similar charts for the mc.202 as well somewhere I can post. I'll try to remember tomorrow, iirc its from a wright field test of a captured mc.202.
Does anyone have chart data on the Re.2005 by chance? I've looked everywhere and haven't seen anything like the previously posted g.55 and g.56 data. I have some similar charts for the mc.202 as well somewhere I can post. I'll try to remember tomorrow, iirc its from a wright field test of a captured mc.202.
I believe you will find the Ki-61 was based solely on the He-100 from the export models sent to them fortunately the manufacturing capability was sunk in route ...they even made an experimental model Ki-61 with the evaporate cooling system of the He100 to test it for the Ki-64.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I remember having discussions about this before. What does "based on the He 100" mean? Clearly it was not a copy. A source of inspiration? Well yeah, but so was the Bf 109.
But when you are saying that the manufacturing capability was sunk what does that mean? That the He 100 was supposed to be licence produced but the ship with jigs and tools were sunk? But the Japs did have a complete He 100, why start with a new design even if you lose this capability??
There is some info to be found on the Re.2005 but it is very difficult to interpret. Which version? Which engine and prop? Italian or German tests? Which altitude? Very confusing. For instance, one often comes across the maximum speed of 678 kmh which was attained by diving at altitude and leveling out.
Max speed to me is 644 kmh at optimum altitude, which is 6500 m.
Also interesting is that the Re.2005 carried all its fuel in its wings, in integral fuel tanks. There were plans to expand these fuel tanks to the outer wings which would have given the Re.2005 an impressive range.
As to the Re.2000, it was definitely not faster than the Bf 109. There are many stories of 1939-1940 fighters being more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109. This is definitely true but it's also the reason why the Bf 109 was better than all of them: if you want a manoeuvrable fighter, stick with a biplane and see how much your loopings and turns which help you against a power fighter you can't touch.
Also the Re.2000 had an unreliable engine. Pity those Swedes and Hungarians who had to fight with them.
Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Look no further than this very forum: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/maximum-speed-reggiane-2005-a-3267.html
In fact, I had forgotten that I got my info from here as well. Too bad people like Dogwalker didnt continue that discussion furrther. A lot of questions remain!
Kris
In fact, I had forgotten that I got my info from here as well. Too bad people like Dogwalker didnt continue that discussion furrther. A lot of questions remain!
Kris
First: three He100 were delivered to Japan if one compares the line drawings and construction techniques you will discover many similarities with the He100 not the Bf-109
Second: Heinkel had long association with technology transfers to Japan long before the war started
Third: The U-boat and surface ships carrying the jigs, engineering data and specialized tooling for the production of the He100 and He-119 were sunk en-route to Japan
At present I am on temp duty in the middle of the sand box with an acceptance team accepting the next two Avionics Modernized C130s. There are now four C130s with the most advanced glass cockpit in the world (better than the C130 AMP or the current C130J) (See CMC Electronics "Cockpit 9000")
When I get back to the compound I will provide copies of source data.
I will also start a new post
Second: Heinkel had long association with technology transfers to Japan long before the war started
Third: The U-boat and surface ships carrying the jigs, engineering data and specialized tooling for the production of the He100 and He-119 were sunk en-route to Japan
At present I am on temp duty in the middle of the sand box with an acceptance team accepting the next two Avionics Modernized C130s. There are now four C130s with the most advanced glass cockpit in the world (better than the C130 AMP or the current C130J) (See CMC Electronics "Cockpit 9000")
When I get back to the compound I will provide copies of source data.
I will also start a new post
Last edited:
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Looking forward to it. I would also like to see a nice comparison between Ki-61 and He 100. I have looked at the plans before and saw nothing but differences. Especially one has to consider the Ki-60 as well. The Ki-60 and Ki-61 were very similar, except for in size. I don't see how the He 100 would have been the source for the Ki-61 but not for the Ki-60. And there is clearly no line between the Ki-60 and the He 100: http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/japan/kawasaki_ki-60.gif
I know that the chief designer of Kawasaki used to work under Vogt from Heinkel and that Kawasaki licence produced some Heinkel designs. But that in itself is no proof that the Ki-61 was derived from the He 100. The only connection I see is the surface cooling which was soon discarded by both companies.
But well, I await your return
be safe!
Kris
I know that the chief designer of Kawasaki used to work under Vogt from Heinkel and that Kawasaki licence produced some Heinkel designs. But that in itself is no proof that the Ki-61 was derived from the He 100. The only connection I see is the surface cooling which was soon discarded by both companies.
But well, I await your return
be safe!Kris
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
sorry M
also not my cup of tea
Kris
also not my cup of tea
Kris
yeah i'm starting to think a trip to a few museums in italy are in my future. its italy so i need to go just for that alone but i haven't found much detailed information on some of these italian fighters. i'm hoping the museums have some stuff that just hasn't surfaced due to a general disinterest with anything italian and related to ww2.
Last edited:
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I wouldn't hold my breath And of the Re.2005 not much remains, except for a piece of the landing gear.
And how good is your Italian? That seems essential if you're planning on finding info as you would probably have to go through archives.
There's a nice book on the Re.2006 btw, also in English. "Re.2006, La storia vera" iirc
Kris
And of the Re.2005 not much remains, except for a piece of the landing gear. And how good is your Italian? That seems essential if you're planning on finding info as you would probably have to go through archives.
There's a nice book on the Re.2006 btw, also in English. "Re.2006, La storia vera" iirc
Kris
my italian isn't good but my uncle benjamin can probably help with that . i've seen enough technical docs that i could probably find some decent info given enough time. the only tech docs that i get very little from are russian ones with their crazy alphabet.
idk i think it would be fun, now, all i need to do is find the time to get out there for a month or so.
. i've seen enough technical docs that i could probably find some decent info given enough time. the only tech docs that i get very little from are russian ones with their crazy alphabet.idk i think it would be fun, now, all i need to do is find the time to get out there for a month or so.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Good luck mate!
Kris
Kris
This may be a silly question, but WHY do any of you believe that the Ki-61 was based on either the Me 109 OR the He 100? Seems to me that they are quite different designs in a lot of ways other than the similarity of the power plants. I don't see the other similarities.
The Me 109 always had leading edge slats and a tiny wing. The Ki 61 has considerably more wing area and different shapes and proportions.
The He 100 has a radically different shape in most places, but especially in the shape of the wing, dihedral break, arrangement of flaps, etc. it was also quite fast on the installed power. The Ki-61 was closer in speed to a Me 109E on similar installed power.
- Ivan.
The Me 109 always had leading edge slats and a tiny wing. The Ki 61 has considerably more wing area and different shapes and proportions.
The He 100 has a radically different shape in most places, but especially in the shape of the wing, dihedral break, arrangement of flaps, etc. it was also quite fast on the installed power. The Ki-61 was closer in speed to a Me 109E on similar installed power.
- Ivan.
