Italian and russian forgotten greats...

[17poundr]

Hello, happy to be here, I have been ranting in the archargeneral forums, and I am a military aviation fan big time!!! Being half British, I root for the RAF, but that's another story...

I am interested in the good fighters that have been passed by too often in endless appraisals of the 'obvious' choises (Spit, Me 109, P-51,lanc, b-24 Stuka, Zero, ect, ect, ect, sigh)...

But, I know that the Italians and Russians came up with perfectly good fighters, the Italians who got knocked out in 43, must have had a good fighter program going, and the Red Airforce came to it's own in that same year.

By the next year during operation Bagration in the summer of 44, the cituation over Belorussia was much like it was over Normandy...

Still, even during the images of thousands of Luftwaffe kills during Barbarossa and the next summer, there were some good planes, I suppose that the purges had got rid of any good leaders form the red airforce and they too had to learn on the job against vet's from spain onward...

Still the Mig-3 had good specs for 41, and actually influenced Luftwaffe tactics.

It was so good in high altitude, for which it had been designed in far sited visions of a lower strat interceptor, it suffered from poor handling in the clowds and ground level proximaty.

Thus, the Me 109s, didnt go far up, I might be wrong but this was one reason for the whole lufwaffe operating at quite low levels for most of the first two years, only when the exellent La series with the other good aircraft coming out in ever increasing numbers, and the Lufwaffe packing the FW 190, I belive the fight moved to the full spectrum of the skies like in the ETO.

Ofcourse the late YAK-7&9 series with La-5s, took the quality war to the Russian advantage, accompanied by quantative monopoly and more and more skilled pilots, if one is interested in kill's there is a problem almost unique (the Japanese had sometimes similar tendencies, but that is another and more individual cases story). The Red Airforce had a cult of giving the kills to the squadron, or larger unit, and therefore we shall never know for shure the greatest Russian ace's tally's, I suspect they are close to the RAF, USAAF biggest hitters, but then again, we might have a one hundreder (my slang for those who roamed close to the magical super++ ace mark, of 100 + 0r - ten kills). We shall never know.

Anyway, at which time did the Russians get fear into the Luftwaffe and which plane model did it???

Did we see already a silent respect for the mig-3 during the 'falce summer' of Barbarossa?

If so, the whole spectrum of war must have felt silent tremblings of 'what have we got ourselves into, in the German ranks, they certainly felt it on the land war after the summer of 41 had coldened into a grim autumn of wear and tear...

Then, the Italians, I am under the impression that they had a world class fighter, but the name's are confused in my head.

was it the Fiat 2 or 3 thousand???

Or was there an Aeromacchi of good quality??? I know that in wargaming, desert scenario's give quite good specs for one Italian fighter, at least Hurricane 2 level, not so bad for 41...

last but not least... The 'Last ditch' Japanese planes of 44 and 45...
I know that Japans only water cooled fitghter the Tony, got inspiration from Germans, and there was an even more leathal B-29 killer, owing from the 'super FW LONG NOSE 190' I belive, it looks like a Zero mk 2, and it had enough armament (I belive the standard two mg's and two 20mm, but I could be wrong here), the point is that it got up to 10 000m and shot down a fiew dozen superfortresses.

300 B-29s were lost I belive, some to accidents on the unforgiving runway's of the islands, but most to triple a, (Must have been one high velocity gun, and by then the japanese must have got radar tech from the germans, as their was non existing in war when Pearl was attacked)...

I wonder what the last great plane of ww2 was called, I think I am right in calling the japanese late fighter this, as the shooting star never saw action, and the Brit jet only shot v-one's down, thus not giving kill's over proficient German pilot's to gloat over.

The glory of the last air to air plane to come out new, and make a reputation as a killer fighter was the 'super zero' as I must call it, or was there something that came after it, the Bearcat perhaps???

Or did it miss ww2???

Anyway, glad to be here, I also write on the ACG forums with the same callsign, and we have had great ww2 related debate, I put up a 'which fighter bomber' poll, and the Thunderbolt won, but only after some defending post's a mid changed the superiority of the p-51, and the FW-190! A close run thing!!

I have been very faithful to the acg, but this could be my other forum to check out regurlaly, I am faithful to the threads I get into.

By the way, do I get e-mail notices if a thread has gone forward or do I have to come and check???

Well, I hope I will learn from you people!

Mr Poundr... :)

ps. Is this forum based in the USA, Canada, or an European country? Helsinki, Finland out.

[Red Admiral]

quote:Then, the Italians, I am under the impression that they had a world class fighter, but the name's are confused in my head.


The 5-series were world class, the Fiat G.55, Macchi MC.205 and Reggiane Re.2005. They were perfectly capable of mixing it with P51s. The 6-series would have been even better. The problem with early war Italian fighters was the lack of a suitable inline engine. This was mainly the fault of Fiat, who had neglected to develop more powerful engines, instead prefering to continue flogging a dying horse. As soon as a good inline came along, the DB601 you get the MC.201 which was a superb aircraft, but suffering from a lack of armament. The radial-engined fighters were a mixed bunch. The G.50 was a bit crap. The MC.200 was excellently maneuverable but a bit slow. The Re 2000 was maneuverable and fairly fast but suffered from structural problems and wasn't ordered by the RA. However why did the RMI use the Re 2000 as a catapult launched fighter? This was more political wrangling between Caproni and Fiat.


quote:I wonder what the last great plane of ww2 was called, I think I am right in calling the japanese late fighter this, as the shooting star never saw action, and the Brit jet only shot v-one's down, thus not giving kill's over proficient German pilot's to gloat over.

I can't say the Japanese planes were in any way stellar. The P80 wasn't great. The Gloster Meteor in WWII had engines that weren't powerful enough, and lack of any useful offensive role to play. The Me 262 was a good aircraft, but only for 10hours after which the engines conked out.

quote:The glory of the last air to air plane to come out new, and make a reputation as a killer fighter was the 'super zero' as I must call it, or was there something that came after it, the Bearcat perhaps???

The F8F Bearcat is good, make no mistake, but the Hawker Fury is definitely better.

[GregP]

Welcome!

Some of the greta Italian fighters were as follows:

1) The Ambrosini SAI-403 could have been great, but they only made 1.
2) The Aeronautica-Unbra A.U.T.18 also could have been great. 1 built.
3) The Caproni-Vizola F.4, F.5, and F.6 are also "might have beens".
4) The Fiat G.50 was the forerunner of the G.55 and G.56, two great Italian fighters. They made 105 Fiat G.55s.
5) The Macchi MC.200, MC.202, and MC.205 were great Italian fighters. Some say the MC.205 was the best of Italy's best.
6) My pick is the Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario as the best Italian fighter. They built 48.

As for the Russian, they had a LOT of planes, including:
1) Yalovlev: Yak-1, Yak-3, Yak-7, Yak-9 ... the Yak-3/7/9 were deadly.
2) Mikoyan-Gurevich: MiG-1, MiG-3,
3) Lavochkin: La-5, La-7, La-9 ... great planes, all.
4) Petlyakov: Pe-2, Pe-3
5) Sukhoi: Su-1, Su-7
6) Tairov: Ta-3 heavy fighter
7) Tuploev Tu-1 heavy interceptor

there were more, but that gives you an idea. Most were not numerically important, but were inportant from an aerodynamic standpoint.

Again, welcome!

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Welcome!

Some of the greta Italian fighters were as follows:

1) The Ambrosini SAI-403 could have been great, but they only made 1.
2) The Aeronautica-Unbra A.U.T.18 also could have been great. 1 built.
3) The Caproni-Vizola F.4, F.5, and F.6 are also "might have beens".
4) The Fiat G.50 was the forerunner of the G.55 and G.56, two great Italian fighters. They made 105 Fiat G.55s.
5) The Macchi MC.200, MC.202, and MC.205 were great Italian fighters. Some say the MC.205 was the best of Italy's best.
6) My pick is the Reggiane Re.2005 Sagittario as the best Italian fighter. They built 48.

As for the Russian, they had a LOT of planes, including:
1) Yalovlev: Yak-1, Yak-3, Yak-7, Yak-9 ... the Yak-3/7/9 were deadly.
2) Mikoyan-Gurevich: MiG-1, MiG-3,
3) Lavochkin: La-5, La-7, La-9 ... great planes, all.
4) Petlyakov: Pe-2, Pe-3
5) Sukhoi: Su-1, Su-7
6) Tairov: Ta-3 heavy fighter
7) Tuploev Tu-1 heavy interceptor

there were more, but that gives you an idea. Most were not numerically important, but were inportant from an aerodynamic standpoint.

Again, welcome!

Some outstanding aircraft, posting a question on this particular thread is a clue! From which manufacturer and country did the RAF have an order placed in January/February 1940 for 200 Fighters? This manufacturer Designed and Built the worlds First True Swept Wing (for transonic reasons) Fighter Four years later! ( Completed but not Flown)

[Corsarius]

quote: Some outstanding aircraft, posting a question on this particular thread is a clue! From which manufacturer and country did the RAF have an order placed in January/February 1940 for 200 Fighters? This manufacturer Designed and Built the worlds First True Swept Wing (for transonic reasons) Fighter Four years later! ( Completed but not Flown)


Lavochkin?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

quote: Some outstanding aircraft, posting a question on this particular thread is a clue! From which manufacturer and country did the RAF have an order placed in January/February 1940 for 200 Fighters? This manufacturer Designed and Built the worlds First True Swept Wing (for transonic reasons) Fighter Four years later! ( Completed but not Flown)


Lavochkin?

Sorry, A good designer but not the one we are looking for.
There was an important conferance on supersonic Flight held in the country before the War.

[CAPILATUS]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius

quote: Some outstanding aircraft, posting a question on this particular thread is a clue! From which manufacturer and country did the RAF have an order placed in January/February 1940 for 200 Fighters? This manufacturer Designed and Built the worlds First True Swept Wing (for transonic reasons) Fighter Four years later! ( Completed but not Flown)


Lavochkin?

Sorry, A good designer but not the one we are looking for.
There was an important conferance on supersonic Flight held in the country before the War.

I guess it was Germany ;)

[Nick Sumner]

Lockheed?

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

Lockheed?


Sorry, Not Lockheed.

Sorry, NOT German!

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

quote:Originally posted by Nick Sumner

Lockheed?


Sorry, Not Lockheed.

Sorry, NOT German!


Hi Capilatus,
As I understand it the airframe was completed and there was a long delay until the Germans supplied the jet engine, that is before the end of the war in Europe. so there was some German input with the engine. But the airframe was not German. Thinks! the RAF ordered 200 fighters from the same company at the start of 1940!

[GregP]

Must be Mikoyan Gurevich.

[Red Admiral]

Nope its Caproni-Reggiane. The RAF had orders placed for 200 Re 2000 fighters. The swept wing fighter in question is the Reggiane 2007. The Jumo engines were eventually supplied, but i don't think she ever flew or was ever completed. Its a pity.

Do you have any details about that pre-war supersonic conference?

[Paolo Tagliaferri]

quote:
ps. Is this forum based in the USA, Canada, or an European country? Helsinki, Finland out.

Well, the web server is Italy based, as is the webmaster :D but the forum is international ;)

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

Nope its Caproni-Reggiane. The RAF had orders placed for 200 Re 2000 fighters. The swept wing fighter in question is the Reggiane 2007. The Jumo engines were eventually supplied, but i don't think she ever flew or was ever completed. Its a pity.

Do you have any details about that pre-war supersonic conference?


Yes spot on, on both accounts : It was an Italian Aircraft Manufacturer. Over the years I have read different accounts, the first was about 40 years ago and said that the completed aircraft disappeared before the end of the War, possible in Milan? Since then other accounts say it stayed in Italy. At the time I thought the plan-form of the aircraft was a lot like a Sabre.

Not a lot to hand on the Conference, But I hope to see a friend in a week or twos time who knew a lot more about it than I do.
From the British Pespective when the M52 started in 1943 they found a lot of work had already been done on wing sections for supersonic Flight. Swept wing configuration was ignored as it was only useful as a palliative around Mach1. To my great Surprise I was TOLD they knew of and had considered two possibilities one of which was the Thin Section Delta, the other option was selected because they were given only a few months to finish the project and it was less of an unknown. So I do wonder what was going on, more may have been discussed at the Conference and later in Britain than is now realised or admitted.

[GregP]

Reggiane Re 2007

Span: 9.50m, length: 9.00m, height: 2.93m, wing area: 17.0 sq. m, Engine: 1 x Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet. 2500kg empty, 3540kg loaded. Designed 10/43. Manufature of airframe was substantial if not substantially complete. The Jumo never materialized. Compoenets shipped to U.S.A. afer the war, but I have no idea of the eventual fate oif said components.

Designers, supposedly, were Roberto Longhi and Hauptmanm Bohm, but I can't confirm that.

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Reggiane Re 2007

Span: 9.50m, length: 9.00m, height: 2.93m, wing area: 17.0 sq. m, Engine: 1 x Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet. 2500kg empty, 3540kg loaded. Designed 10/43. Manufature of airframe was substantial if not substantially complete. The Jumo never materialized. Compoenets shipped to U.S.A. afer the war, but I have no idea of the eventual fate oif said components.

Designers, supposedly, were Roberto Longhi and Hauptmanm Bohm, but I can't confirm that.


The Italians had supersonic windtunnels at their research centre before WW2, The british were aware of what went on at the conference because I think Whittle advocated Busemann's supersonic bi-plane configuration for the M52.

[Ricky]

Supersonic biplane?

I'd like to see that![:0]

[GregP]

Iamgine a streamlined SPAD ... with retractible wheels and an afterburner ... nawwwww .... forget it ....

[Red Admiral]

For the same wing area, biplane have less drag than a monoplane. The problem with biplanes of that era was parasitic drag from wires and struts. Look at Burt Rutan's Quickie. Marvellous.

On a little aircraft simulator i have, I simmed the Re 2007. I think I guessed at about 40 degree sweep. With 1 single Jumo engine (1000lb) it could go about 1000km/h maximum. When i substituted a later model in (2000lb) it could just go supersonic.

[Pete57]

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral
The P80 wasn't great. The Gloster Meteor in WWII had engines that weren't powerful enough, and lack of any useful offensive role to play. The Me 262 was a good aircraft, but only for 10hours after which the engines conked out.

Perhaps the P-80 was not great[V], but it could more than hold its own against an Me262.;)
Please see http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=56

So far as the Reggiane Re.2007 is concerned, well there are good chances it never existed even as a 'paper-plane'.:D
There is a website (unfortunately, mostly in Italian) devoted to the Caproni Reggiane aircraft, run by folks who seem to have deeply researched this subject.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2569/

There is a section devoted to the ‘myths and legends’ dealing with the Reggiane aircraft and one is about the Reggiane 2007.

I’m providing a translation herebelow. I do apologize for those parts that may no be so easily understandable. Some of the original text, in Italian, was not so readily understandable to me: Italians, sometimes, can be complicated in exposing concepts!:D

"MYSTERIES AND LEGENDS

CAREFUL ABOUT THE “RE2007"

Articles dealing with the Reggiane RE 2007 have lately appeared on several aviation magazines. You may have noticed that this aircraft is not amongst those we mean to detail on our website. And this for a very simple reason: the RE 2007 never existed!
Surprised? Why should you be? The Reggiane name has always been the subject of legends and mysteries, both small and great, and the “2007” is just one of them. Now, the 2007 is to aviation history what the “Modigliani heads” are to art history. This jet fighter did not ever exist, and nobody could wish otherwise more than us, deeply enamored with Reggiane’s aircraft. On the other hand, though, any historical research is to be based on facts, rather than wishes, and the facts here are clear and can be summarized in the following points:
• We have read that the “2007” came into being by “modifying one of the prototypes of the earlier Re.2006”; considering how deeply different the two aircraft were, then such a “modification” should be considered an almost total re-design instead. In the best scenario, some of the calculation used to design the “2006” could have been used also to design the “2007”;
• As well, we have read that the MM541 – translator’s note, MM stands for Matricola Militare, i.e. Military Registration (Number) - had been assigned to the “2007”. According to the Regia Aeronautica’s records, this registration had been assigned to the second RE2006 prototype (whose construction was not even ever started). Considering, also, that according to some “sources” the design work was started in October 1943, one can only wonder who re-assigned the MM to the new project. Certainly not the appropriate Regia Aeronautica’s certification offices, and neither their counterpart in the fledgling A.N.R. whom, for the records, never were to follow any rules or regulations, in the field of MM assignment. To further prove this point, consider how none of the aircraft produced for the ANR ever bore a “MM” registration, except for those whose construction had been already started at the moment of the Armistice (Sept. 8, 1943 – translator’s note), and part of former Regia Aeronautica’s orders.

• It has been written, that the prototype’s construction, took place in Reggiane’s Officina Sperimentale (Experimental Shop) in Correggio. This cannot be, though, as the Officina Sperimentale was located in Reggio Emilia instead, not far from today’s Aeroclub’s building. Reggiane had received a formal authorization to occupy a gym in Correggio, where the Re2006 was indeed assembled. As a side note, once the first 2006 had been completed, the Reggiane personnel realized that the door was too narrow, and in order to ensure that the aircraft could be pushed out without damage, the door had to be completed demolished: this was promptly done!

• It has also been written, that the Re2007 components, along with the Re2006 prototype, were moved to Taliedo on Oct. 12, 1944. How was this done? The reason we are wondering is that the Re2006 prototype was loaded on a trailer and towed by a miniscule “Ballilla” tractor, the only vehicle suitable for this specific task Reggiane had managed to fetch, and driven to its final destination by two heroic (nothing less would be appropriate) employees in an adventurous (to put it mildly) jurney.

• We have read that the German Jumo 004 turbojets, arrived in Italy too late, and were sold by the Germans after the conflict’s end, one being the specimen displayed at the Italian Air Force Museum in Vigna di Valle. Frankly, we have no evidence of the fact these engines were indeed sold by the Germans after the War, but we find it more plausible that the engine in Vigna di Valle, found by Ingegner Ambrosini, belongs to one of the Arado 234s stationed in Italy in the last months of the conflict;

• A project like the Re.2007’s, would have required studies, calculations as well as hundreds – if not thousands – of drawings and plenty of “burocratic” paperwork. How is it then possible that there is no trace of any of it? Some “sources” claim that the Allies removed and took away anything dealing with this project, as had been done with the Reggiane Re.2005R. However, we find it quite odd that whereas some documentation dealing with the 2005R has indeed surfaced in England, the same has not happened with the Reggiane’s pure-jet, either in the British or American archives. No records have, as well, ever been found in the RA/ANR archives in Rome or in Germany. On the other hand, there are the well known drawings, by Giuseppe Cometti…unfortunately, Cometti himself stated that said drawings had been requested by Ingegner longhi, after the war, thus ruling out their value as positive evidence to the airplane’s existence.

• A project like this, would have required a well assembled team to realize, Longhi’s own genial and dynamic personality, alone, could not have performed such a task. If we take this for granted then, it is indeed hard to comprehend why none of the main ‘players’ of the time – technicians and managers, from Alessio, thru Maraschini, to De Prato – has never heard of this jet fighter project.

• It has been written that when the German experts saw the 2007’s drawings, they immediately ‘fell in love’ with it. Why would the Germans become victims of ‘first sight love’ with an Italian project, when just as good projects were at a more or less advanced stage of development in Germany?

• Would Reggiane, in the post-armistice period, have been able to undertake such a major task? We are afraid that the answer must be a negative one; let’s not forget how this period saw the company in a critical situation, plagued by problems with the fascists, the occupying Germans and the partisans. Reggiane’s financial situation became increasingly critical, as the occupying armed forces, kept on canceling the orders placed by the former Regia Aeronautica, and the 2006’s design and construction, came into being by saving machinery, jigs and tools as well as manpower from being relocated to Germany. Furthermore, the January 1944 Allied bombing raid, had destroyed any residual production capabilities, while the production-equipment had been either dispersed or permanently stored. Despite of all our love for the ‘Reggiane’ name, we feel we are in a position to positively state that such a project could not have been developed in such dire conditions.

In all reality, the main fault of these articles, lies in the ‘naive ness’ their contents clearly shows. On one hand they delve over “…the superior performances that the calculations showed in terms of level speed and climb rate”, but later on they claim that the project “…showed limits due to the low power offered by the Jumo engine” What does all this mean? The authors state “…we have simply quoted what has been written on the documentation published on this subject”. Fine! But unlike some self proclaimed gurus who demand accurate archival researches and major scoops on a subject, we believe in the added value of an article based on someone else’s research, provided though that the sources used for said research are accurate, updated and double-checked; this has been, thus far, our approach and the results have validated it. Unfortunately, amongst the sources consulted to produce said articles, those that are really accurate are sorely missing, such as the documentation by Sergio Govi as well as – we need to add – Tullio De Prato’s biography. If the articles had been written using these sources - again, the only accurate ones - then the authors would not have produced such a major blunder. Not so long ago – and we 40-something still remember it well – there was a major debate on the Reggiane jet that involved former Reggiane major players, aviation journalists, historians and researchers, and at the end of all this, the legend of the Reggiane jet came out totally shattered. Obviously, the authors of said articles are too young to have witnessed it.
Why then such a well conceived lie? Let’s consider the reasons that led Ing. Longhi to come up with it. It’s a fact that Longhi had been made aware of the progress on jet propulsion that had taken place in Germany, possibly even before the Me.262 became operational. Certainly, his dynamic mind had considered the realization of a jet design of its own, and possibly he had even laid down the configuration in his mind. However, this is far from stating that the “RE2007” was a reality… So, why the “2007”? To give an adequate answer, we’d have to get too deep into the “if” and “perhaps” territory and, short of adequate evidence, we’d rather leave someone else the task of providing an adequate answer. The bright side of it is that we were all taught a great lesson: in the field of historical research, patience, accuracy and a humble approach are precious gifts. Be it as it may, time only will tell if the “2007” indeed ever existed, and then only if indisputable evidence to this effect ever surfaces; were this to happen, then we’ll be the happiest team on earth.; we’d like to end with a little piece of advice: always read carefully and…check your sources!"

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral
The P80 wasn't great. The Gloster Meteor in WWII had engines that weren't powerful enough, and lack of any useful offensive role to play. The Me 262 was a good aircraft, but only for 10hours after which the engines conked out.

Perhaps the P-80 was not great[V], but it could more than hold its own against an Me262.;)
Please see http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=56

So far as the Reggiane Re.2007 is concerned, well there are good chances it never existed even as a 'paper-plane'.:D
There is a website (unfortunately, mostly in Italian) devoted to the Caproni Reggiane aircraft, run by folks who seem to have deeply researched this subject.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2569/

There is a section devoted to the ‘myths and legends’ dealing with the Reggiane aircraft and one is about the Reggiane 2007.

I’m providing a translation herebelow. I do apologize for those parts that may no be so easily understandable. Some of the original text, in Italian, was not so readily understandable to me: Italians, sometimes, can be complicated in exposing concepts!:D

"MYSTERIES AND LEGENDS

CAREFUL ABOUT THE “RE2007"

Articles dealing with the Reggiane RE 2007 have lately appeared on several aviation magazines. You may have noticed that this aircraft is not amongst those we mean to detail on our website. And this for a very simple reason: the RE 2007 never existed!
Surprised? Why should you be? The Reggiane name has always been the subject of legends and mysteries, both small and great, and the “2007” is just one of them. Now, the 2007 is to aviation history what the “Modigliani heads” are to art history. This jet fighter did not ever exist, and nobody could wish otherwise more than us, deeply enamored with Reggiane’s aircraft. On the other hand, though, any historical research is to be based on facts, rather than wishes, and the facts here are clear and can be summarized in the following points:
• We have read that the “2007” came into being by “modifying one of the prototypes of the earlier Re.2006”; considering how deeply different the two aircraft were, then such a “modification” should be considered an almost total re-design instead. In the best scenario, some of the calculation used to design the “2006” could have been used also to design the “2007”;
• As well, we have read that the MM541 – translator’s note, MM stands for Matricola Militare, i.e. Military Registration (Number) - had been assigned to the “2007”. According to the Regia Aeronautica’s records, this registration had been assigned to the second RE2006 prototype (whose construction was not even ever started). Considering, also, that according to some “sources” the design work was started in October 1943, one can only wonder who re-assigned the MM to the new project. Certainly not the appropriate Regia Aeronautica’s certification offices, and neither their counterpart in the fledgling A.N.R. whom, for the records, never were to follow any rules or regulations, in the field of MM assignment. To further prove this point, consider how none of the aircraft produced for the ANR ever bore a “MM” registration, except for those whose construction had been already started at the moment of the Armistice (Sept. 8, 1943 – translator’s note), and part of former Regia Aeronautica’s orders.

• It has been written, that the prototype’s construction, took place in Reggiane’s Officina Sperimentale (Experimental Shop) in Correggio. This cannot be, though, as the Officina Sperimentale was located in Reggio Emilia instead, not far from today’s Aeroclub’s building. Reggiane had received a formal authorization to occupy a gym in Correggio, where the Re2006 was indeed assembled. As a side note, once the first 2006 had been completed, the Reggiane personnel realized that the door was too narrow, and in order to ensure that the aircraft could be pushed out without damage, the door had to be completed demolished: this was promptly done!

• It has also been written, that the Re2007 components, along with the Re2006 prototype, were moved to Taliedo on Oct. 12, 1944. How was this done? The reason we are wondering is that the Re2006 prototype was loaded on a trailer and towed by a miniscule “Ballilla” tractor, the only vehicle suitable for this specific task Reggiane had managed to fetch, and driven to its final destination by two heroic (nothing less would be appropriate) employees in an adventurous (to put it mildly) jurney.

• We have read that the German Jumo 004 turbojets, arrived in Italy too late, and were sold by the Germans after the conflict’s end, one being the specimen displayed at the Italian Air Force Museum in Vigna di Valle. Frankly, we have no evidence of the fact these engines were indeed sold by the Germans after the War, but we find it more plausible that the engine in Vigna di Valle, found by Ingegner Ambrosini, belongs to one of the Arado 234s stationed in Italy in the last months of the conflict;

• A project like the Re.2007’s, would have required studies, calculations as well as hundreds – if not thousands – of drawings and plenty of “burocratic” paperwork. How is it then possible that there is no trace of any of it? Some “sources” claim that the Allies removed and took away anything dealing with this project, as had been done with the Reggiane Re.2005R. However, we find it quite odd that whereas some documentation dealing with the 2005R has indeed surfaced in England, the same has not happened with the Reggiane’s pure-jet, either in the British or American archives. No records have, as well, ever been found in the RA/ANR archives in Rome or in Germany. On the other hand, there are the well known drawings, by Giuseppe Cometti…unfortunately, Cometti himself stated that said drawings had been requested by Ingegner longhi, after the war, thus ruling out their value as positive evidence to the airplane’s existence.

• A project like this, would have required a well assembled team to realize, Longhi’s own genial and dynamic personality, alone, could not have performed such a task. If we take this for granted then, it is indeed hard to comprehend why none of the main ‘players’ of the time – technicians and managers, from Alessio, thru Maraschini, to De Prato – has never heard of this jet fighter project.

• It has been written that when the German experts saw the 2007’s drawings, they immediately ‘fell in love’ with it. Why would the Germans become victims of ‘first sight love’ with an Italian project, when just as good projects were at a more or less advanced stage of development in Germany?

• Would Reggiane, in the post-armistice period, have been able to undertake such a major task? We are afraid that the answer must be a negative one; let’s not forget how this period saw the company in a critical situation, plagued by problems with the fascists, the occupying Germans and the partisans. Reggiane’s financial situation became increasingly critical, as the occupying armed forces, kept on canceling the orders placed by the former Regia Aeronautica, and the 2006’s design and construction, came into being by saving machinery, jigs and tools as well as manpower from being relocated to Germany. Furthermore, the January 1944 Allied bombing raid, had destroyed any residual production capabilities, while the production-equipment had been either dispersed or permanently stored. Despite of all our love for the ‘Reggiane’ name, we feel we are in a position to positively state that such a project could not have been developed in such dire conditions.

In all reality, the main fault of these articles, lies in the ‘naive ness’ their contents clearly shows. On one hand they delve over “…the superior performances that the calculations showed in terms of level speed and climb rate”, but later on they claim that the project “…showed limits due to the low power offered by the Jumo engine” What does all this mean? The authors state “…we have simply quoted what has been written on the documentation published on this subject”. Fine! But unlike some self proclaimed gurus who demand accurate archival researches and major scoops on a subject, we believe in the added value of an article based on someone else’s research, provided though that the sources used for said research are accurate, updated and double-checked; this has been, thus far, our approach and the results have validated it. Unfortunately, amongst the sources consulted to produce said articles, those that are really accurate are sorely missing, such as the documentation by Sergio Govi as well as – we need to add – Tullio De Prato’s biography. If the articles had been written using these sources - again, the only accurate ones - then the authors would not have produced such a major blunder. Not so long ago – and we 40-something still remember it well – there was a major debate on the Reggiane jet that involved former Reggiane major players, aviation journalists, historians and researchers, and at the end of all this, the legend of the Reggiane jet came out totally shattered. Obviously, the authors of said articles are too young to have witnessed it.
Why then such a well conceived lie? Let’s consider the reasons that led Ing. Longhi to come up with it. It’s a fact that Longhi had been made aware of the progress on jet propulsion that had taken place in Germany, possibly even before the Me.262 became operational. Certainly, his dynamic mind had considered the realization of a jet design of its own, and possibly he had even laid down the configuration in his mind. However, this is far from stating that the “RE2007” was a reality… So, why the “2007”? To give an adequate answer, we’d have to get too deep into the “if” and “perhaps” territory and, short of adequate evidence, we’d rather leave someone else the task of providing an adequate answer. The bright side of it is that we were all taught a great lesson: in the field of historical research, patience, accuracy and a humble approach are precious gifts. Be it as it may, time only will tell if the “2007” indeed ever existed, and then only if indisputable evidence to this effect ever surfaces; were this to happen, then we’ll be the happiest team on earth.; we’d like to end with a little piece of advice: always read carefully and…check your sources!"






There was a photograph of the 2007 published in RAF Flying Review some forty years ago? Even if it was only a mockup and not the actual aircraft why go to so much trouble?

[Pete57]

Groggy,
I cannot answer your question, but you can get in touch with Max C.A. Cappone, who is part of the "Reggiane Reggiane" team.
His e-mail is dtlkca@tin.it
If there is a person who can cast some light on this subject, that's Max.

I remember as well that there was a proposal by Longhi, after the war for a similar aircraft - the Reggiane Re.2008. I don't know if it ever made it to mockup, but there was a wooden, wind-tunnel model of it, and I remember seeing a picture published years ago on a book dealing with the Caproni Reggiane aircraft, as well as the 3-view drawings.

The 2008, unlike the 2007 had swept fin and rudder (the 2007 had the classic Reggiane, eliptical one, derived from Severski's projects)but, at least externally, the two aircraft were very similar.
It is possible that the mockup you saw was the 2008's.

If you want to see what the 2007 may have looked like, there are some picture of a 1/72 scale model at http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/reviews/axis/ity/wanta2007.htm

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57

Groggy,
I cannot answer your question, but you can get in touch with Max C.A. Cappone, who is part of the "Reggiane Reggiane" team.
His e-mail is dtlkca@tin.it
If there is a person who can cast some light on this subject, that's Max.

I remember as well that there was a proposal by Longhi, after the war for a similar aircraft - the Reggiane Re.2008. I don't know if it ever made it to mockup, but there was a wooden, wind-tunnel model of it, and I remember seeing a picture published years ago on a book dealing with the Caproni Reggiane aircraft, as well as the 3-view drawings.

The 2008, unlike the 2007 had swept fin and rudder (the 2007 had the classic Reggiane, eliptical one, derived from Severski's projects)but, at least externally, the two aircraft were very similar.
It is possible that the mockup you saw was the 2008's.

If you want to see what the 2007 may have looked like, there are some picture of a 1/72 scale model at http://m2reviews.cnsi.net/reviews/axis/ity/wanta2007.htm

[Ricky]

Wow - it looks like the missing link between the Me262 & F-86 Sabre!

Thanks for link.

And thanks for the myth-debunking. Very interesting.:)

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Wow - it looks like the missing link between the Me262 & F-86 Sabre!

Thanks for link.

And thanks for the myth-debunking. Very interesting.:)


Many thanks folks!

A very puzzled groggy!!

Any thing on the Italian pre-war supersonic wind tunnels at ?Goldini?

Note there is at least one significant Italian design contribution to the Junkers Jumo 004B engine, clue look at the backend