Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

REGGIANE RE.2005 SAGITTARIO


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,635 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 3 Months and 3 Days
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 27 February 2016 - 01:35 PM

Reggiane RE.2005 Sagittario (Archer) M.M.494

 

     The following information comes from V Department Copy No.27 document and is supplied by Dago Wop (user name).

 

Altitude / Speed / Avg. Climb - Time to altitude

Meters / kph-mph / fpm - minutes' seconds"

2,000    518-322    3,335   1' 58"

4,000    565-351    3,099   4'   5"

6,000    613-381    2,659   6' 33"

8,000    621-386    2,102   9' 42"

 

Full throttle height: 628.5 kph - 390.5 mph./6,950 m.

 

Service Ceiling: 12,200 m.(40,026 ft.)

 

Armament: 2 x 12.7 mm. Breda-SAFAT/350 rpg. cowling + 1 x 20 mm. MG 151/150 rpg. engine + 2 x 20 mm. MG 151/200 rpg.wings.

 

Wing Area: 219.583 sq. ft.

 

Engine: Fiat R.A.1050 R.C.58 Tifone (DB 605A-1): 1,475 cv.(1,454 hp.) take-off.  1,250 cv.(1,232 hp.) 5,800 m.  W.E.P.:1,355 cv. (1,336 hp.) / 5,700 m.

 

Test Weight: 3,560 kg. (7,849 lbs.)

 

Wing Loading: 35.75-lbs./sq. ft.

 

Power Loading: 5.875 lbs./hp.

 

Range: 1,000 km./580kph./6,900 m. (677 mls./360 mph./22,640 ft.) with 430 kg. (~153 US gallons) fuel. 

             1,250 km./515 kph./6,500 ft. (776 mls./320 mph./21,325 ft.) with 430 kg. fuel.

 

774px-Reggiane_RE_2005.jpg

Wikimedia


Edited by CORSNING, 22 April 2016 - 02:33 PM.


#2 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,635 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 3 Months and 3 Days
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 22 April 2016 - 02:47 PM

3-View

 

320px-Reggiane_Re.2005_3-view.svg.png

32_4_b2.jpg

wp.scn.ru


Edited by CORSNING, 23 April 2016 - 09:55 AM.


#3 GregP

GregP

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,286 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 1 Month and 22 Days
  • 224 topics

Posted 12 May 2016 - 02:22 AM

Altogether a beautiful aircraft. This is the ultimate expression of the original Seversky design style. The Re.2000 was unabashedly a Seversky design copy and they added a liquid-cooled engine to get gthe Re.2005, which also resulted in a much smaller fuselage diameter. But the wing shape and especially the vertical tail shape are pure Alexander de Seversky. If this had to be the end of the line, it was surely a good one.

 

This aircraft didn't take a back seat to much of anything in combat capability. But they only built 48 of them.

 

So maybe they could take air superiority over over ... a small island or something. If you have a fleet of WWII planes, you fight with 1/3, have 1/3 in maintenance or coming out of maintenance, and the other 1/3 need maintenance. So they had an effective force of some 16 whole Sagittarios, give or take a few. Maybe they could get as many as 20 - 23 or so up at one time.



#4 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,635 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 3 Months and 3 Days
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 11 April 2017 - 03:18 PM

Air Enthusiast / International Vol.6 No.5 May 1974

 

Page 238: G.55 vs. Re.2005 vs. C.205N: "...The test pilots were unable to agree on a definitive choice,

all three fighters proving to be exceptional aeroplanes and each offering certain advantages over its

competitors. The C.205N Orione displayed a slight edge in maximum attainable speed at most altitudes,

the best diving characteristics and the shortest take-off run of the three contenders. On the debit side,

the maneuverability of the C.205N, which possessed the highest wing loading of the three, was inferior

to that of either the G.55 or Re.2005's particularly above 22,966 ft. (7,000 m.), its take-off and low speed

handling were "mettlesome", and possessing and extremely close-cowled engine it was prone to

overheating. The G.55 was both larger and heavier than the Re.2005 but there was little to choose

between them in maneuverability, while the latter was slightly faster, offered a better rate of climb and

possessed leasanter handling characteristics, However, the structure of the Caproni Reggiane fighter

was not as sturdy as that of the Fiat. Furthermore, the G.55 had been designed from the outset, with

emphasis on ease of quantity manufacture, and the commission's original choice was therefore confirmed.

However, various factors motivated against the original objective of standardizing on one single fighter type.


Edited by CORSNING, 11 April 2017 - 03:19 PM.


#5 Laurelix

Laurelix

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined 7 Months
  • 12 topics

Posted 11 April 2017 - 04:01 PM

Btw the speed listed is Military Power

In that test, RE.2005 engine was acually damaged


Edited by Laurelix, 11 April 2017 - 04:10 PM.


#6 CORSNING

CORSNING

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,635 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 3 Months and 3 Days
  • 184 topics
  • LocationClyde, Ohio, USA

Posted 11 April 2017 - 08:15 PM

Btw the speed listed is Military Power

In that test, RE.2005 engine was acually damaged

What is the source for your statement?



#7 Laurelix

Laurelix

    Advanced Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Joined 7 Months
  • 12 topics

Posted 12 April 2017 - 11:53 AM

3N052N5.jpg

says that the "Reggiane used a different prop (hence the unique appearance of prop) and the engine wasn't at best efficiency"

 

The climb rate suggests it too

Despite being lighter, having lower WL and having lower drag, it still climbs a fair bit worse than the G.55


Edited by Laurelix, 12 April 2017 - 12:07 PM.

  • CORSNING likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users