I am curious, which sources did you attach for the report itself? I know we’ve had a couple of books in the different threads, and there is the original suggestion post itself. If not everything is in the report and it gets rejected, perhaps we could consolidate all the sources and try a fresh report?
One that establishes;
-The MM.495 VDM equipped and flew with a DB605A-1(M) engine.
-The VDM propeller was only installed with the new engine.
-Basic stats (e.g. 1815hp WEP, 720km/hr top speed).
I would write said report, as I’m confident in my English, but I don’t speak Italian (or Russian, for that matter), so you guys might handle the sources better.
Also, fingers crossed that the existing report makes it through regardless. I do hope the figures like HP are in there though because I could totally see Gaijin accepting it and then giving the engine 1700hp instead of 1815hp. Or limit the WEP or something.
They should limit the WEP since the MW-50 uses liquids and they’re not infinite.
DB605A uses a dry WEP system (it simply increases the pressure in the engine) so it can WEP as long as it wants, but the DB605AM relies on water and alcohol injection to WEP so it’s limited by the tank. Idk how much there is on plane, but I think it should be able to WEP for the same amount of time of DB605AM equipped Bf109.
The Bf-109s with the same MW-50 system iirc had about 20 minutes of WEP, in two 10-minute periods with a cooldown in-between. A looong time ago Gaijin changed it to unlimited WEP, and 20 minutes was basically the whole game anyway. American water-injection engines also received unlimited WEP in the last major update, which I still don’t know if it’s intentional or a bug.
I just wouldn’t want to see them arbitrarily give it 10 minutes of WEP or something.
Edi: Could be wrong on the unlimited WEP as it’s just memory, but I’ve literally never ran out of WEP on the MW-50 109s
American water-injection engines also received unlimited WEP in the last major update, which I still don’t know if it’s intentional or a bug
I’m pretty sure this was intentional, but anyway: whatever the Bf109 gets, the Re.2005 VDM should get it too. They use basically the same engine and both have the MW-50. It’s extremely unlikely that they changed something.
the only thing t hat comes to my mind is that the Re.2005 might have bigger tanks since it’s more spacious than the Bf109s? But Idk this is just speculation. I think it’s fine if they have the same WEP time.
I’ll put all the sources together when I have the time. At the moment, I’m waiting to get the German book about the DB 605 engine.
If you want to make a bug report, feel free to use the sources.
Also, do you know how the rate of climb (RoC) is defined by Gaijin? At which altitudes?
In reality, two Re.2005 aircraft existed in different conditions — one used at the test site for comparisons against the C.205, G.55, Fw 190, and Bf 109, and another in standard operational condition.
The damaged re.2005 had a climb rate of (mm.494)
Altitude Time (s) Rate (m/s)
2000 m 1’58" = 16.95 m/s
4000 m 4’05" = 16.33 m/s
6000 m 6’33" = 15.27 m/s
8000 m 9′42″ = 13.75 m/s
Total max weight 3560kg
max-V 628.5km/h
The normal re.2005 had a climb rate of (serie 0)
Altitude Time (s) Rate (m/s)
2000 m 1’35" = 21.05 m/s
6000 m 5’30" = 18.18 m/s
8000 m 7’50" = 17.02 m/s
Total max weight 3610kg
max- V 678km/h (up to in testflight 720km/h)
If you want to know which sources I used let me know
Most of the books consulted are in Italian; some have both Italian and English text, and two are entirely in English.
In my bug report, I included the translation of the main reference — Govi’s book — since for the aircraft MM495, only a few brief mentions appear in the other sources.
Sergio Govi – Dal Re.2002 al Re.2005 – Storia degli aerei Reggiane – Gruppo Caponi, Giorgio Apostolo Editore, 1984, p.157. (Courtesy translation attached)
Profile No. 244: Caproni Reggiane Re.2001 Falco II, Re.2002 Ariete & Re.2005 Sagittario – John F. Brindley, pp. 236–237.
Reggiane Fighters – George Punka – Squadron/Signal: In Action No. 177.
During the tests at Guidonia, the Re.2005’s engine had several issues. FIAT, which held the license to produce the DB 605 engine in Italy, deliberately withheld and delayed the delivery of engines to both Macchi and Reggiane — and certainly did not provide them with the best units — since their own G.55 was competing and, rather conveniently, emerged as the best of the three. In later tests, once the engine problems were resolved, the Re.2005 had no difficulty achieving the performance figures claimed by Reggiane.
What you wrote is the part of my post with the damaged re.2005 and its stats.
Thank you
Just to share to the pubblic.
During the tests at Guidonia, the Re.2005’s engine had several issues. FIAT, which held the license to produce the DB 605 engine in Italy, deliberately withheld and delayed the delivery of engines to both Macchi and Reggiane — and certainly did not provide them with the best units — since their own G.55 was competing and, rather conveniently, emerged as the best of the three. In later tests, once the engine problems were resolved, the Re.2005 had no difficulty achieving the performance figures claimed by Reggiane.
[/quote]
To clarify, when you mention “two” Re.2005s, are you making a distinction between the individual MM.494 prototype and the whole pre-production series (Serie 0) or a distinction between two individual aircraft? The wording is a little ambiguous and confusing because it could imply that only two aircraft were built (and not the 48 figure I regularly see). I’m curious if that’s just your writing or a product of translation (or I’m an idiot). It’s a bit nitpicky but I imagine any translation from Italian → English → Russian might have a lot of holes that can explain the Devs’ reaction.
As for report writing, I think it’s definitely best to wait for all the sources. If Gaijin keeps stonewalling the reports then whoever comes in with the next report needs a clear and ironclad argument.
Concerning climbrate data, the statcard rates are still largely a mystery, although I can run some rudimentary tests tomorrow (Pacific timezone). Ballpark estimates I’d say the cards are generally around 100% throttle (no wep), half fuel, clean loadout, 3000-5000m?
This isn’t the first time snail has messed up something to this degree. Wasn’t the Israeli Spitfire in a similar situation with the flight performance of the 4.3 one at the BR of the 5.7 one?
Also the Bf-109Z is another example off the top of my head, being a mashup of the built one (Z-1: a twin F-4) and the planned one (Z-2: a twin K-4) that simultaneously is the worst of both, with the engines of the former and weight + awkward gun ballistics of the latter.
Thus, I am not surprised one bit with how a considerably more obscure Italian fighter got screwed up as well.
I thought the Z-1 was the twin F-4 which was indeed destroyed before first flight, and that the Z-2 was planned to be a twin K-4. Did I mix things up? Was the other planned one a twin G-6?
From what I read, yes, Z-1 was a twin G-6, which matches the in-game variant, the prototype was under construction, though it isn’t clear if it was completed or not.
And remember this important fact if Gaijin comes up with the first test flight and justifies the performance of the re.2005.
Gijin uses the stats from the first test flight equivalent from the mm.494 manual.
The re.2005 climbed to 6000m without WEP and full power at the same time as the FW190A5 did – 15.4km/h. The re.2005 despite being the second lightest of the four Italian planes had engine issues and structural problems in the tail section, it has been corrected by Reggiane after the test.
Even the G55 had 100hp less power because of the poor engine quality it had.
