If I recall right, the top speed seems to match the speed I’ve seen that Re.2005s achieved with the fiat license built DB 605s, rather than German built original DB 605s.
This is despite the fact that the MM.495 in this configuration specifically had a German built original DB 605.
Do take that with a large pile of salt though because I’m going purely out of memory here.
You’re right! I didn’t think about it before, but it seems to have a performance similar to that of MM. 494 with the Tifone engine in bad shape.
For the standard 2005 the 629 km/h at 6950 meter is what reported in the website of the air force, but the are evidence that was able to reach 650km/h at 7000 meters as the one in the TT. If you do a test fly at 7000 meters with the TT version you can reach 650k/h, it takes a life but it can be done.
The issue is, moreover, negligible, because in the game no one climbs to 7000 meters in Air RB — it takes at least 10 minutes — and in Ground RB altitudes never exceed 2000 meters anyway and you are always low doing CAS or CAP
@Smin1080p_WT"can you take a look at this situation and what can we or you do to help and thx you"
So it is entirely possible that whichever Dev in charge of modeling, saw “Re.2005 VDM” as passed, and decided to research the Re.2005 (Serie 0) from scratch? As the TT flight model could’ve had the liberty taken to use the Serie 0’s Tifone engine rather than the DB605A that some Serie 0s also used - a choice that the devs originally landed on using the 605A back in 2017?
Which still has nothing to do with the MM.495 VDM and its DB605A-1(M). It is entirely possible they were aiming for an Re.2005 (Tifone) but somehow ended up using the VDM, and are now kind of stuck.
The only reason planes like Re.2005 (And since we are here G.56 too) are at those BRs its because Gaijin used to balance the BR on these planes based on the SL earnings, and these 2 planes had like a 891273% sl reward, but when that balance method changed (and they reduced the % sl reward too) they forgot to lower de BR.
This isn’t the first time the devs butchered a battle pass vehicle. The Sholef was horribly inaccurate when it was first released, and although it received some changes, it still has several things wrong with it (some of which have been bug reported and “Accepted”) even over a year after release.
I pray the VDM doesn’t suffer the same fate, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
It’s truly confusing what Gaijin’s plan was by adding the vehicle in this state. Neither competitive in any metric nor given what made it unique and interesting historically. A shame since the model and additional skin look great, yet they refuse to change a few lines of code to give it the buffs it needs and should have.
It’s as if they really don’t wish to sell any premium battle passes, after all it seems the only cool thing in it now is the L3/33 CC ship decorator, which is in the free pass…
Can’t get nothing in Italy tt
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.
If it aint Russian then gaijin doesnt care
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
In this post you can find all the sources I used:
Warbonds Event - Battle Pass Season 21 “Brave Archer” and its Warbond Shop (my posts dated October 1st) ([Warbonds] [Event] Battle Pass Season 21: “Brave Archer” and Its Warbond Shop! - #157 by Loofah)
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.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/CQMp8ULAnVQY
Sources:
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.
The Re.2005 VDM situation is crazy - #43 by S_bastienZ88[quote=“paolgand1975-psn, post:45, topic:278565, full:true”]
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?
