aye man you know what the snail is even about :)
are you sure to want a reply about?
What data does Gaijin even have to say that the current performance is the right performance?
These guys are searching high and low for any data, but do the devs even have anything?
8 Likes
All knowing Wikipedia reads:
" A request by the German Ministry of Aviation led to one Re.2005 (MM.495), known as the Reggiane Re.2005 “LW”, to be modified to German standards for tests in late July 1943. It was evaluated first in Guidonia and later at the Rechlin airfield. Tests revealed improved performances with speeds of up to 628 km/h (390 mph) with the FIAT engine and more than 650 km/h (400 mph) with the DB engine in level flight, without using war emergency power."
Just thinking that 628 km/h happens to be the same speed we currently have in game…
2 Likes
The 628 figure was probably achieved by MM.494 during early testing because of the faulty engine. Knowing a standard Re2005 with an actual DB605A could reach 650km/h, it’s not hard to picture one with 300 extra hp go 720km/h.
Anyway, @Leinadmix9_ツ they are using data from MM.494 with the worse engine. This makes no sense, but it’s the data recorded in the most famous test: the serie 5 test.
Still, using early MM494 data to model MM495 is just wrong since MM495 never had the crappy engine MM494 had.
6 Likes
That would be crazy lame if they actually used wikipedia as the main source
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
lame you say huh
there is literally no way to report an aricraft’s empty weight lmao
8 Likes
Reggiane Re2005 Sagittario Project-Performances and also here you can find the specifics, and also in one of the already know manuals if i remember correct what they want more???
Please do not use AI for any kind of research: it’s not reliable.
Besides the weight report was on the MB326K because in game is 600kg heavier than irl. The Reggiane should be fine.
that was just for a example, i don’t understand some… ilogics of the devs
1 Like
then shouldn’t it weigh less?
Top speeds are mainly a function of drag and increasing horsepower is a diminishing return. I think that is unreasonable to assume that extra 300hp would increase the top speed by 10%.
For reference, the Bf.109 G-6 has a 350hp advantage of the Bf.109 G-2 at 5000m, and the top speed difference between the two planes is only 20kph between the two planes. The P-51 D-30 is also only 33kph faster than the P-51 D-5 when compared at 5000m, and this will be the largest gap between the two.
A 720kph top speed at around 7000m would make the Re.2005 VDV as fast as a P-51 D-30, 70kph faster than the Bf.109 G-6, and 27kph faster than the Bf.109 G-10. This is with an airplane that is going to be inherently draggier than both designs.
3 Likes
i kind get what you mean but the g6 is like different design bulky and draggy then g2 and to add more salt on injury the g6 is about 250kg heavier then g2 but in case of re2005 and Re.2005 VDM 495 the are the same airframe just with different propeller and different engine so more hp would make more of difference here
I also used the P-51s as a reference since they are an exceptionally low drag airframe and are identical to each other with the only major change being in engine power. The exceptionally low drag of the P-51 means that we would expect to see a higher gain in top speed with purely changes to engine power.
Gaining 70kph in top speed from the Re.2005 by means of simply increasing the engine power by 300hp is extremely unlikely.
And just reading the sources here, it seems that the 750kph number is based on a pilot report claiming that it reached 750kph indicated air speed in level flight. Indicated air speed would mean that it’s true airspeed would be much higher; especially if that indicated air speed is at 7200m.
1 Like
720km seem bit too much given the normal re2005 has 650km max speed same altitude i would say 680km to 700km is more realistic giving the power increase of around 300hp
Oh yeah it might be, but it also has a new propeller that was expecially designed to go in combination with that engine so it should have increased efficiency. But yeah Idk. Also, as paolo said, speed tests were conducted in an “eccentric” way.
At least it should have better climb speed since the power to weight ration would definitely increase.
1 Like
Please, allow me do some math:
Drag (D) is proportional to the square of true air speed (v):
D = 1/2 x rho x v^2 x S x Cd
Where rho is density of air, S is reference area (almost always wing area) and Cd is drag coefficient.
Power (P) required to overcome a given amount of drag is:
P = v x D/my
where my is efficiency of propeller at the given air speed.
If we assume that altitude and thus air density are the same, and that drag coefficient and propeller efficiency stay close enough constant, (as they do at this speed regime), we get that required power for a given velocity regime, the power reguired depends only of the ratio of the squares of the velocities:
v2^2/v1^2 = (720 km/h)^2/(650 km/h)^2
≈ 1.227
we get that to get an airplane speed increase from 650 km/h to 720 km/h, we need increase the power approximately 1.227 fold.
If original power output of unmodified Re.2005 was 1450 hp, the new engine would have to produce some 1780 hp to reach 720 km/h at the SAME ALTITUDE using SAME PROPLLER.
Bottomline: As we know that Re.2005 MM.495 had both a new engine and also a new propeller that can reasonably be assumed to be slightly more efficient, I don’t see it at all impossible the airframe could have reached 720 km/h, especially if the new engine was rated for even slightly higher altitude.
Thank you
7 Likes
we also add a slightly more tapered nose which should give a different performance coefficient than the current 0 series flight model