I respect your opinion, and I want to clarify a few things before this turns into a pointless back-and-forth about opinions, pros, and cons regarding the Re.2005.
We attempted to contact DB and BMW/Museum for historical documents. The response was that they do not provide information related to the WWII/National Socialist period.
The sources I mentioned come from different authors and primary materials regarding the MM.494 and the Re.2005.
Why would there be any issue or inconsistency with the Germans modifying their own engine? The DB605A-1 was delivered by the Germans and then modified.
If you have the opportunity to modify and test improvements on your own products, why wouldn’t you take it?
MW-50 was tested before 1944 and was used to improve the DB605A series engines. The DB605AM, for example, is essentially a DB605A-1 equipped with the MW-50 system, C3 fuel, etc.
This brings us to the main problem: the Re.2005 MM.495 “VDM m,” as it is labeled in War Thunder, performs worse than the tech-tree variants, yet it costs money. Its performance suggests it should have been designated MM.494 instead.
“And if Gaijin releases a vehicle that you have to pay for, it shouldn’t be a made-up design like the current VDM. Just name it ‘mm.494,’ and don’t add an ‘mm.495’ unless there’s enough verified information to satisfy Gaijin.”
Period: Summer 1942
Event/key document: Start of experiments on the “Kühlmittelzusatz” (additive for cooling supercharger air) at Daimler-Benz and the RLM test center.
Engines involved: DB 601 E, DB 603 A
Primary source: RLM Archives, Daimler test reports
Period: Spring 1943
Event/key document: First official bench tests of MW-50 on the DB 605 A-1. Power increases of +15–20% were recorded.
Engine involved: DB 605 A-1
Primary source: Daimler-Benz AG, Aircraft Engines Test Department
Period: Summer–Autumn 1943
Event/key document: Preparation of the test report “Steigerung der Start- und Notleistung durch Ladedruckerhöhung u. Zusatz von MW50” (“Increase of takeoff and emergency power through boost pressure increase and addition of MW-50”), relating to the DB 605 G.
Engine involved: DB 605 G
Primary source: Daimler-Benz AG, Stuttgart-Untertürkheim (≈ July–September 1943)
No one is stopping you from saying it, just as I’ve already pointed out, we’re not here to hear this point of view. If you think you’re right, create a dedicated topic. Your current behavior is that of a Real Madrid fan cheering for his team from the Manchester United stand.
the thing itself is anachronistic
The only primary documents are for the earlier 494. All of the claims about the MW-50 equipped engine are secondary. And it’s not clear what, if any, primary source documents that those claims originate from.
The inconsistency is that it is highly unlikely that they
would opt to test out their cutting edge engine tech in an Italian airframe 3-5 months before testing it in their own. It does not make logical sense.
Nobody is debating this point. It’s just that the most likely modification of the engine has nothing to do with boosting it with MW-50, but rather production changes incorporated in 1943 to allow the engine to more reliably run at its rated horsepower.
I have never claimed that it wasn’t tested prior to 1944. If you have paid attention, my argument has been that the Re.2005 flight test pre-dates the German flight tests with MW-50 and by pretty important margins.
Again, I respect your opinion. Right now we’re only discussing what you think and whether that opinion is correct or not.
Fact 1: The plane in the game is the MM.494 with a VDM propeller installed — look at the manuals, posts and to my earlier suggestion.
Fact 2: The primary sources we’re using come from the MM.494 and the Re.2005 — again, see my suggestion and previous posts.
Fact 3: We’re no longer talking about what’s wrong with the current Re.2005 VDM. Instead, you are speculating about if the Germans had modified the mm.495 or not, and you’re treating books on the Re.2005 as if they aren’t valid sources.
“Als Vorteil der Fiat G 55 erscheint, daß die Zelle für den
Einbau des DB 603 sehr geeignet ist. Damit tritt eine erhebliche
Leistungsteigerung ein und der vorhandene Nachteil, daß sie
in der Geschwindigkeit unterlegen ist (ca 25 km pro Stunde Lang-
samer als Bf 109 G 4 und Fw 190 A 5) wird überholt. Es kommt
hinzu, daß das Flugzeug zusätzlich eine 3 cm Kanone auf-nimmt.”
As an off-topic aside, I think it´s interesting that the Germans assumed a future G.55 equipped with DB 603 would also receive a 30mm cannon, at least according to the somewhat ambiguous wording of that passage.
Hello. The developers have reviewed the report in full. The engine was modified. A water injection system was added and boost was increased in emergency mode. However, this resulted in a slight increase in speed, which is to be expected. The top speed has increased to 652 km/h. The current weight aircraft is 3,600 kg, which requires no changes. The only source to mention speeds specifically for the 495 prototype was referring to indicated air speed. So sadly this was not an accurate measure. The remaining materials presented are not related to the characteristics of the 495 aircraft prototype. The above listed changes will be released in the next major update.
While the bug report does contain information on the MM.494, it is ONLY because the performance of the in-game Re.2005 VDM is based on what the MM.494 achieved.
Even now, the new 652 km/h speed is based on the 629 km/h top speed of the MM.494 but with the additional horsepower of water injection.
In short, that last bit of the response is insanely hypocritical, because Gaijin is actively using information on MM.494 to model the vehicle EVEN NOW with the boosted engine and VDM prop which the MM.494 never had.
More information spesific to the 495 is always welcome, however this is the best possible outcome with the current provided information. All viable information is currently being used to make these improvements.
