Serie 0 at 7000m, reaches 653/652 km/h. It starts struggling to accelerate at around 620 km/h. As you can see from the fuel timer this reached 652 km/h before the VDM could even reach 629.
New VDM on dev at 5100m (claimed max speed alt), reachs 651/652 km/h. It starts struggling to accelerate at around 620 km/h, essentially the exact same as the serie 0 but at 5100m.
Lastly to keep the tests even, I tested the new VDM at 7000m, where it STRUGGLED to reach 644 km/h. It took me like 50 km to reach this, and it started struggling with acceleration maybe even at 560 km/h, but that could be in my head.
In conclusion: the current is horrible and you should play the serie 0 at any chance over it. The new version that will come next update is as good as the serie 0, but still the serie 0 is better at high altitude. I also did some flying around and the new one seems pretty much copy paste of the serie 0. Though ingame it would be better as you dont have to climb as high to go as fast, in theory.
I think we should keep fighting for improvements until it gets the claimed 720 km/h, because right now this thing is not worth the money or the BR.
that’s very odd the vdm is performing worse still with 300 more hp, what do you think is causing this the propeller should be more efficient not less right?
It’s not performing worse, expecially if the climb rate is actually 27 m/s.
It simply reaches it’s maximum speed at a lower altitude. To really know the difference, we need an EM diagram like those that catwerfer makes comparing engine output at various altitudes.
However, it does seem like the flight model is quite junky. Something is clearly wrong with the prop’s efficiency.
To me it seems they shoe horned the MM494 prototype performance (bad DB605A with Piaggio propeller) into the VDM and then just straight up giving it the extra 300hp (while lowering top speed altitude?).
Standard fighter engine using B4 fuel.
• Power: 1475 PS at sea level (takeoff power)
• Maximum emergency power: 1550 PS at 2.1 km
• Full-throttle height: 5.8 km
DB605AM:
Equipped with an MW-50 (water–methanol) injection system, using C3 fuel.
Up to ~1815 HP special emergency power at 0 meters at 2,800 rpm for takeoff with MW-50 injection
Up to ~1705 HP at 2,800 rpm at 4,000 meters for maximum power with MW-50 injection
Base weight G6 VDM:
2.7 t
Fuel in main tanks
0.3 t (59m)
RoC 23.1
DB605A
Base weight G6 VDM:
2.92 t
Fuel in main tanks
0.3 t (1h)
RoC 19.5
DB605AM
Base weight G14 VDM:
2.96 t
Fuel in main tanks
0.3 t (1h)
RoC 21.8
DB605AM
Base weight Serie 0 Piaggio;
2.99 t
Fuel in main tanks
0.45 t (1h 33m)
DB605A-1
RoC 16
Base weight mm.494 VDM:
2.99 t
Fuel in main tanks
0.45 t (1h 33m)
DB605AM
RoC 15.3
I’m saying that the decrease in critical alt from standard Re.2005 to the Re.2005 MM.495 (7000 to 5100 meters) makes sense if you compare the Bf 109 G-2 (standard DB 605A) to the Bf 109 G-6 (DB 605AM), where a similar decrease in critical alt also happens.
109s are lighter ingame, more than what your figures show.
Bf 109 G-6 has an empty weight of 2730 kg, and 296 kg of fuel.
Bf 109 G-14 has an empty weight of 2760 kg, and 296 kg of fuel.
Re.2005 VDM has an empty weight of 2861 kg, and 450 kg of fuel.
Consider as well that the Re.2005 has more ammunition, which itself adds weight to the plane.
This was all pulled from datamines, so I can’t really say if this is accurate to real life or not.
Besides all that, statcards are relatively useless and you should rely on your own testing of the aircraft.
The statcards are more than likely wrong. The numbers written on plane stat cards are written separately from the actual flight model, and have neither an impact on how the plane performs, nor are determined by how the plane performs. As I said previously:
That’s why you have some planes with blatantly false stat card values. A good example is the Me 163 where the top speed stat is completely wrong.
We need to compare it after the update, and if the Re.2005 MM.495 VDM is worse than the Serie 0, it’s going to be hard to believe how this can be true, despite having a more powerful engine, being lighter and having a VDM propeller. I’m referring to the overall FM of the Re.2005 MM.495 VDM.
As someone else already posted in this topic, the VDM achieves something like 28 m/s climb rate at low altitudes, which is far above the climb rate at low altitude of the standard Re.2005 if I remember right.
The overall performance at up to 5km is much improved, it just starts to drop above 5km which is expected with the DB 605AM engine.
You already can compare them on dev by using WTRTI and VDM have much better climbrate.
Never believe to statcards, because they dont show you actual performance.
There are so many obvious mistakes that can prove it
Like 29 sec sustained turn time for Xp-55
F7F that have higher climbrate than Ki-83
Swift F7 with 980 km/h topspeed
Ariete and Saggitario have exactly the same numbers in statcard too (and in fact Ariete have much higher topspeed, climbrare and sustained turn)
Statcards are incorrect even if you will test planes with full fuel
Thank you very much guys, for all the information.
Gaijin should fix this; otherwise, people who don’t understand or know this - will never choose a plane if the first thing they see is the stat card(I do the same if I need to choose which plane to play next).
I don’t usually go on the dev server, so I can only rely on you for further information and stats.
These are all with min fuel. Please note that “maxFuel” may not actually be the correct maximum fuel amount for these planes anymore, you have to manually add up all the tank capacities in the fm file to be sure, but I’m not gonna bother since i doubt there are differences for these planes in particular.
Besides that the VDM now has its MW50 injection on dev and HP is boosted to 1700, it goes ~550kph (compared to 506 on live) on deck with radiators closed.
