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?
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.
For what it’s worth to the Devs, I was very much looking forward to the DB-605AM engined vehicle and was planning to purchase the BP, something I haven’t done before, but with the vehicle in its current state, there is absolutely no reason for me to do so.
I think most people who enjoy air would be in a similar boat. I don’t know what is wrong with the sources, but even if they are not up to standard, I think bending your requirements to make this an enjoyable and unique vehicle is in everyone’s interest.
I feel they have just been getting exponentially worse the past few years and ESPECIALLY the past few months since leviathans (literally HE in cannons is still broken from that). I genuinely hope they fire these devs and get new ones, because this is horrible.
Anyways, yeah I mean I didn’t know what you guys expected, gaijin giving a unique vehicle what actually makes it unique? No I guess that’s too much
We’ll see if we can make a new bug report.
Rn the VDM has the performance of MM.494 with the crappy engine used for the Guidonia tests which makes 0 sense.
Hello. Unfortunately after reviewing the report, the sources have a lack of clear information about how the figures were achieved, in what conditions or any form of reliable data testing. Without this detail, its not possible to make any changes to the flight model. Pilot claims of top speeds and performance cannot be used as reliable data to create an FM for an aircraft. More realistic data is required regarding altitude, conditions, test parameters etc. For now, no changes can be made based on this information.
We will create a new bug report. My only consideration so far is that I’ve seen the following aircraft in the game:
I suggest you and @S_bastienZ88 join effort again to make a new bug report. Possibly, you should focus your effort into proving MM.495 had DB605A with MW-50 (which makes it identical to DB605AM). This way we are sure to make the VDM have 1800hp. Then you should prove to them that the VDM rn uses MM.494 data with the bad engine from the serie 5 tests so it should have the serie 0 top speed and an improved climb rate thanks to the increased hp.
For the top speed… idk. I’m afraid the best we can get is 650 km/h or 678 km/h as stated in one of S_bastienZ88 source.
