Me 163

[BaldEagl]

I was just watching the CBS Early Show and the weather guy took a ride on an Air Force plane that can reportedly reach the highest altitude of any plane built; 70,000 feet.

Aside from the cool photos which looked more like they were taken from the space shuttle than an airplane (they clearly showed the curvature of the Earth) this got me to thinking about the 163 altitude challenge on these boards a few moths ago.  I personally took the 163 to 94,000 feet during that challenge and if the plane hadn't dissapeared (it just totally went away at 90,000 feet) I likey would have gone higher.  So I did some digging and found out on Century of Flight that the absolute ceiling of the Me 163 was 54,000 feet.

I understand this is a trivial matter and that practical application in the game makes this irrelevant but considering the quest for accuracy found in this forum in particular I thought it worth thowing out for consideration as a fix.  What I don't know is if this is related to the 163's particular flight model or if it's related to AH's atmospheric modeling (if they even do that?).  Maybe this was already fixed in one of the recent updates?  It would be interesting to see more of the plane-set tested against absolute ceilings to see if there's a commonality here or if this is an isolated incedent.

[boomerlu]

Hey BE. I actually did SOME in game testing.

I took a few of the faster fighters up as high as I could and I tried to dive them to transonic/supersonic speeds. The ceilings seem approximately what they should be - around 30-50k (with a plane like the Ta152 coming in at around 50k). I did not test the 163 however.

Coincidentally, with the dive tests, the 152 was the only that went transonic. But I don't know if AH models transonic aero.

[Boxboy]

Sort of unrelated BE but did it say what the flight endurance was for a 163 from engine start to cutoff???  It seems to me that our 163's last too long before going to glide mode.

Just did a Google and it stated (by a pilot that flew them) 7 minutes of powered flight was the "tech spec" and 5 minutes was the rule, hardly the 163 we see in AH.

[FLS]

I believe the Me163 fuel burn was adjusted in a recent update.

Boomerlu I hope you started at the 30k field in the TA map.

[boomerlu]

Boomerlu I hope you started at the 30k field in the TA map.

LOL no, I was bored and had to do some studying but wanted to do some Aces High testing in the background. So while I read my book, I had my plane on autoclimb. Whenever I felt like taking a break from studying, I just dove my plane.

[Strip]

Have you done this since the Me-163 was updated?

I doubt many of you have tested it like this recently, its changed.

Strip

[Krusty]

163 fuel consumption used to decrease with alt, like the jets did. This (and so many other things) were changed with the FM update.

It gets about 7 minutes now, and totally handles differently. Feels more like a kick in the pants for that 7 minutes.

[BaldEagl]

Sort of unrelated BE but did it say what the flight endurance was for a 163 from engine start to cutoff???  It seems to me that our 163's last too long before going to glide mode.

Just did a Google and it stated (by a pilot that flew them) 7 minutes of powered flight was the "tech spec" and 5 minutes was the rule, hardly the 163 we see in AH.

According to Century of Flight it was 6 minutes so that seems about right.  Here's the link:

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/Messerschmitt%20Komet.htm

[Strip]

Six to seven minutes continuous at full power.....the real thing was throttle-able and restartable.

Strip

[MiloMorai]

I was just watching the CBS Early Show and the weather guy took a ride on an Air Force plane that can reportedly reach the highest altitude of any plane built; 70,000 feet.

Guess he was in a YF-12A which could reach 80,000ft or maybe it was a Mikoyan/Gurevitch E-266M that reached 37,650 m.

[AWwrgwy]

Guess he was in a YF-12A which could reach 80,000ft or maybe it was a Mikoyan/Gurevitch E-266M that reached 37,650 m.

2-seater U-2 (whatever it's called)?

Saw a similar vid on youtoob or somewhere a little while back>

Six to seven minutes continuous at full power.....the real thing was throttle-able and restartable.

Strip

OK.  Small problem....

7 minutes in the MA, right now, right?  At 2x fuel burn, doesn't that mean the 163 is modeled with 14 minutes worth of fuel?

I'm sure it's a concession for gameplay in the MA, and I'm glad for it, but... Hmmmmmm.....


wrongway

[Krusty]

HTC has hard-coded the fuel burn not to accept multipliers on the 163.

You can see this for yourself offline, as setting fuel burn to 0 will not increase the burn time.

So yes, that's a concession because of the already-short lifespan.

[curry1]

http://www.wimp.com/breathtakingfootage/

2-seater U-2 (whatever it's called)?
Saw a similar vid on youtoob or somewhere a little while back>
OK.  Small problem....
7 minutes in the MA, right now, right?  At 2x fuel burn, doesn't that mean the 163 is modeled with 14 minutes worth of fuel?
I'm sure it's a concession for gameplay in the MA, and I'm glad for it, but... Hmmmmmm.....
wrongway

[L0nGb0w]

I was just watching the CBS Early Show and the weather guy took a ride on an Air Force plane that can reportedly reach the highest altitude of any plane built; 70,000 feet.

I wonder where that show gets its facts, the SR-71 had an official ceiling of 85,000 feet, and pilots later said that the ceiling is closer to 115,000 feet.

[Masherbrum]

I believe the plane in question might be the RQ-4 Global Hawk.    If so, this Altitude Record is for Unmanned Probes/Flight (UAV's).   The Global Hawk already holds the Trans-Pacific Crossing from Edwards AFB to Adelaide, Australia in 22 hours.  

Just trying to shed some light, before some get carried away.