Author Topic: Me 163  (Read 5741 times)

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Me 163
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2009, 03:34:23 AM »
I doubt that very much....

The SR-71 had very specific flight parameters, violating them usually meant loss of airframe.

Quote
There is no stall in the classic sense where an abrupt loss in lift would occur at critical angle of attack. (See Figure 6-2, Lift vs Angle of Attack.) Instead, a nose-up pitching moment develops as angle of attack increases, which becomes uncontrollable (even with full nose-down elevon) as the critical angle of attack boundary is reached. (See Figure 6-3, Subsonic Critical Angle of Attack Boundary.) An uncontrollable pitch-up will not occur until after limit angle of attack as given in Section V is reached. The SAS will tend to maintain apparent stability about all three axis until pitch-up occurs, then aircraft control is lost with little or no warning.

The AoA figures in Section V:

Quote
6 degrees with manual inlet above 70,000 feet
8 degrees supersonic
10 degrees subsonic, above FL250
14 degrees below FL250

     The SR-71 was a very finicky aircraft, requiring gentle control inputs under very specific conditions. Things like a zoom climb would have been very risky, almost assuredly violating the AoA. This film on Youtube shows how easily the SR-71 can be upset, resulting in structural failure upon pitch up. Notice that once the AoA is exceeded the aircraft starts to disintegrate from aerodynamic forces.

Also, above about 85,000 feet the aircraft becomes thrust limited and cannot climb higher while maintaining speed.

Strip





« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 03:37:48 AM by Strip »

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Me 163
« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2009, 10:35:38 AM »
I doubt that very much....

The SR-71 had very specific flight parameters, violating them usually meant loss of airframe.

The AoA figures in Section V:

     The SR-71 was a very finicky aircraft, requiring gentle control inputs under very specific conditions. Things like a zoom climb would have been very risky, almost assuredly violating the AoA. This film on Youtube shows how easily the SR-71 can be upset, resulting in structural failure upon pitch up. Notice that once the AoA is exceeded the aircraft starts to disintegrate from aerodynamic forces.

Also, above about 85,000 feet the aircraft becomes thrust limited and cannot climb higher while maintaining speed.

Strip

few people relize that many crashed in the deserts around Edwards AFB. I have a number of fragments from SR and YF-12 crash sites. I have a friend who works for NASA as a photographer and he has a control panel from an SR that he found at a crash site.







Offline CAP1

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22287
      • The Axis Vs Allies Arena
Re: Me 163
« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2009, 11:29:20 AM »
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.

didn't the blackbird cruise at 80,000?
ingame 1LTCAP
80th FS "Headhunters"
S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning in a Bottle)

Offline Strip

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
Re: Me 163
« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2009, 01:27:33 PM »
The published limit was 85,000 feet without the base commanders prior approval.

80,000 would probably be a close estimate....

Strip

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Me 163
« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2009, 01:30:34 PM »
The published limit was 85,000 feet without the base commanders prior approval.

80,000 would probably be a close estimate....

Strip

 There was no need to fly any higher. The speed it flew at that height was enough to defeat any sam the Russians had and have.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Me 163
« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2009, 01:00:22 AM »
Um... are you implying that a CBS Early Show host took a ride IN a Global Hawk?  :huh

Read my post, I never said such a thing.   I merely provided a simple fact of clarity of the OP.   He flew in a U-2 and was allowed access to the RQ-4 Command Center in question.   

Whether or not he scratched his nuts while making pancakes is unknown.   I don't know if he shot a kitten, used it for a wheel chock or a speed bump calculator.   

The only person that implied anything, was yourself.   
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: Me 163
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2009, 01:15:20 AM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 10:34:28 AM by Skuzzy »

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Me 163
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2009, 01:28:33 AM »
.
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: Me 163
« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2009, 01:55:30 AM »
Um... are you implying that a CBS Early Show host took a ride IN a Global Hawk?  :huh

No.  He's not.

He quoted me.  He replied to my reply.

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

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

Did I imply what the aircraft was as well?  I put a ? in there, after all.

Mash was answering the ? I left dangling.

If you can't be bothered to READ the entire flow of a thread, perhaps you shouldn't participate.


Feel better now?


wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: Me 163
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2009, 06:17:49 AM »
No.  He's not.

He quoted me.  He replied to my reply.



Hate to say it wrongway, but there is no quote there. I just double-checked.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Me 163
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2009, 12:28:55 PM »
No.  He's not.

He quoted me.  He replied to my reply.

Did I imply what the aircraft was as well?  I put a ? in there, after all.

Mash was answering the ? I left dangling.

If you can't be bothered to READ the entire flow of a thread, perhaps you shouldn't participate.


Feel better now?


wrongway

It's his nature as a teenager.    Yes, I was also answering your open ended question.    Maybe he'll get mugged again and post up another testosterone laced lie, like the first one. 
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: Me 163
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2009, 03:22:04 PM »
Hate to say it wrongway, but there is no quote there. I just double-checked.

OK.  No quote.  But how about context?

Makes sense to me.


wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline Serenity

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7313
Re: Me 163
« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2009, 09:18:06 PM »
OK.  No quote.  But how about context?

Makes sense to me.


wrongway

Not seeing any context either. I see some random statement by someone I know to be a twit who likes to hear himself speak, having nothing to do with the thread, and the post leading up to his had nothing to do with a global hawk, nor was there a discussion into which the Global Hawk in any way fits. If we are talking context, yes, there was a discussion about altitude records for aircraft. In context, the only aircraft mentioned are manned aircraft, not drones or rockets, therefore even by slim margins the Global Hawk doesn't fit into context.

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Me 163
« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2009, 10:09:51 PM »
Not seeing any context either. I see some random statement by someone I know to be a twit who likes to hear himself speak, having nothing to do with the thread, and the post leading up to his had nothing to do with a global hawk, nor was there a discussion into which the Global Hawk in any way fits. If we are talking context, yes, there was a discussion about altitude records for aircraft. In context, the only aircraft mentioned are manned aircraft, not drones or rockets, therefore even by slim margins the Global Hawk doesn't fit into context.

The only "twit" is the proven liar.....yourself.  
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Cthulhu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2463
Re: Me 163
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2009, 12:51:51 AM »
There was no need to fly any higher. The speed it flew at that height was enough to defeat any sam the Russians had and have.  :confused:

You might want to avoid such broad statements. Given the proper engagement conditions, the SA-12 could kill an SR-71, and I doubt any sane Blackbird driver would knowingly get anywhere near one of the newer SA-21 systems. These systems are designed to kill high-speed/high-altitude targets, and they do it pretty well. The B-70 program wasn't cancelled just because we couldn't affort all that white paint. It was cancelled because the AF saw the hand writing on the wall. High altitude flight (unless you're able to go hypersonic at near exoatmospheric altitudes) has gotten just plain dangerous.   :uhoh  This is why stealth technology, especially for big strategic bomb trucks like the B-2, has become so crucial.

"Think of Tetris as a metaphor for life:  You spend all your time trying to find a place for your long thin piece, then when you finally do, everything you've built disappears"