Author Topic: Threw this idea at HT during the con..  (Read 1038 times)

washedup

  • Guest
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #15 on: November 29, 2000, 05:11:00 PM »
Gimme gimme gimme!!!


Offline Staga

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5334
      • http://www.nohomersclub.com/
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #16 on: November 29, 2000, 05:17:00 PM »
 

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2000, 10:57:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
 Not possible, once the C-Stoff and T-Stoff are cooked off, the compression of the engine sucks each one dry until the fuel is spent, another words, once you light that bird, you burn it all, no on or off, just ON.  You had a valve (I believe) to stop the flow, but I've read diasterous reports of re-ingnition thereafter.(fuel seepage, combine chemical vapor detonation, etc)


[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 11-29-2000).]

Actually they could (and did, albeit with those noted problems) relight in flight. The 163 attack doctrine was to climb to 35,000, shut of fuel flow, make a slashing attack through the bomber formation, relight and repeat, being sure to burn off the entire fuel supply before landing.

If they did leave the rocket on, and continued to climb...well five minutes of fuel will get ya alot higher then 35,000 feet.

C-Stoff and T-Stoff were hydrogen peroxide and hydrazine/methanol, the T-Stoff being the dreaded melting stuff.  



[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 11-29-2000).]

Offline Sundog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1781
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2000, 12:01:00 AM »
I think it would be very cool to have one of those! I like the use of it as a point defense aircraft near HQ. Of course, if they want to really limits it use, along the lines of what you guys already mentioned, have them model the Me-163 exploding on landing for the pilot who isn't smooth enough and shakes up the remaining C-Stoff and T-Stoff on landing   .

SD

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2000, 12:17:00 AM »
Me 163 was a very limited interceptor in real life, and if modelled correctly the same would apply in AH.

Hugely long takeoff run.

4 minutes rocket duration at full throttle.

Have to wait 2 minutes to relight rocket if turned off.

The slightest negative G will result in a flameout of the rocket.

Bleeds alot of speed in hard turns due to tailless design.

Lands on a skid, so no taxiing after landing. Have to wait for ground crew to come and tow it away.

Kind of hard to aim two low-velocity 30mm with a 350mph+ closing speed on tail attack.

The good part is that it climbs at what is most 1944 fighters top speed, and it reaches 40,000ft in about 3.5 minutes from a standing start.  

Offline hblair

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4052
      • http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/hblair/mainpage.htm
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2000, 12:58:00 AM »
Looks yummy...

 

 

 

Luke Skywalker

  • Guest
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2000, 03:26:00 AM »
Hey, its fast and I like fast fighters!!!

I vote "yes"  

------------------
Hey, dont shoot me! I'm on the light side!!
   

 

[This message has been edited by Luke Skywalker (edited 11-30-2000).]

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #22 on: November 30, 2000, 04:37:00 AM »
Komet?

Must be mine!!

   

[This message has been edited by Naso (edited 11-30-2000).]

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #23 on: November 30, 2000, 06:50:00 AM »
Am all for the little bastage being welcomed into the arena to perform it's historic role........and let's hope HTC has access to some of the data concerning the idiosyncrasies involved in just taking off in the little meanie....like separating the wheels (weren't they on a cart or gondola??) at just the right speed and alt, lest they bounce up and smack ya in the rump and down you before you get started good........lol.  Saw a documentary on the 163 once that showed just such a thing happening......liftoff, 163 rotating up, there go the wheels.....bounce, SMACK!  One fluttering 163 on the way back to terra firma, pilot seat left with a permanent pucker mark.  

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2000, 07:16:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by eddiek:
like separating the wheels (weren't they on a cart or gondola??) at just the right speed and alt, lest they bounce up and smack ya in the rump and down you before you get started good........lol.  Saw a documentary on the 163 once that showed just such a thing happening......liftoff, 163 rotating up, there go the wheels.....bounce, SMACK!  One fluttering 163 on the way back to terra firma, pilot seat left with a permanent pucker mark.    


Yes, the wheels were in a trolley that was detached on takeoff. The intention was to go up to a couple hundred meters and then detach the trolley that should descend in a parachute to the ground. But after 2 parachute failures, the standard way to release was just after takeoff.

In AH it wont never be a problem. Its very simple: you dont want that f*!·!ing damned trolley for nothing else than to take off and there is no ground crew (nor Geschwader Kommodore   ) to blame you and make you pay for it when (if) you land the bird. So you can release it at 700feet if you want it to, and let the little F***ing thing smash into the ground.

 

[edit] I remember reading an interview with one of the pilots of the Me163b, who was telling a very similar story, but with a quite more dramatic end.

On the take off the trolley was released as used ,but this time it bounced and hit the ME163. The engine cut at once,but the plane kept on flying quite well, and it ditched more or less intact. When they went to see if the Pilot was OK...

They found the T-stoff ducting had been cut off by the impact and the corrosive propellant had leaked into the cockpit, MELTING IN LIFE the poor pilot...

Noone will deny something to most LW pilots...they had some big BIG cojones to put themselfs into a bird that they knew could melt them alive.[/edit]


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-30-2000).]

-lazs-

  • Guest
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2000, 02:39:00 PM »
Well, like i said... This is the only plane I have seen so far that i wouldn't be pissed about as a "perk" plane.   I am against the whole idiotic perk plane idea but this one seems like good clean fun and I have very little sympathy for the lone unescorted bomber who may run into one of these (hopefully) rare "perk" planes.

You want anything else to be "perked" then let it be manning the ack or driving the cv or getting to clean out HT's garage or mow pyros lawn..... You can even have my perk points.
lazs

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2000, 03:29:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by -lazs-:
Well, like i said... This is the only plane I have seen so far that i wouldn't be pissed about as a "perk" plane.   I am against the whole idiotic perk plane idea but this one seems like good clean fun and I have very little sympathy for the lone unescorted bomber who may run into one of these (hopefully) rare "perk" planes.

Why do I think that its soooo normal that when I think that the perking system is a great idea, you think just the opposite?

For sure we aren't twin souls  

Offline flakbait

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
      • http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2000, 04:30:00 PM »
Actually the Me-163B had a limited throttle control. You could pill it back to 25% power, but no lower or the engine would cut. The fuels used were hypergolic, meaning they'd ignite when mixed. Take-off run wasn't too long, but it did require a substantial clear zone at the end of the runway. If the Komet crashed on take-off it was best to have a clear area, unless you WANT to piss the cook off.

C-Stoff is Hydrazine/Methanol
T-Stoff is Hydrogen Peroxide
Z-Stoff was tested and a few Komets supposedly used it as fuel. It is a water solution of Natrium and Potassium Permanganate. Highly explosive.

Rate of climb was between 12,000 and 14,500 ft/min depending on throttle settings. Full power would rocket your fuzzy butt to 45,000 ft within 3 minutes. Typically they used 80% power to hit 35,000 ft then throttled back to 25% to loiter. If bombers were spotted right off the bat they'd leave it at 80% until the fuel supply dried out. A typical Komet mission lasted all of 35 minutes.

Good Komet page

------------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"I wanted to go back for another 50 missions, but they ruled it out
because I had a case of malaria that kept recurring. So I had to stay in the
States and teach combat flying. I was shot down by a mosquito! "
Frank Hurlbut, P-38 pilot

 

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2000, 08:40:00 AM »
Punt!

-lazs-

  • Guest
Threw this idea at HT during the con..
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2000, 10:36:00 AM »
ram.... Why do we think things out so differently?  it's because i have never believed that running my head into things was a good idea.   Also.... when I was a child and threatened to hold my breath or kick my feet or run my head into the wall until I got my way.... My parents just said "go ahead" and then ignored me until I gave up the tactic.   Other than that..... I don't know.
lazs