« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 262  (Read 374 times)

aces38

  • Guest
262
« on: December 06, 1999, 11:40:00 AM »
besides we need a B17 killer capable of reaching 30K plus and still flyable! Me163 would be good point defense. after all the range was very limited so why not allow them, they can't be used offensively.
Logged

lister

  • Guest
262
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 1999, 07:42:00 AM »
'B17 at F1, hi'

'augerin'

'ok on rway in 163'

(30 seconds pass)

'hehehhehe did u see his tail come off?'

No more need be said.



------------------
lister

XO, Red Dragons
(Aces High Division)

 http://www.reddragons.de

Logged

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
262
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 1999, 10:48:00 AM »
And that would be about as close as you get to an air-to-air missile in WWII, yet remain within the era  

------------------
129 IAP VVS RKKA


Logged
ingame: Raz

Thzone

  • Guest
262
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 1999, 01:21:00 PM »
What about the 163 variant with the light sensing cells on the wings and the cannon pointing straight up. When the plane passed the shadow of a plane above, *BOOM* Bye Bye B17.
Logged

Offline Hristo

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1150
262
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 1999, 01:45:00 PM »
With current fuel modifier, the last part of your climb would be only due to inertia.

And when you reach that 35k, you will be low and slow for gunners to pick  

Good side though is that all landings will be without that dangerous fuel.

OK, seriously now. I don't think Me 163 has any real future in any sim, but now you got me interested a bit. Hmmmm, maybe...
Logged

Offline BBGunn

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8
262
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 1999, 09:21:00 PM »
If this sim were allowed to evolve more similar to how WW2 evovled then maybe the ME163 would have a place.  If the 163 scenario were modeled correctly then about a fourth of them would explode taking the pilot with them in powerful puffs of peroxide.
Yuuuuck!  Just can't get excited about that.
Logged

Offline -lynx-

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 340
262
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 1999, 07:10:00 AM »
Hear-hear bbgun!

The same should apply to plane ratios: let's have LW/Western front; LW/Eastern front; US/Pacific planesets. And restrict the availability of particular planes by the historic ratios.

I really don't care if 262s or 163 or 335s or any suchlike plane is available as long as it's available in the ratio it was available in combat - 1/thousands...

I'm afraid we will drown in "I paid my money I want my Pony" posts though .

------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF

[This message has been edited by -lynx- (edited 12-21-1999).]
Logged

Offline dolomite

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
262
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 1999, 08:11:00 AM »
LOL Lister!
Logged

Offline Flathat

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4
262
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 1999, 10:00:00 AM »
If and when HTC introduces the Komet, they should model fuel leaks.

CTRL-D: Hydrazine leak

HOST: You have melted

 

Happy holidays!

------------------
Flathat
'Black Dahlia'
No10 RNAS "The Black Flight"
Angel on your wing, devil on your tail



[This message has been edited by Flathat (edited 12-21-1999).]
Logged

Offline Duckwing6

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 324
      • http://www.pink.at
262
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 1999, 05:22:00 AM »
re: ME163 has no future in any WW2 sim...

during Operation Longbow scenario in AW3, in one of the lst frames they used the Mig15 with endurance of 7 or 8 minutes to simulate the ME163... as of all i've heared they had a BLAST   (i only saw one of them zip by my 109 during that frame....
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »