Author Topic: Increase the perk cost for the Me163  (Read 4178 times)

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2012, 04:27:14 AM »
+1  I believe it is undervalued currently. 
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2012, 05:13:13 AM »
. . .

So based on this quote you made the conclusion that they never depressurized for combat??

Right. :lol

As usual your attempt at being clever has failed miserably and made you look completely foolish.

No that link was given to you to prove that what I said about patching holes was correct. What you failed to realize is that the only reason to give the order to depressurize would be to avoid rapid decompression. As they knew during B-29 combat that was never a problem.



You see. . . I have actually read volumes and volumes on the B-29 and its use in combat. I have read in detail every aspect of the aircraft functions on how each crewman was trained and what equipment he was trained on and how to use it. The B-29 Combat Crew Handbook details everything any crewman involved on the aircraft would have to know. I mean every detail from how to operate the guns to synchronizing in flight controls to the details of the flight engineers station. No where in everything I have read is there the slightest hint that the order to decompress before combat was ever given. The handbook I mention has four specific areas where oxygen systems and air cabin pressure are mentioned in detail. The image above is taken from that handbook. Reading other details. . . the reason the planes flew with pressure was so they could work more efficiently and because it allows humans at high altitude to avoid the risk of death.

Probably the book you have includes some really nice pictures that fooled you into buying the book under the misconception that it had some valuable information in it. Not so much. The problem with subjects like air combat is that readers always want to know things that the writes just dont know. During World War 1 the drug stores were filled with one penny paperbacks with fantasy tales about fighter pilots. The only problem was none of it was true. Today we are a little more sophisticated of course and so most details like this decompression thing dont get past us. You got taken! Maybe you can still get your money back?
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #62 on: September 26, 2012, 06:10:57 AM »
As usual your attempt at being clever has failed miserably and made you look completely foolish.

No that link was given to you to prove that what I said about patching holes was correct. What you failed to realize is that the only reason to give the order to depressurize would be to avoid rapid decompression. As they knew during B-29 combat that was never a problem.

I didn't say a thing about patching holes. If you meant to provide that quote merely to prove the "patching holes" thing then you posted the link in a totally wrong context, read the thread back a bit.


No that link was given to you to prove that what I said about patching holes was correct. What you failed to realize is that the only reason to give the order to depressurize would be to avoid rapid decompression.

Erm, what exactly did I fail to realize" regarding this?. :huh



You see. . . I have actually read volumes and volumes on the B-29 and its use in combat.

I really couldn't care less what you've read or done or anything else about you really. Why don't you just answer to my posts with facts like I answer to yours instead of bragging what you have done or read. As, like I said, I couldn't care less.


No where in everything I have read is there the slightest hint that the order to decompress before combat was ever given.

Well here you go then!



Like I said, the below is from B-29 Commander Manual. A primary source.


It rather clearly states the very thing you haven't seen anywhere. :)


Probably the book you have includes some really nice pictures that fooled you into buying the book under the misconception that it had some valuable information in it. Not so much. The problem with subjects like air combat is that readers always want to know things that the writes just dont know. During World War 1 the drug stores were filled with one penny paperbacks with fantasy tales about fighter pilots. The only problem was none of it was true. Today we are a little more sophisticated of course and so most details like this decompression thing dont get past us. You got taken! Maybe you can still get your money back?

I don't own that particular book, although it is actually very good.


The real gist of this is here:

- You clearly had the opinion that aircraft without pressurized cockpits couldn't operate at the high altitudes sometimes seen in AH. (Which is completely false.)

- And that B-29 could because it was pressurized and they didn't depressurize for combat.

I'm sure many times they didn't as a lot of things happened during that war and proper procedures weren't always followed. That doesn't change the fact that people can operate at these altitudes without pressurized cockpits. It's not fun and certainly very fatigue inducing for the crew but very much doable. Paul Bickle flew his glider to 46000ft. Like he said, it wasn't very confortable due to the extreme cold but perfectly doable as far as physiology goes. And that's the whole point. No point in creating artificial limitations.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 06:27:03 AM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #63 on: September 26, 2012, 07:09:31 AM »
Just admit you were wrong and move on. Geeze!

I cannot find the publishing date on the manual you are citing but it is obviously the early manual. When it comes to the B-29 the problem is the aircraft was still in the process of being updated from the day it left the factory until the day it landed in China. Further updates continued mission after mission. Virtually the entire engine and every subsystem of the plane was changed out and updated until the planes landing in Tinian and Siam hardly resembled the originals.

The manual I cited is the manual issued by Lemay himself for all crewmen under his command. The manual you cite appears to be the earlier U.S.Army manual issued under George Marshall (or Hap Arnold) which indicates that the manual Lemay issued was not only more up to date but more informative as it was issued by airmen and not the Quartermaster General.

Your misunderstand what I am saying about high altitude flight. I am saying that humans fail to function properly when they do not get enough oxygen (21% by volume of air) or heat (humans perish at very low temperatures). Furthermore the exposure to high altitudes can lead to anoxia (lack of oxygen) even if you are on oxygen. AH does not model oxygen. If it did then it could be damaged. Even in the presence of cabin pressure a human can die from expsure to carbon monoxide. AH does not model carbon monoxide. If it did then a pilot could die from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Even in the presence of flying suits and oxygen masks a human cannot fly to very high altitudes (above 42k) without an adequate pressure environment. Above 42k the human body begins to consume its own water through rapidly rising body temperature (actually the relative temperature of evaporation drops below body temperature). If you lose enough water from your own body you die. Above 62k your blood (literally the water in your blood) boils at body temperature. This too is not modeled. If you remain above 32k and your body temperature drops to the point where your core temperature drops below minimum metabolic levels you suffer from hypothermic shock (hypothermia) and you cannot operate an aircraft.

Since these variables would require a huge change in coading the easiest solution would be the blackout method already described and whoever came up with that idea should be saluted!

 :salute
« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 07:12:27 AM by Chalenge »
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #64 on: September 26, 2012, 07:36:23 AM »
Just admit you were wrong and move on. Geeze!

Nothing to admit, I've provided my sources.


I cannot find the publishing date on the manual you are citing but it is obviously the early manual. When it comes to the B-29 the problem is the aircraft was still in the process of being updated from the day it left the factory until the day it landed in China. Further updates continued mission after mission. Virtually the entire engine and every subsystem of the plane was changed out and updated until the planes landing in Tinian and Siam hardly resembled the originals.

Indeed it was. And I don't doubt the earlier source about the depressurization being harmless at all. Nor do I doubt the fact that it was SOP to depressurize when expecting combat. How often it was followed is another thing. The aircraft in AH are modelled per the manufacturer specs AFAIK.


Your misunderstand what I am saying about high altitude flight. I am saying that humans fail to function properly when they do not get enough oxygen (21% by volume of air) or heat (humans perish at very low temperatures). Furthermore the exposure to high altitudes can lead to anoxia (lack of oxygen) even if you are on oxygen. AH does not model oxygen. If it did then it could be damaged. Even in the presence of cabin pressure a human can die from expsure to carbon monoxide. AH does not model carbon monoxide. If it did then a pilot could die from carbon monoxide poisoning.

People can die from lack of oxygen, carbon poisoning and in low temperatures? Oh darn, wouldn't have guessed that! :D

I definately advice not to fly naked at 35k in an unpressurized aircraft! :D


Even in the presence of flying suits and oxygen masks a human cannot fly to very high altitudes (above 42k) without an adequate pressure environment.

Just read the sources I posted. It has been done without any adwerse effects. It's not confortable and very fatigue inducing but very doable. And we aren't really even talking about altitudes over 40k regarding AH or are we? Last mention from this thread I remember being about 37k B-17s.

http://www.aerosente.com/2009/09/the-world-altitude-record-of-paul-bickle.html


Above 62k your blood (literally the water in your blood) boils at body temperature. This too is not modeled.

Indeed. As Josef Kittinger was acending to his jump altitude he had a hole in the pressure suit in the glove and his hand got swollen couple times the normal size. All of this is irrelevant to the issue at hand however. Unless we really want to model Me163 pilot blowing up at those alts (havent tested lately how high the current comet can go). :D But regarding intercepting bombers, it's totally irrelevant.


f you remain above 32k and your body temperature drops to the point where your core temperature drops below minimum metabolic levels you suffer from hypothermic shock (hypothermia) and you cannot operate an aircraft.

Like I said before, flying naked at high altitudes is not adviced. :lol

« Last Edit: September 26, 2012, 09:24:13 AM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline danny76

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #65 on: September 26, 2012, 09:42:26 AM »
Because it caters to 3 minute sorties at the expense of guys who fly 2 hours to bomb the strats or the guys who climb a fighter 30 minutes and set up a proper interception scenario.

The fact that I can fly one to 97,000 feet and fly 10 sectors is also a bit unrealistic.

In RL did the bomber crews not fly for hours to their targets, and 163's conducted short duration missions to intercept them? Don't understand your point, seems realistic enough to me
"You kill 'em all, I'll eat the BATCO!"
The GFC

"Not within a thousand years will man ever fly" - Wilbur Wright

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #66 on: September 26, 2012, 11:19:54 AM »
I have read the after action report of a Spitfire Mk IX squadron's commanding officer who took his squadron on a patrol at 40,000ft.  No version of the Spitfire MK IX was pressurized.  This wasn't done as a test of the aircraft, it was a combat patrol.  I have also read accounts of B-17s operating above 30,000ft, though the crews disliked it intensely.  It is possible that the cold was more severe for the B-17 crew with only their electric heating suits plugged in compared to the Spitfire pilots seated directly behind a Merlin 61, 63 or 70.

The argument that unpressurized aircraft didn't and couldn't operate above 30,000ft is false.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2012, 06:16:05 AM »
Nothing to admit, I've provided my sources.

As usual nothing more than sarcasm.

Karnak the point is that 163s are currently cruising around far above what was possible during the war. And to make a point. . . if those same spit pilots repeated 40k flights as often as they might in AH then they would dehydrate and perish in the elements. B17 crews often would have a week or more to recover from high altitude. The law of physics has not changed since WWII but in the cartoon world some laws just are not coaded.
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2012, 08:17:51 AM »
As usual nothing more than sarcasm.

I provided a primary source saying B-29 should be depressurized for combat. And provided good solid evidence about people flying at extreme altitudes (~46000ft) without pressure suit/pressurized cabin, a documented glider altitude record at the time. As far as other examples go, one could go on and on. I think I provided more than sarcasm.

You on the other hand just tried the spin the isssue using fancy words thinking I wouldn't get what you're saying. :lol Just like I pointed out basically all your points were irrelevant except of course what would start happn from 60k on up but we weren't ever talking about 60k. We were talking about 30-37k, altitudes where the bombers are able to fly. Of course one needs proper insulation and oxygen al those altitudes and lower but that was not the argument to begin with. You obviously were totally unaware on how high people have flown without pressurization. :)


Karnak the point is that 163s are currently cruising around far above what was possible during the war. And to make a point. . . if those same spit pilots repeated 40k flights as often as they might in AH then they would dehydrate and perish in the elements.

Again, you are using these vague terms "perish in the elements". :) If the person is properly insulated and oxygen is provided he can fly at 30k and beyond. There are several examples of that and Paul Bikle is just one of them. He said very clearly that he didn't notice any adwerse effects.


Again,

Paul Bikle:

"My oxygen equipment was quite similar to that used by most of those who have set altitude records in the wave at Bishop. It was a low pressure system using a pressure demand mask and a regulator such as those used by fighter pilots at the end of World War II. I had no pressure suit; however, I have had considerable altitude experience while flying in service aircraft and have had ample opportunity to test myself in altitude chambers. Although it is not desirable to try to fly at these heights without pressure suits or cabin, I did not detect any particular difficulty from this source. Actually, I was so cold (-65° C outside air temperature) that I could not pay attention to anything else. Maximum rate of climb was about 2,000 feet per minute."

http://www.aerosente.com/2009/09/the-world-altitude-record-of-paul-bickle.html


B17 crews often would have a week or more to recover from high altitude.


A source? Not that it matters as I'm sure were are provided with fresh crews along with a fresh plane for every sortie. :)
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 08:21:00 AM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #69 on: September 27, 2012, 08:56:40 AM »
I cannot find the publishing date on the manual you are citing but it is obviously the early manual.

Forgot to mention that the manual in question is revised edition dated February '45. Hardly early.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6996
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #70 on: September 27, 2012, 09:51:02 AM »


A russian prince in a modified spit IX said.......

At the end of the first week in September the Flight received the first of our Spitfire IXs which had been modified for very high altitude operations. The aircraft, serial BF273, had been lightened in almost every way possible. A lighter wooden propeller had been substituted for the normal metal one, all of the armour had been removed as had the four machine guns, leaving an armament of only 2 Hispano 20mm cannons. The aircraft was finished in a special lightweight finish, which gave it a colour rather like Cambridge blue and all equipment not strictly necessary for high altitude fighting was removed. It had the normal wingtips. A pressure cabin would have been very nice but the HF VII, essentially a Mk IX with a pressure cabin, was not yet read for operations.

On September 10th I made my first flight in the modified Spitfire IX and found it absolutely delightful to handle. During the war I flew 11 versions of the Spitfire and this was far and away the best. The 450lb reduction in weight was immediately noticeable once airborne and with the Merlin 61 she had plenty of power and was very lively. I made a second flight that day to test the cannons, during which I took her up to 43,000ft. I stayed above 40,000ft for some time and found it quite exhilarating, it was a beautiful day and I could see along the coast of England from Dover to Plymouth and almost the whole of the northern coast of France as far as Belgium and Holland.

During this flight I wore an electrically heated flying suit which kept me warm and comfortable.

On September 12th I made my second high altitude flight and this time it was in earnest. That morning, it had been my turn to wait at readiness and at 09.27hrs I was scrambled to meet an aircraft being watched on radar climbing to height over France; it looked suspiciously like another one of the high-flying raiders.

Climbing away at full throttle, the Spitfire went up like a lift but there was a long way to go – 40,000ft is about 7.5 miles up. I climbed in a wide spiral over Northolt to 15,000ft then the ground controller informed me that the incoming aircraft was over mid-Channel and heading towards the Portsmouth area, I was ordered onto a south-westerly heading to cut him off. After several course corrections I finally caught sight of the enemy aircraft as it was flying up the Solent, I was at about 40,000ft and he was slightly higher and out to starboard. I continued my climb and headed after him, closing in until I could make out the outline of a Junkers 86, By then, I was about half a mile from him and we were both at 42,000ft to the north of Southampton.

The German crew had obviously seen me, because I saw the bomb jettison, the aircraft nose go up to gain altitude and turn for home. My Spitfire had plenty of performance in hand, however. I jettisoned my 30-gal slipper tank and had little difficulty in following him in the climb and getting about 200ft above the bomber. At this stage I kept reminding myself “Take it easy, conserve your strength, keep icy calm”. The grey-blue Junkers seemed enormous and it trailed a long, curling condensation trail. It reminded me of a film I had once seen of an aerial view of an ocean liner ploughing through a calm sea and leaving a wake.

I positioned myself for an attack and dived to about 200yds astern of him, where I opened up with a 3-second burst. At the end of the burst my port cannon jammed and the Spitfire slewed round to starboard, then, as I passed through his slipstream, my canopy misted over. It took about a minute to clear completely, during which time I climbed back into position for the next attack. When I next saw the Junkers he was heading southwards, trying to escape out to sea. I knew I had to get right in close behind him if I was to stand any chance of scoring hits, because it would be difficult to hold the Spitfire straight when the starboard cannon fired and she went into a yaw. Again, I dived to attack but when I was about a hundred yards away the bomber made a surprisingly tight turn to starboard. I opened fire but the Spitfire went into a yaw and fell out of the sky, I broke off the attack, turned outside him and climbed back to 44,000ft.

I carried out two further attacks on the Junkers. On each of them my Spitfire yawed and fell out of the sky whenever I opened fire with my remaining cannon, and my canopy misted over whenever I passed through his slipstream. By the end of the fourth attack the action had lasted about 45 minutes. My engine had been running at full throttle for an hour and a quarter and my fuel was beginning to run low. So when the bomber descended into a patch of mist I did not attempt to follow. Instead I broke away and turned north east for home. How I cursed that jammed cannon, had it not failed, I would certainly have shot down the Ju86. As I neared the coast it became clear that I did not have sufficient fuel to reach Northolt, so I landed at Tangmere to refuel.”
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 09:53:49 AM by icepac »

Offline icepac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6996
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #71 on: September 27, 2012, 09:52:27 AM »
The german in the ju86r said.....

The pilot of the Ju86 had been Horst Goetz, on another attack with Erich Sommer as his observer. Soon after the bomber crossed the coast near Southampton, Goetz later recalled

“Suddenly Erich, sitting on my right, said that there was a fighter closing in from his side. I thought there was nothing remarkable about that – almost every time we had been over England in the Ju86, fighters had tried to intercept us. Then he said that the fighter was climbing very fast and was nearly at our altitude. The next thing, it was above us. I thought Erich’s eyes must have been playing tricks on him, so I leaned over to his side of the cabin to see for myself. To my horror I saw the Spitfire, a little above us and still climbing.”

Goetz acted fast. He jettisoned the bomb, switched in full nitrous oxide injection to increase engine power and partially depressurised the cabin so that there wouldn’t be an explosion if it was pierced. He then pushed open the throttles and tried to outclimb his assailant but, as we have seen, the Spitfire succeeded in getting above him.

Goetz managed to avoid the four attacks, then escaped into a thin patch of mist. The Junkers landed at Caen so that the crew could check the damage. There was only one hole, through the port wing and as nothing appeared damaged the bomber continued on to its base at Beauvais. Now it was clear that the period of immunity enjoyed by the Junkers 86R over England was at an end; there would be no more stratospheric bombing attacks by these aircraft.

The combat between Goetz and Galitzine was almost certainly the highest to take place during WWII. Significantly, the movements of both aircraft were tracked by radar sets on the ground, these provided an independent check on the general accuracy of the altitudes stated.


The action had a sequel nearly 33 years later, when the author met Goetz at a Luftwaffe reunion and was able to put him in touch with Galitzine. The two men became firm friends and together stayed at the author’s home to recount their unique battle; later they spoke by telephone with Erich Sommer, who now lives in Australia. Galitzine no longer curses the jammed Hispano cannon, which robbed him of an almost certain victory but which gained him two good friends.

Offline surfinn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2012, 01:40:04 PM »
I've got a question. Were there any reports of a b29 going down due to explosive decompression in combat?

Offline danny76

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #73 on: September 28, 2012, 08:52:21 AM »
Interesting post Icepac. Thank you

Approaching the Junkers from 200yds astern? He obviously never played AH :lol
"You kill 'em all, I'll eat the BATCO!"
The GFC

"Not within a thousand years will man ever fly" - Wilbur Wright

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17362
Re: Increase the perk cost for the Me163
« Reply #74 on: September 28, 2012, 10:22:22 PM »
I've got a question. Were there any reports of a b29 going down due to explosive decompression in combat?

how would they know?


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.