Author Topic: Me 163B-1a 3.Staffel I/JG 400 TY BEAUTIFUL PLANE! (Read 529 times)

brady · « **on:** August 04, 2002, 12:34:42 AM »

I looked up our new toy and man she is a beauity! Can't wait till we get here for Real, ty HTC, who is the modeler?

Mitsu · « **Reply #1 on:** August 04, 2002, 01:04:20 AM »

yeah, who modelled it?

very nice graphics, superfly? natedog?

i want to fly it in offline mode.

ty

Heinkel · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2002, 01:33:58 AM »

Here she is

Greese · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2002, 01:54:16 AM »

Ok, you guys had fun at the con. When are we getting her for real?

brady · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2002, 02:30:15 AM »

Well I heard that, sombodys mom head it from this guy who new this dude who worked at a place that had this girle who liked to(@$%#^&!$#$@$#) and she said that it would be two weeks.

MaddDog · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2002, 12:26:38 PM »

I heard from about 10 people in MA we are getting it either today or tommarow, i have been wanting this plane forever and many people told me there would be Noway HT would make that within the next 3 releases, to those people hahahah in ur eye:D

Mark Luper · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2002, 05:17:19 AM »

Superfly Modeled it, he told me he wasn't finished with it yet though. I have heard it would be a non perk plane available only at the HQs and would have a short burn on the rocket. Have not been informed or heard when it will be released.

Replicant · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2002, 03:53:18 PM »

Here's a piccy of one of three Me163s I've seen in the UK. This one shows the rocket propulsion unit removed:-

Sabre · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2002, 08:22:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mark Luper
Superfly Modeled it, he told me he wasn't finished with it yet though. I have heard it would be a non perk plane available only at the HQs and would have a short burn on the rocket. Have not been informed or heard when it will be released.

Yep, HiTech told me this himself at the con. There would be a small airfield adjacent to the HQ where these would be available. There actual engine burn time is about 3 minutes, if I recall correctly. Enough to get you to 30,000 feet, then glide to the attack. By the way, it handles very nicely

. Armament is two 30-mm cannon with about 60 rounds each. Kind of a one-shot deal.

wklink · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2002, 11:21:14 AM »

Will the corrosive effects of the 163 propellant be modeled? Perhaps that 'sprayovision' monitor I bought will finally come in handy.

Hows about the spontanous explosion effects in some of the aircraft.

Cool to see it, will be fun trying it out.

Chairboy · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2002, 11:33:24 AM »

I hope they model the burn time properly, the historically accurate fuel load allowed for burn times of 8-10 minutes, according to the National Air & Space Museum and a bunch of other places I looked.

In regards to those suggesting that HTC model reliabillity for these, I suggest that fair being fair, we take it to the next logical step:

1. The Jumo engines in the Me-262 and Ar-234 should explode on fast throttling and should also randomly fail.
2. All late model Luftwaffe planes should have engine performance fluctuate between 80-100% to simulate the poor quality of fuel that they were forced to use in the last years of the war.
3. Bomber formations should be 20 planes instead of 3, because there were almost always more then 3 planes in a mission.
4. Radar (specifically dot-dar) should be removed and replaced with a scope that indicates signal return levels in a circle. Sure, you wouldn't know if the spike was because of a plane or a mountain, but don't worry, it would be historically accurate. Oh, and it wouldn't be available in-flight.

and so on. After all, we want this reallistic, right?

Wotan · « **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2002, 11:43:03 AM »

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_3.asp

follow the link it disspells some of the myths surrounding the 163.

Quote

Popular Wisdom vs. a Test Pilot’s Experiences

1. Rocket engines would explode without warning.

RO: engines were reliable and relatively safe and were adjusted so as to shut down in the event of an imbalance in fuel flow. If there was a problem in engine performance, it related to shutdowns, not explosions. The only instances of engines blowing were in early testing of prototypes or when they had been damaged in battle or by accident.

2. Leaking fuel could turn pilots to jelly, particularly if the plane flipped over.

RO: pilots, me included, survived overturned Komets, and an overturned ship would not necessarily leak fuel into the cockpit. When fuel contacted organic material, including skin, it ignited after only a few seconds. Our protective nylon suits would not ignite but were porous, and fuel could sop through to the skin.

3. Forward-mounted flaps were necessary to counter a negative pitching moment from the trailing-edge flaps.

RO: the TE flaps were trim flaps only, and the deployment of the forward-mounted underwing flaps did not cause a pitch change.

4. The Komet’s dive to speeds resulting in compressibility were often fatal.

RO: no fatalities resulted from this, to my knowledge. The Komets in such dives recovered after reaching a lower altitude that neutralized the compressibility problems.

5. As many as 15 percent of Komets broke up while pulling out of high-speed dives where compressibility had became a factor.

RO: no such fatalities to my knowledge.

6. Stall characteristics were abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter pilots.

RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally designed to be docile for low-time pilots.

7. Only experienced pilots could adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.

RO: the plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick.

8. The Komet was not a successful fighter but future development would have made it a formidable interceptor.

RO: The 263—the next incarnation—had retractable landing gear, a pressurized cabin and considerably more fuel, but it never got beyond the early prototype stage.

I agree the 163B was not a successful fighter. Several hundred 163Bs were built,
but only 91 were operational as of December 31, 1944, and only 16 kills were attributed to 163s during the War. Note, however, that while under power or in a fast glide, the 163 could fly circles around any other fighter of its time.

In fact, the true contribution of the Komet was to high-speed flight as evidenced by the success of the delta-wing Concorde and delta-wing space shuttle. These Lippisch planform concepts live on today

Wotan · « **Reply #12 on:** August 06, 2002, 11:48:44 AM »

every plane type of every country had problems.

262s eng did not explode when the throttle was opened neither did the 163 just blow up randomly.

Read the 262 thread started by hristo.

Chairboy · « **Reply #13 on:** August 06, 2002, 01:08:44 PM »

Perhaps my post was too dry for you to recognize that I was being sarcastic, Wotan?

I will endeavour to make make such posts somewhat easier to pick up on in the future.

SunKing · « **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2002, 01:13:44 PM »

heard it was a "rough draft" and might be patched into the game when finished or with the next release. Don't expect it this week was the bottom line. They have bigger fish to fry like bugs and marketing currently.