Author Topic: 1.11 (Read 830 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #15 on:** November 14, 2002, 05:44:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by palef
Way I figure it is, you have 3 minutes to climb up there, 2 minutes to fight, and 3 minutes to get the hell away.

palef

The last 3 minutes ... well, the bombers won't follow you down, and if the escors want to, they can follow you back to base anyways knowing you only got minutes of fuel left anyways. Fight with all your fuel and dive back to base, you'll prolly be right on top of it.

palef · « **Reply #16 on:** November 14, 2002, 02:32:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
The last 3 minutes ... well, the bombers won't follow you down, and if the escors want to, they can follow you back to base anyways knowing you only got minutes of fuel left anyways. Fight with all your fuel and dive back to base, you'll prolly be right on top of it.

I hear what you are saying.

One tactic I read about the Me163, and I shall try to verify it today (I think it was in Flight Journal about 6 months ago), was that it had such pleasant flying characteristics that Me163 Pilots would attempt to drag pursuers back into their airfield ack, and then engage them! I'd like to do that with some thrust still available!

I can hear the whines about ack draggin rocketships now!

palef

Soda · « **Reply #17 on:** November 14, 2002, 04:25:44 PM »

I can't remember who posted the following, but it was my understanding that the Me163 would only be available in defending strat targets and would launch from a spot near them, not from normal airfields. I don't remember who posted that, might have been something Pyro said online, but that was my understanding. That would make the Me163 a fairly rare plane to encounter unless very near strat targets.

-Soda
The Assassins.

Tilt · « **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2002, 05:17:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Soda
I can't remember who posted the following, but it was my understanding that the Me163 would only be available in defending strat targets and would launch from a spot near them, not from normal airfields. I don't remember who posted that, might have been something Pyro said online, but that was my understanding. That would make the Me163 a fairly rare plane to encounter unless very near strat targets.

-Soda
The Assassins.

This years con HiTech opined that the 163 would be limited in the MA to those fields local to the HQ............. However given that longe range HQ raids are few and far between then it might only be rarely used.........

buzkill · « **Reply #19 on:** November 15, 2002, 06:38:14 AM »

a-bomb would be fun. call it the ultimate perk weapon. use it and lose all perk points.

bioconscripter · « **Reply #20 on:** November 15, 2002, 06:22:28 PM »

No, when you come back down you glide so it's 3 minutes to get up there, 5 minutes to fight and then just glide down and take as long as you like.

whgates3 · « **Reply #21 on:** November 15, 2002, 06:51:32 PM »

of you're in a Me-163 @alt when you run out of fuel, you could probably gather enough speed on the way down to attack any low flying NME A/C...very aerodynamic plane, probable picks up speed in a dive very quickly

bioconscripter · « **Reply #22 on:** November 15, 2002, 10:06:51 PM »

I don't like the idea of the atom bomb, nuclear bombs destroy living things, they do not incinirate buildings.

It would make AH a very stupid game.

paulieb · « **Reply #23 on:** November 15, 2002, 10:32:22 PM »

I think you're mistaking the A-bomb with the neutron bomb. The A-bomb most certainly DOES incinerate buildings, not to mention blowing things away with the blast wave. The proposed neutron bomb would, in theory, only kill living things, but leave buildings standing.

whgates3 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 16, 2002, 12:11:57 AM »

with all the people dead who would rent space in the buildings? nobody. market forces would drive rents way below the negative profit/sustainable loss level and all savvy landlord would burn down their buildings for the $$insurance$$ - thus the neutron bomb would effectively destroy buildings - anyway nukes, neutron & U-bombs are not WWII tech - A-bombs are, but only two saw combat - both were prototypes - so they wouldn't qualify under AH standards...maybe in SWOTL or AceFury

Shiva · « **Reply #25 on:** November 16, 2002, 01:22:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bioconscripter
I don't like the idea of the atom bomb, nuclear bombs destroy living things, they do not incinirate buildings.

From the Peace Memorial Museum in central Hiroshima, models of the hypocenter of the blast (the area directly under the bomb when it detonated):

Before the bombing:

After the bombing:

The Atomic Bomb Dome -- the building that was directly under the bomb, and was protected because the shock wave was down, rather than sideways -- surrounded by rubble from the nearby buildings:

If you want to see more clearly what the destruction was like, go to the Hiroshima Panorama Project website and look at Panorama 2 (the image is way too big to include here) -- aside from a few scattered ruins that still have walls standing, the buildings are gone[/u].

Hardly a lack of incinerated buildings.

bioconscripter · « **Reply #26 on:** November 16, 2002, 02:32:44 PM »

No, I am not mistaking it with the neutron bomb. At the point of the impact it destroyes most of the buildings but as you go farther out the percentage of buildings destroyed quickly decreases, living this are killed and some buildings colapse.

But who cares? A atomb bomb in AH would be very very stupid.

hazed- · « **Reply #27 on:** November 17, 2002, 07:06:52 AM »

I might be mistaken but i think the me163 had rocket rather than jet propulsion and it was an all or nothing supply, as in once you fire the engine the only way to switch it off was to run out of fuel.

If you are going to drag pursuers back to a base you will have to be pretty good at energy fighting to stay on top of a good prop plane flown by someone who knows you are forever losing your alt/energy. I would predict that only those who are new to AH would be caught out by a sudden reverse of a gliding 163.The rest of us will patiently wait for them to get too low/slow to escape an attack I suspect.

but who knows ? maybe it was incredibly maneouverable? I really havent read much on it but i have got a write up about it written by capt. Eric Brown dfc dso, the RAF test pilot so often quoted. Maybe its time to read up on it

flakbait · « **Reply #28 on:** November 17, 2002, 07:21:25 AM »

Actually hazed, the Me-163B's engine had a five position throttle. Those being off, ground idle, flight idle, cruise, and max. Since the major production version was the B (and the variant we'll get), it had a completely throttable engine. Info can be had (from Rudi Opitz himself) over here

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"During the Battle of Britain the question 'fighter or fighter-bomber?'
had been decided once and for all: The fighter can only be used as a bomb carrier
with lasting effect when sufficient air superiority has been won." Adolph Galland

hazed- · « **Reply #29 on:** November 17, 2002, 07:28:19 AM »

hey thnx i didnt know that ~~flakbait~~