Me 163B comments

[gunnss]

Asertation warning.......
theise comments are IIRC as my library is still in storage from my last move

1. the Komet was a dangeroius ride..... with IIRC a 40%+ rate of fatalitys from take offs and landings.

2. the rocket engine could be shut off in flight, but most pilots would not try it, due to the very real danger of an expolsion caused by improper mix from valves not opening in the "Exact" sequance and sync. The fuels were T stoff and C stoff , which explode on contact.

3. at least one pilot was killed and eaten by a ruptured fuel tank after an otherwise sucessfull landing.

4. Because the fuels were very high molar the fuel lines and combustion chamber were made of ceramics and fragile.

5. the "B" model was an all or nothing ride, either full throttle, or off.   < the "C" model had a 'Cruise' chamber designed in, and more fuel which would extended flight time to as much as 30 minutes.>

6. the last of the "B" models had 8-120mm morter shells in vertical launch tubes, fired by a photo cell triggered by the AC passing through the shadow of the target, by my source at least one B17 was destroyed this way.

7. the fuels when mixed produced a colorless relativly non toxic exaust that showed no "exaust plume" inflight

My source for this is a book entiteled "KOMET" or "Rocket Fighter" written by a surviving test/operational pilot from the devlopment/deployment program.

Disclamer.... I wrote this after a Mid shift <2200 to 0800> and all the spelling errors are mine and not fr sale or loan,,,,,,
I promise that when I wake up to day to look up the book and let Ya'll know it's real title and author.

the point of all this is that the bird is a great ride..... as it is, the only tweek I would suggest is to make it more  dangerous to land and launch, amd put the perk at 10 or 15 pts.  

Gunns

[Engine]

Originally posted by gunnss
6. the last of the "B" models had 8-120mm morter shells in vertical launch tubes, fired by a photo cell triggered by the AC passing through the shadow of the target, by my source at least one B17 was destroyed this way.

Wow.  Talk about a crazy idea.

[HoHun]

Hi Engine,

>>6. the last of the "B" models had 8-120mm morter shells in vertical launch tubes, fired by a photo cell triggered by the AC passing through the shadow of the target, by my source at least one B17 was destroyed this way.

>Wow. Talk about a crazy idea.

And this was from a head-on attack.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[M.C.202]

Gunns  said:



He he, I still have my wooden ammo crate full of 1/72 models for M&M... including the "kit-bashed" and scratchbuilt ones... If ya didn't hace the model, ya couldn't fly it.

[gunnss]

At origens 76 we had a whole floor in the ball room for just M+M...with 65 players it wa taking just over an hour an impulse too move,

I still have nearly a hunderd aircraft and the last published set of rules, in M+M we ruled that a landing 163 had a 10% chance of exploding and that all 163s had to enter the game from ground launch

the ammo load in a 163 is light with only 120 rounds of 30mm only 1 or 2 kills could be expected.  The 120 morter would do that and allow the turn around time needed to hit a bomber box multiple times.

[Spritle]

Here is a pretty good read from one of the chief test pilots in the Komet program.

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

Spritle

[mrniel]

Quote.

that a landing 163 had a 10% chance of exploding

he he. seeing it from the allied perspective.  


from the german side it would be--

that a landing 163 had a 10% RISK of exploding.

RISK and Chance. two different thing.



Sorry, Could not help myself  . Still Friends ?

[Suave]

The words risk and chance mean the exact same thing in english . In german they do not ?

[Duedel]

risk is more in a negative sense: A hi risk to die
chance is more in a positive sense: A hi chance to survive

In gemany u would never say "a high chance to die", only if u mean it ironic.

BTW Nickname for 163 = Kraftei (Power Egg)

[mrniel]

If so. I stand corrected. Could be a language difference.
Can only say where I come from. One is positive, other negative.

[hazed-]

another problem is that whilst 40% of the losses were due to accidents on take off and landing we do not know the total amount of sorties flown.

to say that you have a 40% chance of crashing for every sortie would be a total mistake.
For all we know those 40% that crashed may have flown hundreds of sorties.

However from what ive read about the Komet it was incredibly dangerous.Perhaps a random explosion or two would be acceptable in AH

[mora]

Originally posted by hazed-
another problem is that whilst 40% of the losses were due to accidents on take off and landing we do not know the total amount of sorties flown.

to say that you have a 40% chance of crashing for every sortie would be a total mistake.
For all we know those 40% that crashed may have flown hundreds of sorties.

However from what ive read about the Komet it was incredibly dangerous.Perhaps a random explosion or two would be acceptable in AH

"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."

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_5.asp

[2stony]

From my sources(which will remain anonomous as to the secret nature of this plane), there were only about 8 kills credited to the 163 for the entire war.


Stony

[Meatball]

Hey, check out this site:

http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/walter/walter.htm

It contains a wealth of information about the Walter rocket engine used in Me163. According to that page, the engine had a metal combustion chamber and fuel lines, plus three throttle settings, not just on and off.

-Meatball

[BenDover]

Originally posted by mora
"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."

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_5.asp

I'm sure that happened to me the other day

either that or it was cos i was on the edge of space:rolleyes: