Author Topic: Hey HiTech, are 163's set to randomly blow up in the MA? (Read 1720 times)

wklink · « **Reply #15 on:** December 24, 2002, 12:54:47 AM »

All my planes seem to randomly blow up when a red iconed plane is behind it. In fact, the more stable I fly, the more they tend to blow up.

Has to be a bug.

Shiva · « **Reply #16 on:** December 24, 2002, 08:20:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BenDover
Ermm, wasn't the idea to pretty much ditch the aircraft on the runway?

Actually, the idea was to 'ditch' the plane off the runway. Rudy Opitz, a test pilot for the Me-163:

"When we trained people for the Lutwaffe in the 163B, we typically took off on hardtop runways. Landings always took place on grassy fields or shoulders alongside the hardtop, as to land on hardtop would damage the skid."

Higgins · « **Reply #17 on:** December 24, 2002, 08:48:43 AM »

Wulfe,

Being that the fuels were extremely explosive when they came in contact with each other...and one was clear and burned clear to boot....there were a number of flash fires and explosions that burned the pilots up on the runway during initial fueling.

It was so bad in fact that the fuel truck truck carrying one of the fuel (ie T-stuf) would have to completely leave the area before the second fuel truck would be allowed to enter the area. These fuels are exremely dangerous but the fumes are even more dangerous. An empty tank of fumes is actually was more dangerous than a full tank. When a liquid burns....its actually the fumes on the surface that ignite and burn..not the liquid. If you got gasoline cold enough...so the fumes were minimal to none...you could put a match out in it. Anyhow...sorry to ramble...just my point that an empty tank is more dangerous to explosion than a full one.....A full one is more dangerous to a sustained spreading fire when ruptured.

Higgins

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #18 on:** December 25, 2002, 12:13:23 PM »

Higgins-

I know about the fuels.

Tumor said "some blew up on landing"... the tanks were dry, gasses included, when the plane glided back down...

So it couldn't of possibly blown up.

BTW, I don't think the Germans were so dumb as to put a pilot into a 163 while it was being fueled up... in fact, I know they didn't...
-SW

Gloves · « **Reply #19 on:** December 26, 2002, 10:48:46 AM »

Still waiting for the official response.

Innominate · « **Reply #20 on:** December 26, 2002, 11:09:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gloves
Still waiting for the official response.

I'm still waiting for an official response saying wether or not the sky in the MA is green. WELL HT?

Sorry but there is no reason to waste thier time over this.

Gloves · « **Reply #21 on:** December 26, 2002, 11:47:22 AM »

Innominate,

I can't see your point. How much time does it take to answer this question with a simple yes or no - that's the way the 163 is designed?

Innominate · « **Reply #22 on:** December 26, 2002, 11:55:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gloves
Innominate,

I can't see your point. How much time does it take to answer this question with a simple yes or no - that's the way the 163 is designed?

But it doesnt randomly blow up. Or at least in my ~30+ sorties in it it never has, except when I broke the G-limit while the elevators were bugged.

While the elevator bug was there, it was so easy to do that it could EASILY be mistaken for a random explosion. IMO thats how this all got started.

Gloves · « **Reply #23 on:** December 26, 2002, 12:07:11 PM »

Innominate,

From my experience I have to totally agree with you. The only times I have lost 163's have been due to pilot error (I don't think I've been shot down in one yet). The purpose of the question was to answer an argument between 2 other players who felt their answer was the only one. That's why I was asking for an 'official' response.

Higgins · « **Reply #24 on:** December 26, 2002, 04:00:36 PM »

Wullf,

cc on the pilots during fueling...your absolutely right. I was typing so quicly I didn't think about that....ground crews is what I've heard getting all burned up...during the fueling....pilots often on landing is what I've heard getting toasted.

BTW- were you in FA 1.5 a few years back?

Higgins

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #25 on:** December 26, 2002, 04:26:09 PM »

Rgr, but only during a free trial period... I never put down the $$ for a subscription, and it was only when our squad was testing it out.

You may be thinking about another Wulf tho... if it weren't for the limit on letters in AH, I'd be "AKSeaWulfe".
-SW

Biggles · « **Reply #26 on:** December 26, 2002, 05:36:45 PM »

At least one blew up on takeoff, after the jettisoned wheels bounced back up from the ground and struck the plane. In AH, I try to get at least 50ft AGL before "retracting" the gear (just in case).

Gloves · « **Reply #27 on:** January 06, 2003, 03:54:01 PM »

Still curious.

Gloves

anton · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2003, 01:49:07 AM »

IMO, any/all perk rides seem extremely fragile.
-BARELY over shot runway in a 262, think....."NP i'll just turn her around on the grass here, taxi back on runway & end" well, when I got back to edge of runway it was as if runway was 18" above grass. Plane wouldn't go forward onto runway, no reverse. So i layed on throttle thinkin it would break gear but still be on runway for succesful land, nope, BOOM.

-Myself & 4 other squaddies up tempests to raise general havoc. 3 out of 5 mysteriously CTD.

- In tiger I hit other tigers 6-7 times, no boom. They stop moving, maybe even smoke, but no boom. Then..... PING-TOWER

So I dont fly alot of perkrides, even though I have points to spare in all catagories, I dont care for the fragilty/inconsistancies of the perkies.
Perkies?... (*) (*)
Anton

GScholz · « **Reply #29 on:** January 07, 2003, 06:29:18 AM »

I got 11 kills and nil deaths in the 163. Just treat her gently like the angel she is.