Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Elfie on November 18, 2004, 06:46:56 PM
-
Am I the only one that doesnt see a big plume of smoke from the rocket motor on the ME-163?
-
I'm very curious about this too.
What is it that's making it 'unworthy' to implement the rocket exhaust smoke in the 163B?
I mean, seeing how the airsow smoke is done, while it may be a bit 'crude', they could just use a white smoke on the tail of the 163 - the Arado RATO pack uses more or less the same method, too, doesn't it?
Besides the 163s are pretty rare birds, and even in HQ defenses its about 4~5 people in normal cases. Would it be that much of a frame hit?
-
Did the real one have a smoke generator?
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Did the real one have a smoke generator?
Classic :rofl
Haha, have you ever seen a rocket in action? They are their own smoke generators.:aok
-
Only the early versions of the 163 (163A) using the 'cold' engine trailed smoke.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Did the real one have a smoke generator?
:rofl :lol
ever seen a shuttle take off? ;)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Only the early versions of the 163 (163A) using the 'cold' engine trailed smoke.
I thought all rocket motors put out tons of smoke, is this NOT the case?
-
IIRC, the later 163s put out no smoke.
-
Originally posted by Engine
IIRC, the later 163s put out no smoke.
eek, i take my comment back then! :eek:
suppose it depends on the fuel, i mean shuttles use H and O2....which when "burnt" together creates water (duh :p) hence the smoke (or steam....)
where as the 163 used some sort of acid based fuel???
-
Oxidizer was T-Stoff (Hydrogen Peroxide)
Fuel was C-Stoff (Hydrazine/Methanol)
Believe me, you really don't want to get either on you...
* Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, temporary blindness, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, and coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and CNS in humans. (2-4)
* The liquid is corrosive and may produce chemical burns and severe dermatitis from skin contact. (1,4)
* Acute animal tests, such as the LC50 and LD50 tests in rats, mice, rabbits, and guinea pigs, have demonstrated hydrazine to have high acute toxicity from inhalation and ingestion and extreme acute toxicity from dermal exposure. (5)
*Hydrogen Peroxide is corrosive to eyes, skin, nose, throat and lungs. May cause irreversible tissue damage to the eyes including blindness.
*Methanol (wood alcohol) is just rubbing alcohol. Not too bad unless you breath it, or it catches on fire.
-
Slaker would that fuel mixture create a plume of smoke behind the 163?
-
The 163A’s fuel created a low-temperature chemical reaction that didn’t burn and didn’t have a flame. The exhaust temperature was about 600 degrees C, and it left a long dense trail behind it.
Rudy Opitz, Messerschmitt test pilot
Here read up on it on this page:
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/walter/walter.htm
The ME 163B as modelled in AH did not have the smoke trail.
-
Are the Ar234 RATO's smoke visible to others when someone is using them?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Are the Ar234 RATO's smoke visible to others when someone is using them?
yes
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The ME 163B as modelled in AH did not have the smoke trail.
"In the earlier Walter motors for the Messerschmitt Me 163A Series, the "cold" reaction was initiated by a permanganate catalyst which stained the motor efflux purple.
Here (163B 109-509 Motor), the catalyst was more neutral, and the motor exhaust was much paler, with a yellow/green almost transparent colour until the steam condensed into a dense vapour trail in the air."
-
Originally posted by slaker
Oxidizer was T-Stoff (Hydrogen Peroxide)
Fuel was C-Stoff (Hydrazine/Methanol)
*Methanol (wood alcohol) is just rubbing alcohol. Not too bad unless you breath it, or it catches on fire.
Or, just for the record, if you drink it. Wood alcohol can make you blind and sometimes cause small brain hemorrhages in specific important areas.
Of course, drinking rocket fuel would DEFINITELY disqualify you as a rocket scientist....
-
Depending on altitude, liquid fuel rocket motor may or may not produce a trail. As mentioned, the 163B's engine produced a kind of steam trail. At lower altitudes (and thus higher atmospheric densities) the steam trail may not be very visable at all, or be very short lived. At higher (15k-30k) altitudes these things would leave just as much of a vapor trail as the supercharged B-17's SHOULD be leaving.
Little factiod here: The STS (Space shuttle) main engines, which are LOx-LH2 fueled, leave no visable trail until around 20k ASL. The smoke you see until that point is entirely from the SRB's.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Or, just for the record, if you drink it. Wood alcohol can make you blind and sometimes cause small brain hemorrhages in specific important areas.
Of course, drinking rocket fuel would DEFINITELY disqualify you as a rocket scientist....
But it would qualify you for a Darwin Award! (http://www.darwinawards.com)
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
"In the earlier Walter motors for the Messerschmitt Me 163A Series, the "cold" reaction was initiated by a permanganate catalyst which stained the motor efflux purple.
Here (163B 109-509 Motor), the catalyst was more neutral, and the motor exhaust was much paler, with a yellow/green almost transparent colour until the steam condensed into a dense vapour trail in the air."
We are not talking about a vapor trail, How many aircraft in AH have a vapor trail? None...
I believe the original poster asked about 'smoke' .
Am I the only one that doesnt see a big plume of smoke from the rocket motor on the ME-163?
You would not have a vapor trail otd or at lower altitudes. It would be higher up where the air is cool enough to condense the trail...
Re-read the thread you will see 'smoke' mentioned over and over...
Let me correct the emphasis on your quote:
with a yellow/green almost transparent colour until the steam condensed into a dense vapour trail in the air."
-
suppose it depends on the fuel, i mean shuttles use H and O2....which when "burnt" together creates water (duh :p) hence the smoke (or steam....)
where as the 163 used some sort of acid based fuel???
You're thinking of the shuttle SRB's that make all the smoke. You can find the info on how things work.com.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
You're thinking of the shuttle SRB's that make all the smoke which is not the same at all.
yeah im no rocket sicencetist
hell i cant even spell it ;)
-
I got that feeling. Anyway, look it up. Very interesting stuff. Its the AP motors that makes that kickarse flame/smoke.
-
Thanks Wotan that was a good read. I learned some stuff in this thread....imagine that.... :p
-
Originally posted by Tails
Little factiod here: The STS (Space shuttle) main engines, which are LOx-LH2 fueled, leave no visable trail until around 20k ASL. The smoke you see until that point is entirely from the SRB's.
This is true, the company I work for (APCI) supplies all the LH2 for Nasa, not sure if we supply the LOx or not. I can't get over the fact that they load all that LH2 into those thin single walled tanks. I hope to see one launch before they are retired.