Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TwinBoom on February 17, 2007, 03:29:15 PM
-
title says it all 163 in game is able to turn eng off then restart
how is a rocket able to do this
163 flew up till they ran outa fuel provided they didnt explode
on the runway
hitech comments on this am i wrong just curious?
-
(http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dirtbox/pics/muttley.gif)
-
I upped a rocket the other day and was trying to save fuel, so I cut throttle down quite a bit. A few seconds later, the engine shut down. I said, dmn out of fuel??? I then hit the E button and it started back up! :confused:
Mark
-
the 163 was throttle-able ... it was one of the requirements ....
now how well it worked is questionable .... and theres also the fact that the 30mm had problems firing at high speed .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_163 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_163)
-
I think the problem was one of extreme closure rates, so it was hard to aim and hit at such fast speeds. I don't think the problem was with the weapon itself.
-
Originally posted by TwinBoom
title says it all 163 in game is able to turn eng off then restart
how is a rocket able to do this
163 flew up till they ran outa fuel provided they didnt explode
on the runway
hitech comments on this am i wrong just curious?
I believe because it was liquid fueled it could be throttled.
-
In the same mode that Track-IR offers flyers greater immersion into the flight sim world, TinmanX Ltd is offering AH Pilets the chance in a lifetime opportunity to immerse yourself further into the world of pretend planes.
For $59.95 (plus shipping and handling) Tinman himself will come to your home and pop the 'E' key off your keyboard for a semi authentic experience.
Big spenders might be interested in the full package which includes all the above plus having your entire keyboard taken away as they didn't have those in 163's either.
This 'supreme' package has the added benefit for other users of HTC products tired of the whinge
$99.95.
PM me for more details.
-
tin thnks for the constructive post now troll elsewhere
no question on throttle
i question its albility to shut down eng then restart in flight
-
Good to see you haven't lost your sense of humour.
-
Originally posted by TinmanX
In the same mode that Track-IR offers flyers greater immersion into the flight sim world, TinmanX Ltd is offering AH Pilets the chance in a lifetime opportunity to immerse yourself further into the world of pretend planes.
For $59.95 (plus shipping and handling) Tinman himself will come to your home and pop the 'E' key off your keyboard for a semi authentic experience.
Big spenders might be interested in the full package which includes all the above plus having your entire keyboard taken away as they didn't have those in 163's either.
This 'supreme' package has the added benefit for other users of HTC products tired of the whinge
$99.95.
PM me for more details.
ohhh ohhhh me me me me!!!!! *waves hands
will you set me on fire when I get shot down too?
I WANT REALISIM!!!!! ;)
(sorry Twinboom don't mean to hijack your thread *takes hands off keyboard)
-
Honestly, I'd rather have it taken out of the game altogether, but the resulting whines negates that possibility.
Instead, I'll ask the question: If I'm in an F4U-1A, and I shoot down a P-51 and an Me-163, how the heck do I only get five perks out of it for landing the sortie?!
-
Originally posted by TinmanX
In the same mode that Track-IR offers flyers greater immersion into the flight sim world, TinmanX Ltd is offering AH Pilets the chance in a lifetime opportunity to immerse yourself further into the world of pretend planes.
For $59.95 (plus shipping and handling) Tinman himself will come to your home and pop the 'E' key off your keyboard for a semi authentic experience.
Big spenders might be interested in the full package which includes all the above plus having your entire keyboard taken away as they didn't have those in 163's either.
This 'supreme' package has the added benefit for other users of HTC products tired of the whinge
$99.95.
PM me for more details.
I guess the keyboard removal special would cover the Z and F3 keys as well, right?
I have a special "force feedback" type of unit that I'm devloping for the ultimate in realism. I can't give a lot of it away here until the patent paperwork is finished, but it has to do with electrodes that attach to your "joystick" and surrounding package that deliver excruciating blasts of pain each time you take a pilot wound. I'm working on a special lighter fluid delivery system for when your plane catches fire, but it's still in the experimental stage. Do you think you could install this system and what would you charge for that?:D
-
Originally posted by SKJohn
I guess the keyboard removal special would cover the Z and F3 keys as well, right?
I have a special "force feedback" type of unit that I'm devloping for the ultimate in realism. I can't give a lot of it away here until the patent paperwork is finished, but it has to do with electrodes that attach to your "joystick" and surrounding package that deliver excruciating blasts of pain each time you take a pilot wound. I'm working on a special lighter fluid delivery system for when your plane catches fire, but it's still in the experimental stage. Do you think you could install this system and what would you charge for that?:D
really? :O can I beta test? :lol
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Honestly, I'd rather have it taken out of the game altogether, but the resulting whines negates that possibility.
Instead, I'll ask the question: If I'm in an F4U-1A, and I shoot down a P-51 and an Me-163, how the heck do I only get five perks out of it for landing the sortie?!
I didn't ask you to attack the uncapturable , Me163 base, i'll fly it anytime i have a chance, cuz is fun,
Cuz the rooks had #s, we were out# bad, perk multiplier was low in rook land for sure when you shot my Me163 down, it cost me 20 something perks,that's why you got 5 perks only
imop Me163 should be unperked, enabled on all bases including V bases,CVs and Ports and also get a drop tank
Anyway, sorry to "hurt egos", but "ghi+me163=love",
-
I dont think that it was common practice to shut off the engine of a 109 or 190 in the middle of a hard break turn either, but i see it done in here on occasion.
If you were to have a time lag of even 5-10 seconds on all planes from engine off to on I think it would stop.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Honestly, I'd rather have it taken out of the game altogether, but the resulting whines negates that possibility.
Instead, I'll ask the question: If I'm in an F4U-1A, and I shoot down a P-51 and an Me-163, how the heck do I only get five perks out of it for landing the sortie?!
If we could spot bomber missions from anywhere on the map, the second they get above 1k, then we wouldn't need 163s. The fact is that bombers are stealth weapons in this game. By the time they get into dar range and/or are spotted, they're already too high and too fast for anybody to stop them. This is totally opposite of what history shows happened.
163s are there because we can't tell bombers are hitting HQ until it's too late to get a conventional fighter up to them.
As for the perks you get, the perk COST of a plane is separate from its ENY. Its ENY is 5 I think. You pay 63 perks, and if you lose the plane you lose the perks, but that doesn't get counted in the perk calculations. Just an FYI (I asked that same question once, long ago)
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Honestly, I'd rather have it taken out of the game altogether, but the resulting whines negates that possibility.
Instead, I'll ask the question: If I'm in an F4U-1A, and I shoot down a P-51 and an Me-163, how the heck do I only get five perks out of it for landing the sortie?!
F4U-1a ENY 15
P51D ENY 8
Me 163 ENY 5
Killing P51 gives 1.875 perks, the Me 163 3 perks. Total perks gained = 4.875. Multiply with current perk point modifier and mission ending modifier (landing your kills gives more perks).
-
Originally posted by TwinBoom
tin thnks for the constructive post now troll elsewhere
no question on throttle
i question its albility to shut down eng then restart in flight
Watch this movie, Me163 shows clear the liquid fuel+trottle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk31Lmkz170 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk31Lmkz170)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOE29fW8yCk&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOE29fW8yCk&mode=related&search=)
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I dont think that it was common practice to shut off the engine of a 109 or 190 in the middle of a hard break turn either, but i see it done in here on occasion.
If you were to have a time lag of even 5-10 seconds on all planes from engine off to on I think it would stop.
shamus
Best post yet!
-
YES ! shamus is a smart man great idea
ghi watched videos nice but they dont answer question
-
I've got personal access to a former Luftwaffe Me 163 pilot but you better hurry if you want the scoop.
He is getting long in the tooth and has a habit of building planes in his backyard and then flying them.
:)
(No I'm not kidding)
-
Last time I spoke with him he said the only time he ever took up a full load of fuel in a Me 163 he got to 45,000 feet and then the rocket cut out.
-
Actually, I WASN'T attacking an uncapturable base. I was escorting a squaddie in low-alt buffs who was attacking a different field altogether that WAS capturable (and subsequently we did). I just chased you down BACK to the uncapturable base after you ran out of gas.
Anyway, yet another sign the ENY needs some adjustment. It's a bit FUBAR that:
FM-2 has a lower ENY value than the F4U-1, even though the F4U-1 is superior in really everything but visibility, low-speed turn and departure behavior.
Me-163 has the same ENY value as the F4U-1C and F4U-4.
There's some other goofiness in there, too, that really needs to be looked at.
-
c-hog and -4hog have the lowest ENY any plane has because they are perked (for good reason). Both are dominators. 5 is as low as it gets. It's the cutoff point. Unless the 262 is ranked 4 or something, that is.
-
The 163's engine cuts out under negative G's. If, in fact, thats what the real ones did, and I can only assume that the in-game version is modeled after the real thing, then I would assume they had a way of re-firing the engine.
As to getting one to 45K, I chased a P-51 to almost 40K in one one day. At ~38K it started to shudder and slightly above that it went into a death stall that I wasn't able to get contol of again until I was under 10K. I'm not arguing your ex-pilots recollection, just pointing out the 163's limit in the game.
I love flying the 163. Leave it alone.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the fuel in the163s spontaneously combusted upon being mixed. Thats why they blew up a lot. The fuel was really volitile. No reason why you couldn't start it back up by turning on the juice again.
-
If i'm not mistaken, the 163 was brought into the game right around the time HQ was connected to radar . As with any/everything else in the game, people have found a more "gamey" use.
Its not an easy bird to fly, even harder to fly well, and theres not much ammo at all. I'd much rather see a limit to simpfire16s & elgay7s, than any modification to 163s.
-
Like Bubbajj said the Me163 used a liquid binary fuel which spontaneously combusted when mixed, so stopping and restarting the engine was possible. Late Me163's were tested with two engines which were used separately, one for cruise and one for combat.
Also the Me163 was a perfectly safe plane to fly, and no production Me163 ever just exploded (although a number of engines were destroyed that way). However the explosive fuel meant that otherwise survivable accidents could quickly become catastrophic. If trouble did arise in the air the pilot would dump one of the binary fuel tanks and thus render the other half harmless.
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/images/large/kelb01.jpg)
While demonstrating the Komet to a Japanese delegation, Fritz' engine quit just after take-off at an altitude of about 100 meters. Black smoke came from the aircraft, clearly the aircraft was on fire. Fritz pulled up, and opened the T-Stoff dumping valve. Just a few meters above the trees, I saw a body falling out of the cockpit, and the parachute opened. They went looking for the crash site, and found Fritz drinking coffee in a farmhouse, with a badly strained ankle.
-
"Perfectly safe" is so wrong it's almost a lie. The fuel was caustic (like strong acid or base); a fuel leak which in most ships would result in the pilot being covered in gasoline - dangerous and unpleasant enough in its own right - resulted in the Komet's pilot decomposing alive. And you can't say that no production Me-163 never exploded. You simply have no record of such.
It's funny; I saw your name on the last post before opening this thread, and I knew that I would find you gallantly defending Nazi equipment, heedless of facts. I cannot comment on the original issue, but nearly everyone knows about the corrosive fuel. I have a hard time believing that you don't; perhaps you just hoped that no one else did?
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
"Perfectly safe" is so wrong it's almost a lie. The fuel was caustic (like strong acid or base); a fuel leak which in most ships would result in the pilot being covered in gasoline - dangerous and unpleasant enough in its own right - resulted in the Komet's pilot decomposing alive. And you can't say that no production Me-163 never exploded. You simply have no record of such.
There were so few Komets made that an almost complete record for all Werk Nr. exists, and I have one in my possession. The fuel was not that corrosive, but the hydrogen peroxide would ignite if it came in contact with organic materials and although not foolproof, the pilots wore protective suits. But if you don’t take my word for it how about Rudy Opitz’?
“Popular Wisdom vs. a Test Pilot’s Experiences” Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was:
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.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
It's funny; I saw your name on the last post before opening this thread, and I knew that I would find you gallantly defending Nazi equipment, heedless of facts. I cannot comment on the original issue, but nearly everyone knows about the corrosive fuel. I have a hard time believing that you don't; perhaps you just hoped that no one else did?
It’s funny; I saw your name on the last post before opening this thread, and I knew that I would find you attacking me and spouting nothing but ox-manure. I was right.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I dont think that it was common practice to shut off the engine of a 109 or 190 in the middle of a hard break turn either, but i see it done in here on occasion.
If you were to have a time lag of even 5-10 seconds on all planes from engine off to on I think it would stop.
shamus
I like it Shamus:aok :aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I upped a rocket the other day and was trying to save fuel, so I cut throttle down quite a bit. A few seconds later, the engine shut down. I said, dmn out of fuel??? I then hit the E button and it started back up! :confused:
Mark
Sky, I've noticed that the 163 hates negative G. If you get into a negative G move, a lot of times the engine will stall.
-
Say whatever you like, Herr Viking. The fact is that the Komet's fuel was quite deadly, and you omitted that fact and called the crate "perfectly safe." If my pointing that out is cow poo, then so be it.
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Say whatever you like, Herr Viking. The fact is that the Komet's fuel was quite deadly, and you omitted that fact and called the crate "perfectly safe." If my pointing that out is cow poo, then so be it.
Gasoline isn't a particularly safe fuel either as many pilots have found out the hard way, but we don't call planes and vehicles unsafe because of it. And your Nazi remarks say more about your character than mine.
-
Gasoline is a normal, unavoidable, and accepted risk in modern transportation. Dangerously unstable and corrosive fuel is not. Ask anyone if he would object to having his automobile or airplane converted to burn flesh-burning fuel instead of gasoline, and see if he thinks it's "perfectly safe."
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Gasoline is a normal, unavoidable, and accepted risk in modern transportation.
Ox manure. Diesel is a much safer fuel than gasoline and won’t even burn at room temperature. You can put out a lit match in it.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Dangerously unstable …
More ox manure. The fuel was perfectly stable and transported by train and truck.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
[Dangerously] corrosive
Even more ox manure. Common hair bleach contains about 10% hydrogen peroxide. T-stoff contained 80% Hydrogen peroxide and 20% water. 8 times hair bleach is not dangerously corrosive, but it will ruin your clothing. Actually battery acid is more corrosive than T-stoff.
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Ask anyone if he would object to having his automobile or airplane converted to burn flesh-burning fuel instead of gasoline, and see if he thinks it's "perfectly safe."
Completely irrelevant. Ask a jet pilot if he would fly a gasoline powered jet plane.
Edit: And those will be my final words on this matter as this discussion is quickly turning into a pissing contest ... as discussions with you always do. Good night sir.
-
Originally posted by ghi
Watch this movie, Me163 shows clear the liquid fuel+trottle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk31Lmkz170 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk31Lmkz170)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOE29fW8yCk&mode=related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOE29fW8yCk&mode=related&search=)
It's not the fact you can adjust the speed via throttle on the Komet, I think what TwinBoom is getting at is the gamey feature of being able to turn on and off the Komet's engines while in flight to save on gas so you can extend the range. IIRC, you could not do that in real life in the Komet.
ack-ack
-
Your efforts to make a dangerous substance look safe reveal much about your own character.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
It's not the fact you can adjust the speed via throttle on the Komet, I think what TwinBoom is getting at is the gamey feature of being able to turn on and off the Komet's engines while in flight to save on gas so you can extend the range. IIRC, you could not do that in real life in the Komet.
ack-ack
At a low throttle setting (~40% full throttle) you can fly the 163 2-3 sectors, get in a reasonably extended fight then climb for alt and glide all the way back to the 163 base without ever turning off the engine (until it runs out of fuel on your final climb). You do, however, have to use autopilot or elevator at that throttle setting to maintain level flight but it's still faster than anything else in the game.
As an aside to the comment above regarding it's docility at stall speeds I've flown the 163 out and played turn fighter in it at 20% or less throttle and it is a very good handling plane at typical prop-plane stall fighting speeds.
-
FYI it is possible to take off with a Me-163, not drop the gear, set climb speed fairly low around 200. Climb and glide to a front line base, land, taxi, refuel and take off again. Key is to keep speed low so you don't rip the gear off. You'll need that gear if you want to taxi to rearm pad.
Not necessarily easy, but possible.
Love the way it fly's, just could never hit anything with the spud guns.
-
What Nilsen said;)
-
Doing some research and found this article...
The plane was built around the HWK 509A rocket motor, which combined hydrogen peroxide and a mixture of hydrazine hydrate, methyl alcohol, water and cupracyanide. These chemicals reacted explosively to generate 3,748 pounds of thrust, enough power to give the Me163 a climb rate of 16,080 feet per minute. Upon launch, the plane dropped its two-wheel dolly and shot skyward. The small fighter could only carry enough fuel for seven and a half minutes of powered flight; the pilots would slash through allied formations, turn off the engine when all was safe, and glide to conserve fuel. The engine could be restarted safely after two minutes; otherwise, spontaneous explosion was again a problem. When the fuel ran out, the Me163 glided back to base.
I am trying to confirm this...will let ya know if I find anything.
-
Here's a link to the article mentioned by Viking above. It's a very good read.
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp
I found this part near the end to be particularily interesting:
_____________________________ _____________________________ __
When supersonic flow begins to appear on a wing or tail surface, the aerodynamic center moves aft, causing a nose-down pitching moment. As the Mach number increases, a shock wave forms at the aft boundary of the supersonic-flow bubble. When the shock gets strong enough it will cause the airflow to separate aft of the shock, leading to a loss of lift. This condition is called “shock stall.”
On the Me 163, the combination of the aft shift in aerodynamic center and shock stall led to a dangerous condition known as “Mach tuck.” If the Mach number exceeded approximately 0.85, the airplane would begin to nose down on its own. The pilot would naturally react by pulling on the stick and deflecting the elevons upward. This would cause a shock wave to form on the underside of the wing at the elevon hinge line. The elevons would shock stall and be unable to bring the nose up, causing the airplane to pitch over into an ever-steepening dive. The only hope for recovery was to wait until the airplane had dived to a lower altitude where the speed of sound is higher, thus reducing Mach number, and the elevons would regain effectiveness.
_____________________________ _____________________________ __
This is precisly what happened to me approching 40K chasing a Pony and I didn't get control again until under 10K. That tells me that HT and staff have done a magnificent job in modeling this craft.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I upped a rocket the other day and was trying to save fuel, so I cut throttle down quite a bit. A few seconds later, the engine shut down. I said, dmn out of fuel??? I then hit the E button and it started back up! :confused:
Mark
neg G's kills the engine sometimes.
Originally posted by BaldEagl
The 163's engine cuts out under negative G's. If, in fact, thats what the real ones did, and I can only assume that the in-game version is modeled after the real thing, then I would assume they had a way of re-firing the engine.
As to getting one to 45K, I chased a P-51 to almost 40K in one one day. At ~38K it started to shudder and slightly above that it went into a death stall that I wasn't able to get contol of again until I was under 10K. I'm not arguing your ex-pilots recollection, just pointing out the 163's limit in the game.
I love flying the 163. Leave it alone.
in the DA i once had a dogfight in a 163 at 90k. Im not jokin either..... couldnt see the ground. 100k seemed to be max alt (i crashed into something)
-
This should clear up any and all misconceptions about the Me163
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight4.htm
-
Originally posted by ghi
I didn't ask you to attack the uncapturable , Me163 base, i'll fly it anytime i have a chance, cuz is fun,
Cuz the rooks had #s, we were out# bad, perk multiplier was low in rook land for sure when you shot my Me163 down, it cost me 20 something perks,that's why you got 5 perks only
imop Me163 should be unperked, enabled on all bases including V bases,CVs and Ports and also get a drop tank
Anyway, sorry to "hurt egos", but "ghi+me163=love",
Well if ghi flies it, it must be good for hOing!:aok
-
shuting the rocket down was possable but unsafe, of the 2 fuels used one was harmless and the other would eat through human flesh on contact i have seen video on the military channel of burn victoms exposed to the fuel. flying the rocket was like straping Dine-No-Might to your rear unsafe but it got the job done quick. i am not on anyones side hear i love all countrys aircraft to there respects.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The fact is that bombers are stealth weapons in this game. By the time they get into dar range and/or are spotted, they're already too high and too fast for anybody to stop them.
lmao "stealth weapons".
sounds like you haven't or don't spend much time in buffs krusty.
if you are so concerned about high buffs why don't you patrol at high alt?
<--refrains from putting in the
:cry smilie.
-
Soup I've got more bomber time than I care to remember. I used to do it almost exclusively for a long time. Speed and alt will get you to a target before anybody can spot you. You can drop, turn, drop again, before anybody can get up to you.
I've had quite a few boring bombing sorties that way. Dropping from 20 to 15k is more likely to see at least 1 fighter make 1 attack before falling behind into a dead-6 trail chase. Dropping from 15 to 10k is nearly suicide, but you WILL drop on target most of the time before you die.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Best post yet!
Man if i shut off the throttle on my old GSX1100 with out closing the throttle.... then flick the kill switch back to on the resulting explosion is pretty bad...
I know this because I blew a 2x2 inch piece of my exaust can out... Made the bike sound great though :)
-
Thing is,having a aircraft with a five minute fuel load,buzzing around for more than five minutes is wrong.Getting to the point,the 163 is the most incorrectley modeled aircraft in the set.Will it be corrected,probably not.In the simulation business,leaning towards realism will kill your player base,profits,etc. Falcon4,Silent Hunter3 would fall in this category.Leaning towards arcadish,will get you more players,money.Fighter Ace would be an example.If you took a vote on the 163 being changed,you would lose,mainly cuz HT sez so,plus the one person shooters will win every time.Aces High is the best of it's kind.Little or no competition, et al Warbirds is hanging on by a thread,sometimes breeds overconfidence,and losing touch with the players.Is this a good thing,probably not.
IronDog
475/431 Fighter Squad
-
From wikipedia
Rocket fuel
Hydrazine is also used as rocket fuel starting in World War II for the Messerschmitt Me 163, under name B-Stoff (hydrazine hydrate) and in a mixture with methanol (M-Stoff) and water called C-Stoff.
Hydrazine is also used as a low-power monopropellant for the maneuvering thrusters of spacecraft, and the Space Shuttle's Auxiliary Power Units. In addition, monopropellant hydrazine-fueled rocket engines are often used in terminal descent of spacecraft. A collection of such engines were used in both Viking landers as well as the Phoenix lander scheduled to launch in August 2007.
In all hydrazine monopropellant engines the hydrazine is passed by a catalyst such as iridium metal supported by high-surface-area alumina (aluminium oxide) or carbon nanofibers,[8] or more recently molybdenum nitride on alumina,[9] which causes it to decompose into ammonia, nitrogen gas, and hydrogen gas according to the following reactions:
1. 3 N2H4 → 4 NH3 + N2
2. N2H4 → N2 + 2 H2
3. 4 NH3 + N2H4 → 3 N2 + 8 H2
These reactions are extremely exothermic (the catalyst chamber can reach 800 °C in a matter of milliseconds[8]), and they produce large volumes of hot gas from a small volume of liquid hydrazine,[9] making it an efficient thruster propellant.
[edit] Safety
Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, and coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system in humans. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically (long-term) exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.
[edit]
-
Originally posted by IronDog
Getting to the point,the 163 is the most incorrectley modeled aircraft in the set.
I seriously doubt that.
-
Originally posted by MajWoody
From wikipedia
Rocket fuel
While your post was interesting it has little to do with the Me163. The Me163’s motor was a binary fuel rocket not mono fuel.
Rocket Fuels
Liquid Fuels used in the 109-509 Series Motors.
T-Stoff - The Oxidant 1
The basis for almost all Walter rocket motors is hydrogen peroxide. With the chemical formula of (H2O2) it is an oxygen rich liquid which, upon decomposition, gives out heat at a rate equivalent to gunpowder.
T-Stoff is volatile and will naturally decompose, but the Walter Werke carried out a large amount of work to establish the correct dilutions and proportions to make the substance powerful enough for a motor, stable enough to store and capable of being controlled during decomposition.
T-Stoff was generally an 80% concentrated form, diluted with water, 20% by weight. When brought into contact with a catalyst, the peroxide decomposes into a mixture of superheated steam and oxygen, at around 500o centigrade. Fed directly to an expansion venturi, thrust will result. This basic process was used as the principle of Walter's so-called "Cold" Motors.
C-Stoff - The Fuel 1
To increase the efficiency of the motor, a fuel was injected into the mixture, utilising the oxygen released during decomposition to promote combustion.
The liquid fuel used was methyl alcohol, mixed with an organic compound called hydrazine hydrate. This latter was used to ensure the smooth, continuous combustion of the fuel.
The theoretical heat of this reaction would raise the temperature at the combustion chamber to over 1850o, so the actual C-Stoff fuel used, was a dilution with water. This kept the combustion chamber to a manageable 1750o. The difference in temperatures between this and the plain decomposition engine led to the fuelled motor being referred to as the "Hot" motor.
T-Stoff - In Detail 2
Hydrogen Peroxide H2O2 80% by Weight
Water H2O 20% by Weight
Stabilisers Phosphoric Acid
Sodium Phosphate
8-Oxyquinoline
The 20% dilution factor was tested by experiment. Walter research indicated that at concentrations greater than 85%, the peroxide would detonate rather than decompose in a controlled fashion.
The additives to the T-Stoff were to stabilise it, preventing it from decomposing during storage.
Walter Werke had also done a lot of research into suitable materials for engine components, as a number of metals caused the decomposition of the T-Stoff. To be avoided were copper and lead and any organic materials. At least one explosion at the Japanese factory attempting to develop their own copy of the Walter engine was due to using an organic-based gasket within a pump.
All organic and combustible materials had to be avoided because contact with the 85% peroxide would cause spontaneous combustion. Therefore, during any operations involving the movement or dispensing of T-Stoff, hoses of running water were always on hand to wash away and dilute any accidental spillage.
Materials that could be used, were austenitic steels,aluminium and polyvinylchloride (PVC) products.
C-Stoff - In Detail 2
Methyl Alcohol CH3OH 57% by Weight
Hydrazine Hydrate N2H4.H2O 30% by Weight
Water H2O 13% by Weight
Catalyst 431
Potassium Cuprous Cyanide K3Cu(CN)4
The fuel mixture was again discovered through careful experiment. The methyl alcohol (which was referred to as M-Stoff), was mixed with hydrazine hydrate (B-Stoff) which promoted an auto-ignition reaction in the combustion chamber and smooth combustion during operation.
An ideal ratio would have been to use 50% B-Stoff, but the experiments showed that a 30% ratio mixture is just as effective and a cheaper option.
To make the useable fuel, the chemical components were diluted with water.
To decompose the T-Stoff on demand required the presence of a chemical catalyst which promoted the reaction. A number of chemical salts carried this property, including manganese salts. However, in the final Walter motors, potassium cuprous cyanide was used, called Catalyst 431. This copper salt was preferred as it did not produce any deposits in the motor during combustion.
The catalyst itself was mixed in bulk with the C-Stoff fuel in the storage tanks. The fuel was then blown through with air to mix the catalyst and distribute it evenly in the liquid.
During operation, the correct proportions of C-Stoff and T-Stoff were sprayed into the combustion chamber. The presence of the catalyst decomposed the peroxide and the resultant heat of reaction with the presence of the hydrazine hydrate caused the auto-ignition of the methyl alcohol fuel.
The correct ratio of chemical fuels was C-Stoff:T-Stoff, 0.36:1. However, in order to more closely guarantee combustion, a slight excess of T-Stoff at the combustion chamber was preferred, so the actual ratios were closer to 0.29-0.32:1.
The Reactions 2
The peroxide, sprayed into intimate contact with the fuel in the combustion chamber undergoes the following chemical reactions.
With the Hydrazine Hydrate, the Peroxide is decomposed into nitrogen and very high temperature steam.
The methanol reacts with the peroxide to produce carbon dioxide and again water, although as we know, the temperature of reaction raises the state of this product to super-heated steam.
As a result, with complete combustion, the exhaust gases are comparatively safe and inert, although the temperature of the jet efflux will be in excess of 1800o centigrade.
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, 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. The power of the reaction, the velocity of exhaust gases and the narrowness of the venturi opening of the motor often led to "diamond" shock waves appearing in the high speed exhaust as Messerschmitt Komet aircraft began their "sharp starts" at take-off. The noise is described in a number of accounts in very colourful language, but must have been ear-splitting.
-
From Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown, pp.169-171:
During the interim 14 months, some practical information on the somewhat remarkable characteristics of the HWK 509A rocket motor had been provided the RAE boffins by visits to the engine test stands at the Hellmuth Walter Werke in Kiel, and the outcome was the decision to abandon powered flying for our tests. I was not consulted in this decision, but I was present at a demonstration in Kiel, and was suitably impressed when, after the shattering roar of a test run, Dr. Walter took two glass rods, placed a droplet of T-Stoff on one and an equally minute quantity of C-Stoff on the other. He then inclined the rods until the droplet of T-Stoff fell to the floor, the C-Stoff following it. There was immediately a violent explosion, despite the tiny quantities of fuel and catalyst involved, both rods being shattered in Dr. Walter's hands. I might not have agreed with the boffins' decision not to risk powered trials in the air, but at least now I understood!
Certainly the Komet had a black accident record, for the slightest irregularity in the set ratio of C-Stoff and T-Stoff being fed into the motor, such as might result from a momentary interruption in the flow of one or the other, could produce an explosion leaving little of the aeroplane or its unfortunate occupant. Even a bad bump on landing could produce equally disastrous results from the dregs of the tempermental rocket fuels remaining in the tanks.
Anecdotal I suppose. I believe there is also something in Adolf Galland's The First and the Last (can't find the book right now) about the caustic nature of the fuel and its hazzard to the pilots.
wrngway
-
read the whole post.
It tells of the fuel used in the me163.
also the nature of hydrazine
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
Say whatever you like, Herr Viking. The fact is that the Komet's fuel was quite deadly, and you omitted that fact and called the crate "perfectly safe." If my pointing that out is cow poo, then so be it.
it's so safe they kept the 2 fuels at either end of the airfield lol!:lol
-
Originally posted by MajWoody
read the whole post.
It tells of the fuel used in the me163.
also the nature of hydrazine
No I'm afraid it does not. The use of Hydrazine Hydrate N2H4.H2O as a component of the 163's fuel is quite different from the pure Hydrazine N2H4 used in mono-propellant rockets today. Hydrazine Hydrate is much less dangerous and was a minor component of the 163's fuel. Also while interesting the rest of your post has nothing to do with the operation of the Walter rocket motor which works completely different from a mono-propellant Hydrazine motor.
-
Originally posted by TwinBoom
title says it all 163 in game is able to turn eng off then restart
how is a rocket able to do this
163 flew up till they ran outa fuel provided they didnt explode
on the runway
hitech comments on this am i wrong just curious?
You know what is "too" (yes there is a difference in the words to and too) gamey?
The ability to have another life after you die in the game.
Could HTC fix it so when players die in the game they die in real life too?
-
No JPEG but, ill come to your house and kick you in your junk everytime you die... cheap too.. for that added touch of realism :)
-
wow jpeg such wisdom where is ur info on the 163?
oh there is none now move along troll
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
The 163's engine cuts out under negative G's. If, in fact, thats what the real ones did, and I can only assume that the in-game version is modeled after the real thing, then I would assume they had a way of re-firing the engine.
As to getting one to 45K, I chased a P-51 to almost 40K in one one day. At ~38K it started to shudder and slightly above that it went into a death stall that I wasn't able to get contol of again until I was under 10K. I'm not arguing your ex-pilots recollection, just pointing out the 163's limit in the game.
I love flying the 163. Leave it alone.
I've had this happen in a 163 too - I think what causes this is actually a bug in the flight model when you get up too high. I put the 163 in a shallow climb under power, and what I think happened was that my ground speed (as opposed to indicated) got up near Mach 1 and the plane began to buffet when I got up high. I cut power and it stopped immediately, and I was able to continue climbing after that.
I don't have much use for the 163 unless it is a scramble to stop an HQ raid, but they might as well leave it in for people that like it.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by TwinBoom
wow jpeg such wisdom where is ur info on the 163?
oh there is none now move along troll
You need even more info? Did you even bother to read the 4+ other posts giving detailed info and movies on the 163?
-
yes i read everything aven the troll post`s
-
Originally posted by IronDog
Thing is,having a aircraft with a five minute fuel load,buzzing around for more than five minutes is wrong.Getting to the point,the 163 is the most incorrectley modeled aircraft in the set.Will it be corrected,probably not.In the simulation business,leaning towards realism will kill your player base,profits,etc. Falcon4,Silent Hunter3 would fall in this category.Leaning towards arcadish,will get you more players,money.Fighter Ace would be an example.If you took a vote on the 163 being changed,you would lose,mainly cuz HT sez so,plus the one person shooters will win every time.Aces High is the best of it's kind.Little or no competition, et al Warbirds is hanging on by a thread,sometimes breeds overconfidence,and losing touch with the players.Is this a good thing,probably not.
IronDog
475/431 Fighter Squad
What is your assertion here? That the 163 shouldn't have a throttle? If you have a point to make regarding the modeling of something, do so with some facts and not conspiracy theories about us.:noid
-
Originally posted by IronDog
Thing is,having a aircraft with a five minute fuel load,buzzing around for more than five minutes is wrong.Getting to the point,the 163 is the most incorrectley modeled aircraft in the set.Will it be corrected,probably not.
What evidence do you have that the Komet is modelled incorrectly? Do you have any data to back up your assertions?
ack-ack