Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: fbWldcat on June 14, 2011, 12:25:50 PM
-
The RATO units are counted as ords, but shouldn't they be under Fuel & Troops? C-stoff and T-stoff are fuel for the rockets. I'm just wondering why they are counted as Ords. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because when a base is under attack, ords are usually the first to go, and without RATO units, you don't have that extra boost when you really need it. Dogfighting is really fun in a 234, btw.
So like I asked, why are RATO units counted as ords?
-
You have balls to up a *sitting duck* arado from a porked, attacked base? <S>!
-
The RATO units are counted as ords, but shouldn't they be under Fuel & Troops? C-stoff and T-stoff are fuel for the rockets. I'm just wondering why they are counted as Ords. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because when a base is under attack, ords are usually the first to go, and without RATO units, you don't have that extra boost when you really need it. Dogfighting is really fun in a 234, btw.
So like I asked, why are RATO units counted as ords?
Would you store small rockets in your barracks, next to your fuel tanks, or in the ords bunker?
-
You have balls to up a *sitting duck* arado from a porked, attacked base? <S>!
It was in between raids and I hadn't done it for a while.
Would you store small rockets in your barracks, next to your fuel tanks, or in the ords bunker?
You bring up a good point, but were they already sealed and ready to go? Just like that?
When filling the ME-163s with the chemicals, they made CERTAIN that neither chemical touched the other, each tank vehicle brought out the chemicals one at a time. If they took that much care to prevent a catastrophe on the runway, why pre-fill RATOs? I've never looked this info up before, but it seems odd to me.
-
i think you're missing the point a bit wildcat...the rato units themselves are hardware, fueled up or not...they are disposable add-ons that would be stored in an area away from fuel stores and personnel housing.
-
...
You bring up a good point, but were they already sealed and ready to go? Just like that?
When filling the ME-163s with the chemicals, they made CERTAIN that neither chemical touched the other, each tank vehicle brought out the chemicals one at a time. If they took that much care to prevent a catastrophe on the runway, why pre-fill RATOs? I've never looked this info up before, but it seems odd to me.
It may be that AH only simulates the RATO on the aircraft and not the storage and handling of it.
I agree that RATO jets could logically be associated with fuel as opposed to ords but bunker storage also makes sense.
-
Wildcat, the Me163 was a different beast from what you have in RATOs. There were all kinds of RATOs on both sides of the war.
Why, there were a number of them strapped to flying boats for the RAF once, in an attempt to get the boats airborn (it took so much power to get off the water, you see) and in the end they strapped so many rockets to one ride that after they tested it the airframe was warped twisted and bent and the crew dazed and stunned. It didn't get airborn though.
So RATO packs do not equate to Me163s, just FYI.
-
Wildcat, the Me163 was a different beast from what you have in RATOs. There were all kinds of RATOs on both sides of the war.
Why, there were a number of them strapped to flying boats for the RAF once, in an attempt to get the boats airborn (it took so much power to get off the water, you see) and in the end they strapped so many rockets to one ride that after they tested it the airframe was warped twisted and bent and the crew dazed and stunned. It didn't get airborn though.
So RATO packs do not equate to Me163s, just FYI.
Got any link or citation for the RAF flying boat RATO trials? Sounds like there's a good story there to be shared.
-
Got any link or citation for the RAF flying boat RATO trials? Sounds like there's a good story there to be shared.
"The War in the Air, The Royal Air Force in World War II" edited by Gavin Lyall. It's a little anthology of journal entries, letters, memos, telegrams, official or personal, some of them recounting the first combat experience against FW190s, and some recounting other little things (like civilian suggestions on how to help win the war, those suggestions calld "Bright Ideas Mk.I" "Mk.II" etc, some funny like: Take cat up in night fighter at night. Shoot guns where cat is looking.)
It's heavily worn (I've read and re-read this book for over 10 years and got it used to boot) so I can't list a SSBN or anything like that. Doesn't seem to have it inside the flap. I can make out "Ballantine Books" though.
I did about 15 minutes of browsing to find the incident. While I do recall seaplanes being tested with RATOs, this particular incident was of a Short Stirling.
One day we were delighted to have on the station a Whitley Bomber with rocket-assisted take-off. In this case, this consisted of a barrel under each wing containing some twenty-four rockets. We all tried it and the sensation was most impressive. Either one could climb at a fantastic gradient or accelerate to much more than the maximum cruising speed of the aeroplane. In eithe rcase, one fell back with a sickening finality to normal routine when the rockets were spent. As we put in a fair amount of practice on the Whitley, the RAE Farnborough thought they would like the Boscombe Down view of the much more formidable installation on a Short Stirling four-engined bomber. So this aircraft was duly flown over to us. Our chief engineer, Fred Rowarth, of Royal Aero Club handicapping fame, was suspicious of the installation from the start and made it quite clear that it was an RAE affair even though we were flying the aircraft. How right he was!
The system of rocket firing was more complicated than on the Whitley, but possibly more ingenious. As the throttles were opened for take-off, the rockets were fired progressively by means of a rheostat. Squadron-Leader Huxtable was the pilot selected for this job and he was a very fine sound man. Some months before he had survived a fantastic crash in an Albemarle which dived into the ground and blew up, hurling the crew all over the countryside. Luckily they all survived.
When the Stirling was ready, an impressive gathering of imptoratn visitors arrive don the aerodrome, including a general, a cabinet minister, and several very senior RAF officers. Huxtable taxied the great aeroplane out and slowly turned into the wind. The brass-hats watched in silence. The Stirling advanced slowly. It approached the rocket-firing stage then there was quite hte loudest, longest and most satisfactory explosion yet heard on the Salisbury Plain. The scene immediately around the Stirling was confused due to smoke, flames, and spent pieces of rockets. When all cleared away, we saw the aeroplane. It had come to a rest, one undercarriage partially collapsed, engines pointing in all directions, three propellers missing, and bits of blade here and there, but no one was hurt. At quarter throttle all the rockets had gone off at once, applying an acceleration which the Stirling's desigher had never even dreamed of.
- Wing-Commander H. P. Powell AFC ARAES
It's a great read if you can find a copy. Even has some photos in the center (one of those older books where they put all the color glossy pages in the center and the white pulp pages either side).
EDIT: removed BOLD to make it easier to read.
-
Take cat up in night fighter at night. Shoot guns where cat is looking.
:rofl
-
:rofl :aok
Who is Bright Ideas Mk.I RTHolmes? I like him already, he's clearly a boffin. Any more quotes?
-
i think you're missing the point a bit wildcat...the rato units themselves are hardware, fueled up or not...they are disposable add-ons
What about extrenal fuel tanks, then?
And with the ME-163s, I was referring to the C-stoff and T-stoff and the fact that it is rocket technology, a very dangerous technology.
-
There are a million different types of rockets, you know? Some more harmful than others. Just because the 163 is fueled separatedly doesn't mean the RATO pods had to be.
-
:rofl :aok
Who is Bright Ideas Mk.I RTHolmes? I like him already, he's clearly a boffin. Any more quotes?
Citizens would write in with ideas. Even as early as 1940 the ideas came in. Don't have the book in front of me but suggestions included:
Getting a squadron of planes to run away as if scared, to make the Germans chase them. Release clouds of potent sleep agents or chloroform to make the pilots fall asleep as they chased, and crash.
Getting tons of those terry cloth rags (the kind used to scrub food off of dishes) and releast them into the enemy to foul up their air screws.
Releasing a sticky treacle-type substance to gum up air screws and obscure wind screens.
(and the list goes on, generally many are defensive in nature, given the mentality of the time)
-
:rofl Great! Is there a website? I think the cat suggestion is brilliant.
-
There are a million different types of rockets, you know? Some more harmful than others. Just because the 163 is fueled separatedly doesn't mean the RATO pods had to be.
You're missing my point, though. Why would they fuel the 163 so carefully, but then keep the two so close together in the RATO units?
Based on what I read below, the RATO units were sometimes filled with the two volatile chemicals. And even if they aren't using the exact chemicals, they all contain a type of fuel, correct?
2. ' Since that time German progress in the development of liquid rocket
fuels has been additionally demonstrated by the operational employment of the
Me 163 fighter, the, A.4 long-range rocket,-and the F?>G 7S flying bomb (where
T and 2 Stoff are used for ground launching), while experimental work on a
number of G.A.P. projects concerned with assisted take-off units for bombers
and with controlled missiles for u3e against airoraft or shipping continues on
a high priority.
A special variant of the bifuel system which may be considered separately,
la the well-known T Stoff/Z Stoff combination, first used operationally in
assisted take-off units
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0122495 (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0122495)
-
Wldcat, the only reason they did that with the Me163 was because those 2 very specific chemicals exploded on contact. You didn't hae to ignite them. They were also nasty and harmful.
Like I said, tons of different types of RATO fuels out there. Tons of variations with less caustic results. That means they're safer than a fully fueled Me163, and can be stored.
All hypothetical, naturally. But you shouldn't compare a Me163's methods of fuel storage with those of a RATO unit. They really don't compare.
-
:rofl Great! Is there a website? I think the cat suggestion is brilliant.
No, it's just parts of the book. It works its way up from 1939 to 1940 etc. In between different entries it sometimes adds these short accounts of British citizen suggestions from that time. No website, just part of the book.
Definitely keep an eye out for it if you go browsing. Found a hardback picture here:
(http://www.nationalroadbooks.com/PrestShop/43-86-large/the-war-in-the-air-the-royal-air-force-in-world-war-ii-edited-by-charles-lyall.jpg)
Mine's paperback, slightly different image (same picture, just placed differently, no white border, the text goes over the top of the photo, etc)
-
Wldcat, the only reason they did that with the Me163 was because those 2 very specific chemicals exploded on contact. You didn't hae to ignite them. They were also nasty and harmful.
Like I said, tons of different types of RATO fuels out there. Tons of variations with less caustic results. That means they're safer than a fully fueled Me163, and can be stored.
All hypothetical, naturally. But you shouldn't compare a Me163's methods of fuel storage with those of a RATO unit. They really don't compare.
It's not so much about the comparison to the 163 as it is that the RATO units are filled with some kind of fuel or another. (Fancy fuel tanks, anyone)?
-
I think rato units are hot burning rockets and the 163 is a cold rocket.