Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Gloves on December 19, 2002, 07:39:08 PM
-
Hey guys,
A couple of guys were arguing that the 163 is set to randomly blow up 20% of the time. No overloading the wings, just all of the sudden boom. One said it was, the other said it wasn't. I'm curious who is right.
Thanks,
Glove
-
I dont believe HT would use random anything.
Offline I blew one up overstressing the gear. It wasnt moving that fast either so it doesnt take much.
-
Originally posted by Gloves
Hey guys,
A couple of guys were arguing that the 163 is set to randomly blow up 20% of the time. No overloading the wings, just all of the sudden boom. One said it was, the other said it wasn't. I'm curious who is right.
Thanks,
Glove
From what I've heard about the 163... that would be fairly accurate flight modeling! Good job HTC!! :D
-
There are no random explosions on the 163. That would be a reliability issue, which are left out on all planes.
You can break the 12g pilot limit, but it takes an actual effort to do it now that the elevator bug is fixed.
There are no random explosions, only an airplane that is easy to screw up in.
-
bump
-
I have a few hours in the 163 now and have never exploded.
The 163 never randomly exploded. Tumor, there is an indepth article/interview with a main test pilot of the 163 and he says it never happened. (available on the internet somewhere)
A lot of pilots crashed 163s and survived.
-
Still curious about this one. I haven't had it happen randomly, but I have lost 2 to stupid mistakes - ie enabling autopilot while in a dive. Exceeded 12g pilot limit both times & boom. But this was pilot error. I'm asking about just plain BOOM for no apparent reason.
Thanks,
Glove
-
Its happened to me.
Flying along, level in a slow banking turn.
I wasn't stressing the airframe at all and was, in fact, powered down in an attempt to lenghthen my duration when all of a sudden: "you have crashed" message popped up and I was in the tower.
I believe this is a feature that is coded in. If not then its a bug of some sort. I posted on this elsewhere but haven't heard anything definitive from the HTC staff. Until I get an answer I don't feel comfortable flying the Me163.
So I concur, this is an issue that is worthy of further exploration.
David
-
Before the patch I experienced a 163 explosion immediately after running out of fuel. It seemed everyone in the H2H at that time were exploding with empty tank.
P.S. The ALT-X (speed) still puts 163 in a steep dive so watch it. I don't know what speed is the default for this one but it's definitely not ideal for climb.
-
[SIZE=8]IT'S A CONSPIRACY !!!!! [/SIZE]
-
Yesterday I did a split S with the rocket .. the plane was stressing really bad and my speed was near 750+ .. nothing broke... then I was flying straight and pulled up slightly to kill off speed and I instabtly appeared in the tower. Must be the samething/bug you are talking about.
-
The whole thing is an incorrect rumor. The first day of the 163 being out before the patch, the 163 had an elevator bug where you could get full elevator authority regardless of speed. This meant that even small movements of the stick would create BIG movements in the plane, making the 12g limit breakable by even a quick stick spike when at high speed.
-
Originally posted by brendo
I have a few hours in the 163 now and have never exploded.
The 163 never randomly exploded. Tumor, there is an indepth article/interview with a main test pilot of the 163 and he says it never happened. (available on the internet somewhere)
A lot of pilots crashed 163s and survived.
Did when landing, and some didn't survive. Thanks for the corrections though :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by brendo
A lot of pilots crashed 163s and survived.
Ermm, wasn't the idea to pretty much ditch the aircraft on the runway?
so did these guys just slide of the runway then?:D
-
Tumor- how can something possibly blow up when there is no fuel in it?
The rocket motor was run until there was no more gas in the tanks.
-SW
-
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.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Has to be a bug.
-
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."
-
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
-
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
-
Still waiting for the official response. :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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).
-
Still curious. :)
Gloves
-
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
-
I got 11 kills and nil deaths in the 163. Just treat her gently like the angel she is.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
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.
hahem ....
if the sky is green it's likely because you are flying inverted avoid pulling up in this case if you have insuficient alt reserve ;)
-
Originally posted by straffo
hahem ....
if the sky is green it's likely because you are flying inverted avoid pulling up in this case if you have insuficient alt reserve ;)
But how can I be sure that I wasn't flying over water with a green sky!?
HT please comment!!!
-
doh ... I'm stuck :)
-
Still curious. :)
Glove
-
They don't randomly blow up.
HiTech
-
They should be. One example captured by the Allies was found to be booby trapped by the Nazi slave labor worker so that when the plane was launched, it would kill the pilot.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Tumor- how can something possibly blow up when there is no fuel in it?
The rocket motor was run until there was no more gas in the tanks.
-SW
Fumes.
Its not the liquid that burns, its the fumes the liquid gives off.
-
THANKS HT!!!
-
Yes, and the rocket motor was run until the fuel was gone... so there wouldn't be fumes in the tanks.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yes, and the rocket motor was run until the fuel was gone... so there wouldn't be fumes in the tanks.
So the fuel tanks were pulled down to a hard vacuum by the fuel pumps? Fuel pumps that were designed to pump liquid were somehow able to pump out all the vapors after the liquid was pumped out? No? Then there were fumes.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yes, and the rocket motor was run until the fuel was gone... so there wouldn't be fumes in the tanks.
-SW
Try to weld an empty automobile fuel tank, if you survive let us know what you discovered :)
-
LOL I used to weld gasoline tanks... This was done with the tanks completely full of fuel... Perfectly safe... However, if you try welding when it's empty..... BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM
-
First of all, I don't believe Hydrogen Peroxide (T-stoff) is flammable but it becomes unstable with trace impurities... so it becoming volitable would require poor manufacturing.
C-Stoff is flammable... but how are the relatively stable fumes going to ignite without a spark?
Exactly...
-SW
-
From Aircraft of World War II "A Visual Encyclopedia" by Sharpe, Scutts, and March:
"The Walter R-II-203 rocket motor used a mixture of T-Stoff (hydrogen peroxide and water) and C-Stoff (hydrazine hydrate, methyl alcohol and water) to produce enormous thrust."
"The main problems with the Me 163, apart from a demanding pilot training programme, included engine reliability and fuel volatility that made it highly dangerous to handle... With his fuel expended, the Me 163 pilot had to glide back to base for a potentially dangerous landing, for the fumes accumulated in its fuselage tanks could detonate with the slighest jolt - indeed Me 163s were known to explode for no apparent reason."
I've also heard the phrase, "the Me163 killed more Axis pilots than it did Allied" although I don't have a source for it, just thought it was interesting.
This is just some information I could dig up.
-
According to Rudy Opitz: 1. Rocket engines would explode without warning.
Rudy Opitz: 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.
Landing accidents tended to be from the pilot coming in too fast, or too hard, damaging the plane... but this would happen to any plane if it came in too fast or touched down too hard (unless it was a carrier launched plane).
Random explosions due to fuel being bumped around is a myth.. it would require the two fuels to mix to react.
-SW
-
Tumor- how can something possibly blow up when there is no fuel in it?
an empty feul tank is more dangerous than a full in terms of explosion danger
-
Me 163
facts from discovery channel
allies shot down : 7
34 % of all damaged /shot down me-163s was due to landing/xploding /
I looked at jet special WWII on discovery channel last night , and they took a look at me.262 and 163 , bith Me-163 A and B
There was made 1400 Me-163Bs ( A was prototype ) but only 400 was put in to the war . The fuel thing T and C or whatever was allso showed and how they refueld the planes . they got 2 teams with fuel , first one goes in and refuel and other team . They allso got special vehicles to bring back the planes after landing(on fields /grass ) .
They allso say that some did xplode in air but most right after fuel was put in . And that some times they actual killed the pilot by melting the bulletproof glass.
Whats interesting tho is that due to ME-163 Kommet inventor (lipsiig or whatever ) we got the sabre planes and the apollo :)
Allso due to the fact that there speed was so high they ( poor trained pilots did a 8 hour intensive traning) didnt have time to aim on enemy planes , lol 7 victorys with 400 planes and who know how many sorties .
Think i got the nummbers right :)
JANN
-
Bug- a gas tank... are C-Stoff fumes more potent than gasoline?
Jannerik- Discovery Channel shows tend to be very wrong. It's actually a higher % lost to accidents... but the exploding was due to airframe damage, not random or from a normal landing.. there was a 163 pilot that set his plane down so hard it broke his back... plane didn't explode... guess the fumes weren't as volitile as people say?
BTW Rudy Opitz was a 163 test pilot. His word holds more weight than Discovery Wings or any book.
-SW