PDA

View Full Version : Me163 rocket plane or propeller plane?



badatflyski
10-22-2005, 08:38 AM
hy!
just tried the 163 on the single mission (B17 interception) and was badly surpised by his speed and his climb-rate.
It needs more than the half of the runway to take off, his acceleration looks almost the same than this of a UFO-La7 and you can't climb with more than 50m/sec or you loose all your speed (less than 400-430 km/h), you can forget to clim vertical after take off like it should be : "The performance of the Me 163 far exceeded that of contemporary piston-engined fighters. After take-off from a dolly it would be traveling over 200 mph (300 km/h) at the end of the runway, at which point it would pull up into an 80 degree climb all the way to the bombers' altitude. It could go even higher if need be, reaching 40,000 ft (12,000 m in an unheard-of three minutes. Once there it would level off and quickly accelerate to speeds around 550 mph (880 km/h) or faster, which no Allied plane could hope to match"
thus now, we have a rocket plane that flies like a vulgar LA7...what happenned? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif)

Kuna15
10-22-2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grunherzjager:
Hi,

1) Me 163
Doesnt climb, the same problem from 4.01, I´ve made several reports, the problem still there, the plane is useless.

2) TypeClouds=0
The command only work in Single Player Missions and the Quick Mission Builder. No matter what, it dosent work in campaigns. Same thing from 4.01, I´ve made at least two reports about this.

I tried every single possibility to get rid of these new clouds, no matter what, if you start the campaign with TypeClouds=0 in conf.ini, without Clouds in realism settings, or change the clouds detail to Medium, that nightmare clouds still there ruining my day.

Please Oleg, 1C, Developer team, whatever... Dont punish your users with old video cards, there is no point in locking the new clouds in off-line campaigns, that is so frustrating. I think the possibility to use the OLD Clouds, was maded to help off-line players, mainly playing DGen campaings, so whats the point?

Thank you,

1. Me-163 with full fuel load climbs as it should. It was wrong before 4.01

2. Clouds type:
Old and new clouds are playing different role in the gameplay of campaign. So it is done especially - impossibility to change the type of clouds during campaign. Campaign engine when starting/generating the first mission of campaign reads the cloud types from conf.ini and then rememeber this type of clouds the whole campaign, becasue it is also difficlty setting. So if you are unable to play with this, you need to restart this campaign (generate new), but before this you need to set back in conf.ini file the type of clouds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

badatflyski
10-22-2005, 11:17 AM
What????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Just tried again:
take off, horizontal flight to the end of the runway (340km/h), push up at about 80?(external view), still full power, not even at 1000meters the plane stalled with a speed of about 140km/h and that's called a rocket climb???????? what the hell???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

So fornow, bye-bye B17 interception, the rocket plane is awfully useless! NICE!

Chuck_Older
10-22-2005, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
What????? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Just tried again:
take off, horizontal flight to the end of the runway (340km/h), push up at about 80?(external view), still full power, not even at 1000meters the plane stalled with a speed of about 140km/h and that's called a rocket climb???????? what the hell???? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

So fornow, bye-bye B17 interception, the rocket plane is awfully useless! NICE!

Did you release the takeoff dolly, by any chance?

I just flew the 163 for the first time in 4.02

Started at 50% power, throttled up slowly. Took off by itself at about 1/2 runway length on the Berlin map

I maintained about 40* climb for about one minute, and I was at 10,000 feet at 220 mph IAS

I leveled out and in less than a minute I was well over 450 mph IAS

So in two minutes I was over 10,000 feet and over 450 mph IAS. I call that impressive. Two to three minutes would allow you to intercept Heavy Bombers at 10-20 thousand feet easily

This was, incidentally, at full fuel load

Why do you expect the Me 163 to accelerate vertically? It is a Rocket Plane, not a Staurn Rocket. Don't expect it to go ballistic. 80* climb is way to aggresive

I suggest you use a shallower climb; 40* is still a fast climb.

test again, make sure you release the diolly, climb at about 40* and level off at your desired altitude. Time it. I think you'll be surrpised. i didn't use a stopwatch, I glanced at a clock. I would wager in three minutes you can be at 20,000 feet and approaching 450 mph IAS

I don't know whose quote that is you posted, but regardless, the Me 163 isn't useless as an interceptor in this sim

Edit-

just played the mission. Only thing wrong was that I should have gotten two kills but I got credit for one. Ntrk is a bit different from what really happened; it shows me shooting at nothing at least twice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif And the first B-17 I hit fell out of formation and crashed; in the Ntrk is just flies on...but I got to the bombers in plenty of time, at 26000 ft+. I can send the Ntrk if you want to see how I did it

badatflyski
10-22-2005, 11:55 AM
yes, i dropped the wheels http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and no, you wrong about his climb, this plane was able to climb at about 70? until 10000meters (and no 10000feet) in about 3 minutes and still accelerating in his climb! got a old VHStape where you see the take off of this plane, pulling right into the sky just after the release of the trolley and disappaering on the screen in less than a minute! that plane was actually able to get "ballistic" in his climb and was the first plane to pass the 1000km/h in a level flight! it's not a plane, it's a rocket with little wings!... i thing oleg's crew mixed up the mph with the kmh and the feet with meters!

Atzebrueck
10-22-2005, 12:00 PM
http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/articles/me163/me163_1.asp

At the second page, the test pilot mentiones a climb angle of 70?.

Chuck_Older
10-22-2005, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:
yes, i dropped the wheels http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and no, you wrong about his climb, this plane was able to climb at about 70? until 10000meters (and no 10000feet) in about 3 minutes and still accelerating in his climb! got a old VHStape where you see the take off of this plane, pulling right into the sky just after the release of the trolley and disappaering on the screen in less than a minute! that plane was actually able to get "ballistic" in his climb and was the first plane to pass the 1000km/h in a level flight! it's not a plane, it's a rocket with little wings!... i thing oleg's crew mixed up the mph with the kmh and the feet with meters!

I never, ever said the pilot didn't do it, or that he was wrong about his climb

ballistic means accelerating straight up. 80* or 70* angle is not straight up

I am trying to help you use the Me 163 in the sim. You can use it to intercept in that mission with no trouble. If you want me to stop helping, just let me know

Atzebrueck
10-22-2005, 12:38 PM
I understand the initial post as a question if the current FM reflects the capabilites of the real Me163B.

In my opinion it does not.
It's neither capable of climbing at steady 70?, nor is it able to reach an initial climb rate of 80 m/s. It already loses speed at 50 m/s. A difference of 37,5% actually is a lot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Chuck_Older
10-22-2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
I understand the initial post as a question if the current FM reflects the capabilites of the real Me163B.

In my opinion it does not.
It's neither capable of climbing at 70?, nor is it able to reach an initial climb rate of 80 m/s. It already loses speed at 50 m/s. A difference of 37,5% actually is a lot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

yes, and then he goes on to say how the aircraft is useless in a particular mission because of it

I am not here defending the Me 163's climb in this sim.

If I were, I would ask what the fuel load was in the climbs in which the 163 climbed as reported. because that info...is just not given

vanjast
10-22-2005, 12:50 PM
In reply to the title statement..

The 163 is a propellor plane. you'll notice that high efficiency 'turbo' prop on the nose, which was so big a secret that the allies thought the 163 was a rocket plane.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Pauker
10-22-2005, 12:58 PM
Yep, u are right, it was a prop-plane, and for the next sim the blue side should have ww1 planes and the red side f22 and the latest migs ! LOL

Atzebrueck
10-22-2005, 01:00 PM
While climbing at 15? and a constant speed of 650 km/h TAS I reach 12000m in 3 minutes and 20 seconds.

The initial climb rate is at 50 m/s, at 5k it's 62 m/s and at 10k the gauge shows 80 m/s.

Now the "but": Before starting to climb, I have to accelerate up to 650 km/h which takes some time.

Doing another test, where I started the clock during take-off, I reached 12000m in 4 minutes and 15 seconds.


Btw. at 70? and 80 m/s, the plane would travel at 306 km/h TAS.


EDIT:
Hmm having the following quote in mind:

€œThe day for the flight test was cloudless but hazy, and the program called for takeoff to the northeast, establishing a maximum power climb at 420mph indicated airspeed on a straight line out over the Baltic Sea, taking panel pictures at 1,500-foot intervals up to an altitude of 40,000 feet. It seemed to be simple enough. However, the time schedule for taking the data was not easy to comply with when one realizes that the aircraft needed only ten seconds to climb 1,500 feet after reaching the desired airspeed and only six seconds were needed to climb through 1,500 feet at higher altitudes.
After a short test I come to the conclusion, that speed and climb correspond to what Rudy Opitz described.
Because
1) 420 mph = 675.9245 km/h
2) for lower alts 1500 ft in 10 seconds = 45.72 m/s
3) for higher alts 1500 ft in 6 seconds = 76.2 m/s
Please note, that it's not the real test data Mr. Opitz gathered. But it still tells us that 50 m/s at low alt and 80 m/s at higher alt isn't as off as I initially thought http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Actually it's very very close http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

The procedure to climb up to a bomber stream seemed to be the following:
-Take-off
-accelerating to 675 km/h IAS while climbing at 10-15?
-after reaching that speed pull back until you climb at 70? and voila you are at 10000m
It's only an assumption but at least that's what I'm going to do in FB, if I want to intercept 4mots http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I think those 70? which are mentioned is actually a zoom climb meant to overcome the "last step" of the climb to the "bomber-altitude" a bit faster.

Another point to think about is the thrust to weight ratio:
1,700 kg thrust and a take-off weight of 3,950 kg. I don't think a steady 70? would be possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
Even "school phyiscs" are enough to see that. With schoolphysics I mean my simplification that at 70-80? the lift generated by the wings is negligible if meant to overcome the gravity and that I don't want to take friction into consideration and so on :P.
For a steady climb a "balance of forces" has to be reached:
Meaning that (without wings and in a vacuum http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif) the Komet would need an engine generating ~4200 kg thrust.

Chuck_Older
10-22-2005, 01:44 PM
I don't know why I'm doing this, but I divided 12,000 meters by 180 seconds

and I got 66.666666666666666667 meters per second

According to my reference book (Complete Book of Fighters), the Me 163-B1a has the following data

955 km/h between 3000 and 9000m
initial climb of 81m/sec
loaded weight 4310 kg
empty equipped weight 1908 kg


I'm not saying what's right or wrong. I am just poiting out that according the Bada's first post, 66.667 m/second was the baseline he expected to see- and we don't know the fuel load for the climb that he tells us about, but I do know the fuel weighed a LOT

Now I see the Me 163-B1a is rated in my ref. to 81m/sec

I see an intial climb rate of 50 m/sec attained....I guess this to be from ground level, Atzebreuck? and it varies, up to 80 m/sec, which is *higher* in the sim than the anecdotal evidence that Bada provides


Food for thought. The 163 we have may be limited by the fact that the sim wasn't made to model it's behavior.

When you average out the climb reported by Atzbreuck, it is 62 m/sec.

Atzebrueck
10-22-2005, 01:52 PM
Sorry, I edited my last post a bit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

In short:
My Conclusion: The FM is correct.

Nimits
10-22-2005, 02:57 PM
We have a one-of-a-kind high altitude rocket interceptor in a program designed to simulate a heavy, low speed, low altitude ground attack aircraft. We should be thankful it doesn't bounce 1000 meters in the air at take, do a couple of barrel rolls, dance a jig, and plow straight back into the ground. This isn't X-Plane, or even MFS/MCFS, designed to simulate a wide variety of aircraft and allow an easy manipulation of flight models. I'm not saying it may not need improvement (Me-163 is not my area of expertise), but it may just be something we have to live with, like the rubber band arresting cables, do to game limitations.

LEXX_Luthor
10-22-2005, 04:39 PM
Yup, teh dogfighters are trying to push -163 full vertical just off the runway. They are thinking of vertical launch SAMS like ye olde S-25 or the newer S-300.

badatflyski::
take off, horizontal flight to the end of the runway (340km/h), push up at about 80?(external view),
Proper procedure is to get good speed before steep climb, not some 340km/hr. That's embarassing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
10-22-2005, 05:34 PM
Chuck and Lexx, why are you even bothering? It`s obvious this kid doesn`t know what he`s talking about and is venting in that childish way... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Troll2k
10-22-2005, 06:10 PM
Where is the "drop dolly" button?I looked in the controls section but did not see anything to map.

FritzGryphon
10-22-2005, 06:52 PM
Same button as landing gear.

Chuck_Older
10-22-2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Chuck and Lexx, why are you even bothering? It`s obvious this kid doesn`t know what he`s talking about and is venting in that childish way... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

We all get frustrated http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
10-22-2005, 10:25 PM
the reason for me163s explosive (often literaly) permance was to catch photo recon aircraft. but they would just dodge till it ran out of of fuel http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

its more sluggish than its been in the past, but it handles sweet now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

do a steep climb, cut power and pull round to loop, then slam open the throttle at slow speed, u can make it spin round cooly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Herustic_Algor
10-22-2005, 10:26 PM
From Oleg himself:

1. Me-163 with full fuel load climbs as it should. It was wrong before 4.01"


http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4171093863

badatflyski
10-23-2005, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Herustic_Algor:
From Oleg himself:

1. Me-163 with full fuel load climbs as it should. It was wrong before 4.01"


<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4171093863" TARGET=_blank>
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4171093863 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/4171093863</A>)[/url]

hum--hum..

Thanks anyway for the test done...

but: so the komet is a brick that cannot accelarete and climb verticaly, but the B1 still can do that without any problem and without loosing alomost any speed.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
siberian wood is very strong, like a La7 surning 180?after a full speed dive without breaking anything! i hope BoB (or whatever it will be named) wil not have such differencies beteween the german and the english planes like we have in this game (3years ago i would called it a sim but it became an arcade game )

Chuck_Older
10-23-2005, 07:17 AM
Well, to be honest, nobody here ever invetstigated what "Delta Wood" really is. That boggles my mind, but anyway, "Delta Wood" around here is some kind of mythical joke, an easy way to poke fun at the DM of planes, and that's it.

But it's an actual thing that exists, in reality. It's not just wood from a tree. "Delta" isn't a species, it's an engineering term http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As in "take the delta from this equation"

Delta wood is a plastic impregnated composite. If I recall correctly it's a phenolic resin composite, but I'd have to look it up. Regardless, it's not a 2x4 from the local Home Depot, made from scrub pine. I've never destructively (or non-destructively for that matter) tested it, but belive you me, composites can be astoundingly strong. It's why they put the stuff on aircraft nowadays http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Most folks think of "Carbon Fiber" when they hear "composites" but it doesn't have to be so.


On the 163- yes I agree, something is amiss- but functionality-wise, it is fine

My opinion is that the sim-for whatever reason- can't really model it's climb and acceleration from low speed and/or low altitude


But as you can see from the test, that climb is averaged out fairly well. I'd have to do some checking on it, but if memory serves, a rocket doesn't necessarily gain any thrust as altitude increases. I know a turbine makes more power as that happens, but my point is that the Me 163 wouldn't be able to really accelerate at 80* climb at 66.67 m/second from ground level all the way to 12,000m. Initial climb isn't sustained climb or even best sustained climb. So that real-life figure will vary as well.


Local conditions might effect this as well. We all know that in this sim, each map will give slightly (or markedly in a few cases) performance results for various aircraft

Willey
10-23-2005, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Atzebrueck:
Sorry, I edited my last post a bit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

In short:
My Conclusion: The FM is correct.

I don't think so - but it's more correct than the old one, which was before 3.04 BTW. Oleg mistook it and thought it was changed in 4.x. It was once able to climb, well, until the gauge hit the limit, and it climbed more. Maybe 150m/s. That was ridiculous.

Maybe it should climb a little better - but for sure it should accelerate a lot better. It really lacks here right now.

Another really big error is the fuel-weight ratio. The fuel alone is alomst half of the weight of the whole plane at TO weight! So basically it should be very different in turn and climb with 10% and 100% fuel. And it's not. Absolutely not. The same thing goes for the BI-1 BTW, so it's not a 163-only error. I think just that would kick up the to-12000m average climbrate a lot. Because there's one thing - it's said it's climb is like 15000ft/min - but is it the initial climb? I thin not. The 163 (and BI) climb better the higher the get because they get lighter very fast.

Just a simple calc for example:

TO weight 4000kg
Fuel 1800kg
Fuel time 5:30mins at 100%
Time to climb to 12k 3mins.

So that's 981kg burnt up there. Now let's keep it simple. I come to 6111m with 500kg fuel burnt - 12000 / (1800 / (5.5 / 3) / 500).
That's an eighth less. Now let's see the power/weight ratios:

4000/1700 = 2,35
3500/1700 = 2,06

Now, to keep it simple: 50m/s * 2,35 / 2,06 = ~57. That's 14% more climb rate after half of the climb.

That math is not 100% scientific, but it shows the way. So you see, the behaviour of the rocket planes should change very much in flight.

It's just simple. You have a 4ton plane with 1,7ton thrust at takeoff, and a 2,1-2,2ton plane with 1,7ton thrust as you burn your last drops of fuel.

OldMan____
10-23-2005, 09:08 AM
About the wood. People would get surprised how strong certain types of wood can be specially if correctly treated.

I wacthed tension test on Universisty I graduated . They tested a local type of wood called angina in pure non treated way, treated wood (some chemical I don't know much about) and alluminium of same width.

The Non treated angina was slighty stronger than alluminium os same tickness and teh treated one was almost twice stronger!!!

The real advantage of aluminium is weight (smaller than wood)

p1ngu666
10-23-2005, 09:31 AM
me163 had wooden wings didnt it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and wouldnt the rocket produce the same thrust up high, but there would be less drag?

Viper2005_
10-23-2005, 09:43 AM
Rockets produce more thrust the higher you go.

Even if the nozzle is optimised for sea level, you'll still get more pressure thrust at high altitude.

Climb performance simply comes down to specific excess power.

Power = Thrust * Velocity

Therefore in a constant thrust system, the faster you go the more power your thrust equates to.

As such, best rate of climb often involves a fairly shallow angle and a high speed unless thrust:weight is significantly greater than unity.

At high speeds, kinetic energy becomes very significant, and so zoom climbs can be very advantageous.

There's more to it than just pointing the nose at the sky and opening the throttle...

Fillmore
10-23-2005, 10:20 AM
Could it be impossible to model axactly with current engine due to fuel? I am led to believe CoG does not change with fuel consumption. Perhaps this was the best they could do without more thorough representation of fuel/weight consumption?