PDA

View Full Version : I finally have EVIDENCE for incorrect Komet FM



Danschnell
06-21-2004, 12:59 PM
I have said a couple of times before on this forum that the flight model of the Me163 is very innacurate, becuase the Komet would NOT spin.

I never posted evidence for this before because I couldn't find where I knew it from... but here it is... the following are the words of Rudi Opitz, German test pilot himself.

"The 163A had a lower wing loading than the 163B and very docile landing characteristics. Neither would stall; instead, they just mushed forward. Nor would they spin. You had to point these things out to students to make them relax. You could fly the Komet with the stick full back and have it in a turn and then use the rudder to take it out of the turn and not fear it snapping into a spin. It would also slip beautifully. But there was one thing about approaches we had to warn students of. If you made your turn from base onto final and were close in and made the turn very steep, the sink rate would increase, and you could quickly lose altitude. That could be a problem because you could suddenly come in short."

These words were obtained from http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_2.asp
Thank you, I hope now that Oleg will rework the Flight model of the Komet to make it stop stalling!

The Komet has had many problems in IL2!

Danschnell
06-21-2004, 12:59 PM
I have said a couple of times before on this forum that the flight model of the Me163 is very innacurate, becuase the Komet would NOT spin.

I never posted evidence for this before because I couldn't find where I knew it from... but here it is... the following are the words of Rudi Opitz, German test pilot himself.

"The 163A had a lower wing loading than the 163B and very docile landing characteristics. Neither would stall; instead, they just mushed forward. Nor would they spin. You had to point these things out to students to make them relax. You could fly the Komet with the stick full back and have it in a turn and then use the rudder to take it out of the turn and not fear it snapping into a spin. It would also slip beautifully. But there was one thing about approaches we had to warn students of. If you made your turn from base onto final and were close in and made the turn very steep, the sink rate would increase, and you could quickly lose altitude. That could be a problem because you could suddenly come in short."

These words were obtained from http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_2.asp
Thank you, I hope now that Oleg will rework the Flight model of the Komet to make it stop stalling!

The Komet has had many problems in IL2!

sugaki
06-21-2004, 03:22 PM
The issue is more the flight engine of the game rather than the modelling of the Komet. Stalls always make the plane roll, and never simply make the nose dip.

PlaneEater
06-21-2004, 05:02 PM
The IL-2 engine was not originally designed to accomodate torqueless planes, such as the P-38, Me-262, and Me-163. Oleg has said it would require a huge amount of work and many changes to the deep inner workings of the game engine to change this.

It will be done correctly for Battle of Britain.

Prof.Wizard
06-21-2004, 05:39 PM
I still believe Komet is a nice plane when you learn its capricious character, especially in low speeds. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

ST__Spyke
06-21-2004, 09:20 PM
we can only wait for BoB to fix this. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (id rather Madox work on Bob than to hold back and fix it here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) either way the komet goes soo fast its not really good for much other than bomber intercepting, but its damn good at that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

_____________________________
A hero is no braver than any other man, he's just brave 5 minutes longer...

My Skins (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=Spyke75024&historicalidfilter=all&searchkey=&action=list&ts=1086288095)

Willey
06-22-2004, 07:57 AM
A plane with closed throttle is also almost torque-less... so they thought a bit short while coding the stall years ago http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. But with just the Il-2 in mind, this bird does hardly stall, so they maybe had just no need to clear in out in the very early development stage. One of the few FM errors that every plane suffers from.

But at least they could make the 163 less prone to stalls. It's a bit like the 190 now, it can be very nasty without much warning close to the stall.

Magister__Ludi
06-22-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
A plane with closed throttle is also almost torque-less... so they thought a bit short while coding the stall years ago http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. But with just the Il-2 in mind, this bird does hardly stall, so they maybe had just no need to clear in out in the very early development stage. One of the few FM errors that every plane suffers from.

But at least they could make the 163 less prone to stalls. It's a bit like the 190 now, it can be very nasty without much warning close to the stall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With full fuel the wing loading is high so it flies at high AoA, therefore is easier to stall. With 50% fuel however, Komet is already a low wing loading fighter, and should handle very well (considering that swept wings can pull higher AoA before stall and the fact that Komet wings has slots in the leading edges). All pilots commented that the handling was excellent.

Also Komet's spin should be recoverable. Komet is NOT a flying wing. Indeed a flying wing once spun cannot recover, but Komet could use its rudder very well to counter the spin. _