PDA

View Full Version : Me163b



clint-ruin
03-03-2004, 09:07 AM
Watch how quickly this thing gets banned online. Dear lord. If you thought the B-1 or He-162 were annoying to kill, you haven't seen anything yet :>

B-17 gunners are almost completely unable to track it as it makes passes on formations. Once the engine is started you will not find your TAS dropping below 800kmh unless you point it straight up - usually settles at around ~1000KMh in level flight. Haven't found a compressability point on it yet, and controls are very responsive even at 1000Kmh+.

16 vet Me163s Vs 16 Avg B-17s = 100% B-17 losses for no casualties, on three runs through of that QMB now. 16 Vet Me163s vs 8 vet P-38L + 8 Avg B-17s = 100% P-38L and B-17 casualties for 1 loss on three runs through.

The only thing LW jocks are going to complain about is the grey rather than green exhaust smoke :>

Anyone else got an opinion on this plane yet? Too good?

.. not good enough? :>

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

clint-ruin
03-03-2004, 09:07 AM
Watch how quickly this thing gets banned online. Dear lord. If you thought the B-1 or He-162 were annoying to kill, you haven't seen anything yet :>

B-17 gunners are almost completely unable to track it as it makes passes on formations. Once the engine is started you will not find your TAS dropping below 800kmh unless you point it straight up - usually settles at around ~1000KMh in level flight. Haven't found a compressability point on it yet, and controls are very responsive even at 1000Kmh+.

16 vet Me163s Vs 16 Avg B-17s = 100% B-17 losses for no casualties, on three runs through of that QMB now. 16 Vet Me163s vs 8 vet P-38L + 8 Avg B-17s = 100% P-38L and B-17 casualties for 1 loss on three runs through.

The only thing LW jocks are going to complain about is the grey rather than green exhaust smoke :>

Anyone else got an opinion on this plane yet? Too good?

.. not good enough? :>

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Korolov
03-03-2004, 09:10 AM
Hows the new AI in AEP? Any different? Or same old?

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

S 8
03-03-2004, 09:12 AM
Why average B17s?.Donâ´t have the add-on until next week tho(pretty jelaous on you guys who have it):)

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_113_1073048715.jpg

SeaFireLIV
03-03-2004, 09:15 AM
Not a surprise. I read the ME163 WAS a joy/wonderful to fly, easy on the well harmonised controls. A phenomenol climb rate of 5000m (16000 ft) per minute.

It`s only problems seem to be flameouts (explosive nature of fuel- is this modelled?) if handle badly on throttle and landing. Oh and of course, inexperience of pilots dealing with new technology, not enough of them.

Online, with experienced flyers and more than 2 on a server, I`m sure they will be quickly banned, for they will totally `own` a server.

clint-ruin
03-03-2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Korolov:
Hows the new AI in AEP? Any different? Or same old?

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

Maybe a bit better? I would need to play with it more to examine it rather than the planes to be sure of any differences. Definitely not leaps and bounds ahead of what it was before. High speed / crap turning planes now appear to attempt to scissor rather than lead/pipper the target all the way through a turn - they break off lead a lot sooner and stop it before they chew through all of their E, or so it seems. Haven't seen an AI-on-AI collision once yet, but I've always found that to be a consequence of braindead dynamic mission creation than anything to do with the AI itself.

As for choosing Avg level B-17s - just what it defaulted to when I set them up. I don't know how the AIs would handle it, but from experience it's practically impossible to get hit once you approach 750/800Kmh and make them pull even a tiny amount of lead. Didn't get hit once during the 6 tests, the B-17s turret traverse just seems to be too slow to track a target going that fast.

Me-262s seem to have gotten a reworking in their E retention as well, was quite hard to get below 600/700kmh @ 5000m when I went playing with the U4 mod. The HE/50mm shells can literally break a B-17 in half if even one round lands directly on the waist gunner position, but it seems like half of the belt is AP - similar to the NS45, the AP rounds do absolutely bugger all unless you poke the pilot with it.

As I mentioned in another post, one of the best fun matchups so far is the Yak9K vs Me262A1A/U4 heavy artillery shooting range :>

Does anyone know how many Me163 combat losses were reported during the war in total? I'm honestly at a loss to work out how the hell you could catch one to kill it, ever, at least while its fuel lasts.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Slammin_
03-03-2004, 09:32 AM
Wow, I just tried the same thing and my boys wiped the B-17's out so fast that I never got to fire a shot! I had everyone set to ACE though and the bombers did take out 4 of my guys.

Slammin_
03-03-2004, 09:35 AM
The AI seems more human now, at least when it comes to flying wing. A pair seem to try to stick together a lot longer now.

JG26Red
03-03-2004, 09:36 AM
and imagine a server with say... unlimited fuel!!!! rut ro... how would this thing compare to a p80?

SeaFireLIV
03-03-2004, 09:42 AM
All I have is that Allied fighter would `camp` for the me163 returning to base on no fuel and hit them then, cos they couldn`t get them any other way.

Do you have to land on ski`s? My book says gears where developed, but never used in time. Pilot`s had to become expert glider- landers!

The only way to have a proper chance against these aircraft in my mind would be to play on `realistic` servers with most settings on. Then Allied pilots will have a chance.

No cockpit, no engine management, start in air will be totally unfair with the me163, although I`m sure most kids wil want to fly the Me163 exactly on those settings. You won`t find me on such servers.

MandMs
03-03-2004, 09:45 AM
Popular Wisdom vs. a Test Pilotâ's Experiences

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 Kometâ'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 263â"”the next incarnationâ"”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.

From http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm plus much more.



I eat the red ones last.

Zyzbot
03-03-2004, 09:53 AM
Komet actually broke about even in combat LOSSES vs kills.

5 were shot down by USAF fighters and 3 were shot down by USAF bombers.

PBNA-Flanker
03-03-2004, 10:05 AM
HOW do you start the engine on the ground????

JG26Red
03-03-2004, 10:11 AM
from what your saying flanker, its prob a bug... oh well.. wont see them on DF servers...

Future-
03-03-2004, 10:26 AM
On the contrary, I now hope that with the arrival of more jets & rocket planes, we will see the return of the 262 and Bi-1!

We have plenty of planes now that suit almost all kinds of tactics, now it's up to the individual pilot to discover what bird & tactic is best to counter an enemy.

I HEREBY VOTE FOR A FREE-FOR-ALL BATTLE!

Let's put the all the planes we now have together to find out what they can do now, as I expect that there also are a few changes to the FMs of some "old" planes!

S! and let's dance!

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Vortex_uk
03-03-2004, 11:14 AM
How would a Me-163 land if it only has a little truck ting attached to the belly,then is released upon lift off?

http://www.gamefileworld.com/upimages/newbanner.jpg
www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas

MandMs
03-03-2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Vortex_uk:
How would a Me-163 land if it only has a little truck ting attached to the belly,then is released upon lift off?

http://www.gamefileworld.com/upimages/newbanner.jpg
www.freewebs.com/fightingpumas

On the retractable skid. Read the link posted earlier.



I eat the red ones last.

SeaFireLIV
03-03-2004, 11:17 AM
It lands on little skids, like a belly landing.

Zyzbot
03-03-2004, 11:27 AM
and occasionally blows up or injures the pilot's back!

tsisqua
03-03-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
and occasionally blows up or injures the pilot's back!

Yup. The skid didn't always deploy to absorb the shock of the landing, and a pilot would be carried off with a broken back.

Tsisqua

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-nedChristie.jpg
Tsalagi Asgaya Galvladi