PDA

View Full Version : Flying the M3-163 in-game



FlatSpinMan
11-16-2009, 08:40 AM
Just been trying this out again for the first time in ages and ages.

It's a good laugh and much easier than I remembered.I'm surprised at how long the fuel seems to last though - I got to 20,000m without even trying on my first attempt and just stopped climbing because it didn't seem realistic - the in-game info says the service ceiling is 12,000m. I suppose the incomplete modelling of the atmosphere up there makes a big difference.
Subsequent attempts also made me think that the fuel load was overly generous when set to the default amount.
My reading said it had enough fuel for only around 7 minutes of flight but I was flying for longer.

Questions about flying the Me-163
1. Should the throttle be kept at full pretty much the whole time? When I was at altitude, around 11,000m, I would switch it off or cut the throttle right back to try and extend it's life. Is that realistic behaviour ,or would it have caused damage or failure of the engine?

Some handy tips for taking off (from Wikipedia).
The performance of the Me 163 far exceeded that of contemporary piston engine fighters. At a speed of over 320 km/h (200 mph) the aircraft would take off, in a so-called "sharp start" from the ground, from its two-wheeled dolly. The aircraft would be kept at low altitude until the best climbing speed of around 676 km/h (420 mph) was reached, at which point it would jettison the dolly, pull up into a 70° angle of climb, and rapidly climb to the bombers' altitude. It could go even higher if need be, reaching 12,000 m (40,000 ft) in an unheard-of three minutes. Once there, it would level off and quickly accelerate to speeds around 880 km/h (550 mph) or faster, which no Allied fighter could hope to match. Because of its thin wings it didn't suffer from compressibility or other aerodynamic problems as much as other early jet aircraft. What's more, the aircraft was remarkably agile and docile to fly at high speed. According to Rudolf Opitz, chief test pilot of the Me 163, it could "fly circles around any other fighter of its time".

AndyJWest
11-16-2009, 08:57 AM
I can't think of any logical reason to retain the dolly once you have enough height to ensure it won't bounce back into you when you release it - I'd think it wouldn't exactly help acceleration.

I haven't flow the Me-163 a great deal, but I do remember that if you mishandle it in a climb, you can sometimes find yourself performing an end-over-end tumble - fortunately easy to recover from.

I came to the conclusion that landing with flaps up was possibly easier, as otherwise I seemed to stall too easily in the flare. You could then deploy the flaps as an airbrake once you were safely down. You do need to be good at judging dead-stick landings.

Hum, just had an idea: with the new QMB scramble option I can test it in it's proper environment - What's German for 'Scramble, B-17s approaching at 7500m?'.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-16-2009, 09:39 AM
"Achtung! ****er Auto's! Funf und siebsig hundert meters!" I beieve. (That's D1ck as in German for 'fat' - bloody Ubicensor!)

I am building a selection of terrified German phrases to insert in the game once the Whirlwind is with us, but fear Der Ubi Censor Apparat would deny me the pleasure of sharing my multi-lingual vocal genius any further than "Gott in himmel! Wirbelwinden sind los!" Shame. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AndyJWest
11-16-2009, 09:39 AM
Yup, QMB scramble sets things up nicely. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I only got two B-17s, as relative speeds are so great that lining up for a shot takes a lot of skill. I think you need to pick a target from a long way off, and rely on your speed to avoid the AI sniper fire. You have very little ammo, so make it count.

AI Me-163s will just fly till they run out of fuel and then crashland anywhere, by the look of it. I managed to find a runway ok, in spite of using the Moscow map, and not being able to see it until I was almot on top of it: I cheated as I had map icons on.

It is easy to pull so much G that you risk blackout, and I remember pulling the wings off too before, so take care with the elevator. If you want to lose height quickly you can spin safely - recovery is no problem. Don't forget to lower the skid for landing - you can use this as an airbrake to control your descent angle on final approach.

I think getting this all right would take a lot of practice, but the Luftwaffe pilots wouldn't have had much chance of that. I wouldn't want to have to avoid P-51s with no fuel either...

Waldo.Pepper
11-16-2009, 09:44 AM
Grasshopper - the answers you seek are all here ...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a...t/flight/flight1.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm)

Important page to read.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a...t/flight/flight5.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight5.htm)

RSS-Martin
11-16-2009, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
"Achtung! ****er Auto's! Funf und siebsig hundert meters!" I beieve. (That's D1ck as in German for 'fat' - bloody Ubicensor!)

I am building a selection of terrified German phrases to insert in the game once the Whirlwind is with us, but fear Der Ubi Censor Apparat would deny me the pleasure of sharing my multi-lingual vocal genius any further than "Gott in himmel! Wirbelwinden sind los!" Shame. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


Ha ha ha lern erst mal richtig Deutsch Du Pappnase. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

stalkervision
11-16-2009, 09:52 AM
1. Should the throttle be kept at full pretty much the whole time? When I was at altitude, around 11,000m, I would switch it off or cut the throttle right back to try and extend it's life. Is that realistic behaviour ,or would it have caused damage or failure of the engine?

Often me-163 pilots would cut back the throttle at operating altitude and use full power in "spurts" to save fuel. Yes, indeed it's realistic behavior.

AndyJWest
11-16-2009, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Grasshopper - the answers you seek are all here ...

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a...t/flight/flight1.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm)

Important page to read.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a...t/flight/flight5.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight5.htm)

Great, Waldo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'll read this lot before my next scramble....

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-16-2009, 09:54 AM
Pappnase? Mich? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
11-16-2009, 10:15 AM
"sharp start" was a fully fueled powered flight. New or repaired Me-163 were often towed to altitude with water ballast to simulate fuel load and released and flown to check out the flight controls before a sharp start.

stalkervision
11-16-2009, 10:19 AM
best book on the 163..

http://www.amazon.com/Top-Secr...-7#reader_0929521080 (http://www.amazon.com/Top-Secret-Bird-Luftwaffes-Me-163/dp/0929521080/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258391866&sr=1-7#reader_0929521080)

look inside. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

berg417448
11-16-2009, 10:30 AM
Mano Ziegler's book "Rocket Fighter" is another good one.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-16-2009, 10:40 AM
As is Eric Brown's account of flying the aeroplane in question. Although as ever, Waldo has come up with the goods. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Flesh eating fuel must have been a bit of a bowel tester though.

Bremspropeller
11-16-2009, 11:09 AM
1. Should the throttle be kept at full pretty much the whole time? When I was at altitude, around 11,000m, I would switch it off or cut the throttle right back to try and extend it's life. Is that realistic behaviour ,or would it have caused damage or failure of the engine?

It could be done and some pilots have done it.
It's a matter of balls though - keep in kind that the slightest failure in mixture-control might render you into a chineese firecracker.

AndyJWest
11-16-2009, 12:29 PM
I had another scramble:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/Me-163ArmouredGlass.jpg

If that doesn't make me appreciate armoured glass, nothing will. Rather ruined my aim, so I didn't get any B-17s this time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I used the Bessarabia map, so landing on the big airfield was relatively easy - I even had fuel left when I landed, though I don't think this is a good idea - I seem to remember blowing up once when I did that.

I watched the AI planes land, all out of fuel. The first one looked like it was going to land on the airfield at first, but overflew it and landed in the fields. The second one decided to use a building as a brake so blew up. The last one flew along a river valley, and looked like being sensible until it turned towards the hills at about 200m up - it somehow got down ok, after a roller-coaster landing. Evidently the AI isn't programmed for deadstick landings...

Waldo.Pepper
11-16-2009, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
As is Eric Brown's account of flying the aeroplane in question.

Eric Brown's opinion on all things aviation related is virtually unassailable. However, he needs a close ear sometimes. In his book Wings of the Luftwaffe he states quite categorically that he never flew the Komet under power. He spent an afternoon cavorting around in an unpowered Me-163A machine. Then two years later he flew a Me-163B machine with no fuel and the engine removed and replaced with an 'auto-observer.'

But on the Me-163 I think maybe he is a little confused. If you listen to him in this interview he leaves the viewer with the impression that he flew the machine under power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PN9AP710e0

Perhaps the way it has been edited, who knows!? Tricky-tricky. Stay skeptical - check sources - get more sources. Always.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-16-2009, 01:27 PM
Wise words indeed.

X32Wright
11-16-2009, 02:08 PM
he did fly the Me163 :

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secret...tain-eric-brown/104/ (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/features/hunt-for-nazi-scientists/captain-eric-brown/104/)

TS_Sancho
11-16-2009, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
he did fly the Me163 :

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secret...tain-eric-brown/104/ (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/features/hunt-for-nazi-scientists/captain-eric-brown/104/)

Hmmm.. I assume you read the comments below the article where this was being discussed, the last post which seems to have decided the matter is a definite falsehood...


I am the son of Capt. Eric (Melrose) Brown, as referred to in “Wings on my Sleeve”. At this point I wish to remain anomous, having just found this site. #1 – yes of course I could provide pictures of him. #2 Yes of course he flew a fuelled ME 163, it was from Germany back to the UK and there were several over test flights.

If he flew it under power, it didnt happen like that.

Saburo_0
11-16-2009, 03:12 PM
I love the 163, just a ball of fun and a half! Wish we had the 263 too. But flying this thing makes you glad that little details like manufacturing defects, random explosions, and corrosive fuel that will melt a man are not modeled!

BTW what convergence do you 163 pilots prefer?

Freiwillige
11-16-2009, 03:23 PM
i do remember that me-163 pilots never landed on a runway but always in grass next to runway. the skid worked better on grass.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-16-2009, 03:26 PM
I once flew it through one of those airfield 'assault courses' that used to be popular here and embarked on an orgy of self-congratulation. My chest beating Tarzan impersonaton was cut short by the realisation that its' damage model was porked. Was this ever fixed?

virgule88
11-16-2009, 03:33 PM
"I am the son of Capt. Eric (Melrose) Brown, (...). At this point I wish to remain anomous"

The mark of a genius... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

stalkervision
11-16-2009, 04:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif My father met and kept regularly corresponding with the designer of the Me-163 himself.

This is TRUE. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

doraemil
11-16-2009, 07:33 PM
I like the 163 best out of all the 1946 planes . . . it maneuvers very well for a jet / rocket type plane.

I set convergence like I do with the 262, 400 m

It is so nice to fly. Sometimes when I just want to cruise the map, I'll go unlimited fuel and fly around the map.

I can get it to work on bombers only if I'm going 400 km / hr or more, or else the ace ai quickly ruins my day . . .

I like going level about 1 km below them and going full power, climbing straight up and hosing their wings / wing roots.

Or going a km or so above and do a power dive on top of them.

FlatSpinMan
11-17-2009, 06:58 AM
Wow. Hit a vein on this one! Thanks for all the info and the links. Haven't read them yet but shall do so.
I was surprised at how fun it was to play that I'm definitely going to add it into my campaign for a mission or two.
And yes, Saburo, not modelling corrosive fuel burning my flesh is way up on my list of "Good things about IL2", too.

FlatSpinMan
11-17-2009, 07:21 AM
Waldo - excellent link. So full of good info but so concise.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-18-2009, 02:15 AM
Further to previous posts, I have consulted Brown's 'Wings On My Sleeve' and can confirm that there is an account of his take off and flight in a powered 163a in Chapter 9 of my paperback (2007) edition.

Waldo.Pepper
11-18-2009, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Further to previous posts, I have consulted Brown's 'Wings On My Sleeve' and can confirm that there is an account of his take off and flight in a powered 163a in Chapter 9 of my paperback (2007) edition.

Coincidentally, I shall have the book in my hot little hands later this day.

Frankthetank36
11-29-2009, 08:38 PM
Just tried flying this in quick mission builder against 4 B-29s. It's amazing how easy it is to overspeed and then lose a wing by pulling up too fast. And I usually find ace AI B-29s pretty tough, but not with this thing. Just fly right up almost vertically through a formation from the front and kills are pretty easy.

M_Gunz
11-30-2009, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by FlatSpinMan:
Just been trying this out again for the first time in ages and ages.

It's a good laugh and much easier than I remembered.I'm surprised at how long the fuel seems to last though - I got to 20,000m without even trying on my first attempt and just stopped climbing because it didn't seem realistic - the in-game info says the service ceiling is 12,000m. I suppose the incomplete modelling of the atmosphere up there makes a big difference.
Subsequent attempts also made me think that the fuel load was overly generous when set to the default amount.
My reading said it had enough fuel for only around 7 minutes of flight but I was flying for longer.

Questions about flying the Me-163
1. Should the throttle be kept at full pretty much the whole time? When I was at altitude, around 11,000m, I would switch it off or cut the throttle right back to try and extend it's life. Is that realistic behaviour ,or would it have caused damage or failure of the engine?

Some handy tips for taking off (from Wikipedia).
The performance of the Me 163 far exceeded that of contemporary piston engine fighters. At a speed of over 320 km/h (200 mph) the aircraft would take off, in a so-called "sharp start" from the ground, from its two-wheeled dolly. The aircraft would be kept at low altitude until the best climbing speed of around 676 km/h (420 mph) was reached, at which point it would jettison the dolly, pull up into a 70° angle of climb, and rapidly climb to the bombers' altitude. It could go even higher if need be, reaching 12,000 m (40,000 ft) in an unheard-of three minutes. Once there, it would level off and quickly accelerate to speeds around 880 km/h (550 mph) or faster, which no Allied fighter could hope to match. Because of its thin wings it didn't suffer from compressibility or other aerodynamic problems as much as other early jet aircraft. What's more, the aircraft was remarkably agile and docile to fly at high speed. According to Rudolf Opitz, chief test pilot of the Me 163, it could "fly circles around any other fighter of its time".

I can't believe that the ceiling was 12000m if it could reach such speed at 12000m! Perhaps the pilot oxygen was only
good to there or some other effect of unpressurized cockpit on the pilot? Otherwise the zoom you could do....

ADD: but no, there were piloted fighters going to 40,000+ ft with only oxygen.

AndyJWest
11-30-2009, 10:51 AM
I wonder if the Me-163 ceiling wasn't just specified as a known safe maximum operating height, rather than a limit determined through testing. Given the altitude of likely targets I'd have thought that going above 12,000m was unlikely to be necessary. In any case, you might run even out of fuel while still climbing if you pushed it to the limit - an interesting experiment, but again unlikely to be much use in combat.