Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dimlee]

It's good to know that the new Komet will be closer to reality. Thank you for your efforts.

Regarding the current stock model. I'm not sure about 16 min - on full power. Probably, it's achievable in the "economy" mode with the throttle on and off, gliding, etc. I used to set a 9-minute timer to know when to run home, hoping there would be enough fuel for the evasive manoeuvres near the home base if there were enemy fighters. Maybe I forgot something...need to check again.

[SAS~Storebror]

Depends a bit on the game version you used for testing.
On 4.12 it runs for 16 mins - simple test: Chocks in, start engine, full power, wait for the engine to shut off.
On 4.14 TD introduced a new "FuelRocketCoeff" value, which results in an operation time of 9~10ish minutes. Right direction, yet still wrong

I used to set a 9-minute timer to know when to run home, hoping there would be enough fuel for the evasive manoeuvres near the home base if there were enemy fighters.

That's the next question where I'm wondering whether it's worth implementing real life, or if we'd just make life too hard for our fellow armchair pilots:

The HWK 109-509A needed two minutes cooldown before starting if the pilot shutdown the engine in flight.
Two minutes like "with a little luck, one and a half might do, and if you grab the short straw, it either won't ignite or simply blow up".
Would it make sense to implement this?

Furthermore, the fuel system relied on gravity.
Prolonged negative G-Forces would first cause the engine to cut off, and finally pour fuel into the fuselage/wings/cockpit section where - if both T- and C-Stoff remain - it would ignite and blow up the plane, or - if only T-Stoff remains (usual case in landing condition) - will combust the pilot, literally (thankfully the germans put two small T-Stoff tanks to either side on the cockpit, how comfortable!).
Would it make sense to implement this?

Finally, the stock implementation of the Me 163 rocket engine got the idea of "nozzle groups" wrong.
There are three groups, with groups 1 and 2 featuring 3 T-Stoff injectors each, and group 3 featuring 6 of them. All injectors worked on one central C-Stoff supply vane.
1C/Maddox apparently thought that the nozzle groups were used in an "on/off" fashion to imitate thrust regulation, but the truth is that each of the groups could almost seamlessly be regulated between idle and full supply.
Therefore, the Me 163 thrust doesn't operate in "steps", but smoothly between 100kp (idle thrust, 13° throttle lever position) and 1600kp.
I will implement this accordingly.


Mike

[SAS~Storebror]

...and a bit more research about fuel efficiency.
Apparently western allies did fly german rocket engine fighters in trials, at least they achieved some pretty good test results about the engine performance of the HWK 109-509 (for other rocket engines, mostly technical description and calculated data are available only).

Here are some graphs about the fuel efficiency of the HWK 109-509, also in comparison to other rocket engines:









The first graph is really hard to decipher, so I took the time to put all numbers together and illustrate it here:



Mike

[hello]

Yes, this makes me very interested in trying out Hotfix 24

[Dimlee]

I just made two tests, in BAT 4.2.2 hotfix 4 and UP 3.4 with the latest fix.
Fuel ran out in about 7.5 minutes with full thrust in both cases. It was in-flight, I didn't test on the ground with chocks in.
Tracks:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/9smqsf3ierld6gq/Me_163_BAT.ntrk/file
https://www.mediafire.com/file/75v6rxygwur0g72/Me_163_UP.ntrk/file
(in the BAT test I got the overheat warning around the 6th min and idled the engine for 20 seconds or so, so the total time was a bit longer)

Regarding the real-life implementations.

Probably to stay within a "moderate realism" limit?
Just my humble opinion here:
1. Two minutes cool down is OK. We already have engine shutdowns on other models, so it feels natural and brings a bit more discipline.
2. Prolonged negative G: engine cut-off is OK but explosion or suffocation of the pilot...too harsh for us, armchair pilots    Maybe irreparable damage or fire instead?
3. Smooth thrust is great! Easier to operate AND real-life feature, who would object? Win-win situation. 
Maybe to run a poll?

Again, thanks for your work.

[SAS~Storebror]

So far the following enhancements are in place:

• Steam generator including smoke and sound effects.
  The Steam generator kicks in once the engine gets started.
  0~14% throttle is the steam generator throttle range (yes, this one could be throttled too, that's the first 13 degrees of throttle movement in real life).
• 15~42% throttle is the first group range, resulting in 100~425kp thrust.
  A detent is simulated at 14~15% throttle.
  In order to move the throttle across the detent, you need to press and hold the "boost" key in this range.
  This keeps pilots from accidentally switching the rocket motor/chamber on and off.
• 43~70% throttle is the second group range, resulting in 525~850kp thrust.
• 71~100% throttle is the third group range, resulting in 1050~1700kp thrust.

Notably there's kind of thrust "gap" between 0 and 100, 425 and 525, and between 850 and 1050 kp thrust.
This is because groups 1 and 2 (3 injectors each) have a minimum thrust of 100kp, and group 3 (6 injectors) has a minimum thrust of 200kp, so whenever you activate these groups, you get that thrust step added immediately.


Mike

[Knochenlutscher]

Regarding "Realistic" vs. "Ingame realism",
the second is a very moderate realism and such that we have atm.

Knowingly it's not near realism of any real dmg model.
Look at Mike's Video Flx, the Trolley hit the
weak flank, at the place where the piping runs.
That's worst case scenario. secs to shoebox (stew)

Such incident caused Joschi Pöhs to be decomposed by the subsequent fuels
entering his Cockpit (within Seconds). Only his Goggles were seamingly left
and stuff that was irritating.

You see, a Trolley can hit our Komet and you can fly.
While having a leaking valve, pipe, you will not decompose slowly.
That's all moderate to me.

[Dimlee]

About the trolley.
When Me 163 was introduced in this game, I read as much as I could about real-life operations and the incidents. Since then, I "instinctively" dropped that treacherous bogie only at a safe altitude where it could not hit the aircraft. Safety-first attitude. 

It will be interesting to try these new enhancements from Storebror. Some muscle memory readjustments will be necessary, I guess.

[Knochenlutscher]

Yeah, scary stuff, I admitt. 
Some time after Gatow Museum opening
I had luck to gather a JG400 Veterans visit that day.
Their FAQ session was crazy. Two families attended that Day with very small kids,
they had to leave the audience. Their Mothers were first not pleased.
After the Dad's listened the Tour, care was switched to Dad's and the Mothers given
an audience. I forgot the names of the Veterans.
Was 1995 when I remember correctly.

Sad that I never managed to learn cyrillic, would have loved to
read more about the NII VVS post war testings.

We'll find out, but it seems worth the waiting what Mike did as paperwork,
turning into sth. more close to the real FM. I can't read or see sth. in these charts,
I have dyscalculy since my accident, my brain is crumbling at maths.
Can't wait to test fly.

[Dimlee]

Yeah, scary stuff, I admitt. 
Some time after Gatow Museum opening
I had luck to gather a JG400 Veterans visit that day.
Their FAQ session was crazy. Two families attended that Day with very small kids,
they had to leave the audience. Their Mothers were first not pleased.
After the Dad's listened the Tour, care was switched to Dad's and the Mothers given
an audience. I forgot the names of the Veterans.
Was 1995 when I remember correctly.

Sad that I never managed to learn cyrillic, would have loved to
read more about the NII VVS post war testings.

We'll find out, but it seems worth the waiting what Mike did as paperwork,
turning into sth. more close to the real FM. I can't read or see sth. in these charts,
I have dyscalculy since my accident, my brain is crumbling at maths.
Can't wait to test fly.

1995... those were the years when many veterans were still with us.

Regret about your accident and the consequences. Hope you'll get better.

[Ol Willy]

More realism is always good because it makes each plane distinct. It is great when you can feel the difference between planes, each with their own quirks and features

[taly01]

I had found a technically inclined website last year that stated the Walther HWK rocket in Me163 only ran for 4:00 at maximum power, and had several stages of power. 
 These stages seem to be described earlier in our thread here.   My Me163 flight model with this high fuel consumption rate does make some il2fb Komet intercept missions hard to time, or impossible!  But that was probably the problem of the real Komet.

I'm not an afficianado of the Me163, but I suspect the 7:30 powered flight is the 2:30 climb to altitude at full power, then the highest power stage (at least) is turned off.  By this time the Komet is light and in thin air and wouldn't need much thrust for great speeds in level flight, into Mach compressibility?

This in turn means that the climb angle on average was 23.6°, which fits extraordinarily well to the graph from our math.

This is about the angle what my Me163 il2fb flight model climbs best at also, its slightly dissappointing to climb at such a shallow angle when you have seen film of Komets appearing to climb vertical very steeply from take off, but it was just a stunt for a short zoom climb.