|
Author
|
Topic: my first encounter with the HE162
|
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 02:22 AM
   
I saw the HE162 for the first time as he came barreling in at our B17, he was maybe 1500 yards out at 3 o’clock high, I spun my turret round fast as it’d go and screamed out to the crew the location of the 162, then started lettin rip with both barrels. As he banked round to face us, bringing his guns to bear, that’s when Tod in the waist gun spotted him… and started lettin rip too, I could see the stream of red hot tracers passin both ways, hear us takin hits across the body, and at the same time saw the nose of his 162, sparks flyin as we started to find the mark. He must have opend the throttle full up.. thinkin a fast raking pass would see to us, he was doin maybe 400mph when I saw his cockpit shatter in a hail of red tracer, and knew right then there was no way he was gonna pull out of his dive toward us, I tracked him all the way in.. barrels glowing red hot as I tried everything to stop the inevitable, tried in vain… he took us straight in the centre, I saw as the frame of the 162 cut straight through our midsection as it disinteragted.. taking both waist gunners and belly turret with it, everything seemed to happen in slow motion, then our tail make a slow dip and spin, the tail gunners face and hands pressed up against the glass as he swung round into view in that slow spin, there was nothing I could do.. I wanted to scream to him to bail out.. but nothing, just watched him slowly tumble, still at the guns. What was left of our b17 was starting to fall, not in a spin, just dead level, nose slowly dipping more and more till we were nose down and diving, I struggled from the turret and looked round.. radio op spread flat over the controls… blood everywhere, bombadier and front gunners smashed into the nose as we dived.. I climbed my way over to the hatch and yanked it open with everything I had left, just once looking back, taking in once more the sight of utter devistaion inside what was left of our plane, then jumped for my life.. .blacking out as the chute opened, it felt like I ran sraight into a brick wall.Damn I love the 162.. handles superbly, accerleration you can almost feel.. this baby cuts bombers from the air like they were never supposed to be there in the first place, forget escort fighters, they don't have a chance, barrel in cuttin the bombers in half with a couple of vollys and blast away as the escots vainly attempt to get onto you, fast turn and scream past the escorts on the next crushing run at the bombers, this baby is my weapon of choice.... deadly efficient... Razor and Roadtoad.. WELL DONE! now just the 2 small points I've found negative about it. 1. I agree, this thing is hard to get off the ground, but not impossible.. but the AI pilots don't have the balls to even try (AI wont take off in this  ) 2. The sights seem set a little low.. or the guns fire high, take your pick.. lol 2 very small points, but the best thing I've flown yet in SDOE! I love this thing, it's awesome ------------------
JV~44 "Naturlich"
 If you can't beat em.... out run em! http://members.xoom.com/naturlich/ IP: Logged |
roadtoad
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 07:07 AM
Thanks Nat,
One of the downers of spending all the hours needed to make something to share are the folks that, other than noise, contribute very little to the community.
..We were quite upfront about this not being an arcade aircraft, so its good to hear you joining Pete in giving it a public thumbs-up. (the emails don't hurt either)
Nonetheless, being good guys & all that, we are considering changing the FM to make it more manageable for the more impatient or lesser endowed; but since it wouldn't be the same plane as many of you can already fly proficiently, perhaps we should rename it to 162-SPUD so others can know which aircraft they might be facing online?
Thanks again Nat, both of us are indeed very glad you like it. And your flight of imagination was great - how big were the tailgunner's eyes when he spun into sight?[This message has been edited by roadtoad (edited 02-02-2000).] IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 07:29 AM
Well let me add my vote to the "never compromise the FM!" crowd! Every one of these planes is easier to fly than a Cessna, that's more than easy enough in my books.Now while on the topic though, once airborne the 162 seems to be an uberplane. It can keep up with the 262 in most situations, outrolls the 190, and outturns everything. Is that right? If it is, I'm glad they never got these things into service!! Maury IP: Logged |
panzer
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 10:08 AM
Thanks for that great action report Nat
great reading. Glad you like the He162 after
mine and Roadtoads hours of test flying, more than the original had.Theres a little update for He162 to download now.Maury the He162 could fly faster than Me262 and had a tight turn plus roll if the pilot did not black out. panzer
http://www.greenforce.net/fs/fs.htm
[This message has been edited by panzer (edited 02-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by panzer (edited 02-02-2000).] IP: Logged |
Whirlwind
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 10:34 AM
roadtoad, the FM dumbing is not the right answer. I managed to get the newly redone Viper off the ground after several takeoff's where I rolled it into the ground (IE lost a wing after flipping over and skidded into a nearby hangar). I was going to go tweak happy, but tried taking off again. After learning that subtle stick movements didn't roll me into the ground, everything is peachy. It just takes practice. Let them whine. Wait until they find out that the Raider is more maneuverable than the Viper is, but dies in a single direct hit from the Viper (true to TV).I now need to adjust the Viper's roll rate to cause either a very near redout or a very near blackout and get rid of the shakin' and the quakin'. IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 11:13 AM
Panzer:Everything I've seen on the plane says that it was a bit slower than the 262 at pretty much every alt. What's your ref on this one? As to the roll rate, how did they get that sort of a roll out of what (I think) are wooden wings and fabric surfaces? At high speeds this thing should be pure mush. As to the tight turn I have no doubt, but tight _sustained_ turn? These engines were not known for their power output, I don't see how it could be able to get continual 5 gee's out of it,notably at over 400mph. Maury IP: Logged |
panzer
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 12:10 PM
Hallo MauryHe162 sea level 553 MPH
ME262 sea level 530 MPH
HE162 19,685 553 MPH
ME262 19,685 532 MPH As to fabric none was used on He162
Wooden Wings she had but the Germans had
worked with this method for many years,
and had developed it to perfection.
Wood they were but the the newly perfected bonding system made them as strong as metal. She had very short wings, hence quick
rolling the Horz/Vert. stabs were very
close to wing so she could tight turn.
The BMW 003 and 4 were much more reliable
than the Jumos used on Me262 which was also
to be fitted with these reliable jet motors.
When designated to He162 Adolf Galland resigned as Chief Of Fighters in protest
that they were better used on the Me262
than on an untried aircraft. ref. William Green Warplanes of the Third Reich Jet Planes if the Third Reich J.Richard Smith & Eddie J.Creek IP: Logged |
juzz
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 12:18 PM
Gathering from everything I've read about it:The He162 has a wingloading similar to the Fw190A-8, so it shouldn't turn very tightly at all. Early jets were underpowered and they had to be throttled up very slowly, so acceleration should be weak too. It took 15 seconds from idle(3000rpm) to full(9500rpm) in the He162 if you wanted to stay under the temperature limit. The He162's powerloading was only slightly better than the Me262. It did have an extremely high roll-rate, even at high speeds(400mph). The rudders were the main problem, only 3/4 could be applied if a steady flat turn was desired. After that they started to buffet severely, the RAE's He162 was destroyed when the pilot used too much rudder in a rolling manoeuvere and the tail broke off. I see none of those characteristics displayed in this He162, unfortunately. IP: Logged |
panzer
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 12:30 PM
Hallo JuzzThe He162 that crashed in England was long
past its service life, which was at the most
if used in action 1 to 2 months and the surfaces on aileron broke away and tail section because of the bonding had reached
its limit and was faulty. The buffeting
you mentioned was cured in development
by larger vertstabs and horstabs. And
production models did not have this problem. The BMW 003 and 004 which were used on He162
were a much more reliable engine than the
Jumos on Me262 which was designated as well
for these reliable jet engines. They were
also used for development after the war
for many early jet fighters. panzer [This message has been edited by panzer (edited 02-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by panzer (edited 02-02-2000).] [This message has been edited by panzer (edited 02-02-2000).] IP: Logged |
juzz
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 01:02 PM
The He162A-2 I refer to were Werk-Nr's 120 072 and 120 098, captured from the inventory of JG1. I assume if they were delivered to a combat unit, they were production models.The prototype had a failure of the wood bonding in the starboard wing; the leading edge split open, the upper wing surface rolled back and the starboard aileron fell off, and the plane consequently spun in and was destroyed. The RAE incident involved only the tail unit breaking off, as a result of overuse of rudder input during a low-level roll. Engine reliability has nothing to do with the fact that these engines weren't very powerful, and had to be throttled slowly to avoid exceeding the temperature limits of the engine. Even later jet engines like those fitted to the F-86 still had this heat/throttle problem. IP: Logged |
panzer
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 02:05 PM
Hallo JuzzThe Me 262 weighed with full load over
14000 pound.
The He162 weighed with full load round
about 6500 pound. Hence the extra speed and also she had a better airflow over body. The plane lost in England through its right
stab and rudder breaking away. was never
proven if vibration or lost because of
faulty bonding was the cause. The vibration
you mention can happen with model, ive had
it myself, then I press her to the limit. The BMW developed more thrust than the
Jumos on the Me262, they were first designed for the Me but were delayed until late 43
so included many improvements over the
Jumos. Lets face it the German Jet Engines
were far ahead of the Allies engines who
really did not catch up to nearly two years
after WW2. A point of fact a development
of the BMW engine was used in the Swedish
Jet nick named the Flying Barrel which was
a development of the Ta183 broke the air
speed record held by a German Fighter from
WW2, and this jet was know for reliability
and speed. panzer REF. JET PLANES OF THE THIRD REICH Eddie Creek and Richard Smith [This message has been edited by panzer (edited 02-02-2000).] IP: Logged |
roadtoad
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 04:06 PM
Well I've come into that shaking a couple of times trying to keep altitude in a high-speed chandelle with top rudder. Don't really know much about the turning stuff because unless I'm in something like the zero, my ACM is built on what they used in the second world war, not the first. Nit-picking over picayune details just seems so anal. If you don't like something you can fly something else - or build your own bird.
Them that can, do - them that can't generally wank.[This message has been edited by roadtoad (edited 02-02-2000).] IP: Logged |
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 06:16 PM
what can I say.. after reading all this.. was it worth me posting a good report on the 162.. I don't care, I love the thing. Semms to me that it's built by Razor and Roadtoad to the best of the information they have, and they've done a damn fine job of it in my opinion.. if any changes were made to help take off, but then cause it to me easier to actually fly, then I'd stick with the one I have cause workin at it makes it worth the time flying it  Its wicked guys, thanks ------------------
JV~44 "Naturlich"
If you can't beat em.... out run em! http://members.xoom.com/naturlich/ IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 08:01 PM
Panzer:Wooden wings don't work at high speed. The Me-163 for instance, which was larely similar in construction methods, had huge problems with controls at high speed. Not only did the wing not have enough tortional stiffness to correct for aeroelasticity effects, but the control surfaces themselves simply bent in the wind. Consider all the problems during testing where the plane became uncontrollable if the pilot didn't instantly back off on the throttle after leveling off at altitude. The issue about the stabs being close to the wing doesn't help. That does help control _acceleration_ issues, but does nothing for the sustained turn. Given the short wings of the 162, resulting in it's high wing loading, combined with it's poor power loading, there's simply nothing to suggest this plane could turn even remotely close to what it does in the game. Let us not forget that the 190 is very often described as a good turner, by Green all the time in fact. Consider that I can pull continual 5 gee turns at 408mph. I don't believe the far better powered Mig-15 could do that. A-7's couldn't, F-4's couldn't (I don't think). I think this is wrong. But as to the claim that the German engines were better than the Allied ones, pshaw! British engines were by far the best in the world right into the 1960's. This was due to their pre-war/mid-war work on high temperature metals, research and materials the Germans didn't have. Road: "Nit-picking over picayune details just seems so anal." You should be ashamed of yourself. If accuracy isn't your goal, then what is? Maury
IP: Logged |
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 08:16 PM
may I butt in here.. I only ask one thing, and again, I recognise the fact tha I don't build these things.. but it seems to me there is a difference between helpful comments/observations/tips/hints, and nit picking, I dunno, but some of the post about this plane, and others in the past have seemed more critical than helpful, I guess it's all in the wording/phrasing of what your saying, but I do ask you all to think about that, and how long someone has just worked on whats being criticised------------------
JV~44 "Naturlich"
If you can't beat em.... out run em! http://members.xoom.com/naturlich/ IP: Logged |
juzz
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 11:01 PM
quote:
The He162 weighed with full load round
about 6500 pound.
Why does this one weight over 9000lbs then?  quote:
Wooden wings don't work at high speed. The Me-163 for instance, which was larely similar in construction methods, had huge problems with controls at high speed. Not only did the wing not have enough tortional stiffness to correct for aeroelasticity effects, but the control surfaces themselves simply bent in the wind. Consider all the problems during testing where the plane became uncontrollable if the pilot didn't instantly back off on the throttle after leveling off at altitude.
I believe that's because they were hitting their Mach no. not because wooden wings don't work. The Me163 actually had a high Mach no. for designs of that time, at 0.84 IIRC. Where did you get the info on the Me163 wings and elevons bending? I've never heard of that problem before. [This message has been edited by juzz (edited 02-02-2000).] IP: Logged |
Hawker
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 11:19 PM
Not saying to dunm down fm,but a rule of thumb should be AI must be able to take off in it at least,just my humble ,yet honest opinion.IP: Logged |
panzer
Pilot
|
posted 02-02- 11:49 PM
Were do You get your facts Maury, what
i said is that German jet were far better
and that the Allies did not catch up to
two years after the war. You must remember
also at the end of the war most Allied
countries imported German Jet tec. staff
to help develop the engines,where would
NASA have got without VON BRAUN plus
the Russians with their German rockets
experts. All British and American jets
engines are great and are the best of their kind. But im talking about a certain period of time. The P80 and the Meteor were both slower to the jets from Germany. Had the Heinkel 280 not been delayed and had been given more support there would have been a German jet in service late in 43. Great! that it did not get support overwise things would have been harder for our guys but we would still have won! The Me163 was fast she could climb to 40000ft in 4mins at a speed of 500mph. But she had a rocket motor and not a jet engine she was also very responsive on controls, this fact was reported by all test pilots who got through
that dangerous take off. As it seems you dont like the He162 the
choise is yours fly her or dont fly her,
and dont forget the people who make these
aircraft do it for fun the He162 and all
other models are in development and not finished they get worked on all the time.
The orignal aircraft in SDOE when released
also had this problem. panzer
[This message has been edited by panzer (edited 02-02-2000).] IP: Logged |
panzer
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 12:04 AM
Hallo HawkerIm afraid AI wont take off any planes in
Take off mission at start, this goes for the SDOE original planes as well. Be great if
it could. panzer IP: Logged |
panzer
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 12:11 AM
Hallo JuzzThe He162 model weighs 7500.lb its an
on going project and not the finished product, this one is being
worked on Im working on wing profiles
at the moment which will help with
weight reduction. panzer IP: Logged |
roadtoad
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 03:28 AM
>Road:
>You should be ashamed of yourself. If >accuracy isn't your goal, then what is?markowits
fun is my goal - but people who come out of nowhere to publicly parrot what they read somewhere as if they themselves are that authority tend to suck the fun right out of it.
i should be ashamed? i think not. In a little over a week you have made more posts than I have through the 3 or 4 boards we've had; yet beyond giving people the chance to answer questions you could have found in the documentation or just by perservering, you have contributed nothing but negativity.
..since you've been a negative-sum cipher, since you can't seem to understand or appreciate that game modeling is a science in itself entailing trade-offs, and since you are obviously not capable of being a community member in the supportive sense that's kept this fragile thing alive, my peace-of-mind solution will be the same as what has worked with the few other mentula who've come and gone before you. IP: Logged |
Yardstick
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 03:56 AM
Here's a suggestion. All the work on SDOE post the release of the patch has been done for free. I suspect that the aggregated man hours over this period are greater that those that went into the release product. To put this in context, first do a clean install of the game - fly around get a feel for the FM and take a good look at the aircraft. Then install PP5.3beta8, JT cockpits, add in a few of your favourite skins and a few aircraft under development. Fly these and then ask yourself if you've got value for the money you have paid for all these add-ons...what was that, you didn't pay for them, they were FREE. Constructive critism is fine - however I would suggest that it is best conducted via e-mail or at the very least just remember one little moto: "In this game if you don't like something than change it yourself, and if you don't know how to - LEARN!" IP: Logged |
Pete Hawk
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 09:34 AM
Exactly Yardstick. Cut the nitpicking crap guys. If you don't like it, learn how to fix it and do so.Negetivity on the forum... don't go there, please. IP: Logged |
Zurawski
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 01:53 PM
RE: AI should be able to take-off ...Actually some of the aircraft with FM that are like in their 6 or 7 revision are inherently "hard" on the AI ... Simply because the AI lack understanding of the specific neuance "quirks" of a given aircraft. As an example ... the 109s are inherently difficult for the AI to take-off ... Why? ... because the AI does not know to keep the tail down till enough speed is developed to gain rudder authority and will let the tail pop-up and they go "whilly-nilly" The AI attempts to fly all the aircraft axactly the "same" ... So as the FM gradually get more "accurate" and reflect their real-world counter-parts ... they will become more-and-more difficult for the AI to manage them! (NOTE: however, once airborn they have absolutely no problems handeling them...) [This message has been edited by Zurawski (edited 02-03-2000).] IP: Logged |
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 07:29 PM
why do I feel like I'm starting to regret posting my praises for the HE162, it has it's quirks, which I'm sure Panzer and Roadtoad are looking at.. But I have to say that >Almost< everyone that plays SDOE, and please remember that it is a GAME, love the aircraft being put out buy those amazing guys that can actually make them for us, at not cost to us, but as it appears LOADS of hassel to themselves, not only in making them but the greif they get from some people because they aren't absolutely perfect when released. I just had one of the best dogfights against the AI that I've ever had, 2 P51's against 4 HE162's (AI skill and aggression on full). Without the input from the "builders" I'd never have had that, infact, the game wouldn't even be on my machine anymore because lets face it, without openplane the game sucks, OK OK it looks good, is fun to fly.. but the interest soon goes when you've done it all. These guys are working so damn hard so that none of us will ever have to say "done everything in the game.. bored of it now".Thanks for everything you do guys, and everything thats on it's way, you really do amaze me with what you've accomplised, and what I believe you still can. You could easily make this game "A Century of Air Warfare" instead of a WW2 sim. Thankyou all. Lets just keep any faults as notes to the builder, so he may improve on the design, and have less of the bitchin about it not being perfect. Having read some of the messages posted after I opend this topic I feel ashamed, and embaressed that I ever opend it at all... maybe the only good thing thats come from it is that Panzer and Raodtoad know that we love what they have done, and maybe some things just finally needed to be said here to put some people straight. This is a game, lets quit it with the bitchin and get to helpin, and if you can't build, then fault finding is as good a way, just realise that constructive critism is the way to go, if you don't have anything posotive to say, then say nothing.
------------------
JV~44 "Naturlich"
If you can't beat em.... out run em!
http://members.xoom.com/naturlich/
[This message has been edited by Nat (edited 02-03-2000).] IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 08:25 PM
"Praise publicly criticise privately" Ye olde email button still works right?
IP: Logged |
Pete Hawk
Pilot
|
posted 02-03- 08:31 PM
To Maury, just so you know what I said above was meant for EVERYONE. You have had some great ideas in many posts so please, continue posting! I'd hate to be the reason anyone high tails it out of here never to post again.So I'm sorry if that offended any of you. It was a generalized statement for the masses. IP: Logged |
panzer
Pilot
|
posted 02-04- 01:49 AM
To NatYou dont have to be embarressed and ashamed
for the He162 in action report it was a great
write up, and im very glad that you wrote it
and put it on the forum, hope your do it again for our next aircraft. Its just the type of feed back we need.
As to how i feel personally about the future sometimes I wonder if its worth continuing with SDOE, theres been quite a few planes released in the past and ive never seen so much nick picking on them. Perhaps the idea
of SWOTL for SDOE is not so great the planes
that Roadtoad and I produce are special
in that they were crossing a barrier of
unproven ideas and this makes them that
more unusual to fly. Ive been around SDOE
since before it came out and have noticed
a change in the community, perhaps Ill
continue building and leave the forum
alone for a time. Im just wondering what
will they say when i release that Whirlwind
with the correct engines it should have
had Merlins and not those terrible half
ready Peregrines.
panzer
[This message has been edited by panzer (edited 02-04-2000).] IP: Logged |
Mirthain
Pilot
|
posted 02-04- 10:53 AM
Just to toss my idea in the hat... ;}
I love the plane... if flies just like I expect a late war german jet to fly. I am just not a B&Zer, so I don't do much with her, but it is one of the greatest planes to see here. I love that you guys are doing SWOTL for SDOE. This rocks.. I loved SWOTL and used to do my own planes.... I made a B-26 for use in the game and it rocked... I just don't have the patience to learn OPP's at this point so I am just loving what you guys are doing.
Keep it up, we all love the work and new planes....
------------------
Mirthain=FC=
 IP: Logged |
roadtoad
Pilot
|
posted 02-04- 11:53 AM
Thanks Guys!
It is the positive comments and support from y'all who've been around awhile and can appreciate what we do that keeps us from just quitting and doing something more rewarding.
IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-05- 01:23 PM
Sorry, this is gonna be long, been busy last few days...Juzz: The issue with the high speed performance of the 163 and it's effects in terms of the wings were well known and effected lots of other planes. The Spitfire had pretty much identical problems, notably the control reversal of the ailerons. Of course the Spit didn't have wooden wings, but it did on the other hand have wooden control surfaces covered with fabric - with good reason, since they're lighter they have less flutter issues. But the problem became so accute as the speed of the Spits went up, they had to change them to metal in the later versions, as well as greatly stiffen the wing. By the Mk.IX they have most of the problems solved, but the Mk.XIV it was cured. Specifically with the wood the problem is that it's really tough to get _tortional_ stiffness without a lot of weight, which kinda defeats the purpose. As to a specific case, there's at least one in Top Secret Bird, one of the earliest combat missions in fact, a 163 vs. a P-38 IIRC. After leveling off the pilot didn't pull back the throttle (which was only four positons, with SDoE allow us to do this) and the plane very quickly went into control reversal. By the time he got it slowed down it was at the end of the mission time. Also I found a great sequence of the 162 sheding it's ailerons in front of the collected German brass, I'll try to track down the URL. Panzer: As to the He-280 being in service in '43, nah. The problem for the 280, as with the 262, was the engines. The engines simply didn't work until '44, and even then, only poorly. Everyone in the German industry was waiting for the HeS-011, but that was too late. As to not flying the 162 or somesuch, I think you're missing the point. As I see it the 162 is simply too manuverable. I don't understand why so many people are offended by that statement. It had high wing loading, and low power loading. That's a recipe for a poor turning plane. Combined with the aeroelastic effects, this plane should be pretty piggy and should have a very wide variety of control changes over speed. With the current model the plane flies pretty much identically from takeoff to 500mph, and I don't think that's right. Pete: No offense taken! I've been on the 'net since the early 80's, water off a duck's back and all that. Maury IP: Logged |
silas
Pilot
|
posted 02-05- 02:19 PM
I tried it out today and liked it. Turns/performance I don't know much about, but what I do know is if I had fun and found it interesting. This I did. No problem getting airborne, handled fine. But what a terror landing, for me anyway, I think I want to bail after a mission.Keep up the good work, I never had so much fun. ------------------
silas
Fortune favours the brave.
Demon's Runway
IP: Logged |
roadtoad
Pilot
|
posted 02-05- 05:01 PM
Silas,
My favorite way to land is to be high (15k+) and in sight of the runway, kill the engine and chandelle down to a deadstick landing. It glides great until about 160mph and then the sink rate really increases. Try to peg the pavement around 110-130.IP: Logged |
Mirthain
Pilot
|
posted 02-05- 06:08 PM
Maury,
I note that you don't mention this problem with the Mossie.... Is it becuase the problem didn't exsist with this plane? What about the Zero?
I don't think the problem is what you think it is... According to the info that the designers have, they have acheived a satifactory FM.... the problem is that they don't agree with the Information that you have. But since they designed the bird, they can go with what they have and are happy with.
Case in point, I got into it with the designer of the A-36 about the name. The original name of the A-36 was the Invader, but the Apache was assigned later after the Mustang was given to the P-51, they gave the A-36 the Apache name that had been the P-51's original name, which allowed Douglas to give the name to the A-26. ;} The plane designer decided against naming the A-36 the Invader for the more common name of Apache. But that is his right to do. You can point out any descrepancy that you find, but it is always the right of the plane designer to give it the properties he likes. We do respect your Work, and I am sure that you have caused them to research the information about the 162 even more than they did, but if they decide to leave it the way it is.... well, that is all there is to do about it. Don't stop researching and pointing out things that you feel are not correct, but don't forget that these are thier projects and have final say over what happens to them.
I hope that you don't take this in other than a friendly and calm way... I am not trying to be inciteful, just helpful...
------------------
Mirthain=FC=
IP: Logged |
Hawk
JAG
|
posted 02-05- 08:19 PM
I like it! Takoff is fun and control is touchy, yup it's great. The landing has to be precise as the real plane was we can assume. So many cool things, so much talent gathered here. I am glad to have this sim and glad you guys are making it new again almost every day. IP: Logged |
WernerVonBraun
Cadet
|
posted 02-06- 09:17 AM
Hallo MauryThe He162 that lost its aileron in front
of the German Staff in testing prototype
was due to faulty bonding this is a
recorded fact, and not due to anything
else, The He280 could have been in service
earlier had not work on the HES30 known as 109-006 been decreed by SHELP of the German RLM to be stopped and to be concentrated on 109-0011.
This is considered a major blunder of WW2.
But the Allies would have still have won anyway! Werner of WW2 Studies
[This message has been edited by WernerVonBraun (edited 02-06-2000).]
[This message has been edited by WernerVonBraun (edited 02-06-2000).] [This message has been edited by WernerVonBraun (edited 02-06-2000).] [This message has been edited by WernerVonBraun (edited 02-06-2000).] [This message has been edited by WernerVonBraun (edited 02-06-2000).] IP: Logged |
Spanky the Mad Dog
Pilot
|
posted 02-06- 10:19 AM
Spanky here... Well first off if i would have known that it was so exciting in here i would have shown up earlier. I would say that maybe the plane isn't dead on but it shouldn't be. Its the first release. About the aceptence of the SWOTL planes. I say F**K (will that keep you nitpickers happy? the people who don't like them. I think they are a great addition to the game and i can't wait for your future realeses. I had thoughts of doing my own but i just don't have the talent and have another plane in mind right now. One last thing hehe about wood being used in aircraft. I haven't done alot of study on the subject but we all know the mossie did well and was known as a fast plane at the time for what it was. I am a cabinet maker and hence i know a thing or 2 about wood. The right wood used with the right bonding agent in the right design and way will do most things you want it to yes even a sub mach aircraft wing. GOing over mach might be diferrent due to heat but ya never know what you could do if you had a metal leading edge. It might not be as easy as slapping some aluminum skin over some sheet formers hehe but it can be done and was. Some great posts I think you guys all have your own ideas on how it should fly and i think the best we can do is a compromise bettween it all. Of course last word comes down to the builders. About the AI being able to fly all aircraft. I think that is a pipe dream right now We all know how weak the AI is in this sim and it will have to be improved before the AI can reliablely fly the aircraft that were on the edge. :> IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-06- 10:28 AM
Mirth:IIRC the whole control reversal issue probably isn't a "a-line" effect, but I know it did effect a lot of the earlier designs which were later re-tooled for metal control surfaces. But you hit the nail on the head WRT to the Zero. They actually did try to fix the roll rate problems in the Zeke with servo-tabs, but when they did the pilot could put enough power into them that the fluttered off. They lost a couple of planes before figuring that one out, and then removed the tabs. Duh. As to the mossy, didn't it have full-wooden controls? Werner: Yeah, but cool film nevertheless! As to the HeS004, I was under the impression it was essentially in the same boat as all the other engines at the time? Maury
IP: Logged |
WernerVonBraun
Cadet
|
posted 02-06- 11:26 AM
MauryThe HeS 30 was a remarkable engine at the
time of it being discontinued its was developing 900kg (1985lb) STATIC THRUST,which was just in the begining of its testing and it was considered very reliable, the Jumo.s 109-004B-1 which were used on the Me262 had the same figures. But these were finished engines, considering the Hes 30 was just in the early stages of it development
it is natural that the finished engine
would have given more power.
But due to intrigue and politics in the German High Command and who was in favour
with the RLM and these were Junkers and
Messerschmitt what was best did not always
get produced. Focke Wulf only got
the development order for that great Fw190
when Messerschmitt said he did not have
the production time for a new fighter other
than Bf109.
Werner WW2 Studies
IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-06- 11:37 AM
Werner:As to the politics I won't comment, the REAL missing plane of WWII was the 100, and that was years earlier. But as to the engine getting better in production, I don't believe that would be the case, based on other engines. It is quite common, notably at the time, for engines to generate far _more_ power during testing than they do in the final production versions. I can think of many specific examples of this in fact, the Orenda, the J-33, well, practically every jet until the 60's in fact. BUT, what is the HeS.30? I've never heard of this engine. Do you mean the 003? Maury IP: Logged | |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
