31 replies to this topic

[jakub_czyli_ja]

Shepbur, on 16 July 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Vampire > Vixen

Spoiler

End of story :P

Is is after it ate a lot of spicy food?

[Shepbur]

jakub_czyli_ja, on 19 July 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

Is is after it ate a lot of spicy food?

 

Friday morning sorties after the previous night down at the pub ;)

[J311yfish]

_Stealth_Hunter_, on 18 July 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

Not sure about Japanese jet development though, there is a Japanese variant of the Me 163 Komet, but we might not see these planes in game, because their climbrate would be insane.

 

See link below.

 

Znail, on 18 July 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

There are Nakajima Kikka, Mitsubishi J8M, Nakajima Ki-201 and Mizuno Shinryū. 

 

rocket rate of climb values compared to jets in-game, emphasis on Japan

 

Deamon93, on 15 July 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

thrust to weight ratio high enough to match.

 

See also Folland Gnat for Finland

 

Edited by BigBadVuk, 11 August 2014 - 02:04 PM.

[Deamon93]

J311yfish, on 07 August 2014 - 09:02 PM, said:

 

See also Folland Gnat for Finland

The Gnat is a tier X while the Me 163 is either a tier VIII or IX at most. Between the two of course the Gnat would be better but it came also some ten years later.

[J311yfish]

Deamon93, on 07 August 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

The Gnat is a tier X while the Me 163 is either a tier VIII or IX at most. Between the two of course the Gnat would be better but it came also some ten years later.

 

My point is only that thrust/weight ratio as a prime metric does little to resolve whether or not rockets are overpowered for the game.

 

If you come back to speed and rate of climb relative to aircraft already in game (as discussed in that link above), the abstract notion that "rockets are overpowered" becomes hard to justify.

[Deamon93]

J311yfish, on 07 August 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

 

My point is only that thrust/weight ratio as a prime metric does little to resolve whether or not rockets are overpowered for the game.

 

If you come back to speed and rate of climb relative to aircraft already in game (as discussed in that link above), the abstract notion that "rockets are overpowered" becomes hard to justify.

Rate of climb and speed depend on thrust to weight ratio though, without a good ratio the rate of climb is garbage

[J311yfish]

You are right about that, but look how it translates into climb rate vs. jets in game:

 

source: Edwin Dyer

 

 

Rate of Climb

Gloster Javelin 39.6 m/s

XK-90  39.2 m/s

Supermarine Attacker 36.5 m/s

Yak-30 34.5 m/s

La-15 33.0 m/s

F7U Cutlass 32.5 m/s

Me 262 HG III  30.2 m/s

J7W3  28.1 m/s

F-86A Sabre 26.5 m/s

Me.P1101  24.2 m/s

IL-40P  20.1 m/s

Fw 262 19.6 m/s

 

This means rocket-powered aircraft can already be accommodated without disruption to balance (at least for Japan at Tier X).

 

I have not looked at Me 163 or Me 263 in detail but I would expect them to be similar to Mitsubishi J8M / Rikugun Ki-202.  It is worth mentioning that their rocket engine is already represented in-game for Me 262.

Edited by J311yfish, 07 August 2014 - 09:34 PM.

[Deamon93]

The rate of climb of the Me 163 is 50 m/s at 1000 metres and that value increases while gaining altitude(160 m/s at 12000 metres). That's way better than anything ingame considering the fact that the Me 163 can't be placed at tier X(too slow).

[J311yfish]

Me 163B

HWK 109-509 A-2 3700 lbst

560 mph below 30,000' approx. = 901 km/h below 9144m

590 mph above 30,000' approx. = 950 km/h above 9144m

3:17 to 39000'    11890m = 60.36 m/s avg

3:26 to 49600'    15120m = 73.40 m/s avg

5300 lbs fuel consumed at 1100 lbs/min = 4.82 min

90mm frontal armored glass

Me 163B-0    = 2x20mm MG 151
Me 163B-1    = 2x30mm Mk 108 @ wing roots

 

Me 163V6
engine improved to 4400 lbst
fuel capacity improved
gross load increased from 9500 lbs to 11295 lbs
52000' ceiling = 15850m

 

Me 163C
HWK 109-509A-2 and HWK 509C cruising motor
Me 163C    2x30mm Mk 108 @ nose

 

Me 163D (also known as Me 263, Ju 248)
retractable landing gear
increased ammunition
more fuel space
no production models built; speed expected to be about the same

 

Source:

Messerschmitt 163, by Edward T. Maloney and Uwe Feist (1938 Aero Publishers)

 

If the above data is correct, then 73.40 m/s average rate of climb represents the "worst case" scenario and may be reduced in later models due to increase in weight for ammunition and fuel.

 

Tier VIII in-game climb rates:

F2G  34.3-38.2 m/s

Me 209A  27.0-31.1 m/s

La-9  29.1-30.8 m/s

Spitfire XIV  26.8-30.2 m/s

Yak-15  21.8-28.4 m/s

P-51H  24-27 m/s

J7W1  23.4-27.0 m/s

Ta 152  22.4-25.9 m/s

XF5U  23.7-25.4 m/s

P.1056  18.9-21.8 m/s

Me 262  18.8-21.2 m/s

IL-20  19.0 m/s

 

A difference of 30 m/s is equivalent to 108 km/h.  If Me 163 were given full advantage in the vertical, the difference would still be less than the greatest difference in horizontal speeds for Tiers VIII, IX, or X.

 

This is a simplified analysis but I think that it is a fair place to start in understanding how rockets might actually fit into the game.

Edited by J311yfish, 08 August 2014 - 12:55 AM.

[Deamon93]

The problem of the Me 163 is that BnZ is the go-to tactic. With a plane which was designed to climb as fast as possible BnZ experts will possibly become "untouchables".

[J311yfish]

Deamon93, on 08 August 2014 - 03:13 AM, said:

The problem of the Me 163 is that BnZ is the go-to tactic. With a plane which was designed to climb as fast as possible BnZ experts will possibly become "untouchables".

 

If the boost duration were short, and boost recovery were long (for example) that might be one way to prevent that.  

 

Imagine being the Me 163 -- you've boosted up to an altitude that is reasonably safe, but must be smart about when you descend because your engine is now on cool-down.

-- If you drop before cool-down then you have to rely on squirrely maneuvering to survive.

-- If you wait until your engine is nearly cool, you can drop and then go back up if you need to as your getaway.  Unfortunately waiting for your engine means that you're not in the furball that has developed below and your team fights shorthanded.

 

I see what you mean about being "untouchable" though, if you can imagine a flight of 3 rockets working together and timing their attacks, it could be relentless -- though at the cost of having 2-3 out of the fight at any given time.

 

Anyway, speculation.

[Deamon93]

J311yfish, on 08 August 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

 

If the boost duration were short, and boost recovery were long (for example) that might be one way to prevent that.  

 

Imagine being the Me 163 -- you've boosted up to an altitude that is reasonably safe, but must be smart about when you descend because your engine is now on cool-down.

-- If you drop before cool-down then you have to rely on squirrely maneuvering to survive.

-- If you wait until your engine is nearly cool, you can drop and then go back up if you need to as your getaway.  Unfortunately waiting for your engine means that you're not in the furball that has developed below and your team fights shorthanded.

 

I see what you mean about being "untouchable" though, if you can imagine a flight of 3 rockets working together and timing their attacks, it could be relentless -- though at the cost of having 2-3 out of the fight at any given time.

 

Anyway, speculation.

Well there are already flights of three 262, HG II and so on so it's very likely to find a flight of Me 163s if implemented. Of course those are speculations but it's likely