Hi Storebror ,
Sorry no technical expertise to be expected of me , however one detail in the insert you used as the basis of your
model caught my eye as odd.
It struck me as strange that while accelerating to climb velocity the aircraft would keep attached the take-off dolly
and only jettison it AFTER achieving the climb velocity. For an aircraft where fuel was so precious it would seem
to me to be more sensible to jettison the dolly once safe operating speed was achieved , then jettison the dolly
for the acceleration to climb speed.
This would at least save some fuel for the rest of the operation.
There are technically approved Pilot's Guide Procedural manuals for most Allied aircraft that are available for download .
I presume there are the same sort of thing for LW aircraft . Is this so ? Are you using one for reference ?
I just had a quick look online (anglophile search , though ).
The book that comes up is the following :
The Me 163 Komet: A Detailed Guide to the Luftwaffe's Rocket-Powered Interceptor
(Airframe Album #10). Franks, Richard. Published by Valiant Wings
Apologies if this is way back in your search process and you are well past this point.
Kopfdorfer
- April 17, 2024, 02:54:33 PM
- Welcome, Guest
1
on: Today at 02:29:06 PM
|
||
Started by SAS~Storebror - Last post by Kopfdorfer | ||
2
on: Today at 02:15:06 PM
|
||
Started by WxTech - Last post by Kopfdorfer | ||
Does this encompass the effect of a non-ordnance carrying aircraft when colliding with a ship (other body?)?
|
3
Individual Mods and Packs for IL-2 1946 / French, Polish & Czech Skins / Re: SAAB B17 A-B Skins Pack
on: Today at 01:25:28 PM
|
||
Started by stanislao - Last post by Artiglio | ||
MAMMA MIAAAAA 😱😱😱😱 gradissimo Stany 💪🏻👍🏻
|
4
on: Today at 01:24:02 PM
|
||
Started by Piotrek1 - Last post by Piotrek1 | ||
Hello everyone, as in the topic, after installing the Voronezh and MrO Kokoda maps (I use the VP Modpack 1.2 Beta), the game stopped "reading" the FoamNV40.tga file, generating this error:
Code: [Select] [6:41:28 PM] Primary buffer created. Before the last launch of the game, everything was fine, as in the screenshot below (MrO Kokoda map):and now I can't load almost any maps except three: Winter1, Winter2, Summer2 The maps can be loaded when I change the water settings in conf.ini from 4 to 1, but then the appearance of the water is not satisfactory. Best Regards, Piotrek |
5
on: Today at 01:22:22 PM
|
||
Started by WxTech - Last post by WxTech | ||
Here's the stock Aircraft.doExplosion() method. Pretty basic! It calls just the one and same method for each of water crashes, land crashes and air explosions. (For the surface crashes, they're considered to be so when the plane's position has it no farther above the surface than 1/2 the plane's length as specified in the FM. Any higher and the air explosion effect set is utilized.)
Code: [Select] protected void doExplosion() Here's the current state of the new treatment. It utilizes new methods elsewhere, such as in Explosions.class. I should point out that not just these new explosions are part of the new treatement. The 'basic' crash effects have variation as well, based on the number of engines (as a measure of size) and with some randomness. Code: [Select] protected void doExplosion() |
6
on: Today at 01:12:11 PM
|
||
Started by WxTech - Last post by WxTech | ||
I've been adding a new feature whereby the mass of ordnance on a plane is used to generate the probability of a suitable explosion when crashing onto land or water, or blowing up in the air. There are three main effects used for different payload mass, and there is some randomness in the selection of which effect to use so as to avoid a repetitious sameness.
I'll be tweaking the probabilities of these explosions, working on the premise that they would be comparatively uncommon. Perhaps, if I have the ability, I might look at a special treatment for Kamikaze, where these detonations should be more common given that the plane payloads were rigged to blow on contact. In this view from the Kamikaze track, a Zero carrying a bomb has blown up in the air just before reaching its target. Because the explosion is near enough to the surface, high velocity shrapnel splash on the surface directly under the blast is generated also. Note the Betty getting very near to the carrier's waterline. The Betty mentioned previously has just crashed in the water just shy of the hull and very near the stern, but its payload has not exploded. Another Zero has just about hit the hull's waterline amidships, the big burst creating shrapnel splash. Yet another Zero has just hit the deck near the stern, with a shock wave emanating forth. (This is a new, extra version of the shock wave for Pacific maps, having a fuller aspect to simulate the higher moisture content in the air.) The last Hellcat that was waiting to take off has just erupted into a fireball. |
7
on: Today at 12:35:12 PM
|
||
Started by Old_DaD - Last post by Old_DaD | ||
Thanks.
I have those in my #WAW, and they are very good indeed . Shame there are no other skins for them. |
8
Individual Mods and Packs for IL-2 1946 / Ultrapack Discussion & Support / Re: Ultrapack bug report thread (all versions)
on: Today at 11:01:53 AM
|
||
Started by SAS~Skylla - Last post by Whiskey_Sierra_972 | ||
Hi!
Noticed a markings bug on some italian aircrafts.... First post in BAT tech help but the bug is also in UP.... https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=72386.msg788173#msg788173 |
9
Battlefield - Airborne - Tactical (BAT) / BAT Lounge / Markings issues on some italian aircrafts (wrong numbers and not changable)
on: Today at 10:29:36 AM
|
||
Started by Whiskey_Sierra_972 - Last post by Whiskey_Sierra_972 | ||
Hi mates!
As someone know I'm building up a new set of markings and full units for italian aircrafts....I have done it and the beta test haven't shown issues apart the management of markings! As you can see in the original tread the MC200 (one of the planes with issues)....have the default Regia red numbering: BUT in BAT (sorry for the words but isn't a joke) the model show german type numbers that can't be changed by editing any of the specific Squadrons file to allow use some of my numbering: BAT Macchi MC.200 early (wrong and german style default markings....if you look the number 1 you can see that it have a white border while the stock italian markings doesn't): BAT FIAT CR.42 (correct default markings) BAT FIAT CR.42 (My updated markings with Squadron file upadate to show yellow numbers as used from the specific unit when deployed to English Channel) I have tried to look into the 3do/plane/MC200/hier the relative overlay but I can't understand how they work....moreover I remember that the specific marking are defined by classfiles.... Also adding the original classfiles (410 and 409 too) doesn't restore the original italian numbering.... Checking other installation I discover that also Uptrapack hve the same issue while Aviaskin have the correct markings for all italian airctafts.... Affected BAT/UP aircraft are: Fiat G.50B (other variants show correct numbering*) Fiat G.56 (also really misplaced roundels and doubled numbering) Macchi 202 (all variants) Macchi 205 (all variants) Reggiane 2001 Reggiane 2005 Italian aircrafts with correct numbering are: Fiat CR.42 *Fiat G.50 , Bis , Bis N Fiat G.55 SSo , SSI , serie I , serie I late Reggiane 2000 , GA Reggiane 2002 , 2002 N Cant 1007 early , bis , cargo SM.79 Hope to see a fix soon because I'm a bit hampered also in a DCG campaign I'm developing about the 40-42 siege of Malta.... Thanks in advance for any tips , suggestion , or help to fix you can provide me! |
10
on: Today at 08:41:17 AM
|
||
Started by SAS~Storebror - Last post by SAS~Storebror | ||
Dear Friends,
I'm in need of your assistance, if you'd be so kind. I'm currently casting my gaze upon the flight model of the Me 163 "Comet". In this endeavour, I've delved into numerous books to gain a more precise understanding of the rocket engine's burn duration and to better comprehend its exact operational profile. The latter is more or less identically described in all the documents, so for simplicity's sake, I'll quote Wikipedia, where the launch and subsequent climb are described as follows: Quote At a speed of over 320 km/h (200 mph) the aircraft would take off, in a so-called "scharfer Start" ("sharp start", with "Start" being the German word for "take-off") from the ground, from its two-wheeled dolly. The aircraft would be kept at level flight 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, retract its extendable skid using a knob-topped release lever just forward of the throttle48 (as both levers were located atop the cockpit's portside 120-litre T-Stoff oxidizer tank) that engaged the aforementioned pneumatic cylinder,31 and then pull up into a 70° angle of climb, to a bomber's altitude. It could go higher if required, reaching 12,000 m (39,000 ft) in an unheard-of three minutes. This raises some questions for me. The Me 163, when fully fuelled and armed, has a take-off weight of 4309 kg. The fuel weighs a total of 2018 kg and according to the majority of sources, the burn duration is 7 1/2 minutes, or 450 seconds. This means that after 450 seconds, the Me 163 still weighs 2291 kg, or in other words, it loses about 4 1/2 kg of weight per second at full thrust. The engine has a thrust of 14.71 kN. At a climb angle of 70°, the (decreasing over time) weight force of the Me 163 counteracts this with the factor sin(70°). We thus obtain an accelerated motion with a starting speed of 676 km/h, a climb angle of 70°, and a linearly decreasing mass by about 4 1/2 kg with a starting weight of 4309 kg. I'll spare you the detailed calculations (function for acceleration, speed (integral of acceleration), and distance (integral of speed)). The result is that at a climb angle of 70°, the speed reaches 0 after 32 1/2 seconds, and the Me 163 has climbed to just under 2900m during this time. And that's without even considering air resistance, which would actually further reduce the climb performance! How on earth do all the documents on the Me 163 come up with the idea that the climb could be carried out at a constant 70°? In order not to lose speed during the climb - again without considering air resistance, which would also significantly worsen the values here - the Me 163 would in reality only be allowed to climb at an angle of 20° at the beginning and 40° at the end of the burn duration (thanks to the then lower weight). An optimal climb to combat altitude would thus, taking into account air resistance, start at about 15° climb angle and slowly increase to about 30°. This is because the engine has a thrust of 14.71 kN, which corresponds to a thrust force of 1500 kg. This 1500 kg must not be exceeded by the current mass of the Me 163 during the climb at the respective angle. This doesn't even work out with the empty weight of the Me 163 at a climb angle of 70°... Question to the physicists among you: Have I overlooked something or have the documents on the Me 163 simply all copied the same nonsense from each other? Mike |