WIP: Flight Replicas Me.163 Komet

[mgchrist5]

I just happened to notice a recent addition to the FR webpage. I really look forward to seeing a Komet done with all the latest FSX wizardry. Well done!

http://www.flight-replicas.com/Me-163WIP.htm

[hae5904]

Wow! That's sure interesting! Thanks for the HU. :salute:

"Wie ein Floh aber oho....."


Cheers,
Hank

[Roger]

Great! I've wanted a native 163 since I left Wozza's Fs9 model behind when I moved to FsX Dx10:ernae:

[bstolle]

My father flew the 163 (including the 163S) in WWII and according to his reports this was the nicest handling plane he ever flew (together with the Sud Aviation Caravelle)
You can be sure that that Mikes 163 will fly as nice as the real thing :)

[ryanbatc]

That's interesting history Bernt, cool!

[hairyspin]

Winkle Brown had good things to say on the Komet's handling too and he has nearly 500 types on his logbook. Just don't spill any fuel!

[roger-wilco-66]

Ahh, good news! There's even one flying over here these days (sans rocket engine, of course):

http://www.airventure.de/hahnweide09/4/Hahnweide09_DG_Me163.jpg

[TheGrunt]

Interesting and surely a welcome addition to virtual hangars :wiggle:

I really like to see how FR can pull believable rocket engine modeling for Komet, an engine type which is not coded in the FSX at all. For example Xtreme Prototypes Bell X-1 SG that I have, is way overpowerful in low altitudes because the turbojet (the engine type used in model) thrust varies depending on the altitude and to get the model perform correctly in its operating altitudes, the turbojet has to be more powerful at lower altitudes. Then there are also rocket ignition times, which in real life are pretty much instant, but I believe that FSX models automatically a spool up time for turbojets.

Komet is possibly somewhat easier to model, as it generally operates on lower altitudes and performance is not that high than it is with Bell prototype planes, for example.

[bstolle]

Apart from a few high quality add-ons, most high performance jets suffer from FSXs incorrect thrust calculation.
Either they are too fast at low alt and perform correct at high alt or they perform correct at low alt and suffer from a serious lack of high alt performance. Makes no difference if it's a jet or a rocket engine.
This problem has been solved e.g. with the Milviz T-38A and F-15E....and hence with the Me163 as well :)

[TheGrunt]

Apart from a few high quality add-ons, most high performance jets suffer from FSXs incorrect thrust calculation.
Either they are too fast at low alt and perform correct at high alt or they perform correct at low alt and suffer from a serious lack of high alt performance. Makes no difference if it's a jet or a rocket engine.
This problem has been solved e.g. with the Milviz T-38A and F-15E....and hence with the Me163 as well :)
Nice to hear that you have the solution. Only thing with the rocket engine is that its net thrust should remain constant and thus with rockets, it doesn't acutally matter how flawed the turbojet model of the FSX is, it still varies depending on the altitude which shoudn't be the case with rocket engines. Excellent modelers like you can get it right and go around with the flaws with turbojet aircraft, but the problem I see is how to get the thrust act like it is constant by tweaking other values which also are in many cases dependent on the altitude. There are of course ways to change aerodynamic properties, drag values, use invisible spoilers whatever to alter the behavior of the plane accordingly and I'm by no means saying you can't do it, on the contrary I know you can, but rockets are still IMO a bit different beast with FSX and perhaps even somewhat more challenging than normal jet engines.

[Blackbird686]

Ahh, good news! There's even one flying over here these days (sans rocket engine, of course):

http://www.airventure.de/hahnweide09/4/Hahnweide09_DG_Me163.jpg

It's a glider! The design of the Me-163 is very reminiscent of the original "Bacstrom's Glider". Now as for power... I suppose one could put a "BD Jet" engine in that thing... Not sure about endurance so I wouldn't want to go real far. :mixedsmi:

BB686:USA-flag:

[bstolle]

Nice to hear that you have the solution. Only thing with the rocket engine is that its net thrust should remain constant and thus with rockets, it doesn't acutally matter how flawed the turbojet model of the FSX is, it still varies depending on the altitude which shoudn't be the case with rocket engines. Excellent modelers like you can get it right and go around with the flaws with turbojet aircraft, but the problem I see is how to get the thrust act like it is constant by tweaking other values which also are in many cases dependent on the altitude. There are of course ways to change aerodynamic properties, drag values, use invisible spoilers whatever to alter the behavior of the plane accordingly and I'm by no means saying you can't do it, on the contrary I know you can, but rockets are still IMO a bit different beast with FSX and perhaps even somewhat more challenging than normal jet engines.

1. I love challenges
2. No need for invisible spoilers or other crutches. The HWK engine will work as it should.
3. Rocket engine thrust does increase with altitude. (10% in case of the Walter engine)

[TheGrunt]

1. I love challenges
That is the spirit! :wiggle:

2. No need for invisible spoilers or other crutches. The HWK engine will work as it should.
Sounds good. I don't actually care how it is done, just that it performs as it should :jump:

3. Rocket engine thrust does increase with altitude. (10% in case of the Walter engine)
Yes, thinner air allows better plume which gives overall better performance at altitude. Usually engine rocket nozzle design affects still more to rocket efficiency as nozzle should be more wider at the upper atmosphere to allow ambient pressure at the end of the nozzle. With static nozzles it is of course impossible to achieve and they have always some optimal design altitude. According to Wikipedia Komet's service ceiling was little over 12000 meters, so nozzle is most likely designed to be at most effective somewhere below that giving optimal thrust somewhere along the way the plane is climbing. After that optimal altitude HWK 109 efficiency and net thrust starts to decrease again.

[huub vink]

Great news! Not that I'm a huge Me.163 Komet fan, but at least somebody is still making decent warbirds.

Thanks Mike, keep them coming!

Huub

[YoYo]

My father flew the 163 (including the 163S) in WWII and according to his reports this was the nicest handling plane he ever flew (together with the Sud Aviation Caravelle)
You can be sure that that Mikes 163 will fly as nice as the real thing :)

Yep, it was a glider before.

[FentiFlier1]

Huub is right, it is always nice to see a warbird in the works!

Interesting anecdote there Bernt - I should think most people would not imagine that, the Komet being tailless and all!

Owen.

[P38man]

My father flew the 163 (including the 163S) in WWII and according to his reports this was the nicest handling plane he ever flew (together with the Sud Aviation Caravelle)
You can be sure that that Mikes 163 will fly as nice as the real thing :)


ME262 by Mike....FDE by you...say no more Bernt, SOLD!

[Sundog]

I've always been a fan of the Me-163's Aerodynamics. Lippisch was an outstanding engineer.

[Flyboy208]

I am not sure if this is the right place to communicate this, I know that this is not The Flight Replicas site, but I am going to The Flying Heritage Collection in October where they have one on display, would be happy to take some high-quality pictures if so desired ... Mike :salute:

[mike_cyul]

I am not sure if this is the right place to communicate this, I know that this is not The Flight Replicas site, but I am going to The Flying Heritage Collection in October where they have one on display, would be happy to take some high-quality pictures if so desired ... Mike :salute:

Well thanks, that's a very nice offer! I think I have every inch covered of the Me-163, but you never know - and if I find an area that could use a photo or two, I'll let you know via pm.

Mike

[Mach3DS]

I love the FHC...Aside from the Me-163, they also have the manned Fi 103R (V-1e) which was piloted by Hanna Reitsch. They most recently accquired a V-2 rocket which is on display in the vertical with exposed plexiglass panels which allow a view to the interior. Very rare. Living just a few miles away I've visited many times. If you get a chance to come to a fly day, especially the Paine Field Aviation Day, it's worth it, as the price of admission allows entry to both the FHC and the HFF (Historic Flight Foundation) on the other side of RWY 16/34. Another great museum full of flyable vintage aircraft. Hopefully the Mig-29 will be back on display as a few weeks ago it burst a tire on landing and was not available for viewing as the maintenance is done in another hangar, unlike the warbirds, which are done on site in the museum while visitors are patronizing.

[Stickshaker]

Hello Mike and Bernt,
<o:p> </o:p>
Does your attention to the Me-262 and 163 mean you want to focus to a certain extent on late-war German (jet) aircraft? You can count me in as a customer! As far as I know, four more of those aircraft actually flew: He-162, Ar-234, Go-229 and Bachem Natter (although the Natter only made one unsuccessful manned flight I think). So, flight test information could be (and for the He-162 is) available.