hello hubba, i can only guess,
you are referring,
to post #24 of this thread.
fortunately, post #25 is okay.
if you would like,
#24 can be deleted
without loss of content.
just give me the word.
in the mean time,
don't worry about apologies,
they are completely unnecessary.
Last edited by smilo; August 21st, 2016 at 07:08.
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Hubbabubba,
The picture is great, isn´t it? The thing is that I don´t know enough about instrumentation, so your help is very much appreciated!... I´ll put back the compass into its correct position (it comes from the Dornier DoX Seaplane). Then I´ll put the Flaps lever on the left and see where to put the throttle. For the moment, the Gear indicator on the right in my panel replaces the two vertical instruments - whatever those may have been...
So where was the artificial horizon? The Turn Indicator perhaps doubled up as such: The slanted top on the "T" line over the ball seems to suggest an inclinometer too.
Ammo counters? Interesting. They had good ideas - also the window to see the runway with extended nose-gear! A Sparrow like this would do me nicely for a change from my 1985 Bavaria Schnellpanzer...
Thanks for confirming no-adjustment-needed on the .air file´s Drag - Great! I like doing a slow flight test with a bit of flap just above the ground - like flying under the Golden Gate, and it´s quite possible with this plane.
Right now I´m trying to polish out the minute dark triangular wing-bit bleeds through the fuselage. We shall see!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
I will have to disagree with Hubbabubba on this one. I think the AIR file needs some serious adjustment for drag.
While the existing AIR file is flyable, its flight characteristics can be considered a mod because it hardly bleeds off speed even with hard turns (retains energy too well) and has a glide ratio comparable to a sailplane or perhaps even better. With Engine off, I did not lose speed as one would expect with a fighter with a small wing. I ran out of patience before I got any meaningful data here. (I tested out your TF-104 this morning and found that one was NOT flyable)
As I mentioned before, with the engine at idle, it does not lose speed at all which makes even a simple power-on stall test impossible.
Also, was it intentional to have the guns connected to the cannon trigger?
On a related note: Pretty soon I will need to work on a Jet or Rocket AIR file for a project that has been sitting in my workshop for ages. I started with the Learjet AIR file but never managed to get it to work well.
- Ivan.
If you could remove the offending post (#24) I would be thankful, my friend.Originally Posted by smilo
As I was saying, I was using Opera that I recently installed, and like, to reply to aleatorytlamp preceding post when, after checking with the Preview Post button, I got an empty editor window and the message that my post was too short! So I copy/pasted the preview message in the editor window and got that atrocity. The only thing left was to re-paste in another post and edit the gibberish.
BTW - Replying to a post under Opera does not show the quote of the post you're replying to. Act as simple reply.
- No correction possible as the editor window is empty.
- When using Bold, Italic or underline, the line is carried backward to the last of these special characters if you're, for example, correcting a typo on the last word typed. It makes for quirky posting
Hope this help SOH team. This post is, of course, made under Firefox...
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
done......
sometimes the magic works.
sometimes it doesn't.
Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your more exact comments on the Sparrow´s .air file, and of course on the TF-104 - a lucky "throw-in" along the way!!
Hubbabubba´s and my comments on the Sparrow´s Drag were related only to the approach and landing phases. As 1 point of flaps is needed on approach and full flaps (3rd position) for touchdown, the resulting behaviour for THAT phase of flight works seemingly OK. I needed low Drag for the plane to reach top speed with the available power, and I compensated this drawback for approach and landing by raising Flap Drag.
The perpetumobile-glider behaviour is of course undesirable, and needs attention, but I don´t know enough to be able to solve it yet, so I´m glad that you have pointed it out. Hopefully this can now be solved more easily.
Luckily enough, this will probably result in an improved .air file for the Starfighter! The TF-104 2-seater model was a modification of mine on the single-seater RG-104, which I had extensively rebuilt from an FS5 AFX on request by Udo Entenmann (the painter in my old "team" of the last FS98 Mohicans). The fuselage was too fat and ugly and the plane had lots of bleeds despite not having any moving parts.
Then, the .air file .air file was written by someone I don´t remember, and worked fine in FS98 (of course). At the time I improved the TF-104 for CFS1, I didn´t know enough about the different flight behaviour, but now I know for sure: FS98 balances out .air file parameters to do with wings and weights, MOI´s included, in a completely different way. The numbers required to achieve similar "flying feels" in CFS1 are very different.
So, a new .air file for the Starfighter will also be in order, and it´s on my To Do List. Whatever I can learn on improving the Sparrow´s flight behaviour, I can carry over to that of the TF-104 later.
I thought the Sparrow´s weapons were cannon, so I defined them as such in the Dp file - maybe that was a mistake.
Not to worry! There will be a nice upgrade coming for the Heinkel He-162-A2 when all the problems are sorted out.
Incidentally, I managed to get rid of the dark triangles bleeding through the fuselage - from the duplicated aft-wing-root component, I removed the vertical panel that is flush with the flaps at the wing-root, and that´s solved now!! Lucky...
The panel is also slowly getting a very much better, so that´s fortunate too. Anyway, if it weren´t for all this feedback and help, this plane would not be getting any better at all , so thanks once again!
It will be interesting to see if we can get your own future jet/rocket project sorted out too! A new challenge.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
As I understand it, the Heinkel 162A was capable of 522 MPH @ Sea Level with a burst speed of 553 MPH at Sea Level. Its maximum burst speed even at altitude was only 562 MPH. I did a little speed test a few minutes ago. I still have no idea how to use the burst speed.
With the typical Beckwith test panel that I use for propeller fighters, what I am getting is
609 MPH at 1050 feet with 1958 pounds thrust.
I was planning on more testing, but with this first result, I must be misunderstanding what your performance goal is here; Maximum speed already seems way too high.
Regarding maneuverability, I am finding that I can pull 9.8 G at will. The Volksjaeger IS a light fighter at only 6000 pounds fully loaded, but remember in comparison with the Me 109G, it does not feel quite right. The Volksjaeger has a wing that is only 120 ft^2 as versus 173 ft^2 for the 109G. The 109G is heavier by around 2000 pounds but the wing is much bigger so the wing loading is actually less than the Volksjaeger. In addition, the 109G has automatic leading edge slats which also would increase lift. So at lease from a numbers standpoint, the Volksjaeger should be a lot worse in a sustained turn than the 109.
I still have not read the pilot reports so perhaps there are other factors to consider.
Hope this helps.
- Ivan.
P.S. I don't know if it is appropriate to discuss the Starfighter here, but here goes anyway: The reason I believe it is un flyable is because it has such a strong pitch up with increasing airspeed that it becomes uncontrollable pretty quickly. It also does not ever stall. It seems to get into a nose-high attitude while maintaining about 85 Knots and looses altitude VERY quickly. There may be more but I never got past that.
Hello Ivan,
OK on the "No K" for the two jets. Thanks very much for the additional testing. For the moment, there is enough information to go by in order to try and improve things.
I hadn´t realized that the Sparrow model speed was so high. At least there does seem to be some room for a Drag increase.
Perhaps reducing FDEditor´s parameter "wing efficiency", whichever that one may be in AirEd, will help here. I´ll have a look.
The Beckwith panel was giving me very near 1760 flb at 9500 RPM (more or less 90% thrust, depending on engine temperature) at 500 ft. Then, it appears that flat out at over 100% readings went up a bit. The problem is that at maximum thrust, the engine would break after 30 seconds, and I don´t think there is a way of making that happen in FS98.
The Boost Thrust is just Key "0" for a max. of 30 Sec!
For the Starfighter, the picture looks dire... I´d hardly ventured into the FD, and the present state of affairs seems awful, so that will need some work.
As the Sparrow is a jet, and this thread can well serve for old jets in general, I´d say!
There was a tiny little Messerschmidt Rocket Plane (interceptor) Me-163 Komet, which a friend made a better .air file for, making it flyable, as the original one was useless, so I´ll have a look into those FD too.
I wonder...
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Ivan,
I was trying some finer adjustments as regards thrust and the 3 diffent kinds of drag entries, (zero lift, induced and skin friction), and a very familiar situation arose, a bit reminiscent of a recurring bad-dream: If I got power and performance correct for S.L., for 6000 and 20000 ft, performance was about 50 kt short.
On the other hand, If I adjusted power and performance correctly (+- 2 kt) at 20000 ft and 6000 ft (+-0 kt for normal power and +11 kt for Boost thrust), at S.L. I got too much power power and about 50 kt in excess.
Another thing: Turbine lag makes maximum specification performances impossible to attain with 30-second boost bursts, as it takes longer than that for the plane to reach the higher speeds being at normal speeds for any height.
Interestingly enough (and expectedly) drag alterations will change the thrust readings, and also, thrust changes with speed.
Then of course, it also takes considerably longer for a turbine´s speed and power to stabilize after a throttle change than on a piston engine.
Not an easy kettle of fish!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
I did a bit more testing with your Volksjaeger today and also did some tuning.
Here is what I am getting:
Maximum Speed at 500 feet is now 560 MPH. I did not do any fine tuning of drag to see if I could bring it down further.
At 19,750 feet, speed is only 460 MPH or so. The problem is that engine thrust is way too low here at only about 1150 pounds.
So from a simple (possibly OVERLY Simple) calculation this aeroplane needs about 1770 pounds thrust at 19,700 feet to achieve the performance according to "The Book".
I did not try to tune the engine power because I do not know how to do that yet.
With the adjusted drag and wing efficiency, I am finding that it WILL slow down but always a minimum of about 100 pounds thrust if the engine is on. Even with the engine off, it loses speed slowly especially from about 150 MPH to 250 MPH.
I don't know how to cure this yet or even if I should. This aeroplane does not have propeller drag to contend with.
Perhaps I need to learn how to tune a Jet engine now.
It might come in handy for a Me 262 at some point.
- Ivan.
Just one very silly question "on the fly" Ivan; how do you completely stop the engine?
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
<Control><Shift><F1>
Verified by Zero Thrust and Sound.
- Ivan.
Hello Aleatorylamp,
I'm no expert on cockpit but what I don't know I search for and, if I'm still unsure, I will take an educated guess... and probably search again. In the case of the compass, I simply blew-up the image in my browser (Ctrl+=) and could faintly see a "12" just on the left. What you see as the horizontal bar of a T is in fact the degrees' ladder and the vertical bar is the hairline midle separator to read the degrees with some precision.
My guess on the flap indicator was wrong as, later on, I stumbled on a fragmentary British test pilot's report (probably Brown) stating that there was none. My guess was based on the position, close to the flap pump, and the little sticker underneath where some warning about that pump are written in German. Next best guess would be hydraulic pressure gauge based on its location, size and lack of graduation. But which hydraulics? I really have no clue. So again I went researching and finally found that little gem HERE! In it, this dial is described as AFN 2 for Anzeigegerät für Funknavigation or Radio-Navigation Display System.
The above picture shows exactly what we barely see in the precedent general view cockpit panel picture. It was basically an early ILS (Instrument Landing System). The vertical needle was to be kept dead center to line-up the a/c with the landing strip, aided by an audible signal made of dots (1/8 second) and dashes (7/8 second) that would give a continuous buzzing sound when aligned with the landing strip, the transmitter being at the far end. Range for that localizer was about 40km. The other needle was bending upward as the transmitter was getting nearer, until reaching nahe (near), giving a rough idea of the distance remaining to the runway. Two transmitters along the approach path, on a different frequency from the localizer, and acting only as short distance markers would light-up the "target-like" window at 20 and 3km respectively of the threshold. If all went well, the pilot should "see the lights" if is glide slope was in accordance with his training.
Those two vertical instruments are the ammo counter, left and right. I don't know the mechanicals innards of the system but, quite simply, they gave a quick idea of the remaining rounds/shells left. Bar high = lots of ammo, bar low = few ammo left, no bar = I will let you guess (your turn, LOL!).
There is no artificial horizon. The bar you think you see is simply the reflexion of the left window and its cables underneath.
And I was not saying that your AIR file was in no need of change! Simply warning you on the danger of overdoing it. Your a/c is way too fast. I'm reaching easily 900kph IAS near sea level, way too much!
As I was doing research, posts were piling-up!
And thanks again smilo, this time I'm typing off-line and posting with BB code already parsed. Cross my fingers!
P.S.-Thanks Ivan! We learn (or re-learn) everyday!
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Hello Ivan, Hello Hubbabuba.
I have just seen the new posts. This is getting very interesting. Perhaps jets aren´t all that bad - especially the old turbojets!
Slowly we are arriving at improvements with regard to instrumentation and engine/aircraft performance.
The Radio Navigation Display System is incredible. Great research work, Hubbabubba!
Yes, I´m afraid that the Sparrow´s performance was way too high. Somewhere along the line I must have got the Drag values way too low. Perhaps I had concentrated more on altitude performance - I can´t remember.
Anyway, I centered the correction on non-boost-thrust S.L. power and performance, which is the basis.
For the moment, allow me to post the latest and more detailed trials, which will coincide with Ivan´s findings on performance loss at altitude - possibly a S.L. power compensation will be needed.
New settings for wing parameters to increase altitude loss in turns:
Angle of incidence: 0.275
Angle of twist: 0.269
Then, to reduce gliding speed (still a bit difficult to achieve):
Induced Drag: 3000
Zero lift Drag: 45
Skin Friction coefficient: 334
New findings on EGT control parameters:
-Turbine Temp gauge factor = 170 keeps EGT in safety zone (heats up a little w. boost burst)
-Turbine Temp gauge scalar = 256 (affects max. RPM - at 1024 it limits RPM to under 9000)
Fine tuned maximum thrust to have Idle RPM at 3500: Thrust max S.L. set to 2187 flb
-Idle will still give about 125-130 flb thrust.
-Gliding is still excessively good, so flaps and undercarriage are needed to reduce speed on approach, and full flaps for landing.
-Crash velocity has been corrected to prevent explosions on touchdown.
-Fuel Tank capacities adjusted to correct the l/r tank fuel gauge reading.
So here are the present new .air file test results: (new .air file enclosed with this post, just in case).
S.L.:
At _92% throttle: _9500 RPM, 1760-1781 flb and 427 kt (correct)
At 100% throttle: 10100 RPM, 1968-1991 flb and 448 kt (39 kt under)
6000 ft:
At _90% throttle: _9500 RPM, 1515 flb and 431 kt (56 kt under)
At 100% throttle: 10200 RPM, 1713 flb and 451 kt (55 kt under)
20000 ft:
At _83% throttle: _9500 RPM, _971 flb and 435 kt (53 kt under)
At 100% throttle: 10350 RPM, 1150 flb and 464 kt (50 kt under)
Perhaps it would be better to increase normal non-boost S.L. performance and make that inaccurate, so that all the other readings get better.
It´s getting interesting, innit?
P.S. Just to prevent mental merry-go-rounds:
Shall we continue to talk about speeds in MPH then? I´d reverted to Knots because the instruments are in KPH and CFS1 has a general HUD display in Kt... I had also just changed the Checklists from MPH (+ Kt) to KPH (+ Kt), but I can always change it back again.
Cheers
Aleatorylamp
Hello Aleatorylamp,
I have not found a reference yet on the Heinkel 162 that lists the speed in Knots.
Then again, I have not done much searching either but so far I have only found MPH and KPH.
I don't see the point in translating to Knots especially since the test instrumentation is in MPH.
My own opinion is that my test results will be in MPH and the Aircraft Checklist should be in whatever units that nation would have used at the time. Did the WW2 Luftwaffe ever use Knots to measure speed? I had always presumed that they did knot.
- Ivan.
Hi Ivan,
OK, no problem - we´ll stick to MPH. I´ll do any subsequent speed test reports in MPH!
The Pilot´s report uses MPH anyway, and Wikipedia and other sources quote both MPH and KPH.
More important will be the workaround for the low performance at altitude.
So just for the record, results in MPH for the last speed test I did after correcting the excess S.L. performance:
S.L. performance compared to specs in Wikipedia:
At _92% throttle: _9500 RPM, 1760-1781 flb and 491 mph (correct)
At 100% throttle: 10100 RPM, 1968-1991 flb and 515 mph (38 mph under) aim: 553 mph
Your max. speed of 560 mph at 500 ft sounds quite OK!
6000 ft:
At _90% throttle: _9500 RPM, 1515 flb and 495 mph
At 100% throttle: 10200 RPM, 1713 flb and 518 mph
20000 ft: performance compared to specs in Wikipedia:
At _83% throttle: _9500 RPM, _971 flb and 500 mph (22 mph under) aim: 522 mph
At 100% throttle: 10350 RPM, 1150 flb and 533 mph (29 mph under) aim: 562 mph
The comparisons I made in the previous post included a confusion in the altitude. I had taken the 6000 meters to be 6000 ft, and was wondering where I´d got the 20000 ft reference from.... Merry-go-rounds again.
Anyway, my present results are only a bit slow at altitude, and not so excessively fast at S.L. anymore - except for the Boost Burst which is a bit low at S.L.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Last edited by aleatorylamp; August 23rd, 2016 at 07:50.
I know that old habits die hard, Ivan, but I failed to see where we really disagree here. My comments about drag were only concerned with slowing down enough to make a landing without going poof! As I said, I just went easy on the flight portion, bar the inverted portion, to see if it was flyable. Could it take-off? Could it climb? Could it turn? Could it fly level? Could it land? I could answer yes to all but the last question. Note that for that first contact, I was simply using stick and pedals of my CH triumvirate as the throttle was tucked behind the screen. I am suffering from a serious lack of space. To use the CH throttle, I have to forage in all the stock piled behind my three machines, fold-down the laptop to my right and put the bulky throttle on top of it.
So after a short while, I turned to port while reducing throttle to 50% with the keyboard and, seeing I was still going very fast, put one increment flaps while still turning. As I was about at 2 miles from the runway, I lowered the gears and speed quickly went down, and so did the a/c! So I pushed the throttle to 100% (still keyboard) and, cutting the daisies, barely made it to the service area in front of the runway, bounced a bit and made a big whole 50 yards passed the treshold.
Hence my interrogation about perceived disagreement. I too think the AIR file needs some taming. I have done some more flying with the little critter since then and, in its clean aspect, the a/c is way too fast, but all that changes once at low speed with flaps and gears extended. All my following, and successful, landings were done on full flaps, gear down and throttle (this time with CH) at full almost up to the flaring zone.
Some reports state that critical Mach number was an unimpressive 0.75, mostly due to the engine position and the the bulges at wings/fuselage necessary for the gluing technique.
I will decipher the German site I found and try to land according to their instructions, only then will I have an idea of the balance between clean and dirty drag necessary.
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Hello Hubbabubba,
I think you will find the .air file in my post #39 somewhat better. The correct speed test report for that .air file is in my post #41.
In post #39, I messed up on the 6000 ft aimed-for speeds that were not reached - they should really only have referred to 20000 ft (6000 metres approx).
Maybe I can tweak the .air file a bit better. I need some advice here, also from Ivan if possible:
Maybe now there is excessive Drag on flaps and Landing Gear?
Anyway, meanwhile, at least the new .air file is a bit more enjoyable than the old one!
Thanks again for all your testing and your feedback. Now I´m looking into the Radio Navigation Display System you mentioned, to see if I can perhaps use the Me109 or Fw190 ADF instead.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello Hubbabubba,
Perhaps I should have stated it better. I was really objecting to the conclusion reached by Aleatorylamp from your test that there were no changes needed on the AIR file. You had not made that statement.
I am not sure how I can really help here since I don't know how to tune the jet engine for different altitude performance.
I looked through the jet engine tuning document that Aleatorylamp translated but did not find quite what I needed.
I suspect that the FS98 Jet engine may lack altitude tuning in a manner similar to the FS98 Piston engine.
Hello Aleatorylamp,
I actually did quite a bit of tuning on my copy of the Spatz AIR file.
The values I settled on were 0,020 for Drag (according to FDE which is just a touch lower than that for the P-40M I was working on. The value for flaps would normally 0.017 but with the very small wing, I pushed the number up to around 0.035 to 0.040. Landing Gear should be pretty comparable but I did not tune that yet.
The biggest issue as I mentioned earlier was the lack of ability to increase engine power at altitude.
6000 meters is around 19680 feet which is why I was testing at 19700 feet.
One of the other issues is that the longitudinal trim needs a massive adjustment. It is probably inherited from the Learjet which has a pretty similar problem.
- Ivan.
Hello Aleatorylamp,
Here is a project I built as a simple visual model at least 10 years ago.
I think the visual model looks good, but the engine in this AIR file simply does not make sense.
This missile (literally) carries just over 400 gallons of fuel and burns it in well under 5 minutes.
Thrust is 1429 pounds and remains constant at full throttle.
The handling is about where I want it and it moves well while under power.
The big problem is that although I can tune the engine for more power and even more run time, I can not do this realistically or in a manner that I can use in a real project, so it sits incomplete.
Perhaps it should have a jet engine instead of a rocket.......
Now all I need to do now is to find a guide to tuning jet engines that I can actually understand.
- Ivan.
Just saw your Okha, Ivan, or about a third of it. Is it only me?
Torture numbers and they'll say anything.
Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.
Me too.
PLACEHOLDER TEXT
"Let Being Helpful Be More Important Than Being Right!" Some SOH Founder.
Hello all,
Yes, I was wrong about my comment on the Drag being OK - I´ve explained that I only meant it in relation to landings, and only noticed the faulty excessive speed after Ivan had stated it.
The new .air file is much better, if anyone wants to try it out. I increased FDE zero lift Drag to 0.02197 and this is more successful.
Ivan, as you say, jet-engine tuning is more limited than prop-engine tuning. I´ve been trying to sort things out on the "Spatz" (Sparrow) - that´s what Heinkel called it, it was Hitler who called it "Volksjäger", and then, the production project was called "Salamander".
It definitely seems true that only restricted control over engine performance is allowed. After fighting it out with the different parameters, I realize that there are a number of ambiguities and incomplete or even erroneous comments in the "guide" I translated - not in the translation, but in the content of the "guide" itself.
A useful one refers to balancing out idle- and max. power RPM, but any modifications in Idle speed will require adjustments to Max. RPM.Then, Oil and EGT temperatures and oil-pressure readings can also be adjusted to fit different engine manufacturer specs, but these often do not behave logically, and will understandably affect RPM.
For the moment I don´t know enough yet to produce a guide of my own, and I haven´t found a different one.
Yes, it appears that the Okha pic is invisible for the lower 2/3, and, as you said say, a jet-engine .air file will probably be better than a rocket one. The Me-163 Rocket plane (3800 flb) I mentioned is by a Captain Slug (CS), and has a jet-engine .air file! If you are interested I can send you the Komet plane.
I also have the FS98 Opel Sander Rocket - also with a jet-engine .air file! It had sixteen 55 flb solid fuel Sander rockets. Fritz von Opel flew it himself at the risk of his life, but escaped unscathed.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Hello All,
I am not quite sure what happened on that screenshot. I actually tried about two more times when I noticed the partial image.
The others were even worse. The really strange thing is that the image pulls up fine on the Windows 2000 machine it was generated on.
Here is a better image. Most of you have seen this one before but it seemed relevant in terms of AIR files.
The maximum level speed I have gotten out of this beast is about 585 MPH or just a touch more.
It runs out of fuel before it really stops accelerating.
Here is a screenshot of yet another project I did for the old JG 57 folks.
The model is not mine; Just the nose and a bit of clean up were my work.
It doesn't handle too badly but definitely could use some tuning.
- Ivan.
Hello Ivan,
The Okha screenshot shows a nice, clean build. One would be inclined to feel that it deserves to see the light of day with an upload!
I looked into the some flyable .air files by a certain Christoph Ruhtenberg, who was writing FD for FS98 until 2007.
For a Me163 Komet rocket plane model (by Captain Slug), he wrote some good jet-engine FD that had 3800 flb thrust, 400 USG fuel, and 4000 lb in Dry Weight (zero in DP). It gave a very fast and maneuverable little machine! Incidentally, Zero Lift Drag is also very low here!
He also provided a souped-up version with 4484 flb power, as well as an easier-to-fly, tuned-down version with 1764 flb, which is the one that I was trying to adapt for an initial trial for your Okha.
Looking into the Okha specs, power looked similar: 1761 flb thrust (3x587 flb rockets), although you state 1429 flb, so I´m not sure if it is Model 11. However, the Okha´s wings are about half the size of the Komet´s, but the worst is the weights: Loaded weight for the Okha is quoted at 4718 lb, and this just won´t add up. The plane is too heavy for the power and will not fly:
Pilot: ____________200 lb
Empty weight: _____970 lb
Ammonal Warhead: 2646 lb
400 USG fuel: ____ 2640 lb
-----------------------------------
Total:___________6456 lb
Incidentally, range for the rockets was only 23 miles, but if one includes the gliding slope after being dropped from the Betty Bomber, prior to the 8-10 seconds of rocket-powered flight that accellerated the machine to 650 mph just before the target, range was 55 miles. Data I found talked about 3 solid fuel rockets, and you mentioned 400 USG fuel, so that seems contradictory too, and I´m a bit lost.
Anyway, this project could perhaps be well worth while looking into, if you like.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
Members who have read this thread: 1
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks