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.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
Ahh, good news! There's even one flying over here these days (sans rocket engine, of course):
That is the spirit!
Sounds good. I don't actually care how it is done, just that it performs as it should
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.
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
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
