FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yup! "Fallschirm-Ausstieg"
Which jet was better, the Me 262 or the Gloster Meteor?
- Thread starter BountyHunter15
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yup! "Fallschirm-Ausstieg"
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Not true the C Stoff and T Stoff could burn, bleach, boil, blind, poison and eventually give the pilot cancer but he wouldnt dissolve. Its very hard to dissolve a human being.
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
Mano Ziegler thought otherwise. I wasn't there, so I rely on his book.
My memory is probably faulty, but I am sure that he mentioned a pilot that may not have been "dissolved" but surely was partially eaten away by the corrosive stuff.
My memory is probably faulty, but I am sure that he mentioned a pilot that may not have been "dissolved" but surely was partially eaten away by the corrosive stuff.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
There was mention of one pilot who suffered mortal wounds from exposure of C-stoff when his Komet had a rough landing and it inverted, spilling un-used C-Stoff into the cockpit. To what extent he was "dissovled", I don't know. But C-Stoff in it's own right, is very caustic, being a mixture of hydrazine hydrate, methyl alcohol and water.
Grievous burns were inflicted on crew members who weren't careful to keep small amount of T-Stoff from mixing with C-Stoff (splashed on their hands, clothing, containers, etc). This was also a hazard with the V-1 and V-2 programs, as they used T-Stoff and Z-Stoff to drive the V-1's catapault and the same mixture to drive the turbo pump aboard the V-2.
Nasty stuff...
Grievous burns were inflicted on crew members who weren't careful to keep small amount of T-Stoff from mixing with C-Stoff (splashed on their hands, clothing, containers, etc). This was also a hazard with the V-1 and V-2 programs, as they used T-Stoff and Z-Stoff to drive the V-1's catapault and the same mixture to drive the turbo pump aboard the V-2.
Nasty stuff...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Either way, that stuff $UCKS!
It is unless you have plenty of time and some decent concentrated acid. Even then some bits take some getting rid of as John George Haigh, the so called 'acid bath murderer', discovered.
Cheers
Steve
parsifal
Colonel
shock is the biggest killer fropm an acid attack. If the corrosive is strong enough to remove your skin, you wont survive
It's only fair to compare contemporary aircraft within a given period. Comparing anything else than the Meteor that was operational up until april 1945 against the Me 262 is illogical. You would not compare cars or motorcylces made years apart, as it it would be an uneven playing field. And you would not compare a wartime production plane with one made in peacetime. The Me 262 was not "junk" by any means, and was the only jet fighter to achieve success against a manned opponent. The Me 262 was made from poor quality materials, assembled in forest factories, or under the worst possible conditions, and flew and fought aginst totally overwhelming odds. Reverse the roles, and the Meteor Mk1 or 3, would have hardly done anywhere near as well. Had they met in combat, in Eric Browns words, it would have been "cats meat".
You will have to excuse my para-phrasing from literature read. It is more acurrate to state that the the fuel mix was fatally corrosive if the pilot became doused in enough of it. There are a number of incidents where the Komet simply exploded due to fuel leakage problems, and more pilots were killed by the aircrafts inherant faults than fell to enemy action.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Very true it just worries me that the most common fact and often the only fact a lot of people "know" about the Komet is just so wrong. I worked briefly at a wood pulp paper works which used tons of Hydrogen Peroxide as a bleaching agent and before we were allowed on site we had a safety film showing the effects of chemical burns. Most of us just about kept our breakfast down with a fair bit of effort so I know its nasty stuff but no way will it dissolve a body just bleach it brilliant white or burn everything.
Neither mixture was good for you. Both contained some unpleasant chemicals.
It was as a defence to the hydrogen peroxide (T-Stoff) that the special PVC suits were worn by the pilots. T-Stoff was 80% hydrogen peroxide, 20% water by weight with traces of stabilisers added. It was extremely reactive and would burn the skin on contact. It had to be stored and handled very carefully. I've read somewhere that the Germans used special vessels lined with a ceramic. Contact with organic materials could cause spontaneous combustion. It's not going to dissolve you
C-Stoff was 57% methyl alcohol, 30% hydrazine hydrate, 13% water by weight. A catalyst was added to promote decomposition of the peroxide in T-Stoff. This was tripotassium copper tetracyanide (whatever you may have seen it written as elsewhere!) K3Cu(CN)4, known as catalyst 431, which is hardly an enigma code given that formula.
This is an unpleasant mixture and contact with the skin should definitely be avoided, hydrazine hydrate is a corrosive irritant which can cause burns. Severe exposure, if you got soaked in the mixture, might well be fatal. It's not going to dissolve you.
Mix them together and they will definitely go bang.
The ideal ratio of the two ( C-Stoff : T-Stoff) was 0.36 : 1. This gave a complete reaction of the fuel and oxidant, the exhaust gases were comparatively safe and inert, although the temperature of the jet efflux was in excess of 1800 degrees centigrade. You wouldn't want to stand behind the motor. Nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water (as very hot steam) are the only things that came out the back. In reality a little excess of T-Stoff was injected into the motor.
The hydrazine hydrate and peroxide react to give nitrogen and very hot steam.
2H2O2 + N2H4H2O = N2 + 5H2O
The methanol reacts with the peroxide to give carbon dioxide and more steam.
3H2O2 + CH3OH = CO2 + 5H2O
That plume of jet efflux visible as the Me 163 literally rockets into the air is just steam, you can't see the other gases.
Here endeth the chemistry lesson
I knew all that work would be useful one day
Cheers
Steve
It was as a defence to the hydrogen peroxide (T-Stoff) that the special PVC suits were worn by the pilots. T-Stoff was 80% hydrogen peroxide, 20% water by weight with traces of stabilisers added. It was extremely reactive and would burn the skin on contact. It had to be stored and handled very carefully. I've read somewhere that the Germans used special vessels lined with a ceramic. Contact with organic materials could cause spontaneous combustion. It's not going to dissolve you
C-Stoff was 57% methyl alcohol, 30% hydrazine hydrate, 13% water by weight. A catalyst was added to promote decomposition of the peroxide in T-Stoff. This was tripotassium copper tetracyanide (whatever you may have seen it written as elsewhere!) K3Cu(CN)4, known as catalyst 431, which is hardly an enigma code given that formula.
This is an unpleasant mixture and contact with the skin should definitely be avoided, hydrazine hydrate is a corrosive irritant which can cause burns. Severe exposure, if you got soaked in the mixture, might well be fatal. It's not going to dissolve you.
Mix them together and they will definitely go bang.
The ideal ratio of the two ( C-Stoff : T-Stoff) was 0.36 : 1. This gave a complete reaction of the fuel and oxidant, the exhaust gases were comparatively safe and inert, although the temperature of the jet efflux was in excess of 1800 degrees centigrade. You wouldn't want to stand behind the motor. Nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water (as very hot steam) are the only things that came out the back. In reality a little excess of T-Stoff was injected into the motor.
The hydrazine hydrate and peroxide react to give nitrogen and very hot steam.
2H2O2 + N2H4H2O = N2 + 5H2O
The methanol reacts with the peroxide to give carbon dioxide and more steam.
3H2O2 + CH3OH = CO2 + 5H2O
That plume of jet efflux visible as the Me 163 literally rockets into the air is just steam, you can't see the other gases.
Here endeth the chemistry lesson
I knew all that work would be useful one day Cheers
Steve
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
So it wasnt a Rocket plane it was a Steam plane
Well it was mostly very, very hot steam shooting out the arse end!
The C-Stoff was a fuel which combusted, causing the motor to run at such a high temperature. The combustion chamber of one of these motors would reach at about 1700 degrees centigrade. It would have been even hotter were it not for the water in the mixtures. It's actually the methyl alcohol component of C-Stoff which is the fuel. I think that the hydrazine hydrate must have been some kind of regulator to ensure a smoother reaction, but I'm not quite sure how it worked as I was an organic chemist, not a rocket scientist
A hydrogen peroxide motor, as used in some torpedoes for example, does not add the fuel but depends entirely on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide (into steam and oxygen) in the presence of a catalyst. This is the principle of so called 'cold' motors, running at around 500 degrees centigrade.
Early 'cold' motors didn't use the 'catalyst 431' but a permanganate salt which gave the efflux a nice purple colour
Cheers
Steve
The C-Stoff was a fuel which combusted, causing the motor to run at such a high temperature. The combustion chamber of one of these motors would reach at about 1700 degrees centigrade. It would have been even hotter were it not for the water in the mixtures. It's actually the methyl alcohol component of C-Stoff which is the fuel. I think that the hydrazine hydrate must have been some kind of regulator to ensure a smoother reaction, but I'm not quite sure how it worked as I was an organic chemist, not a rocket scientist
A hydrogen peroxide motor, as used in some torpedoes for example, does not add the fuel but depends entirely on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide (into steam and oxygen) in the presence of a catalyst. This is the principle of so called 'cold' motors, running at around 500 degrees centigrade.
Early 'cold' motors didn't use the 'catalyst 431' but a permanganate salt which gave the efflux a nice purple colour
Cheers
Steve
Getting back to the Me 262/Meteor debate, I just read in one of Chris Chants' Luftwaffe books that the initial encounter between the Me 262 and the Mosquito took place two days before 616 Sqadron was made operational. While popular belief still puts the Me 262 as the FIRST operational Jet fighter, the threads found on this site state that the Meteor was operational first. I know I am splitting hairs here, but are we talking about individual aircraft getting the first shot off, or a whole Sqadron being officially made operational? Some specific dates would be great if someone has them.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
First Meteor was delivered to 616 Squadron at Culmhead on 12 July 1944 followed by a move to Manston on 21 July 1944 with a total of 7 Meteors.
On 19 April 1944, Ekdo 262 was formed as a test unit for training and testing, but flew sorties as well. On 26 July 1944, a Me262 from that unit encountered a recon Mosquito, resulting in the Mosquito being damaged.
So the timeline is very close and while some say that Ekdo 262 was a training unit, it did fly combat missions. Technically speaking, the 616 Squadron was also conducting training during this time as well.
On 19 April 1944, Ekdo 262 was formed as a test unit for training and testing, but flew sorties as well. On 26 July 1944, a Me262 from that unit encountered a recon Mosquito, resulting in the Mosquito being damaged.
So the timeline is very close and while some say that Ekdo 262 was a training unit, it did fly combat missions. Technically speaking, the 616 Squadron was also conducting training during this time as well.
Thanks for that. Did the 262 damage the Mosquito before the Meteor downed the first V1? I recall the 262 hit the Mosquito with cannon fire, while the Meteor s guns jammed and had to flip the V1 off balance to claim it. The dates are pretty close, and it all seemed to happen about the same time. Does anyone know when the Meteor was christened the "Meatbox"? I've read it was after hundreds of pilots were killed during immediate postwar training, but this info only comes from periodicals, and not substantiated texts. I'm also unsure if it was the Mk 3 that bore the brunt of accidents as well. It does appear that far more Meteor pilots were killed in non combat situations ( ie accidents), albeit for a variety of reasons. Come to think of it, are there any figures for YP80-A pilot fatalities during and immediately after WW2?
Last edited:
Just found this and had to reply briefly, as it is some way back. The He 162 was a total waste of time, and amounted to nothing but a drain on resources , pilots and the final defence of the Reich. It achieved absolutely nothing operationally, killed more pilots than were lost to enemy action, and was nothing more than an act of desperation. No way would they have been able to achieve the limited success the 262 did. Galland and Messerschmitt were right.
These were the days when sex was safe and flying was dangerous.
In 1953 two Meteor pilots were killed flying displays on BoB day . It didn't cause the furore it would today. In 1953 total RAF casualties world wide were 483 aircraft lost with 333 fatalities. These figures are difficult to comprehend today.
In the years leading up to this the figures for aircraft written off and fatalities look like this.
cat3 fatalities
1946 1014 677
1947 420 176
1948 424 224
1950 380 238
1951 490 280
1952 507 318
1953 483 333
'Meatbox' is just a reflection of a macabre humour in the face of figures like these.
Cheers
Steve
Wildcat
Major
Fascinating figures Steve! I just had a look at our Meteors on ADF-serials.com and see ours fared no better, mind you enemy MiG's and ground fire destroyed many! Have a browse if your interested.
Welcome to ADF Serials go to RAAF series two aircraft and scroll down to A77 meteors.
Welcome to ADF Serials go to RAAF series two aircraft and scroll down to A77 meteors.
Those figures are a bit depressing for peacetime . The 677 fatalities in 1946 are the same as quoted in the periodical that I read, and in a previous post it was remarked that this high number was due to "engine out" training that the RAF insisted on doing with the Meteor. That's a lot more planes and crew lost in "accidents" than the Me 262, but to be fair, there were a lot more Meteors flying as well, so it has to be taken subjectively.
