# me 163 aces was there any



## mike siggins (Oct 2, 2012)

does anyone know if somebody made ace in this type or mutpile kills


----------



## Erich (Oct 2, 2012)

no JG 400 had only 12 kills - maybe.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 2, 2012)

There were a couple of "experten" that flew the death egg, but no-one made the title flying it.


----------



## davebender (Oct 2, 2012)

Did any Me-163 test pilot manage to crash 5 aircraft? That would make him an Allied fighter ace.


----------



## A4K (Oct 2, 2012)

Not many survived ONE crash in a 163 Dave!!!


----------



## msxyz (Oct 2, 2012)

A4K said:


> Not many survived ONE crash in a 163 Dave!!!


once it emptied the tanks, it was actually a nice glider to fly. I wouldn't like to seat on top of a 90% peroxide tank, though. Once i had a runaway reaction with 50% peroxide (I use it to clean homemade printed circuits) and it was like sitting near a steaming geyser.


----------



## davebender (Oct 2, 2012)

I've read that. 

Replace the rocket motor with a jet engine and you might have a decent aircraft.


----------



## johnbr (Oct 2, 2012)

That is what Lippisch thought.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 2, 2012)

A4K said:


> Not many survived ONE crash in a 163 Dave!!!



Many other pilots didn't survive crash landings either.

A good read: Komet Me163 - Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was - Flight Journal.com Page 1


----------



## davebender (Oct 2, 2012)

There's usually an exception to the rule. Some of the highest scoring Luftwaffe fighter pilots survived being shot down a dozen times.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 2, 2012)

Crash landing a Me163 was different than just your standard crash landing. For one thing the tanks were never completely empty, and what was left could explode on a rough landing. 
The landing skid the Me163 had was barely adequate for smooth grass fields wouldn't do the job on rough ground, even with the addition of a collasping seat frame they still had a lot of pilots with spinal injuries.,


----------



## Erich (Oct 2, 2012)

read a copy of Top Secret Bird by W. Späte, it will be an eye opener to these brave men.......... no thanks ! had a very long interview some years back with Rudi Opitz who flew numerous test flights and later on operation's in JG 400.


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 2, 2012)

I think the best estimates for allied aircraft destroyed by the 163 is between ten and twenty – hardly a decent return on the time and money invested in the type. By any meaningful standard the Gloster Gladiator was a far more successful aircraft than the 163. 
I think it is highly unlikely any pilot would have made it to five kills. In fact, I believe there was only one instance of a Komet scoring two kills in a mission. The obvious targets were B-17s but at least one Mosquito was also claimed.
As an aside, the Komets were largely built using slave labour. One unused example was rebuilt after the war for display and the restorers discovered a hunk of scrap-metal wedged against the fuel tanks, presumably meant to puncture them during take-off or landing. Scrawled nearby were the words ‘My heart is not in my work”.


----------



## davebender (Oct 2, 2012)

Me 163 production

Klemm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Klemm aircraft included:
> Klemm (Daimler) L.20, light leisure and training aircraft, 1924
> Klemm Kl 25, light leisure and training aircraft, 1928
> Klemm Kl 26, light leisure and training aircraft, 1929
> ...



Klemm was probably a poor choice to build the high tech Me-163 as they had little or no experience building high performance aircraft.


----------



## 61fury (Oct 2, 2012)

I wonder why they didn't use catapults. That long take of must have used a lot of fuel. Pitch the catapult up at an angle, light the thing and fling it. Or at least use tow planes, was it too volatile?


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 2, 2012)

61fury said:


> I wonder why they didn't use catapults. That long take of must have used a lot of fuel. Pitch the catapult up at an angle, light the thing and fling it. Or at least use tow planes, was it too volatile?


 Have you ever watched a film of a Me163 take off ? There's no way i'd describe it as a long take off, though it probably does use a lot of fuel. Towing it would save fuel, but in a intercept situation that would slow down response time quite a bit.

On liftoff they keep it in a very shallow climb until it reached 400-450 mph, then they climbed at over 16,000 fpm.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 3, 2012)

At least the Komet was a footnote in history, being the only operational rocket fighter aircraft ever used.

If the propulsion system wasn't so deadly, it would have been taken a little bit more seriously years later when our engineers (and pilots) were learning about high G acceleration...

As far as aces with the Komet, I believe Fw. Schubert was the highest scoring pilot with three bombers to his credit.


----------



## stona (Oct 3, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> If the propulsion system wasn't so deadly, it would have been taken a little bit more seriously years later when our engineers (and pilots) were learning about high G acceleration...



The Allies,particularly the British,showed a lot of interest in it at the end of the war. I think (I'll check) that they took more Me 163s back to Farnborough than any other type. It turned out to be something of a dead end though rockets were used in a lot of US experimental high speed aircraft as you alluded to above.
The British developed some short lived mixed power designs.
Steve


----------



## kettbo (Oct 3, 2012)

the follow-ons would have been more useful, more range and landing gear
the Allies knew it was coming far as I can tell. Effect, if any, on those who saw them would be good to hear. Would not be comfortable if you were flight crew to see these beasties blast through the escorts ant high speed


----------



## msxyz (Oct 3, 2012)

The russians built the mig i-320 mating the fuselage of a me-263 to a pair of... straight wings and adding a T tail; they went to the most possible stable configuration but apparently understood vey little of dr. Lippisch' work.

The me-163 was obviously an experimental design which became operational due to desperation. The me-263 should have been the first rocket plane intended to be a combat ready design.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 3, 2012)

There were several types of rocket powered aircraft under developement by Germany (and Japan - J8M), many of them actually flying aside from the Me163/263, such as the He176, Ju248 (Junker's version of the Komet) and Dr. Lippisch's own DFS194


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 3, 2012)

61fury said:


> I wonder why they didn't use catapults. That long take of must have used a lot of fuel. Pitch the catapult up at an angle, light the thing and fling it. Or at least use tow planes, was it too volatile?


 
Take-off and landing in a 163 was a frighteningly dangerous proposition as things were - hooking it up to a catapault might have made the exercise suicidal. From what I have read the jolts associated with getting off the ground, or back onto it, were often enough to turn the whole unit into a giant catherine wheel. Also, the fuel was highly corrosive. I read an account somewhere where a pilot was doused and when the rescue party got to him he had pretty much melted. 
Eric Brown relates that before he test flew a 163 one of the technicians mixed a couple of drops of the fuel componenets together as a demonstarion and produced a minor fireball. Flying the thing must have been like being in charge of a barely controlled explosion.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 3, 2012)

Cobber, did you read the ljnk I posted? Here is another one to read, The Hellmuth Walter Rocket Motor Web Site

Two books that should be read,
Me 163: Rocket Interceptor -Volume 12
Me 163: Rocket Interceptor -Volume 2


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 3, 2012)

I remember seeing a German wartime film about refueling the Me163. First task was to bring up a water bowser and flush each fuel tank, independently, with water. The groundcrew wore all-body "rubber suits" (maybe not rubber but that's what they looked like) which included covering the face and head. Water would pour out of the aircraft's tailpipe. Then each of the 2 fuel components would be brought to the aircraft, one at a time, the groundcrew still wearing their protective gear. Must have been an absolute nightmare to maintain! Pity the poor groundcrew, hot and sweaty, knowing that one slip could turn them into a self-igniting fireball. Nasty stuff!


----------



## msxyz (Oct 3, 2012)

The first me 163s used peroxide as a monopropellant. Later, they added hydrazine to increase thrust and endurance (the so called 'ISP' ) . I believe the prototype in which Heini Dittmar got past 1000 km/h was still fuelled by peroxide alone.

This makes me wonder if a Me 163B could have been able to get past mach 1 in level flight. Not that I would have liked to be the man trying to do it. Supersonic wind tunnel tests already showed that the tailless configuration of the Me 163 wasn't fit for suprsonic flight and already gave enough problemS at transonic speeds. This is also one of the reasons why Lippish carried on with his studies on tailless designs eventually culminating in the delta wing.

Back on peroxide, it was chosen because it's cheap, it works also as a monopropellant and it's easily storable. The fact that it releases oxygen (which could be used to burn something else) was a plus. Too bad it also reacts violently with many metals and origanic materials and it's sensible to shock and heat. This means that spontaneous decomposition occurring at a too fast rate likely result in a runaway reaction. 

Many amateur rocket enthusiasts discover the dangerous properties of peroxide the hard way when they try to distill it at home starting from the stabilized, 50% composition available in chemical shops as an anti septic and bleaching detergent (it's used to sterilize surgeon tools and implants, among other things).

The Germans were surely in love with the properties of peroxide. They built a small submarine which ran at nearly 30 kts using a peroxide / kerosene hot gas turbine and they even designed a 2000 ton, ocean going uboot using the same principle. It would have been able to cruise at 25 kts submerged for 280 nautical miles, at slower speeds the endurance would have been comparable to modern designs using fuel cells. Halfway through construction of the first prototype, they concluded it was a bad idea to store several tons of peroxide in a submarine! They reused the space occupied by the tanks to host a vey large bank of batteries and the space occupied by the turbines to host a pair of 2 MW electric motors: hence the revolutionary type XXI was born.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2012)

msxyz said:


> The russians built the mig i-320 mating the fuselage of a me-263 to a pair of... straight wings and adding a T tail; they went to the most possible stable configuration but apparently understood vey little of dr. Lippisch' work.
> 
> The me-163 was obviously an experimental design which became operational due to desperation. The me-263 should have been the first rocket plane intended to be a combat ready design.



You must be thinking of another aircraft, the Mig I-320 was a swept wing t-tailed jet, sort of the predecessor to the Mig 15, no resemblance at all to the Me163.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2012)

The highest speed of 624 mph ( mach .84) was attained when Dittmar was towed to 13,000 ft, but at that speed it entered a dive, which was recovered from by cutting power. That was a Me163A, The Me163B might have been faster under the same conditions, since it had a different wing with a theoretical higher mach limit.


----------



## msxyz (Oct 3, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> You must be thinking of another aircraft, the Mig I-320 was a swept wing t-tailed jet, sort of the predecessor to the Mig 15, no resemblance at all to the Me163.


you're right. It was the Mig I-270, not 320!


----------



## davebender (Oct 3, 2012)

I've wondered that myself and not just for the Me-163. 

Germany probably had more experience with catapults then anyone else. Lufthansa catapult ships could launch large seaplanes such as the Do-26. Surely they could have land (or rail car) based catapults for launching fighter aircraft.


----------



## msxyz (Oct 3, 2012)

davebender said:


> I've wondered that myself and not just for the Me-163.
> 
> Germany probably had more experience with catapults then anyone else. Lufthansa catapult ships could launch large seaplanes such as the Do-26. Surely they could have land (or rail car) based catapults for launching fighter aircraft.


 V1 were launched by catapults to assist the weak engine getting the thing airborne. The problem of using a catapult for accelerating the me-163 was both the inertia of the big fuel tanks and the sensitive nature of the peroxide.

Besides, the take off run was short enough. Seeing that small plane roaring to the skies leaving behind a violet plume was certainly a show to behold!


----------



## davebender (Oct 3, 2012)

Why didn't Germany use catapults for launching Me-109s and (later) He-162s? You could have factory defense squadrons located in a forrest adjacent to industrial centers such as the Ruhr. Faster take off and you don't need to worry about runway bomb craters when fully loaded with fuel. After the mission you would land normally at the nearest airfield.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 3, 2012)

davebender said:


> Why didn't Germany use catapults for launching Me-109s and (later) He-162s? You could have factory defense squadrons located in a forrest adjacent to industrial centers such as the Ruhr. Faster take off and you don't need to worry about runway bomb craters when fully loaded with fuel. After the mission you would land normally at the nearest airfield.



Do you truck these a/c then to the catapult locations?


----------



## cimmex (Oct 3, 2012)

...and how long would it take to launch a group of 40 planes
Cimmex


----------



## stona (Oct 3, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> The groundcrew wore all-body "rubber suits" (maybe not rubber but that's what they looked like) which included covering the face and head.



The suits were made from PVC as were the pilot's flight suits. The PVC fibre was marketed under the trade name "Mipolan" by Dynamit Nobel.

Rubber would not have been a good idea 

The fuels were handled with other specialised equipment including ceramic vessels,something still done in my time as a chemist for Hydrogen Peroxide.

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2012)

Rocket catapult??? 
Catapults require power. Even if gunpowder chargers. And they are not always successful.


----------



## stona (Oct 3, 2012)

That's a photo of the BP 20 M17 "Natter" taking off vertically on 29th December 1944. It's effectively a rocket assisted vertical take off.

Only one manned flight was ever made,on March 1st 1945,and proved fatal for the pilot Lothar Sieber. He launched successfuly and disappered through the cloud base but things seem to have gone awry. He tried to abandon the aircraft but failed to do so before it crashed,killing him.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Oct 3, 2012)

I think Lufthansa catapults used compressed air. 

A catapult for launching fighter aircraft would be tiny compared to the historical German seaplane catapults. A modifed V-1 cruise missile catapult might work.

20,000 kg. Do-26 max take off weight.
3,400 kg. Me-109G6 max take off weight.
2,800 kg. He-162 max take off weight.
2,150 kg. V-1 cruise missile weight.


----------



## davebender (Oct 3, 2012)

1:144 V-1 Launch Ramp Starter Kit





Looks like Germany put some thought into the V-1 steam catapult system. Modular (i.e. similiar to army bridging equipment) so sections could arrive by truck and quickly assembled on site. Should be capable of launching German fighter aircraft.


----------



## stona (Oct 3, 2012)

At what rate (how frequently) could the steam powered V1 style catapult be used?

I reckon it might take a long time to launch a significant number of interceptors without several ramps. They are only relatively quick to assemble and make an obvious target.

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2012)

The Me163 almost never took off from runways, they always used big grass fields. They had poor crosswind capability, the rudder didn't become effective till some speed was built up, and there were no wheel brakes , so you always took off exactly into the wind. If you didn't the aircraft would point itself into the wind and the pilot wouldn't be able to do anything about it until the aircraft had enough speed to make the rudder effective.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2012)

davebender said:


> 1:144 V-1 Launch Ramp Starter Kit
> View attachment 212714
> 
> 
> Looks like Germany put some thought into the V-1 steam catapult system. Modular (i.e. similiar to army bridging equipment) so sections could arrive by truck and quickly assembled on site. Should be capable of launching German fighter aircraft.


Those steam catapults got bombed out of existence before they saw much use. That's why they switched to the much smaller rocket assisted take off ramps, and air launch.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2012)

Even if you could lanch a Me163 every other minute, with the Me163 short endurance it would mean no aircraft could stick around and wait for others to launch. Meaning each aircraft would have to go on a solo sorte.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2012)

Steam catapult   

Where do you get the steam from???

Ground-launched V-1s were typically propelled up an inclined launch ramp by an apparatus known as a Dampferzeuger ("steam generator") which used stabilized hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate (T-Stoff and Z-Stoff).

Same stuff used in the Me 163 with the same handling problems? 

Ships had high pressure steam from the boilers. Ans some of them still used powder charge propulsion rather than run the steam lines to rotating catapults. 

Most factories did not use high pressure steam or have the boiler capacity. 

Factory announcement " Everybody take 1/2 hour break, we have launched two fighters and need 30 minutes to get boiler pressure back up to run machines!"


----------



## davebender (Oct 3, 2012)

Aircraft cavern - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Switzerland, North Korea and probably several other nations employ underground aircraft hangers. In Switzerland these date all the way back to WWII.

If WWII Germany employed similiar bomb proof (more or less) hangers in the Ruhr Valley a pair of catapults could launch aircraft out the open door.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2012)

The Me163 is a glider when it's landing. A small runway, in a valley, ending in a cave, doesn't sound like a promising situation for glider landings.


----------



## davebender (Oct 3, 2012)

You aren't going to land in an area under attack. You will land someplace relatively safe. The aircraft can return home the next day by flatbed rail car.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 3, 2012)

davebender said:


> You aren't going to land in an area under attack. You will land someplace relatively safe. The aircraft can return home the next day by flatbed rail car.



After the removal of the wings? 

And assuming that the rail lines are still intact.

Sounds like a lot of trouble for nothing.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 3, 2012)

These aircraft were potential bombs until the fuel tanks were flushed with water. And they required special equipment to handle the fuselage for any movement after landing.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Oct 3, 2012)

The book, "Rocket Fighter" by Mano Ziegler tells the story of the "powered egg". He was a pilot of these things and documents the absolute unpredictability of this craft. One plane had been sitting "at readiness" for some time and just exploded for no reason.


----------



## msxyz (Oct 4, 2012)

meatloaf109 said:


> The book, "Rocket Fighter" by Mano Ziegler tells the story of the "powered egg". He was a pilot of these things and documents the absolute unpredictability of this craft. One plane had been sitting "at readiness" for some time and just exploded for no reason.


It reminds me of a cretain russian submarine carring peroxide powered rocket torpedoes which exploded for no reason.

T-stoff was 80% peroxide and the rest stabilizing agents. Nowadays it's used mostly at 70% concentration and for a reason!


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 4, 2012)

msxyz said:


> It reminds me of a cretain russian submarine carring peroxide powered rocket torpedoes which exploded for no reason.
> 
> T-stoff was 80% peroxide and the rest stabilizing agents. Nowadays it's used mostly at 70% concentration and for a reason!



In both cases i'm sure you realize there was a reason for them to explode, it's just that afterward there isn't enough left to determine what caused it..


----------



## davebender (Oct 4, 2012)

Protecting the fighter aircraft from enemy attack prior to and during launch is a lot more then nothing.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 4, 2012)

Dave, a Me163 wasn't at risk at takeoff like a Me262, it wasn't slow to accelerate. It didn't need or even want paved airfields, so it's bases didn't stand out like most airfields.

It was at risk during the after sortie phase. During the glide back to landing and sitting on the ground immobile. Your plan wouldn't help that at all, it would delay the recovery phase and put it at even more risk.


----------



## davebender (Oct 4, 2012)

So use bomb proof hangers and catapults for Me-262s.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 4, 2012)

I thought this thread was about the Me163.


----------



## Erich (Oct 4, 2012)

simply put the Komet was not a threat to allied airpower the 262 on the other hand was .........


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 4, 2012)

> simply put the Komet was not a threat to allied airpower the 262 on the other hand was



I agree entirely. I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the Me 163 killed more German airmen than their enemies.



> The book, "Rocket Fighter" by Mano Ziegler tells the story of the "powered egg".



A fantastic book - well worth the read to give an indication of how volatile these aircraft actually were. These tanks either side of the pilot's seat were a source of grief that Mano Ziegler highlights in his book; because they were made of ceramic, on hard landings they tended to shatter on impact with the ground, which led to their contents spilling into the cockpit, resulting in disastrous concequences.







LH side tank with throttle marked 'B4' and trim wheel visible. The red 'T' handle was the undercarriage jettison lever, the red handle directly below it being the fuel dump and the round handle above is the canopy latch. The upright lever below the throttle box is the flap wobble pump.






RH side tank with radio control switches and oxy regulator and joystick visible.






(if anyone wants to see more Me 163 close ups, I'd be happy to post them)


----------



## Milosh (Oct 5, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> I agree entirely. I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the Me 163 killed more German airmen than their enemies.



Does anyone have a list of Me163 losses and the reason for the loss?


----------



## T Bolt (Oct 5, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> (if anyone wants to see more Me 163 close ups, I'd be happy to post them)


Love to see more if you have them


----------



## beitou (Oct 5, 2012)

Does anyone have any idea what the absolute ceiling of the 163 was and how long it took to get there? Not much use in reality but it would be interesting seeing how high they took an unpressurised rocket.


----------



## davebender (Oct 5, 2012)

Rockets have no ceiling. They can keep climbing until the fuel runs out. Me-163 ceiling would be dictated by pilot endurance.


----------



## beitou (Oct 5, 2012)

As the ceiling was dictated by the fuel load and there was enough fuelfor about 8 mins powered flight how high does that take the 163 hopefully before the pilot dies? Does anyone know what the higest recoreded flight for a ME 163 was?

How high above the bomber formations would the163 climb before starting their attack,presumably it would not be a height that resulted in a glide attack?


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 5, 2012)

davebender said:


> Rockets have no ceiling. They can keep climbing until the fuel runs out. Me-163 ceiling would be dictated by pilot endurance.



The Me163 was a aircraft, not a ballistic rocket. 
With a 9000+lbs all up weight, and 3700lbs max thrust it still depended on it's wings to stay airborne.
It's listed service ceiling was about 39,500 ft. Wheather that's it's ceiling limited by it's 7 minutes of fuel from a ground takeoff, or a real service ceiling where it's rate of climb is down to 100 fpm I don't know.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 5, 2012)

beitou said:


> As the ceiling was dictated by the fuel load and there was enough fuelfor about 8 mins powered flight how high does that take the 163 hopefully before the pilot dies? Does anyone know what the higest recoreded flight for a ME 163 was?
> 
> How high above the bomber formations would the163 climb before starting their attack,presumably it would not be a height that resulted in a glide attack?



Almost all of it's attackes were glide attacks. It'd use to rocket to climb above the bombers, go to idle power. Since it could dive without power faster than anything in the sky it only used it full power to get to altitude, then dive at idle, the resume full power to climb high again and make another dive attack. Though some tried climbing attacks also. About 2 attacks per sortie was about all anybody managed.


----------



## beitou (Oct 5, 2012)

Thanks for that, I presumed thay attacked under power. If they could manage two attacks on occasion then presumably for many sorties with only one attack that attack run must have taken themquite away from the close escort P51s. Do we have any figures for 163 losses, either duringor after the attack runs?


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 5, 2012)

Here are some stats for the Me 163B-1a taken from the Book German Aircraft of the Second World War by J.R.Smith and Anthony Kay:

Max speed at sea level 830 km/h (515 mph), Max speed at 3,000 m (9,840 ft) 960 km/h (596 mph); limiting mach number 0.82; landing speed 220 km/h (137 mph); initial rate of climb 3,600 m/min (11,810 ft/min); rate of climb at 10,000 m (32,800 ft) 10,200 m/min (33,470 ft/min); time to service ceiling of 12,100 m (39,690 ft) 3.35 min; max power endurance 8 min; approx operational range 80 km (50 miles).

I read that a speed of over 600 mph was reached in the '163 creating an unofficial speed record, but because the aircraft was still secret this wasn't released at the time.

In answer to the original question - and answer given that no one became an ace on the '163, Major Wolfgang Spate was already an ace several times over by the time he flew the '163 as were many of his colleagues, but he became an Me 262 ace as well, with a total of 99 confirmed victories, five of those in the '262 with JG 7. 

Glenn, I'll put the pictures up in a new thread soon.


----------



## davebender (Oct 6, 2012)

If level speed was 596 mph it's almost a sure bet someone power dived the thing past the sound barrier. Whether the aircraft and pilot survived is another matter.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 6, 2012)

As I pointed out earlier, one of the developement pilots Heini Dittmar had the Me163A towed to altitude, he applied full power, on reaching 624 or mach 84 it went into a dive that he could only recover from by chopping power. Mach .84 was it's limit, it had the power to go faster but not the aerodynamics, and don't forget it had wooden wings.

The Me163B might have been faster because it's wings didn't have twist built into the wings to insure the outer wings stalled after the wingroots. The Me163B had fixed slots in the wings to insure better control at stall speeds. The Me163B may have been faster, but it was never for absolute top speed, they were more interested in testing that resulted in it's developement as a weapon, not as a record breaker.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 6, 2012)

Pilots were warned not to exceed the maximum speeds because the aircraft would become uncontrollable and probably lose its wings as pointed out earlier. There was a warning light on the instrument panel that warned of this.









> The Me163B might have been faster because it's wings didn't have twist built into the wings to insure the outer wings stalled after the wingroots.



You mean washout? Ahhh, yes it did. Clearly visible in this picture.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 6, 2012)

Did the Me163B have less washout than the Me163A?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 7, 2012)

How many Me163s actually 'blew up' when landing?


----------



## CobberKane (Oct 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> If level speed was 596 mph it's almost a sure bet someone power dived the thing past the sound barrier. Whether the aircraft and pilot survived is another matter.


 
The preceeding post gives the limiting mach number as .82, so the 163 should have hit compressibility well before reaching Mach 1. I suspect it would most likely have come apart in the air before reaching the magic figure.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 9, 2012)

> I suspect it would most likely have come apart in the air before reaching the magic figure.


 hence the Machwarnung light in the cockpit.

As for the difference in washout of the Me 163 A and B, I don't know, but looking at photos of both, they _look_ similar. Does anyone have figures for how many Me 163s blew up on landing?


----------



## stona (Oct 10, 2012)

nuuumannn said:


> Does anyone have figures for how many Me 163s blew up on landing?



My question would be why would they blow up on landing? 
The fuel tanks would be empty. I'm sure the residue would be enough to cause chemical burns to an unprotected pilot or technician,or possibly start a fire.
Concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide,T-Stoff was an 80% solution, is potentially explosive (on its own a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) but you'd need a significant quantity for the aircraft to explode. It's not something you'd want in contact with your skin. 
C-Stoff was certainly flammable and was a toxic cocktail of chemicals which again you wouldn't want to come into contact with. 
Surely such a craft would be much more likely to blow up during refuelling or when the rocket motor was started. If you get either of those processes wrong I'd say an explosion wasn't just possible but likely.
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 10, 2012)

stona said:


> My question would be why would they blow up on landing?
> The fuel tanks would be empty. I'm sure the residue would be enough to cause chemical burns to an unprotected pilot or technician,or possibly start a fire.
> Concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide,T-Stoff was an 80% solution, is potentially explosive (on its own a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) but you'd need a significant quantity for the aircraft to explode. It's not something you'd want in contact with your skin.
> C-Stoff was certainly flammable and was a toxic cocktail of chemicals which again you wouldn't want to come into contact with.
> ...


 The tanks were never truly empty, and the tanks holding the T-Stoff was ceramic, brittle, on each side, and behind the pilot. Not real safe when combined with a landing skid and rough ground.


----------



## stona (Oct 10, 2012)

Yes,but T-Stoff doesn't blow up (a BLEVE) in the way I understand the aircraft as "blowing up",particularly when it is no longer contained.
I think the aircraft would blow up when the two elements of the fuel system came into contact in an improper or uncontrolled manner. There would be significant amounts of both in a fuelled aircraft as opposed to the residual amounts in a recently landed one. The Germans were happy to simply flush these residues with water.
I notice that subsequent to the original suggestion of aircraft blowing up on landing noone has managed to produce a contemporary account or documentary record of this actually having happened. I don't know if it was possible or not. I just feel it is not the biggest risk involved in landing one of these things at around 125 mph!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 10, 2012)

The first commander of Jdw. 400, Maj. Robert Olejnik was severly injured during the first sharp start, about late July 44. It malfuncioned at altitude, after a unsuccessful restart, Olejnik dumped his fuel and jettisoned his canopy, on landing rough and digging in one wing, Olejnik was thrown clear, and the aircraft disappeared in a blinding explosion. Olejnik survived with back injuries.


----------



## stona (Oct 10, 2012)

Which begs the question,what exploded?
Explosions,just like fires,need fuel. A small amount of those fuels will explode,but an aircraft dissappearng in a blinding explosion does not sound like a residual fuel explosion
I'm guessing the the fuel dump wasn't as effective as it was supposed to be. Something must have been onboard that aircraft to cause such a catastrophe.

That scenario is hardly a normal landing but one following an emergency in which any number of factors might have come into play. The rocket motor had definitely malfunctioned. 

I'd like to know if any of these aircraft,having completed their flight normally,expending their fuel,exploded on landing.

Cheers

Steve


----------

