# Me163 v P-47



## Chingachgook (Feb 8, 2007)

_I posted this in the aviation section but it warrants repeating here in STORIES._

I should tell you (as best I can remember) something that a Sherman tank commander told me many years ago (sorry no real sources here other than his name - Joe Shlickman - he was head of NYC Transit when I knew him).

Joe said that they had entered Germany from Belgium early '45. I do not know where in Germany. He and his tanks were in a wide open area. Overhead they saw a tail-less "jet" that attacked four (4) P-47s at near ground level. The "jet" would loop down and shoot and then loop back up again after each attack, repeating four times and downing ALL FOUR P-47s.

This plane that Joe described is certainly a Me-163. I have Mano Ziegler's book "Rocket Fighter", but there is no mention of this engagement. My father had the Me163C throttle-able motor in his possession after the war (at USAF Burtonwood, England), does anyone know if that plane was ever flown in Combat? This engagement sounds like the pilot may have had throttle control. I will post pic of C two orifice motor in the Spring when I get it from my Father.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

To be honest I dont think what he saw was a Me-163. The Me-163 saw combat against bombers but the reason that I do not think that he saw it against the P-47s is because it did not have the range or time in the air to go searching for fighters.

The Germans shot the rocket plane up against bomber formations that they new were there. The Me-163 Komet only had a range of 43km and a duration of flight of about 8 to 10 minutes.

It simply did not have the time to go around and look for fighters. Plus after its rocket motor burned out it needed to be at alltitude to glide back down to land and it could not do so at low alltitudes.


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2007)

Not saying it was a Me-163 but I can't think of any other tail-less LW fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

Neither can I...


----------



## twoeagles (Feb 8, 2007)

Pictures of the motor will be very interesting, Ching...Marking my calendar to check back!!!


----------



## Erich (Feb 8, 2007)

it doesn't make any sense really so probably a Me 262. The KG(J)'s 51 and 54 looked for anything low down especially any MT and troop concentrations to strafe and bomb with their 262A-2a's. A good friends dad witnessed a dual attack from 1 lone 262 : dropped it's bombs and came around to strafe the troops with it's 3cm's. ~ he noted laughingly we ran in all directions


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2007)

If its was a Me-262 I think he would've noticed the two engines, I think, but perhaps it could've been a He-162, but the tail is rather noticable on this bird... The only thing that ruins the scenario of it being a Me-163 is the fact that he describe it climbing and attacking four times, the Me-163 didn't have enough fuel for this and a trip home - it was meant to hit the bombers once and then glide down.

Its a mystery really...


----------



## Erich (Feb 8, 2007)

I think it is pure mis-identification that is all. when it is severely chaotic you do not pay well attention of details


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 8, 2007)

Nice post total there Erich! LOL

I don't think it would of been a ME163 either. The plane was hard enough to fly and line up a slow moving bomber, it would of been nearly impossible to line up and shoot down 4 fast moving dodging sliding jinking P-47. Not to mention the time required to actually achieve these kills is more than the 163 had fuel.

IMO


----------



## delcyros (Feb 8, 2007)

> Joe said that they had entered Germany from Belgium early '45. I do not know where in Germany. He and his tanks were in a wide open area. Overhead they saw a tail-less "jet" that attacked four (4) P-47s at near ground level. The "jet" would loop down and shoot and then loop back up again after each attack, repeating four times and downing ALL FOUR P-47s.



i wouldn´t rule out the possibility that this has to do with -163 operating in january or february 45. The records are low and not consistent of I and II Gruppe of JG 400. A slovenian collegeu friend of mine certainly has more on this issue, I will have to ask him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2007)

Yes that would be interesting.

I too think it was probably a 262 and just misidentified in the chaos of battle.


----------



## Erich (Feb 8, 2007)

Rudi Opitz told me in 1945 they did nothing but move and try and hunt down fuel for the remainder of the rocket interceptors of II. gruppe as the Soviets were on their heels ........


----------



## Soren (Feb 8, 2007)

Its more likely a Me-262 than a Me-163, but who knows...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 8, 2007)

Exaclty Soren, who knows... No one really ever will so...


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 9, 2007)

Exactly Soren. Is the any chance that it could of been an He-163 as that would sort of explain the tailless theory?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 9, 2007)

He-163 had a tail though...

I think it was just misidentification.


----------



## Udet (Feb 10, 2007)

Fascinating story chinggie...

Even if we are before a case of misidentification of a plane it´d appear Chinggies guy is very confident about the scene he witnessed...more misteries that sadly might remained unsolved.


----------



## Chingachgook (Feb 10, 2007)

I could never figure out what happened either. Joe died more than 15 years ago.
I did not really think that it could have been a Me163B because there is no way that it could have looped 4 times without thrust (well, I wouldn't think so anyway). 
There is a story in Ziegler's book about a test pilot who buzzed Herman Goring when they display flew the Me163A at very low alt. I think they were able to re-light the motor after giving it a burst?
A Me163C may have been able to pull a flew loops because it had some throttle control, but I have never seen anything about the C in combat (?).
The He163 or Me262 is perhaps most likely but Joe was clear about the plane being tail-less. Horton maybe?  
A few more shreads of his story have come back to me - I believe that he said something about the action being over very quickly and that he saw or counted the four smoke plumes from the crash sites. He also told me about seeing a P-51 get its' tail shot off by a Focke-Wulf and no chute from the P-51 before it crashed. I remember being upset about this because I was a P-51 fan.
I frequently asked him about tank to tank engagements, but he would never answer about this.

EDIT - It appears that two Me-163B were made operational with the addtional 300lbf thrust cruise motor. This gave extended powered flight time - up to 19 min.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 11, 2007)

> There is a story in Ziegler's book about a test pilot who buzzed Herman Goring when they display flew the Me163A at very low alt. I think they were able to re-light the motor after giving it a burst?
> A Me163C may have been able to pull a flew loops because it had some throttle control, but I have never seen anything about the C in combat (?).


technically, it is not such a problem. The -163B had four thrust settings + idle, which gave amply of thrust controll. It was possible to relight the engine as long as 50 Kg of fuel were remaining in the tanks. There is no reason to doubt the -163 aerobatic abilities, which included loops.


----------



## Soren (Feb 11, 2007)

People the Salamander is designated the He-162, not the He-163.

Wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't for the fact that it was incorrectly repeated 4 times, hehe


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 11, 2007)

That would be looking at the Me-163 and not thinking  (or I typo'd).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Ooops I put 163 as well.  Dont know why I did that I have allways known that it was the 162.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2007)

Well from the underside the Me-163 is tailless as it has no tialplane (the XP-56 was designed likewise). And if the P-47s were on a bombing/ground attack run, it could be possible that a Me-163 would be sent to intercept them. If the interception distance distance was rather short (~10km) there should have been enough fuel to pull off the maneuvers that this plane was said to have. (climb to altitude, intercept target, dive to attack, climb + dive 3 more tiomes then climb to altitude and head home) 

I also think the Me-163B had a throttled motor, if memory serves the RLM wouldn't accept it into service without a throttle. (I think that was one of the reasons for problems with reliabillity) A kerosene/nitric acid fuel would have been safer to use, and less expensive. The Russians had some rockets using such, like the BI-1 wich was designed several years before the Me-163. In great contrast tho the 163 the BI-1 had no fuel accedents but it had severe aerodynamic problems resulting in nose-down trim with inoperable elivators over 750 kph, pretty much the opposie problems of the 163. Also like has beed suggested before, a 163 (particularly the advanced C varient) would have made a good jet fighter with a lightweight HeS-30 engine. (particularly with rocket boosters for takeoff and initial climb, thike in the Natter)


----------



## Aggie08 (Oct 27, 2007)

Regardless of if it actually was a Me-163 or not, is it realistic that the P-47s didn't attempt to scram or tango a bit? From the story they appear to act like bombers and just stay in formation.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2007)

Remember, the P-47 wasn't renouned for its maneuverabillity, particularly at lower altitudes and even morso if they were loaded with ordinance, which is likely as by early 1945 most of P-47s duties in Gernany were as fighter-bombers. It tended to rely on speed and dive capabillity to escape, which would be difficelt aganst the 163.

It's possible there were some Me-163's sent to intercept some P-47s on an attack run of an airfeild.


----------



## Jank (Oct 28, 2007)

Even pilots, with the benefit of available intelligence, couldn't always identify an aircraft. The following is an encounter report from a bolt driver.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 28, 2007)

So what plane could that have been? A Me-262 prototype? I doubt it was a meteor, and the cocpit placement doesn't match the Ar 234 Blitz. Tail doesn't match a He-280...

The overall description matches the Ar-234, except for the cockpit, and when viewed from above, does look quite like a B-26. The wing and nose description doesn't match the 262. compare: http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/ar234_1_3v.jpg and http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/b26_marauder_3v.jpg

Insidentally, the B-26 used tricycle landing gear, though many US bombers did.

Dose anyone have pictures of the sketches of the Me-262, derived from spy info, that were used by the allies? I remember seeing some on this site somewhere...


----------



## eddie_brunette (Oct 30, 2007)

A Horten?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

In which case, the above document, or the original case? Either way, it couldn't have been a Ho-IX (Ho-229), since only one powered prototype was completed and crashed durring a test flight.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 30, 2007)

There were so many experimental variants of the -262 around that it is well within possibilities. Add f.e. the drop snoot variant and it matches the above report quite nicely...


----------



## Jank (Oct 30, 2007)

Here's a cool print I came across:
Gareth Hector-


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

delcyros said:


> There were so many experimental variants of the -262 around that it is well within possibilities. Add f.e. the drop snoot variant and it matches the above report quite nicely...



Except for the wing and to a lesser extent the nacelles. The statement that the wings were tapered at both edges (trapizoidal) is what really made me think of the Ar-234.


----------



## Erich (Oct 30, 2007)

I go back to my statement, a Me 262A-2 of KG 51 or 54 on ground attack duties which they were famous for even in the jet. as I said mis-id with all the confusion going on who is going to sit there and watch combat take place when it is right in front of you and everyone is yelling in the chaos. the Me 163 was ordered for US bomber killing not to engage US fighters, and by the time US had entered well into Germany I. u.II./JG 400 were running for their lives from the Soviets


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

But as I said if the P-47s were on a bombing mission and there were still some flight ready Me-163s near by....


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> Not saying it was a Me-163 but I can't think of any other tail-less LW fighter.



. . . except the Gotha (Horten) Go 229, which never reached operational status (that we know of!). However, it definitely would've had the endurance to fly around and shoot at P-47's.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 30, 2007)

But I don't think the Ho-229 could have pulled off the kind of maneuvers that were said to have been performed. It also didn't have te specific thrust to dive and climb like that. 

The 229 was rather large, as it was originally conceived as a fast bomber/fighter-bomber, so I cant see it outmaneuvering, or outfighting a fighter, even one as heavy as the P-47.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 31, 2007)

Jank said:


> Here's a cool print I came across:



nice...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

Does anyone have pictures of sketches of the Me-262 (or other jets/rockets) used by allied intelegence durring the war?

I found two here: Me262a in 1/48 and 1/72 but not anymore of yet...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> But I don't think the Ho-229 could have pulled off the kind of maneuvers that were said to have been performed. It also didn't have te specific thrust to dive and climb like that.
> 
> The 229 was rather large, as it was originally conceived as a fast bomber/fighter-bomber, so I cant see it outmaneuvering, or outfighting a fighter, even one as heavy as the P-47.



I honestly dont know how maneuverable the 229 was, but why do you think it would not be maneuverable eneogh?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 4, 2007)

I could be wrong but, its just so big and heavy, it was 55 ft wide and weighed over 15,000 lbs loaded (over 17,000 max), and as most flying wings it had poor yaw control, using wing-mounted air-brakes to turn, so lining up a shot woul be difficult. With that high surface area I don't see it turning that fast (again just speculation). I'm confident it could out-maneuver bombers but not most fighters. The 262 would have been more maneuverable and I still can't see it shooting down 4 Jugs alone without some trouble. Besides there is virtually no chance that some secret Ho-229 was deployed in the war. Even a Me-262 would loose a lot of airspeed pulling off somthing like that and by the third pass it's likely the Jugs would be prooving quite difficult to continue outflying them. 

By the description given and the way it was said to mode the craft sounds verry much like a Me-163.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 5, 2007)

I agree there certainly was not a secret one in service, I was just wondering your thoughts. I too actually have allways thought the same thing because it was a flying wing design.


----------



## lastwarrior (Nov 6, 2007)

I can't tell which of the two...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 6, 2007)

Which of which two?

Maby the Germans captured the Metrovick Meteor and that's what the T-Bolt pilot shot down in that Combat Account. That meteor crashed % months earlier though... or did it. Conspiracy?   I doubt it!!!
It fits the discription though, doesn't it. (for the "Me-262" I mean)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 6, 2007)

Also what happened to Chingachook? I can't find why he was banned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2007)

He chose to cause problems and for that reason he was banned. There is no need for you to dig through the past to find out why he was banned. We moderators had our reasons and that is all you need to know.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 7, 2007)

Ok, I was just curious. Sorry if I overstepped my bounds.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2007)

No worries.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 7, 2007)

Rduolf Opitz, chief test pilot of the Me 163 said that the Me 163 could fly rounds around an allied fighter aircraft, that's just how manoeuvrable and easy to fly it was. 



kool kitty89 said:


> I also think the Me-163B had a throttled motor, if memory serves the RLM wouldn't accept it into service without a throttle. (I think that was one of the reasons for problems with reliabillity) A kerosene/nitric acid fuel would have been safer to use, and less expensive. The Russians had some rockets using such, like the BI-1 wich was designed several years before the Me-163. In great contrast tho the 163 the BI-1 had no fuel accedents but it had severe aerodynamic problems resulting in nose-down trim with inoperable elivators over 750 kph, pretty much the opposie problems of the 163. Also like has beed suggested before, a 163 (particularly the advanced C varient) would have made a good jet fighter with a lightweight HeS-30 engine. (particularly with rocket boosters for takeoff and initial climb, thike in the Natter)


Interesting, Kitty!
The Germans did have the S-Stoff - Rocket Fuel comprising 90-97% nitric acid and 3-10% sulphuric acid - and SV Stoff - Rocket Fuel (known as Salbaei) consisting of 85-88% nitric acid and 12-15% sulphuric acid - but apparently they chose not to use it. Probably for a good reason?

Interesting claim for the HeS 30 engine in the Me 163! Also reminds me of the P 20 which was to get the Jumo 004 engine. If made operational, it could have won the Germans the air war, even without a Me 262.

But btw, didn't somebody claim that two Me 163s flew with the dual chambered rocket engine? Have my doubts about that... 
Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 9, 2007)

Yeah, I said some more about a jet-powered Me 163 here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...-you-develope-further-2805-17.html#post287706

And it might have been underpowered with only a single engine (except with a HeS-011 but that wouldn't have been ready and would take-up too much fuselage space), like I said on the other thread, so 2x wing-root placed jets would be better, and also free-up room in the fuselage for fuel, though the guns would need to be moved, maybe under the nose like in the He-162...

Though this development discussion really belongs in the aforementioned thread, so it would be best to continue it there.

And on the fuel choice, maybe the nitric acid would have been too corrosive for their designs. A new engine and fuel suystems would have to be designed for this fuel. Though overall it was less corrosive than either of the other fuels used in the Walter engine (and much less volitile and unstable) but the properties were different, as it was resisted by different metals, high purity aluminum is very resistant to nitric acid. Though if alcohol or kerosene were used as the fuel this would be almost infinitely more stable than the hydrazine used in the Walter rockets. Also, I'm not sure if the Russian engine's reaction was as easy to initiate as with peroxide/hydrazine, though it was certainly a hypergolic mixture I don't think it reacted as violently, so the combustion properties would be different which would mean a different combustion chamber (possibly higher pressure) and, possibly, nozzle.

By the dual chamber I think you mean the Walter engine with the "cruise" chamber added which was designed to run at low thrusts more efficiently, potentially increasing endurance by 50%! I believe two were tested on 163b's, but on an experimental basis only. The 163C was to use it, along with improved fuel capacity, a larger wing, longer tail, retractable tricycle landing gear, a bubble canopy, and not least a pressurized cockpit which raised the ceiling to 52,000 ft. This engine was also supposedly much more reliable and the 163C was to have improved fuel containment and systems, greatly improving reliability. Fuel tankage was nearly doubled, and powered time was extended to 12 min (9 min combat) with the old engine, with the new engine I'd expect an endurance of around 18 min (with ~12 min combat). IMHO the C model was the best, and better than the proposed D model or Me 263... Still not as good as a twin-jet version would be, but the obvious choice to model the jet on would be the 163C.


----------



## Negative Creep (Nov 12, 2007)

Then there's the problem of ammunition capacity and firing time. Its MK 108's carried a maximum of 120 rounds between them and all the account's I've read say it was extremely difficult to aim at a slow moving large bomber in a single pass, let alone small fast fighters. To quote from Warplanes of the Luftwaffe 'in 1945, with some 300 in front-line service, only I/JG 400 was able to engage the enemy; it claimed 9 bombers but lost 15 aircraft in doing so'. The only mention I can find of Komet vs Thunderbolt is of one from I/JG 400 that was about to attack two before the engine cut out


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 14, 2007)

The main problem would have been the difference in speeds of the bombers to the fighters, so you'd need to be directly behind (or maybe in front of) the bombers to get accurate shots, even then you'd have to be less than 300m away from the target for even an ace, more like 200m for your average pilot. 

However this would actually be easier with a fighter (especially a fast one like the P-47) since the difference in speeds wasn't so great. The Jug was not that maneuverable either, so it would have been fairly easy to get on one's tail in a Komet.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

kool kitty89 said:


> And on the fuel choice, maybe the nitric acid would have been too corrosive for their designs. A new engine and fuel suystems would have to be designed for this fuel. Though overall it was less corrosive than either of the other fuels used in the Walter engine (and much less volitile and unstable) but the properties were different, as it was resisted by different metals, high purity aluminum is very resistant to nitric acid. Though if alcohol or kerosene were used as the fuel this would be almost infinitely more stable than the hydrazine used in the Walter rockets. Also, I'm not sure if the Russian engine's reaction was as easy to initiate as with peroxide/hydrazine, though it was certainly a hypergolic mixture I don't think it reacted as violently, so the combustion properties would be different which would mean a different combustion chamber (possibly higher pressure) and, possibly, nozzle.


The real problem is that nitric acid or nitrogen was in extremely high demand. The Allied bombing campaign reduced nitrogen production to only a fraction of the original production. I always liked the rocket fighters because they didn't use precious gasoline. But I think hydrogen was even harder to come by.



kool kitty89 said:


> By the dual chamber I think you mean the Walter engine with the "cruise" chamber added which was designed to run at low thrusts more efficiently, potentially increasing endurance by 50%! I believe two were tested on 163b's, but on an experimental basis only.


Ok, so not operationally. That's what I thought...



kool kitty89 said:


> The 163C was to use it, along with improved fuel capacity, a larger wing, longer tail, retractable tricycle landing gear, a bubble canopy, and not least a pressurized cockpit which raised the ceiling to 52,000 ft. This engine was also supposedly much more reliable and the 163C was to have improved fuel containment and systems, greatly improving reliability. Fuel tankage was nearly doubled, and powered time was extended to 12 min (9 min combat) with the old engine, with the new engine I'd expect an endurance of around 18 min (with ~12 min combat). IMHO the C model was the best, and better than the proposed D model or Me 263... Still not as good as a twin-jet version would be, but the obvious choice to model the jet on would be the 163C.


I think you've got your facts wrong on that.
First, I've never read the new engine to be more reliable as it was the same design but with an additional cruise chamber. 
Also, the Me 163C did not feature a retractable landing gear, that was the Me 263 which was a Heinrich Hertel design to fix the Me 163 as he discovered it had basic shortcomings as a fighter and also too difficult to produce. The Me 263 was to be built in modules, simplifying production. What I completely dislike about the Me 163C is that it should have been a Me 163B with the new engine but turned out to be a new design which meant it never went into service. If it had been a simple adaptation of the Me 163B it could have gone into production immediately, giving new life to the Me 163 project, awaiting the much improved Me 263 with the retractable landing gear and pressure cabin. 
And btw, there never was a Me 163D...




Negative Creep said:


> Then there's the problem of ammunition capacity and firing time. Its MK 108's carried a maximum of 120 rounds between them and all the account's I've read say it was extremely difficult to aim at a slow moving large bomber in a single pass, let alone small fast fighters.


I think this is an outdated story. The problem was that the pilots were not used to flying and attacking at these speeds, so sure it was difficult. But nothing what additional training wouldn't have cured. Or why did the MiG-15 manage to shoot down B-29s a few years later? 



Negative Creep said:


> To quote from Warplanes of the Luftwaffe 'in 1945, with some 300 in front-line service, only I/JG 400 was able to engage the enemy; it claimed 9 bombers but lost 15 aircraft in doing so'


300 in service? Yeah right? Perhaps a 100. And if you shoot down 9 four-engined heavy bombers for the cost of 15 cheap lightweight fighters, then that's not bad, and a better rating than the Bf 109 or Fw 190D achieved. 
And Me 163s shot down 16 bombers in total though with unconfirmed claims it goes over 20. 

Kris


----------



## kool kitty89 (Nov 15, 2007)

The Me 163D was the early designation for would become the Me 263, it was changed early in the program IIRC. The Me 163 D is also sometimes referred to as the "Me 263V1". But you're right the 163C didn't use retractable landing gear (still only a skid), still it was an extensive redesign of the 163B and I think it would have been better redesigned with new gear than the Me 263... But though the engine was basically the same Walter design but with improved fuel regulation and other tweaks to increase reliability, plus the cruise chamber of course. If not anything else the Me 163C-0 was the best looking of the line. 
For A drawing of the 163C D and 263 see:http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/me263_3v.jpg

From Wikipedia:


> Meanwhile, another redesign was taking form as the Me 163 D, which retained the original overall design of the 163 B, but included the fuselage plug for increased tank capacity and discarded the takeoff "dolly" and landing skid for a proper, retractable tricycle undercarriage. Work on this version was "farmed out" to Focke Achgelis, who produced a single prototype in early 1944.[5]
> 
> But by this time it appears that Willy Messerschmitt had tired of the entire project, and moved all work on the advanced models to Junkers. Here a new design effort under the direction of Heinrich Hertel at Dessau attempted to combine the 163 C's advanced features with the landing gear from the 163 D. The resulting Junkers Ju 248 used a three-section fuselage to ease construction. The V1 prototype was completed for testing in August 1944, and was glider tested behind a Junkers Ju 188. Apparently the Walter 109-509.C engine was fitted in September, but it is not clear if it was ever tested under this power. At this point the RLM re-assigned the project to Messerschmitt, where it became the Me 263. This appears to have been a formality only, with Junkers continuing the work and planned production[6].


----------



## Civettone (Nov 25, 2007)

I'm going to try to get some things straight about the Me 263, ok?

The design of the Ju 248/Me 263 started after the Me 163C because the Me 163C was not considered an adequate successor the Me 163B because of its landing skid. The Ju 248/Me 263 took the wings and tail section of the Me 163B while the Me 163 was a completely new design.

Already on 25 September a wooden mock-up was shown to the officials. Prior to the actual building of the Me 263, two Me 163Bs were rebuild. These were the V 13 and the V 18. But the V 13 was worn due to weather attrition. So only the V 18 was rebuilt. It's this aircraft which is often identified as the Me 163D. I think it's clear then that there was no Me 163D as this aircraft was built AFTER the Ju 248/Me 263 was ordered. In November the aircraft was yet again renamed into the Me 263 to show its connection with the Me 163. They also got names: the Ju 248 Flunder and the Me 263 Scholle. 

Another interesting fact is that they planned to build the aircraft with a Sondergerät, a Zusatztreibstoffbehälter, so an external fuel tank. This would lead to a 10% speed decrease but with no negative flight characteristics. 

Important to note is that they decided to modify the wing to contain a larger amount of fuel.

In early 1945 Junkers itself proposed its own project, the Wally rocket fighter, as a competitor to the Me 163C and Me 263. This is of course typical for the German war industry. Instead of focusing resources on one type, they let them work against each other!

First unpowered flight of the Me 263V-1 was in February 1945. Several more unpowered flights took place that month. The biggest problem had to do with the CoG. They had to put counterweights to restore this. Eventually the would wait to see what the result would be with the engine installed, and if that wouldn't solve the problem they might alter the landing gear installation. The landing gear was still non retractable at the moment. The results of those first flights was that the aircraft gave a "ziemlich fertigen Eindruck", meaning that it seemed to be ready. 
Test flights were stopped ... because there was no more fuel for the towing Me 110. Try to win a war like that!!

The V-2 and V-3 were still to be build. The V-2 was to get the retractable landing gear and the V-3 would have the armament built in. 

The next month both the V-1 as the V-2 got the new two-chambered 109-509C. They never flew under their own power but only as gliders. At this point they no longer showed those CoG problems.

In April the Americans entered and captured the three prototypes and the mock-up. The V-2 was destroyed but another prototype ended up in the US. The rest was handed over to the Russians who then created their own I-270.

Kris


----------



## johnbr (Nov 26, 2007)

Thanks for the good info.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 13, 2007)

Personally I think the competition between firms was a good thing, though much moreso earlier in the war. If the RLM had been more open to Non-Messersmitt designs they might have had the Fw 187 with DB 600-series engines and the He 100 with the same, for use in the BOB instead of the Bf 110s and 109s. Though the 109s were good fighters and were available somewhat earlier and had a larger armament capabillities, it didn't have the range for escort... The He 100 made a good medium range escort with 1000+ km range and had speed that no service met untill the P-47's entered service. Both a/c could have severely altered the events of the BOB.

The Bf 110 was almost useless as an escort and it's night fighting capabillities could be done competantly by the Ju 88. While the Fw 187 had performance (speed, climb, dive) exceeding the 109, and similar maneuverabillity but with more than twice the range. And had an excelen armament capabillities, it would have bade an excelent interceptor and Mosquito killer. Just as long as the 2-seater requirement was dropped for the standard version. It would have been the German equivelent of the P-38!

One stupid thing, besides the "Messersmit Monopoly" on fighters was that the DB-600 series were largely reserved for the Bf 109 and 110, when other, better craft (especially compared to the 109) could use them. It took the Fw 190 with it's BMW radial to break this monopoly, and even then only by using that engine.


----------

