# Me 163 Ejection



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2011)

Found this on the net I have no info on it.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2011)

aaaah, one of my favourite aircraft, purely because of its exoticism. This series of images shows Lt Fritz Kelb of I/JG400 bailing out after his '163 caught fire after take off on 9 September 1944 at Brandis. Apparently Kelb was to do a demonstration of the type to a Japanese delegation at the airfield. There are also pictures from this series that show the 
'163 with smoke pouring out of the underside just after leaving the ground. A film crew was also present to capture the event. Kelb survived.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2011)

Oh yeah, the Me 163 didn't have an ejection seat. 






If ever there was an aircraft designed with the intention of killing its pilot, the '163 was it!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 9, 2011)

The Me 163 had a droque to slow the aircraft down to the point that the pilot could egress. However it was standard German practice to fit an ejection seat to test aircraft so the Me 163 'may' have had an ejection seat during test; the seats were considered to heavy for opperational aircraft some He 219, the Do 335, some He 177 and the He 162 aside, the He 162 had a lightweight pryrothechnic ejection seat rather than the heavier compressed air type.

The Me 163 dangers are somewhat exaggerated, Rudy Opitz, one of the test pilots recounts how the pilot could survive and over turned aircraft without a fuel/oxidiser spill.

The main problem with the Me 163B was the skid like landing gear which just couldn't handle the sink rates required and often injured the back of the pilot.

The future variants, the follow on and actually built Me 263/Ju 248 therefore had a conventional undercarriage, a more efficient rocket motor and considerably more fuel.

The Me 163 had been conceived of as a recon interceptor and was short about 3 mintues extra endurance to form up and attack on a bomber formation. the Me 263 was intended to provide this.


----------



## vanir (Nov 9, 2011)

I wouldn't say the dangers were exaggerated. If the fuels even leaked fumes into the cabin, it was so corrosive that it melted flesh. This happened to a pilot, on record. The ground crew found him literally melted to death in the seat, his organs and parts of his flesh just spilling around the place.
I'd say there's no possible way to overstate the horrific nature of a death like that. If there was less chance of mishap than the plane beside it, the plane beside is still far less inherently lethal.

And anyway, using those fuels in that design is unairworthy by law. Not to say nations don't ignore that in wartime, the Spit MkIX was initially unairworthy (the Ministry says if it wasn't wartime they'd never have cleared the two-stage Merlin in the MkV airframe, they would've forced them to wait for the MkVIII airframe).


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 9, 2011)

Maybe its my eyes, but arn't those RAF roundels on the wings?


----------



## vanir (Nov 9, 2011)

lol no the white balkankreuz.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 9, 2011)

vanir said:


> I wouldn't say the dangers were exaggerated. If the fuels even leaked fumes into the cabin, it was so corrosive that it melted flesh. This happened to a pilot, on record. The ground crew found him literally melted to death in the seat, his organs and parts of his flesh just spilling around the place.



I always thought the melting pilot thing was an urban myth. I am no chemist so I dont know how Hydrogen Peroxide works at the concentrations they used but surely to melt a human body in such a short time is impossible even concentrated acids take hours if not days to dissolve a body. I once used Peroxide (40% concentration iirc) and the main hazard we were warned about was eye protection and to avoid contact with skin. There was no mention of the dangers of dissolving into a puddle of human soup.

Never come across Hydrazine Hydrate but the safety data on google says it is a carcinogen not a corrosive.

Is there anyone on this site who is a chemist and could tell me what would happen if the 163 fuels got onto the pilot.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2011)

Hi Siegfried,



Siegfried said:


> The Me 163 had a droque to slow the aircraft down to the point that the pilot could egress. However it was standard German practice to fit an ejection seat to test aircraft so the Me 163 'may' have had an ejection seat during test



Really? I've never heard of Me 163s being fitted with ejection seats of any kind at all. I haven't found anything that refers to a drogue either and I've examined one of these aircraft (Nr 191659) in considerable detail. If this is the case, from where did the drogue deploy on the aircraft?

At the time this footage was made, Fritz Kelb was a member of I/JG400 on active duty at Brandis. His aircraft was a production Me 163B-1a.

I'm also with Vanir on the exaggerated dangers. Beside the seat in the image I submitted are the two peroxide tanks. These were made of ceramic and were coated with a fireproof coating. In heavy landings or severe jolts the aircraft received they cracked, spilling their contents onto the hapless pilot, which would then cause him to burn. In Mano Siegler's book Rocket fighter, he speaks of the understanding that becoming a member of the unit (JG400) was by choice and many pilots dropped out because they found the expectation that they might not return from a flight too much for them. This is a great book and well worth a read.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> I always thought the melting pilot thing was an urban myth. I am no chemist so I dont know how Hydrogen Peroxide works at the concentrations they used but surely to melt a human body in such a short time is impossible even concentrated acids take hours if not days to dissolve a body.



Hi Fast Mongrel,

I'm not a chemist either, but I am aware that the HTP (T-Stoff to the Germans or High Test Peroxide) mixture was corrosive; it had the tendency to combust when exposed to certain metals or organic materials. This explains why it was kept in ceramic tanks. You are probably right about humans decombusting, but the risk of fire in the cockpit was extremely high if it leaked. Nevertheless, there are recorded instances of pilots landing safely and surviving with T-Stoff vapour entering the cockpit.

Despite the inherent dangers, however, the British developed a generation of rocket motors using HTP as an oxidiser. Perhaps the best known instance of the dangers of HTP is the _Kursk_ submarine disaster. One theory is that the Russian torpedoes used HTP and one of these leaked, which caused a fire in the forward torpedo room. This happened to a British sub in the 50s, HMS _Sidon_, which was fitted with experimental HTP torpedoes (the Mk.12 'Fancy') and sank with all hands.


----------



## Ratsel (Nov 9, 2011)

vanir said:


> lol no the white balkankreuz.



hmmmm :/ LOL!


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2011)

Well I was a chemist and suspect that the 'human soup' story may be a bit embellished. Both chemicals are corrossive,hence the protective PVC suits worn by the pilots. You may see the material of the suits called 'Mipolan' which is a trade name. The reaction of T-Stoff (concentrated hydrogen peroxide) with any organic material,basically bursting into flame, even led to the Luftwaffe pilots dispensing with their identifying arm bands.

The fuel system maybe 'unairworthy' but hydrazine is used in the maneuvering thrusters of spacecraft and also powered the space shuttle's auxiliary power units,amongst many other uses. 

Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 9, 2011)

Very interesting, thanks for explaining that Steve


----------



## Milosh (Nov 9, 2011)

Might be worth reading, by Rudy Opitz, Me 163 test pilot, Komet Me163 - Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was - Flight Journal.com Page 1


----------



## stona (Nov 9, 2011)

That's a good link Milosh. I noticed this quote.

RO: pilots, me included, survived overturned Komets, and an overturned ship would not necessarily leak fuel into the cockpit. When fuel contacted organic material, including skin, it ignited after only a few seconds. Our protective nylon suits would not ignite but were porous, and fuel could sop through to the skin. 

Which sounds about right. Hydrazine will cause dermatitis and Hydrogen Peroxide will burn like a bleach. Neither will turn you to jelly anytime soon!
The suit was PVC which has been around since the 19th century, not nylon which was a new material in the 1930s. I have read elsewhere that the suits were not really porous but leaked through the seams. That's splitting hairs though.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Nov 9, 2011)

I interviewed Rudi O by phone and letter several times before his passing. no ejection seats and the death of the pilots through enemy action or just plain sad landings was terrible if any fuels were still intact within the death trap Komet. Lets just say it seems probable the poor chaps died as a result of more than just a few burns.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2011)

My understanding of the suits the pilots wore were to protect them in case of fire as much as the HTP itself. I have to dig out Mano Ziegler's book again, which gives a good description of operations with the lethal fuel mix, although from what I vaguely remember they weren't very effective at either job.


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2011)

Thanks for all the good info.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 9, 2011)

It's common to use 27% hydrogen peroxide as a pool chemical you can pick up and transport in your car and around 33% as a very widely used cleaning and disinfecting agent that is used in the food industry; the nice thing about H2O2 is safe to injest in low doses (yes it can cure stomach ulcers caused by heliocobacteria) and of course doesn't leave nasty chlorine based residues that could cause cancer. Solutions of 3% to 6% are domestic grade and if diluted used in hair bleaching, cleaning, oral hygene etc. No longer used as a topical disinfectant due to damage it does to skin/flesh but better than nothing. To my knowledge the Me 163 used rubber lined tanks, as did the Walther u-boats and planed for Torpedoes. H2O2 is stable if pure though the germans added stabalising chemicals as achieving modern levels of purity at mass production levels was difficult. It can catalytically decompose in contact with certain materials: brass is one incompatible material and it was this that caused the explosion of an experimental British torpedo; they had left a few brass fittings in the torpedo. Pay attention to material compatibillity! Stainless only! The Swedes used peroxide on their torpedos and RB05 missiles without mishap for nearly 50 years.

These hypergolic chemicals are probably safer than non self igniting ones which can build up and cause and explosion as well.

BMW 003R jet engine had a clutch driven pump to feed a small rocket motor that effectively doubled thrust as sea level and trebbled at 11000m. The propellant was normal fuel with the oxidiser being *nitric acid*. Climb rates were a Mirage III beating 1.5-2 minutues to 11,000m for Me 262 and He 162. The acid was extremely dense (so easyier to store safely) and did not require much space. This is the kind of climb rates the Luftwaffe needed to get an intercept and cut through enemy fighters to get to the bombers.

Certainly Me 163B propellants weren't friendly but with precautions, clothing and oxygen mask it was usable.

It would make sense to have an He 162 style ejection seat on the Me 163, it was certainly small enough. However I don't know if the seat was ready by the time the Me 163 was in opperation, possibly only the compressed air types being in use.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 9, 2011)

Siegfried, that's really interesting! Quite a useful chemical, not to forget a little blonde highlight to your flowing locks! 

You are probably aware that the Brits also utilised the Walther closed cycle motor to power two of their submarines based on captured technology they acquired from Hamburg at the end of the war. Also a U-boat they called the _Meteorite_. These subs were called HMS _Explorer_ and _Excalibur_, or nick named Exploder and Excruciator! The perhydrol was contained in plastic lined tanks with open tops to prevent gas build up and spontaneous combustion. They also could be flooded in case of any emergency since water neutralises the HTP.

Regarding the ejection seats; I'm surprised the Germans didn't fit them due to the nature of the thing. As you said, it would have made sense and perhaps lives would have been saved.

The thing that surprised me on examination of the '163 close up was just how contemporary it was in execution, with the exception of its powerplant and unconventional fuel. Wooden wings and fabric covered control surfaces for an aircraft that could reach 600 mph.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 10, 2011)

I believe Ian Flemming lead the Commando raid on Walther works in Hamburg, though I doubt the perplexed technicians put up the kind of resistance he latter used in his 007 books.

The problem with the compressed air ejection seats was apparently one of weight though they saw service on the He 219 and Do 335. The pyrotechnic ejection seat of the He 162 certainly would have fitted into the Me 163B but by then the Me 163 was not in service.

The FW-190 evaluation test pilots at (Rechlin) apparently wanted an ejection seat due to a suction issue, this was ruled out on weight grounds and they ended up with explosive bolts to blow of the canopy instead.

An functioning ejection seat would have enormously increased the success of the luftwaffe in defense of the Reich; it would give those newbie pilots and extra set of lives to build experience. Your chances of escape if you were in a state to attempt an egress, according to Luftwaffe data, were twice as high. 

H202 is why you can't carry clear liquids on an airliner.

The DeHaviland DH.108 swallow killed a pair of pilots, it was a tailess design. However it took irreversible hydraulic servo controls (to prevent pilot coupled oscilations) and the replacement of the blunt vampire nose (which caused a shock stall and a pitch up that induced the pilot coupled oscilations to fix the aircraft.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Nov 10, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> The DeHaviland DH.108 swallow killed a pair of pilots, it was a tailess design.



Actually it killed three pilots: Geoffrey de Havilland Jr., Sqn Ldr Stuart Muller-Rowland and Sqn Ldr George E.C. Genders. Sadly, we must give the Devil his due...


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2011)

Interesting, Siegfried. From what I've read the first use of an ejection seat was on the He 280 twin engined jet, wasn't it? 

Ian Fleming didn't lead any commando raids; he was a naval intelligence officer. He was however on the board that chose the targets of the force of commandoes that he had control over, including the raid on Kiel. This was 'T-Force'. Perhaps his most successful suggestion that was undertaken was 'Mincemeat', better known as 'The Man who never was', but in his role in NID (Naval Intelligence Division), he was not an actual soldier.

Regarding the D.H.108, it was actually designed to investigate transonic flight for research for the Comet airliner, but provided much information in other related areas. The British actually invited firms to tender for a specification for a rocket powered interceptor based on their research with captured 163s, one of which was test flown as a glider only. This was Specification F.124T (Operational Requirement 301), to which Avro made a mock up of their delta winged Avro 720, which was favoured to take the production contract, but Saunders Roe completed their mixed propulsion S.R.53 interceptor, of which two were built and flown.

Much research was done by the British on rocket propulsion using HTP post war for thrust augmentation on conventional aircraft and aboard sounding rockets the British planned to build. Even the de Havilland Comet airliner prototype had pods between each bank of engines for the fitting of rocket engines for RATO purposes.



> Sadly, we must give the Devil his due...



Sigh... oh, if we must, then.


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> My understanding of the suits the pilots wore were to protect them in case of fire as much as the HTP itself.



The suits were made from PVC and would offer no protection in a fire.
They were essentially an early chemical protection suit and as you say were not particularly effective.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2011)

Yep, from what I remember, that's what was written; they were practically useless! I do have to find my book and quote what was written. I can vaguely remember something about asbestos?


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 10, 2011)

Capt. Vick said:


> Actually it killed three pilots: Geoffrey de Havilland Jr., Sqn Ldr Stuart Muller-Rowland and Sqn Ldr George E.C. Genders. Sadly, we must give the Devil his due...



I brought up the point of the Swallow since it is often said that tailess designs can't fly transonic. In fact the Swallow's issues were not related to the tailess design at all, they came from blunt nose shock stall, pilot coupled oscillations and in the case of Muller-Roland's loss it is believed electrical issues.

Of course the Swallow had much higher sweep than the Me 163.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 10, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> Interesting, Siegfried. From what I've read the first use of an ejection seat was on the He 280 twin engined jet, wasn't it?
> 
> Regarding the D.H.108, it was actually designed to investigate transonic flight for research for the Comet airliner, but provided much information in other related areas. The British actually invited firms to tender for a specification for a rocket powered interceptor based on their research with captured 163s, one of which was test flown as a glider only. This was Specification F.124T (Operational Requirement 301), to which Avro made a mock up of their delta winged Avro 720, which was favoured to take the production contract, but Saunders Roe completed their mixed propulsion S.R.53 interceptor, of which two were built and flown.
> :



Heinkel retained responsibillity for all ejection seat research, their test sled was removed from Rostok and was seen in a few 1950s movies. I suspect the He 280 would have been serially produced with an ejection seat.

Rocket interceptors offered one of the few ways of obtaining a high altitude interception. The Locheed bribary scandal may actually have spoiled the Luftwaffe's choice of the SR 53 rocket interceptor since this offered on of the few ways of getting to altitude fast enough to intercept those atomic bombers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> The Locheed bribary scandal may actually have spoiled the Luftwaffe's choice of the RS 53 rocket interceptor since this offered on of the few ways of getting to altitude fast enough.



I've read something similar; the Luftwaffe were very keen on the SR.177 to Specification F.155, which was almost complete when the project was canned in 1957, but models in German colours were made. This aircraft was to be altogether more capable than the SR.53, but it was a victim of Duncan Sandys' '57 Defence White Paper, which stipulated that no more manned interceptors were to be built. The Germans did want a strike fighter, and the SR.177 was an interceptor, but Saunders altered the design to suit. Nevertheless it was all in vain; the Lockheed marketing team really were top of their game.


----------



## stona (Nov 10, 2011)

"It can catalytically decompose in contact with certain materials: brass is one incompatible material and it was this that caused the explosion of an experimental British torpedo; they had left a few brass fittings in the torpedo. Pay attention to material compatibillity! Stainless only! "

The Germans used aluminium vessels of high purity for T-Stoff I think. I know some modern (well relatively,when I was still a practicing chemist!) vessels are indeed of some form of stainless steel.

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Nov 10, 2011)

"_The problem with the compressed air ejection seats was apparently one of weight though they saw service on the He 219 and Do 335. The pyrotechnic ejection seat of the He 162 certainly would have fitted into the Me 163B but by then the Me 163 was not in service._"

There was also the problem of loosing compressed air pressure. Remp mentions this in his He219 book.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 10, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> I've read something similar; the Luftwaffe were very keen on the SR.177 to Specification F.155, which was almost complete when the project was canned in 1957, but models in German colours were made. This aircraft was to be altogether more capable than the SR.53, but it was a victim of Duncan Sandys' '57 Defence White Paper, which stipulated that no more manned interceptors were to be built. The Germans did want a strike fighter, and the SR.177 was an interceptor, but Saunders altered the design to suit. Nevertheless it was all in vain; the Lockheed marketing team really were top of their game.



The fact that Lockheed paid out millions in bribes was what sold the plane. It wasnt known as the deal of the century for nothing Lockheed bribery scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2011)

fastmongrel said:


> The fact that Lockheed paid out millions in bribes was what sold the plane. It wasnt known as the deal of the century for nothing Lockheed bribery scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Yep, as I said, I'd read something similar. The fact that the British government weren't supporting their own industry left options closed for a lot of nations, though. An interesting contradiction to the Lockheed saga was the fact that the Royal Australian Air Force bought the Mirage instead of the Starfighter, because, according to one source I read on that purchase, Lockheed pretty much thought they had it in the bag, but they were out foxed by the French at the last minute.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2011)

Just re-reading that wiki link, interesting that the Saudis received money, but that they purchased the EE Lightning instead. That was the work of Scotsman David Stirling, who was responsible for helping establish the SAS during WW2. Fascinating man.

David Stirling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 10, 2011)

Now, getting back on topic regarding HTP (hydrogen peroxide): The following comes from (I think) Nicholas Hill, who did some research into British rocketry and published a book called 'A Vertical Empire':

"Hydrogen peroxide has the chemical formula H2O2. It is easily decomposed, and breaks down into water and oxygen:
2 H2O2 = 2 H2O + O2. A catalyst is used to make it decompose. One of the standard ways of preparing oxygen in a school laboratory is to drip a weak solution of hydrogen peroxide onto maganese (IV) oxide, MnO2. The Germans used HTP to drive the turbine for the fuel pump of the V2/A4 rocket. Calcium permanganate was used, although this resulted in a very messy exhaust.

The British discovered that a silver plated nickel gauze could be used as a catalyst - the HTP was pumped through the gauze and decomposed. It can be used as a monopropellant - that is, by itself - but this is not very effective. Since oxygen is produced in the decomposition, fuels such as kerosene can be burnt in addition. 

One of the first HTP motors was built by the Rocket Propulsion Establishment, at Westcott in Buckinghamsire: 
"The Gamma engine employs silver plated wire mesh as a catalyst. The catalyst has a life of about 2 hours whereas the engine has a life of 20hrs. Thus the design of motors is such as to permit the easy replacement of the catalyst. The motor is a simple combustion chamber with a flared outlet and having a restricted throat. HTP is pumped through the catalyst, where free oxygen and steam at around 500oC is produced. Kerosine is then pumped into the chamber in a finely divided spray, which is ignited by the heat of the steam. The temperature at the throat is of the order of 2300oC, while the temperature of the efflux is 1100oC. It will burn HTP alone but the thrust is halved." (December 1953)

HTP has a disadvantage that it is not the most energetic of rocket fuels. The effectiveness of rocket fuels can be measured by their Specific Impulse, or S.I. This can be thought of as the thrust produced per mass of fuel burned per second. In vacuum, the SI of HTP/kerosene can reach about 240, liquid oxygen/kerosene around 280, and oxygen/hydrogen over 400.

To offset this, it has features in its favour. Firstly, it is very dense. Its density is 1.48 times that of water; liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.08. This means that, weight for weight, liquid hydrogen occupies 17 times the volume, which means much bigger tanks and so extra weight. In addition, HTP is not cryogenic, and doesn't need the layers of inulation that liquid hydrogen tanks do. It does boil off on the launchstand either, which for cryogenic, fuels, can mean constant topping up of the tanks.

It was used a great deal on projects involving aircraft, and in service extensively with the R.A.F. From the crew point of view, this must have been by far the best choice of oxidant. All rocket fuels are hazardous, but HTP was easier to handle than most. It was not cryogenic. It did not give off any poisonous fumes. If any was spilled, it could quickly be washed away with a hose and water."

Interestingly, I visited the Science Museum's outstation at Wroughton in Wiltshire once and examined some of the rocketry hardware they have there and I was surprised to see that early British motors built post war had 'T-Stoff' stamped on the HTP lines! Very peculiar.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 11, 2011)

I believe the heat of the reaction when the H2O2 breaks down was such that the water was turned to steam and was at such a temperature that it would ignite the Kerosene. It did simplify the rocket ignition

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 11, 2011)

The breakdown of H2O2 into steam oxygen was accomplished in the Me 163 using an aggregate concrete made with potasium permangenate solution. Walther still has a web site going! (sort of )

The Me 163A 'cold engine' worked purely of H2O2, exhaust steam but it was for testing only, as did the Hs 293 rocket motor. The Me 163B received the 'hot' engine with a fuel as well as an oxidiser.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 12, 2011)

Siegfried said:


> The breakdown of H2O2 into steam was accomplished in the Me 163 using an aggregate concrete made with potasium permangenate solution. Walther still has a web site going! (sort of )



Is this the website you mean, Siegfried? It's a very informative one put together by a very knowledgeable and pleasant English chap called Shamus Reddin. Well worth a read.

The Hellmuth Walter Rocket Motor Web Site


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 12, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe the heat of the reaction when the H2O2 breaks down was such that the water was turned to steam and was at such a temperature that it would ignite the Kerosene. It did simplify the rocket ignition



Yep, it sure did; the British based a whole family of rocket motors on this basic principle.


----------



## Siegfried (Nov 12, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> Is this the website you mean, Siegfried? It's a very informative one put together by a very knowledgeable and pleasant English chap called Shamus Reddin. Well worth a read.
> 
> The Hellmuth Walter Rocket Motor Web Site



Yes: A CIOS report on Walther work developments here:
CIOS-XXVIII-53


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 13, 2011)

Very interesting, if a little hard to read in places.


----------



## Devin (Jan 13, 2015)

Milosh said:


> "_The problem with the compressed air ejection seats was apparently one of weight though they saw service on the He 219 and Do 335. The pyrotechnic ejection seat of the He 162 certainly would have fitted into the Me 163B but by then the Me 163 was not in service._"
> 
> There was also the problem of loosing compressed air pressure. Remp mentions this in his He219 book.



Hello,

I know this is an old thread. My grandfather kept all his paperwork from the FGZ Graf Zeppelin Institute in Germany, of which he was the head aeronautical engineer. I have his original sketches of the ejection seat system for the Me 163. Would anyone be interested in learning more about this? I can post details if you are interested.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 13, 2015)

Please do!!


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jan 13, 2015)

Yes most definitely


----------



## GregP (Jan 14, 2015)

Yes, yes, yes!

Oh ... and, YES!


----------



## Qtebakqsth (Jan 3, 2022)

Ratsel said:


> Maybe its my eyes, but arn't those RAF roundels on the wings?





vanir said:


> lol no the white balkankreuz.


They are RAF roundels, several were captured at the end of the war


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2022)

Qtebakqsth said:


> They are RAF roundels, several were captured at the end of the war


Just so you know those folks posted those comments 11 years ago. This thread has been dormant since 2015

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jan 5, 2022)

fastmongrel said:


> I always thought the melting pilot thing was an urban myth.


Good thing I checked the posts so far, before writing something about the Komet melting a pilot's heart.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MiTasol (Jan 5, 2022)

Bugga

Did Devin ever post that paperwork and if so where?

Looks to me like he only ever made the one post


----------

