# A flying Messerschmitt Me 163



## Grampa (Feb 16, 2013)

Here's a clip of a flying Me 163. Unfortunated they just towed it up as a glider, but if they had put in a real rocket-engine, then that whould be awsome.




_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-n_jvDBxB0_



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8_


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 16, 2013)

It's awesome to see new aircraft being built these days!

Thanks for sharing


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 16, 2013)

Flyes pretty well no ?
Wooden build in two years by an ex-Luftwaffe pilot, M. Kurtz.
Ty for sharing, as far as I knew, she was for sale.
Seems to be owned by EADS firm by now.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 16, 2013)

Cool video! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2013)

I was at the Hahnweide 2009 show. Somehow I missed the glider Me 163 flight.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 16, 2013)

Just thinking and just a joke : I know it will never happen ( Saint crisis ruling our European new civilization), could EADS fit any little turbojet into this little, but knowned as a rugged wooden structure ?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 16, 2013)

That would be a lot of fun. I wonder if you could fit a small jet engine into it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 16, 2013)

vikingBerserker said:


> That would be a lot of fun. I wonder if you could fit a small jet engine into it.


Heck, why not?

With today's technology, they have some pretty compact and lightweight jet engines available that would probably be suitable. Having a much smaller and lighter engine means more room for the fuel cell and not overloading the airframe.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 16, 2013)

This glider is not new as far as I know.
Building began around 1996.
To finish around 1998 !
Pretty fast indeed, no ?


----------



## Grampa (Feb 17, 2013)

Does anyone know where to get a manufactured engine that fit to it. or does the maker have to make a homebuild one?


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 17, 2013)

Guess an Turbomeca Marboré II or equivalent should fit.
Best place for air intakes should be in the wing roots to respect as far as possible the original design.
500 mph max speed level flight ?


----------



## Njaco (Feb 17, 2013)

I think they put an engine in one a few years ago.................

.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 17, 2013)

Yes, of course Njaco.
Just a kind of "what if", Luft 2013.
What if a small turbojet was fitted in a tiny 163 wooden replica.
Could be of some interest I guess, plus maybe a godamn money maker, no ?


----------



## Airframes (Feb 17, 2013)

Great stuff!
Two of these tiny engines powered this little beauty - now at the Midland Air Museum. I think they's probably fit the bill nicely!
But, as the Me 163 used a rocket engine, there was no air intake on the original. How would that be configured, without radical re-design I wonder?


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 17, 2013)

Sure, it would be radical.
But : not anyone would have balls today flying the rocket engined 163.
Except me, hummm in fact, no.
Wingroots small, for a small engine, air intakes should be aestheticaly tolerable i guess.
Anyhow, who would do this ?
Bit sad cause, even if not rich, I would pay to see the bird fly.
Ps : Aiframe, what's'the conplete name of your wonderfull "stiletto" Leopard bird ?


----------



## Airframes (Feb 17, 2013)

Jack - it's the Chichester-Miles 'Leopard', a four-seat business jet. The one shown is the second of three protoypes built, and completed 84 test flights in 1997, powered by two of the specially designed jet engines, one of which is shown in the display case alongside the aircraft. Although it flew well, with good handling and performance, the project was eventually shelved, I think from lack of further funding, but not sure on that without checking with the museum.
It's a beaut of an aircraft, with an interior like a four seat sports car, and is less than one and a half metres in height, standing on it's landing gear.


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 17, 2013)

what engine did they use to power the BD-5 jet? it may have enough thrust...


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2013)

How about a TJ-100 axial turbojet by PBS Turbines?

Specifications
Thrust: 110 daN (247 lbf)
Length: 625 mm (24.6 in)
Outside diameter: 272 mm (10.7 in)
Total weight: 20,6 kg (45.4 lb)
Electrical power output: 750 W; 28 V
Fuel: JET A-1, JP5, JP8
Specific fuel consumption min: 1,09 kg/daN/h (1.09 1/h)
Oil: 3 cST / 5 cST
Operating Temperature: -30 ~ +50 °C (-22 ~ +122 °F)

Add some air inlets perhaps at the wingroots or in another "clean" area to allow for through-flow...


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 17, 2013)

Bobbysocks :
Sermel TRS-18-046/Turbomeca Microturbo Cougar. 100Kgp.
GrauGeist : nice, guess should fit.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2013)

The Me163B rocket had a thrust of appromately 4000lbs, how is a jet with less than 250 lbs of thrust going to do anything ?
I'm sure the modern one without the origional rocket and all the tanks weighs less than the origional's 4000lb empty weight, but the engine that powered the less than 400lb BD-5J isn't nearly enough.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 17, 2013)

I wonder if you could just use a solid fuel rocket engine, like the ones used in model rockets, just way bigger. The downside is you could use it once.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 17, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> The Me163B rocket had a thrust of appromately 4000lbs, how is a jet with less than 250 lbs of thrust going to do anything ?
> I'm sure the modern one without the origional rocket and all the tanks weighs less than the origional's 4000lb empty weight, but the engine that powered the less than 400lb BD-5J isn't nearly enough.


Well, let's see...a modern replica made with modern lightweight materials versus the 1940's glue-lam and steel building materials...a modern lightweight jet engine and corresponding fuel cell(s) in place of the original hydrogen-peroxide rocket motor and reinforced fuel chambers.
No need for the seat/cockpit armor and the heavy nose generator is no longer required, since the jet has an alternated output.
And there is probably not the need to be carrying two Mk108 30mm cannon and ammo either, which shaves a considerable amount of weight right there.
Add to that, no longer having the need to ascend to 40,000 feet as quickly as possible.

Perhaps the engine I stated would not work, but that was an example of the variety of compact jet engines available out there.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 17, 2013)

I'm sure it would weigh less, but it's never going to approach the weight of a BD-5J, 400 lbs verses 4000lbs.
The Me163 has no air inlet and a small outlet for the rocket, redesign that too much and you no longer have a Me163.


----------



## Grampa (Feb 18, 2013)

Aint there some way to use any old military rocket like the one from a Redeye? The trust from it may be short, but can it give enought push for the Me 163 to make a good show for the spectators? After all they dont need it to see it reach up to 12km and have over 900km/h in speed. By the way how about put in a 2,500 pound thrust liquid oxygen (LOX) and ethanol rocket engine from Armadillo Aerospace? This rocket has been used whit success in the Rocket Racing League.


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2013)

For that matter, why not a Lunar Lander engine?

Years ago I saw one aboard a 1/4 mile dragster and it was not only horrifically loud, but ungodly fast...


----------



## Grampa (Feb 18, 2013)

A rocket to this plane should not go over 17 kN (3,800 lbf). Thats what the original engine does. A rocket propelled whit soild fuel instead of liqued one should work fine whit this plane if you dont whant bigger and longer thrust.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 18, 2013)

Yes, the glider replica does not weight 4000 pounds at all.
"Empty weight is 285 kg,
maximum weight around 400"
Still thinking around 100Kgp turbojet is far enough.
And manageable.
Air intake still is the main problem of course, but feasible plus discrete as a 100Kgp engine is not an air gluton. Jet exhaust is large enough for a tiny turbojet.
If there is a real will, almost anything is possible I guess.


----------



## tyrodtom (Feb 18, 2013)

I don't think i'd want a solid fuel rocket, as far as I know, they can't be throttled. Once you start them, they go till full thrust till they burn out.

I knew the non powered replica would weigh less, but I didn't expect that much less.


----------



## Grampa (Feb 18, 2013)

A rocket powered by liqued fuel that's poverfull as the original one sure I whanna have a trottle on it. But this replika who have a maxium weight of 400kg surley it whould be good enought whit a little solid fuel rocket that burns for only few second and gives a good show to the spectators when it reach enought up to 200m or more and then glide down.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 18, 2013)

Sure, would be a lot of fun to see and hear, including fumes, smell, roar and maybe exhaust shockwaves.
But where ?
According to European laws for civilian aviation, this cannot be.
Sad but true.
The reason I think a little turbojet engine replica would have much more chances for flying approval certification.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 18, 2013)

You guys may be having fun, but even if you did get a rocket engine into that thing, you know damn well the regulatory authorities would never let you fly it at your typical airshow.  I miss the good ole days of airshow voyuerism, where the crowd would be watching the current airplane and up would sneak behind the crowd on the deck flat out but an F-101 Voodoo! Birmingham airport. About 1974 I think.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 18, 2013)

So right Matt !
I can still remember a 150 feet Concorde full throttle ressource, say "at the top of my nose",400+ mph P 51, P 47, F4U, Spits 30 ft high passes, or half mile away, 100 feet high Mirages 2000 and 4000 banging together! Was good old times, still remember those fantastic vibrations, since one dumbass pilot live crashed a A320 when everything changed.
Or even a dumbass A320 crashed his crew and passengers ?
Who knows ?
I saw things my son will never see.


----------



## bobbysocks (Feb 18, 2013)

i am surprised the original size glider version is that THAT light....but wonder if it would be able to take the stress of a jet engine...even one that small. its one thing to be towed and cut loose and be pushed to take off speed and climb. the BD took it of course but i would think it was a lot smaller...


----------



## GrauGeist (Feb 18, 2013)

oh yeah, the times have certainly changed...back in the day, they always had the Blue Angels at MCAS El Toro during the Base's annual air show and open house...

Aside from the Blue Angels always putting on a kickass show, the Marines would always toss in a little crowd pleaser (or two) with such fun stuff like a down and dirty hot pass by an F4 Phantom with it's candles lit which would rock the spectator's world. One year, I recall an incredible pass by a USAF F-104 (me being a kid at the time, thought nothing will ever be cooler than this...ever) that delivered a sonic boom on it's second and departing pass...

Good times!


----------



## Njaco (Feb 18, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> You guys may be having fun, but even if you did get a rocket engine into that thing, you know damn well the regulatory authorities would never let you fly it at your typical airshow.  I miss the good ole days of airshow voyuerism, where the crowd would be watching the current airplane and up would sneak behind the crowd on the deck flat out but an F-101 Voodoo! Birmingham airport. About 1974 I think.



Did something similar like that at Millville Airshow in 2004. Everyone was watching the airfield when behind the crowd and on the deck zoomed an F-111....LOUD!!!!! Diaper and TP sales increased in the next 10 minutes.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Feb 18, 2013)

Ahhh, the good ole days.............


----------

