Do You Have an Illogical Hatred of an Aircraft?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

If the Komet had a slightly less dangerous fuel and were able to be cheaply constructed they would have made good kamikaze weapons. I think the brainwashed kids from the Hitler Youth would have volunteered to fly them.
 
The fuel wasn't dangerous...
It was cheaply constructed (very small and wings out of wood)

But not a bad idea ... it was relatively easy to fly. Using it as kamikaze would also have justified the lack of a landing gear. And in fact, the two fuel types, when improperly mixed - like during an impact with a large bomber - would create quite a buzz


Kris
 

GG, I've seen sources that credits the Komet with only nine (9) kills. Either way, you're right!

TO
 
ToughOmbre said:
GG, I've seen sources that credits the Komet with only nine (9) kills. Either way, you're right!

TO
Click to expand...
I've seen that too...and it's either 9 or 16...not sure why the discrepancy. I went with the higher known number for the benefit of the thread

To the comment:
The fuel wasn't dangerous...
It was cheaply constructed (very small and wings out of wood)
Click to expand...
The fact was that the C-Stoff and T-Stoff was extremely volitile, to the point where a few Komets simply exploded just sitting unattended on the tarmac.

It was highly corrosive and highly reactive. It ate through metal fuel lines and reacted violently with wood. Fueling crew had to wear protective clothing because it so dangerous.
 
Ghost stories. I've read them innumerable times and no matter how many times I tried to refute them, they keep coming back

When mixed they can become very dangerous but on their own they're not that dangerous. I mean, one of them is basically just bleech: that's why they wore protective suits. In case, the plane would crash with a full tank, the bleech could enter the cockpit. But there's always a possibility that any fuel leaks into a cockpit and ignites. The Komet was no more dangerous than others. The two fuel tanks were nicely seperated. Only with a very heavy crash would they become mixed, but just like with kerosine, that's usually fatal anyway.

Kris
 

Wikipediea "Regulations vary, but low concentrations, such as 3%, are widely available and legal to buy for medical use. Higher concentrations may be considered hazardous and are typically accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). In high concentrations, hydrogen peroxide is an aggressive oxidizer and will corrode many materials, including human skin. In the presence of a reducing agent, high concentrations of H2O2 will react violently."

3% to 12% may be bleach. 80-95% is not just bleach.

"Hydrogen peroxide, either in pure or diluted form, can pose several risks:

1. Explosive Vapors. Above roughly 70% concentrations, hydrogen peroxide can give off vapor that can detonate above 70 °C (158 °F) at normal atmospheric pressure.[citation needed] This can then cause a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion (BLEVE) of the remaining liquid. Distillation of hydrogen peroxide at normal pressures is thus highly dangerous.
2.Hazardous Reactions. Hydrogen peroxide vapors can form sensitive contact explosives with hydrocarbons such as greases. Hazardous reactions ranging from ignition to explosion have been reported with alcohols, ketones, carboxylic acids (particularly acetic acid), amines and phosphorus.[citation needed]
3.Spontaneous Ignition. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide, if spilled on clothing (or other flammable materials), will preferentially evaporate water until the concentration reaches sufficient strength, at which point the material may spontaneously ignite. [39][40]
4.Corrosive. Concentrated hydrogen peroxide (>50%) is corrosive, and even domestic-strength solutions can cause irritation to the eyes, mucous membranes and skin.[41] Swallowing hydrogen peroxide solutions is particularly dangerous, as decomposition in the stomach releases large quantities of gas (10 times the volume of a 3% solution) leading to internal bleeding. Inhaling over 10% can cause severe pulmonary irritation.[citation needed]

Again from wikipedia.
 
I beg to differ, Civittone..those two propellents were extremely dangerous!

Shortround posted a good breakdown, and here's more:

C-Stoff:
Methanol CH3OH ~57% by Weight
Hydrazine hydrate N2H4 . H2O ~30% by Weight
Water H2O ~13% by Weight
Catalyst 431 K3[Cu(CN)4]

The proportions of the components in C-Stoff were developed to catalyse the decomposition of T-Stoff, promote combustion with the oxygen released by the decomposition, and sustain uniform combustion through sufficient quantity of the highly reactive hydrazine. The combination of the C-Stoff, used as a rocket fuel, with the T-Stoff used as the oxidizer, often resulted in spontaneous explosion from their combined nature as a hypergolic fuel combination, necessitating strict hygiene in fueling operations; there were numerous catastrophic explosions of the Messerschmitt Me 163 aircraft which employed this fuel system. Another hazard was toxicity to humans of each of the fuels.
(Botho Stüwe, Peene Münde West, Weltbildverlag ISBN 3-8289-0294-4 1998)

T-Stoff:
Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) ~95% by weight
Stabilisers: Phosphoric acid, Sodium phosphate, 8-Oxyquinoline

Because of its extreme oxidizing potential, T-stoff was an extremely dangerous chemical to handle; so special rubberized suits were required when working with it, as it would react with most cloth or other combustible material and cause it to spontaneously combust.
(Botho Stüwe, Peene Münde West, Weltbildverlag ISBN 3-8289-0294-4 1998)

Each is volitile in it's own right, as noted above and once combined became extremely unstable. For example: T-Stoff on it's own was dangerous "as it would react with most cloth or other combustible material and cause it to spontaneously combust". Meaning it could not be exposed to wood (such as aircraft components) or clothing of anything other than rubber. That is to say that any material that could be set on fire with a match would instantly oxidize and burst into flames if T-Stoff came into contact with it. C-Stoff was aromatic, and any spark would touch it off it's vapors.

As you can see, there was no "Bleach" involved in the Komet's propulsion system.

As far as "ghost stories", understand that the majority of spontaneous combustion incidents were filed in Luftwaffe reports. There was also strict guidelines for fueling and deployment of the Me163 that is well documented. In addition, these fuels were developed and tested by the rocket program at Peenemunde, so there is additional documentation in the way of development, testing and deployment.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry guys. I went over that in a hurry. I have explained this stuff several times and I didn't want to go into detail. That's why I went with the simple bleach story.

If you want we can go and discuss in great lengths.

The bleach actually refers to the original Z-Stoff which was used as a catalyst for the first Walter engines for the Me 163A.

Both Stoffen can be dangerous on their own, as one can read in the explanations above. However, and this was my point, both T- and C-Stoff were not that dangerous IN the Me 163. And that is - I believe - what matters. The ghost stories are about Me 163s blowing up for no reason or incinerating the pilot in the seat. These are simply not true, at least not once the Me 163 was operational. That this is mainly the result of careful handling by Luftwaffe ground crew is most certain. Yet, however they achieved it, the result is that the Me 163 was not a dangerous aircraft. And not even when overturned. I may also add that - especially for such an advanced aircraft - very few non-combat losses occurred. I have a feeling the same cannot be said for the Me 262.

Thanks to you both for going to the trouble of looking up the information on the rocket propellants.

Kris
 
Last edited:
Well, perhaps this has been discussed in great detail as it is.

As you may (or may not) have noted in my text, the compounds when combined did indeed cause spontaneous combustion while the aircraft was parked, resulting in it's catastrophic loss. This is not to say that it happened often, but did occur. They specualted that the fuel lines may have corroded, or were leaking from a previous hard landing or poor fueling practice and so on.

I can see how entheusiastic you are about the Komet, and according to it's pilots it was indeed a "dove" to fly. But at the same time, it was a dangerous machine and not because of it's remarkable design, but it's propulsion.

By the way, Z-Stoff was either Calcium Permanganate or Potassium Permanganate mixed in water. It was used to decompose the T-Stoff which in turn, generated steam. That steam drove the fuel pumps but was prone to clogging the pumps because of it's reaction creating Manganese Dioxide.

I can see that a quick explanation might be handy, but sometimes folks who aren't as informed may form an incorrect conclusion with that abridged data
 
Hey I didn't know about the pumps getting clogged up. So it was only when the T-Stoff was mixed with the Z-Stoff? Or always when T-Stoff was envolved?

I'm sure there were several accidents - such as corroded fuel lines - but most problems were sorted by the time the aircraft became operational. And as such they cannot be held against the value of the aircraft.

I'm passionate about the Komet as I am with many aircraft. However I never lose my head over aircraft, and try to look at them objectively. However, when most of the opinions on the Komet are negative, I naturally tend to swing to the other side. I don't think the Me 163 was a superfighter nor the answer. For me the main problem, especially after May 1944, was its use of large quantities of rare chemicals such as methanol. I did a quick calculation on how much methanol a Geschwader would need and it's obvious that that would have stretched the reserves...
On the other hand, that also explains to a certain extent why the Me 163 never became successful. At the end of 1944 - when a new Gruppe was installed - most were grounded.

By that time the Me 163 was a well operated machine with good reports from the people who flew them. An interview with the main test pilot and later Gruppe commander Rudolf Opitz can be found on the internet for everyone to read. This man was the best person to ask about the Me 163 and he sets the record straight. If it wasn't for his accounts I would probably have accepted the usual negative stories about the Me 163.

Thanks again for the input GG
Kris
 
Civettone said:
Hey I didn't know about the pumps getting clogged up. So it was only when the T-Stoff was mixed with the Z-Stoff? Or always when T-Stoff was envolved?
Click to expand...
When the Z-Stoff was injected into the T-Stoff to drive the pumps, is when the reaction occurred, and the Manganese Dioxide deposits started to form and build up inside of the pump circuit.

Civettone said:
I'm passionate about the Komet as I am with many aircraft. ...
Click to expand...
Trust me, I am a huge fan of the Komet, have been since I first saw it's picture in a book way back when I was in school (mid 70's). I was fascinated by it and read anything and everything I could to learn about it

It's development was made possible by a collaboration of geniuses, especially Dr. Lippisch and it was the world's first and only operational rocket fighter.

It just can't get any cooler than that!
 
I'm a bit disappointed with that problem with the Z-Stoff. Especially for understanding the Komet a bit better, I actually started learning a bit about chemical reactions - first time since High School - and it seems that all rocket fuels, with exception of Z- and maybe A-Stoff, were difficult to produce. The lack of suitable fuels after May 1944 would also have hampered the projected SAM projects which usually operated on Visol, Salbei, methanol and hydrazine compositions.

Kris
 
Could an Me-163 have been produced powered by A-Stoff and B-Stoff for the purpose of Kamikaze attacks on heavy bombers?
 
Clay_Allison said:
Could an Me-163 have been produced powered by A-Stoff and B-Stoff for the purpose of Kamikaze attacks on heavy bombers?
Click to expand...
Good question, but I don't think the technology at the time would allow for such a small rocket motor being made that would use the V2's system.

Plus, the speeds that the V2 was able to acheive would have been fatal to the Komet.
 
GrauGeist said:
Good question, but I don't think the technology at the time would allow for such a small rocket motor being made that would use the V2's system.

Plus, the speeds that the V2 was able to acheive would have been fatal to the Komet.
Click to expand...
Well, disposable 163s could use their normal fuel, refueling wouldn't be an issue since they would go from brand new straight to nonexistent.
 
When I said the speeds would be fatal to the Komet, I meant the speeds the V2 travelled would be terminal and literally rip the Komet apart!

The V2 could achieve a maximum speed of 3,545 miles an hour. Building a piloted aircraft that could handle that was far beyond any technology at the time.

One of the reasons people never heard the V2 on it's approach to target was because it was supersonic. At least with the V1, you could tell when it was ready to attack...the engine would shut down which started it's dive sequence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
How much faster is an aircraft with wooden surface?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
C
An early Me 264
Replies
5
Views
510
tonycat77
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
TM06
A
Where could Universal Carriers make an impact?
Replies
4
Views
358
Warspite63
M
USAAF aircraft lost through transport sinkings during Battle of the Atlantic?
Replies
2
Views
236
fubar57
Menu
Log in
Register