cheddar cheese
Major General
I think it was to save weight and materials. The updated Me-263/Ju-248 featured retractable tricycle landing gear.
More info on this site: www.walter-rockets.i12.com/walter/me263.htm
Flying Me163
- Thread starter Glider
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think it was to save weight and materials. The updated Me-263/Ju-248 featured retractable tricycle landing gear.
More info on this site: www.walter-rockets.i12.com/walter/me263.htm
I will watch, get my PPL and then go and fly it (hopefully).
delcyros said:
My point exactly, I would only fly the thing with a modern engine!
Haztoys said:
As CC said for weight issues. It had landing gear that it would jettison shortly after takeoff. The Me-263 had retractable landing gear installed.
Dragonsinger
Airman
Hey Glider
Take a look at these pictures.
First one is Col. Lucas Vallejos, preparing his Me163 Turbine powered Comet for flight. Model was scratch built with the help of Col. Joe Beshar.
Second was shot at Old Warden during a free flight contest.
Enjoy
Dragonsinger
Take a look at these pictures.
First one is Col. Lucas Vallejos, preparing his Me163 Turbine powered Comet for flight. Model was scratch built with the help of Col. Joe Beshar.
Second was shot at Old Warden during a free flight contest.
Enjoy
Dragonsinger
Attachments
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The full scale one would probably work with a jet too (I say J85/CJ610) with intakes at the wing roots probably the most practical. Small enough to install w/out major modification, a a good amount of thrust. (particularly considering you'd need to carry less than 1/3 the fuel, and even then with much longer endurance prably ~30 min near full throttle, plus the J85's incredible thrust/weight over 7/1)
Put in a small jet engine, then I'm sure it'll be a blast!
Today you can build very effective small jet engines, so it shouldn't be a problem technically.
As for the flying characteristics of the a/c, well according to the German pilots who flew and Eric Brown it handled very well and very maneuverable - no wonder with that low wing-loading.
Today you can build very effective small jet engines, so it shouldn't be a problem technically.
As for the flying characteristics of the a/c, well according to the German pilots who flew and Eric Brown it handled very well and very maneuverable - no wonder with that low wing-loading.
- Thread starter
- #47
Glider
Captain
I would have a go with the Jet version, your starting to get me to change my mind, but the rocket is still a no go.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually I think a J85 would be too big - Here's someting that could work fine.
http://www.microturbo.fr/IMG/pdf/tr60-5-GB.pdf
SoD Stitch
Banned
flyboyj - If you're interested in a good article about the history of microjets, here's a good one in the Smithsonian Air Space magazine (again) from a few years ago:
Air Space Magazine | Flight Today | The Little Engine That Couldn't
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Good info - Williams also makes a great microjet.
BTW I worked on the MQM-107E - learned to respect these little beasts!
Tracor completes successful flight test of MQM-107E target; named preferred tenderer by Australians for new aerial target system | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET.com
BTW I worked on the MQM-107E - learned to respect these little beasts!
Tracor completes successful flight test of MQM-107E target; named preferred tenderer by Australians for new aerial target system | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET.com
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I think that one might be too small at only 1210 lbs thrust. Unless you're using 2. (in a layout like the X-4)
The ~22 in diameter of the J85 should be able to fit fine in the fuselage (depending on internal structure, but modifications shouldn't be too difficult)
The exhaust nozzle port would be allot wider though. (which shouldn't present a problem) Though not knowing the internal structure I dont know how difficult the mods would be, but if you're scratch building an a/c...
Or how about an old J30 (only 19 in and ~600 lbs for 1,600-1,700 lbs thrust)
...
The ~22 in diameter of the J85 should be able to fit fine in the fuselage (depending on internal structure, but modifications shouldn't be too difficult)
The exhaust nozzle port would be allot wider though. (which shouldn't present a problem) Though not knowing the internal structure I dont know how difficult the mods would be, but if you're scratch building an a/c...
Or how about an old J30 (only 19 in and ~600 lbs for 1,600-1,700 lbs thrust)
...
Attachments
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You might have problems with the J85 and the size of the nozzle required to keep the exhaust cool. A J30 would be good, but with a one man crew in a composite structure 1200 pounds may be perfect, especially if ine want to limit performance for safety reasons.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Are there working J-30's available? (I know there are J34's, some have even been modified for use on jet-powered race boats/hydroplanes, but J30's are older and I didn't think that many were built or produced very long compared to the long life of the J34, with there not being that high of a demand, the FH Phantom being the only production craft with them iirc and only 60 some were made)
And some J-85's diameter are down to 17-17.7" dia and 40-45 in length and only ~400 lb. (I checked the 22-26 in versions are with after burners with ~110 in length) Smaller than the J30's 19x94" and weight 660-680 lbs.
Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications
But good call on safety limitations, along with the lightness of the structure of a modern composite construction replica.
And some J-85's diameter are down to 17-17.7" dia and 40-45 in length and only ~400 lb. (I checked the 22-26 in versions are with after burners with ~110 in length) Smaller than the J30's 19x94" and weight 660-680 lbs.
Military Turbojet/Turbofan Specifications
But good call on safety limitations, along with the lightness of the structure of a modern composite construction replica.
Not sure whether this is the right place to post something like this, but I've just been watching the history of the Gemini space program and it is very very similar to the ME163 in that it used Hypergolic propellants and it was incredibly risky.
It was far more dangerous than the Apollo program using bits of kit that were available rather than designed for the purpose.
Well I just wanted to say how brave those airmen and astronauts were.
It was far more dangerous than the Apollo program using bits of kit that were available rather than designed for the purpose.
Well I just wanted to say how brave those airmen and astronauts were.
Agreed 100% on that.
GregP
Major
An interesting flying replica, not now flown anymore, I believe. The original was about 1900kg empty and 4300kg max T/O, with max thrust about 1700kg. I don't know the replica weight, but as it is not a full copy of a Me 163, I guess it is about 1000kg, anybody know?
It would be interesting as a jet, but would require an incredible amount of money to design and build. The aerodynamics and flying qualities are described as good by Captain Brown.
Eng
It would be interesting as a jet, but would require an incredible amount of money to design and build. The aerodynamics and flying qualities are described as good by Captain Brown.
Eng
GregP
Major
Looking at the video, it definitely needs spoilers to hit a typical short landing strip.
Yes, I agree, it needs the pilot controllable drag as a glider for safer and more accurate approaches. The real thing has fairly large split flaps, which would help, but I guess the glider is about half the empty weight or less and it needs controllable drag. That floaty landing is at Manching and a 10,000' long runway.
Eng
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
