Flying Me163

cheddar cheese · Jan 22, 2006

Why did it use a skid? And not landing gear?

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

Gnomey · Jan 22, 2006

I will watch, get my PPL and then go and fly it (hopefully).

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 22, 2006

delcyros said:
The original rocket engine wasn´t that unrelieable.
It worked properly and it did not explode without reason. (except for testing period)
A problem was that it suffered flameouts under heavy neg. g-forces.
Another was the critical landing situation using a skid.
Not to speak of the effect remaining fuel would have...
I personally would have favoured the use of SG115 semi automatical vertical firing grenades together with 24 R4M for a removal of both MK108. This was tested independently by each other on Me-163 A (R4M) and Me-163 B (SG115).

My point exactly, I would only fly the thing with a modern engine!

Haztoys said:
Why did it use a skid? And not landing gear?

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 · May 3, 2008

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

kool kitty89 · May 3, 2008

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)

Soren · May 6, 2008

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.

Glider · May 6, 2008

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 · May 6, 2008

kool kitty89 said:
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)

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 · May 6, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
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

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 · May 6, 2008

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

kool kitty89 · May 6, 2008

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) ...

comiso90 · May 6, 2008

FLYBOYJ said:
The prototype was red - all operational ones were painted accordingly...

nice pics

Image:Me 163 Glider LH.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet

..

FLYBOYJ · May 6, 2008

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 · May 6, 2008

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.

gruad · Dec 4, 2023

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.

tomo pauk · Dec 5, 2023

gruad said:
Well I just wanted to say how brave those airmen and astronauts were.

Agreed 100% on that.

GregP · Dec 5, 2023

Here's a video clip of it ...

View: https://youtu.be/BNIpJcOZPlA

Engineman · Dec 5, 2023

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

GregP · Dec 6, 2023

Looking at the video, it definitely needs spoilers to hit a typical short landing strip.

Engineman · Dec 6, 2023

GregP said:
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

Flying Me163

Major General

Globetrotting Surgeon General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman

Attachments

Senior Master Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Banned

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Attachments

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Airman 1st Class

Creator of Interesting Threads

Major

Staff Sergeant

Major

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads