me 163 aces was there any

[GrauGeist]

There were several types of rocket powered aircraft under developement by Germany (and Japan - J8M), many of them actually flying aside from the Me163/263, such as the He176, Ju248 (Junker's version of the Komet) and Dr. Lippisch's own DFS194

 

[CobberKane]

I wonder why they didn't use catapults. That long take of must have used a lot of fuel. Pitch the catapult up at an angle, light the thing and fling it. Or at least use tow planes, was it too volatile?

Take-off and landing in a 163 was a frighteningly dangerous proposition as things were - hooking it up to a catapault might have made the exercise suicidal. From what I have read the jolts associated with getting off the ground, or back onto it, were often enough to turn the whole unit into a giant catherine wheel. Also, the fuel was highly corrosive. I read an account somewhere where a pilot was doused and when the rescue party got to him he had pretty much melted.
Eric Brown relates that before he test flew a 163 one of the technicians mixed a couple of drops of the fuel componenets together as a demonstarion and produced a minor fireball. Flying the thing must have been like being in charge of a barely controlled explosion.

 

[Milosh]

Cobber, did you read the ljnk I posted? Here is another one to read, The Hellmuth Walter Rocket Motor Web Site

Two books that should be read,
Me 163: Rocket Interceptor -Volume 12
Me 163: Rocket Interceptor -Volume 2

 

[buffnut453]

I remember seeing a German wartime film about refueling the Me163. First task was to bring up a water bowser and flush each fuel tank, independently, with water. The groundcrew wore all-body "rubber suits" (maybe not rubber but that's what they looked like) which included covering the face and head. Water would pour out of the aircraft's tailpipe. Then each of the 2 fuel components would be brought to the aircraft, one at a time, the groundcrew still wearing their protective gear. Must have been an absolute nightmare to maintain! Pity the poor groundcrew, hot and sweaty, knowing that one slip could turn them into a self-igniting fireball. Nasty stuff!

 

[msxyz]

The first me 163s used peroxide as a monopropellant. Later, they added hydrazine to increase thrust and endurance (the so called 'ISP' ) . I believe the prototype in which Heini Dittmar got past 1000 km/h was still fuelled by peroxide alone.

This makes me wonder if a Me 163B could have been able to get past mach 1 in level flight. Not that I would have liked to be the man trying to do it. Supersonic wind tunnel tests already showed that the tailless configuration of the Me 163 wasn't fit for suprsonic flight and already gave enough problemS at transonic speeds. This is also one of the reasons why Lippish carried on with his studies on tailless designs eventually culminating in the delta wing.

Back on peroxide, it was chosen because it's cheap, it works also as a monopropellant and it's easily storable. The fact that it releases oxygen (which could be used to burn something else) was a plus. Too bad it also reacts violently with many metals and origanic materials and it's sensible to shock and heat. This means that spontaneous decomposition occurring at a too fast rate likely result in a runaway reaction.

Many amateur rocket enthusiasts discover the dangerous properties of peroxide the hard way when they try to distill it at home starting from the stabilized, 50% composition available in chemical shops as an anti septic and bleaching detergent (it's used to sterilize surgeon tools and implants, among other things).

The Germans were surely in love with the properties of peroxide. They built a small submarine which ran at nearly 30 kts using a peroxide / kerosene hot gas turbine and they even designed a 2000 ton, ocean going uboot using the same principle. It would have been able to cruise at 25 kts submerged for 280 nautical miles, at slower speeds the endurance would have been comparable to modern designs using fuel cells. Halfway through construction of the first prototype, they concluded it was a bad idea to store several tons of peroxide in a submarine! They reused the space occupied by the tanks to host a vey large bank of batteries and the space occupied by the turbines to host a pair of 2 MW electric motors: hence the revolutionary type XXI was born.

 

[tyrodtom]

The russians built the mig i-320 mating the fuselage of a me-263 to a pair of... straight wings and adding a T tail; they went to the most possible stable configuration but apparently understood vey little of dr. Lippisch' work.

The me-163 was obviously an experimental design which became operational due to desperation. The me-263 should have been the first rocket plane intended to be a combat ready design.

You must be thinking of another aircraft, the Mig I-320 was a swept wing t-tailed jet, sort of the predecessor to the Mig 15, no resemblance at all to the Me163.

 

[tyrodtom]

The highest speed of 624 mph ( mach .84) was attained when Dittmar was towed to 13,000 ft, but at that speed it entered a dive, which was recovered from by cutting power. That was a Me163A, The Me163B might have been faster under the same conditions, since it had a different wing with a theoretical higher mach limit.

 

[msxyz]

You must be thinking of another aircraft, the Mig I-320 was a swept wing t-tailed jet, sort of the predecessor to the Mig 15, no resemblance at all to the Me163.

you're right. It was the Mig I-270, not 320!

 

[davebender]

I've wondered that myself and not just for the Me-163.

Germany probably had more experience with catapults then anyone else. Lufthansa catapult ships could launch large seaplanes such as the Do-26. Surely they could have land (or rail car) based catapults for launching fighter aircraft.

 

[msxyz]

I've wondered that myself and not just for the Me-163.

Germany probably had more experience with catapults then anyone else. Lufthansa catapult ships could launch large seaplanes such as the Do-26. Surely they could have land (or rail car) based catapults for launching fighter aircraft.

V1 were launched by catapults to assist the weak engine getting the thing airborne. The problem of using a catapult for accelerating the me-163 was both the inertia of the big fuel tanks and the sensitive nature of the peroxide.

Besides, the take off run was short enough. Seeing that small plane roaring to the skies leaving behind a violet plume was certainly a show to behold!

 

[davebender]

Why didn't Germany use catapults for launching Me-109s and (later) He-162s? You could have factory defense squadrons located in a forrest adjacent to industrial centers such as the Ruhr. Faster take off and you don't need to worry about runway bomb craters when fully loaded with fuel. After the mission you would land normally at the nearest airfield.

 

[Milosh]

Why didn't Germany use catapults for launching Me-109s and (later) He-162s? You could have factory defense squadrons located in a forrest adjacent to industrial centers such as the Ruhr. Faster take off and you don't need to worry about runway bomb craters when fully loaded with fuel. After the mission you would land normally at the nearest airfield.

Do you truck these a/c then to the catapult locations?

 

[cimmex]

...and how long would it take to launch a group of 40 planes
Cimmex

 

[stona]

The groundcrew wore all-body "rubber suits" (maybe not rubber but that's what they looked like) which included covering the face and head.

The suits were made from PVC as were the pilot's flight suits. The PVC fibre was marketed under the trade name "Mipolan" by Dynamit Nobel.

Rubber would not have been a good idea

The fuels were handled with other specialised equipment including ceramic vessels,something still done in my time as a chemist for Hydrogen Peroxide.

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Rocket catapult???
Catapults require power. Even if gunpowder chargers. And they are not always successful.

 

[stona]

That's a photo of the BP 20 M17 "Natter" taking off vertically on 29th December 1944. It's effectively a rocket assisted vertical take off.

Only one manned flight was ever made,on March 1st 1945,and proved fatal for the pilot Lothar Sieber. He launched successfuly and disappered through the cloud base but things seem to have gone awry. He tried to abandon the aircraft but failed to do so before it crashed,killing him.

Steve

 

[davebender]

I think Lufthansa catapults used compressed air.

A catapult for launching fighter aircraft would be tiny compared to the historical German seaplane catapults. A modifed V-1 cruise missile catapult might work.

20,000 kg. Do-26 max take off weight.
3,400 kg. Me-109G6 max take off weight.
2,800 kg. He-162 max take off weight.
2,150 kg. V-1 cruise missile weight.

 

[davebender]

1:144 V-1 Launch Ramp Starter Kit

Looks like Germany put some thought into the V-1 steam catapult system. Modular (i.e. similiar to army bridging equipment) so sections could arrive by truck and quickly assembled on site. Should be capable of launching German fighter aircraft.

 

[stona]

At what rate (how frequently) could the steam powered V1 style catapult be used?

I reckon it might take a long time to launch a significant number of interceptors without several ramps. They are only relatively quick to assemble and make an obvious target.

Steve

 

[tyrodtom]

The Me163 almost never took off from runways, they always used big grass fields. They had poor crosswind capability, the rudder didn't become effective till some speed was built up, and there were no wheel brakes , so you always took off exactly into the wind. If you didn't the aircraft would point itself into the wind and the pilot wouldn't be able to do anything about it until the aircraft had enough speed to make the rudder effective.