Those steam catapults got bombed out of existence before they saw much use. That's why they switched to the much smaller rocket assisted take off ramps, and air launch.
me 163 aces was there any
- Thread starter mike siggins
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Steam catapult 
Where do you get the steam from???
Ground-launched V-1s were typically propelled up an inclined launch ramp by an apparatus known as a Dampferzeuger ("steam generator") which used stabilized hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate (T-Stoff and Z-Stoff).
Same stuff used in the Me 163 with the same handling problems?
Ships had high pressure steam from the boilers. Ans some of them still used powder charge propulsion rather than run the steam lines to rotating catapults.
Most factories did not use high pressure steam or have the boiler capacity.
Factory announcement " Everybody take 1/2 hour break, we have launched two fighters and need 30 minutes to get boiler pressure back up to run machines!"
Where do you get the steam from???
Ground-launched V-1s were typically propelled up an inclined launch ramp by an apparatus known as a Dampferzeuger ("steam generator") which used stabilized hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate (T-Stoff and Z-Stoff).
Same stuff used in the Me 163 with the same handling problems?
Ships had high pressure steam from the boilers. Ans some of them still used powder charge propulsion rather than run the steam lines to rotating catapults.
Most factories did not use high pressure steam or have the boiler capacity.
Factory announcement " Everybody take 1/2 hour break, we have launched two fighters and need 30 minutes to get boiler pressure back up to run machines!"
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Aircraft cavern - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Switzerland, North Korea and probably several other nations employ underground aircraft hangers. In Switzerland these date all the way back to WWII.
If WWII Germany employed similiar bomb proof (more or less) hangers in the Ruhr Valley a pair of catapults could launch aircraft out the open door.
Switzerland, North Korea and probably several other nations employ underground aircraft hangers. In Switzerland these date all the way back to WWII.
If WWII Germany employed similiar bomb proof (more or less) hangers in the Ruhr Valley a pair of catapults could launch aircraft out the open door.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
You aren't going to land in an area under attack. You will land someplace relatively safe. The aircraft can return home the next day by flatbed rail car.
Shortround6
Major General
After the removal of the wings?
And assuming that the rail lines are still intact.
Sounds like a lot of trouble for nothing.
meatloaf109
1st Lieutenant
The book, "Rocket Fighter" by Mano Ziegler tells the story of the "powered egg". He was a pilot of these things and documents the absolute unpredictability of this craft. One plane had been sitting "at readiness" for some time and just exploded for no reason.
It reminds me of a cretain russian submarine carring peroxide powered rocket torpedoes which exploded for no reason.
T-stoff was 80% peroxide and the rest stabilizing agents. Nowadays it's used mostly at 70% concentration and for a reason!
In both cases i'm sure you realize there was a reason for them to explode, it's just that afterward there isn't enough left to determine what caused it..
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Protecting the fighter aircraft from enemy attack prior to and during launch is a lot more then nothing.
Dave, a Me163 wasn't at risk at takeoff like a Me262, it wasn't slow to accelerate. It didn't need or even want paved airfields, so it's bases didn't stand out like most airfields.
It was at risk during the after sortie phase. During the glide back to landing and sitting on the ground immobile. Your plan wouldn't help that at all, it would delay the recovery phase and put it at even more risk.
It was at risk during the after sortie phase. During the glide back to landing and sitting on the ground immobile. Your plan wouldn't help that at all, it would delay the recovery phase and put it at even more risk.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
So use bomb proof hangers and catapults for Me-262s.
Erich
the old Sage
simply put the Komet was not a threat to allied airpower the 262 on the other hand was .........
I agree entirely. I read somewhere (can't remember where) that the Me 163 killed more German airmen than their enemies.
A fantastic book - well worth the read to give an indication of how volatile these aircraft actually were. These tanks either side of the pilot's seat were a source of grief that Mano Ziegler highlights in his book; because they were made of ceramic, on hard landings they tended to shatter on impact with the ground, which led to their contents spilling into the cockpit, resulting in disastrous concequences.
LH side tank with throttle marked 'B4' and trim wheel visible. The red 'T' handle was the undercarriage jettison lever, the red handle directly below it being the fuel dump and the round handle above is the canopy latch. The upright lever below the throttle box is the flap wobble pump.
RH side tank with radio control switches and oxy regulator and joystick visible.
(if anyone wants to see more Me 163 close ups, I'd be happy to post them)
Last edited:
Does anyone have a list of Me163 losses and the reason for the loss?
T Bolt
Colonel
Love to see more if you have them
