davebender
1st Lieutenant
Rockets have no ceiling. They can keep climbing until the fuel runs out. Me-163 ceiling would be dictated by pilot endurance.
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
As the ceiling was dictated by the fuel load and there was enough fuelfor about 8 mins powered flight how high does that take the 163 hopefully before the pilot dies? Does anyone know what the higest recoreded flight for a ME 163 was?
How high above the bomber formations would the163 climb before starting their attack,presumably it would not be a height that resulted in a glide attack?
How high above the bomber formations would the163 climb before starting their attack,presumably it would not be a height that resulted in a glide attack?
Last edited:
The Me163 was a aircraft, not a ballistic rocket.
With a 9000+lbs all up weight, and 3700lbs max thrust it still depended on it's wings to stay airborne.
It's listed service ceiling was about 39,500 ft. Wheather that's it's ceiling limited by it's 7 minutes of fuel from a ground takeoff, or a real service ceiling where it's rate of climb is down to 100 fpm I don't know.
Almost all of it's attackes were glide attacks. It'd use to rocket to climb above the bombers, go to idle power. Since it could dive without power faster than anything in the sky it only used it full power to get to altitude, then dive at idle, the resume full power to climb high again and make another dive attack. Though some tried climbing attacks also. About 2 attacks per sortie was about all anybody managed.
Thanks for that, I presumed thay attacked under power. If they could manage two attacks on occasion then presumably for many sorties with only one attack that attack run must have taken themquite away from the close escort P51s. Do we have any figures for 163 losses, either duringor after the attack runs?
Here are some stats for the Me 163B-1a taken from the Book German Aircraft of the Second World War by J.R.Smith and Anthony Kay:
Max speed at sea level 830 km/h (515 mph), Max speed at 3,000 m (9,840 ft) 960 km/h (596 mph); limiting mach number 0.82; landing speed 220 km/h (137 mph); initial rate of climb 3,600 m/min (11,810 ft/min); rate of climb at 10,000 m (32,800 ft) 10,200 m/min (33,470 ft/min); time to service ceiling of 12,100 m (39,690 ft) 3.35 min; max power endurance 8 min; approx operational range 80 km (50 miles).
I read that a speed of over 600 mph was reached in the '163 creating an unofficial speed record, but because the aircraft was still secret this wasn't released at the time.
In answer to the original question - and answer given that no one became an ace on the '163, Major Wolfgang Spate was already an ace several times over by the time he flew the '163 as were many of his colleagues, but he became an Me 262 ace as well, with a total of 99 confirmed victories, five of those in the '262 with JG 7.
Glenn, I'll put the pictures up in a new thread soon.
Max speed at sea level 830 km/h (515 mph), Max speed at 3,000 m (9,840 ft) 960 km/h (596 mph); limiting mach number 0.82; landing speed 220 km/h (137 mph); initial rate of climb 3,600 m/min (11,810 ft/min); rate of climb at 10,000 m (32,800 ft) 10,200 m/min (33,470 ft/min); time to service ceiling of 12,100 m (39,690 ft) 3.35 min; max power endurance 8 min; approx operational range 80 km (50 miles).
I read that a speed of over 600 mph was reached in the '163 creating an unofficial speed record, but because the aircraft was still secret this wasn't released at the time.
In answer to the original question - and answer given that no one became an ace on the '163, Major Wolfgang Spate was already an ace several times over by the time he flew the '163 as were many of his colleagues, but he became an Me 262 ace as well, with a total of 99 confirmed victories, five of those in the '262 with JG 7.
Glenn, I'll put the pictures up in a new thread soon.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
If level speed was 596 mph it's almost a sure bet someone power dived the thing past the sound barrier. Whether the aircraft and pilot survived is another matter.
As I pointed out earlier, one of the developement pilots Heini Dittmar had the Me163A towed to altitude, he applied full power, on reaching 624 or mach 84 it went into a dive that he could only recover from by chopping power. Mach .84 was it's limit, it had the power to go faster but not the aerodynamics, and don't forget it had wooden wings.
The Me163B might have been faster because it's wings didn't have twist built into the wings to insure the outer wings stalled after the wingroots. The Me163B had fixed slots in the wings to insure better control at stall speeds. The Me163B may have been faster, but it was never for absolute top speed, they were more interested in testing that resulted in it's developement as a weapon, not as a record breaker.
The Me163B might have been faster because it's wings didn't have twist built into the wings to insure the outer wings stalled after the wingroots. The Me163B had fixed slots in the wings to insure better control at stall speeds. The Me163B may have been faster, but it was never for absolute top speed, they were more interested in testing that resulted in it's developement as a weapon, not as a record breaker.
Last edited:
Pilots were warned not to exceed the maximum speeds because the aircraft would become uncontrollable and probably lose its wings as pointed out earlier. There was a warning light on the instrument panel that warned of this.
You mean washout? Ahhh, yes it did. Clearly visible in this picture.
You mean washout? Ahhh, yes it did. Clearly visible in this picture.
CobberKane
Banned
- 706
- Apr 4, 2012
The preceeding post gives the limiting mach number as .82, so the 163 should have hit compressibility well before reaching Mach 1. I suspect it would most likely have come apart in the air before reaching the magic figure.
My question would be why would they blow up on landing?
The fuel tanks would be empty. I'm sure the residue would be enough to cause chemical burns to an unprotected pilot or technician,or possibly start a fire.
Concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide,T-Stoff was an 80% solution, is potentially explosive (on its own a Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) but you'd need a significant quantity for the aircraft to explode. It's not something you'd want in contact with your skin.
C-Stoff was certainly flammable and was a toxic cocktail of chemicals which again you wouldn't want to come into contact with.
Surely such a craft would be much more likely to blow up during refuelling or when the rocket motor was started. If you get either of those processes wrong I'd say an explosion wasn't just possible but likely.
Steve
The tanks were never truly empty, and the tanks holding the T-Stoff was ceramic, brittle, on each side, and behind the pilot. Not real safe when combined with a landing skid and rough ground.
Yes,but T-Stoff doesn't blow up (a BLEVE) in the way I understand the aircraft as "blowing up",particularly when it is no longer contained.
I think the aircraft would blow up when the two elements of the fuel system came into contact in an improper or uncontrolled manner. There would be significant amounts of both in a fuelled aircraft as opposed to the residual amounts in a recently landed one. The Germans were happy to simply flush these residues with water.
I notice that subsequent to the original suggestion of aircraft blowing up on landing noone has managed to produce a contemporary account or documentary record of this actually having happened. I don't know if it was possible or not. I just feel it is not the biggest risk involved in landing one of these things at around 125 mph!
Cheers
Steve
I think the aircraft would blow up when the two elements of the fuel system came into contact in an improper or uncontrolled manner. There would be significant amounts of both in a fuelled aircraft as opposed to the residual amounts in a recently landed one. The Germans were happy to simply flush these residues with water.
I notice that subsequent to the original suggestion of aircraft blowing up on landing noone has managed to produce a contemporary account or documentary record of this actually having happened. I don't know if it was possible or not. I just feel it is not the biggest risk involved in landing one of these things at around 125 mph!
Cheers
Steve
The first commander of Jdw. 400, Maj. Robert Olejnik was severly injured during the first sharp start, about late July 44. It malfuncioned at altitude, after a unsuccessful restart, Olejnik dumped his fuel and jettisoned his canopy, on landing rough and digging in one wing, Olejnik was thrown clear, and the aircraft disappeared in a blinding explosion. Olejnik survived with back injuries.
Which begs the question,what exploded?
Explosions,just like fires,need fuel. A small amount of those fuels will explode,but an aircraft dissappearng in a blinding explosion does not sound like a residual fuel explosion
I'm guessing the the fuel dump wasn't as effective as it was supposed to be. Something must have been onboard that aircraft to cause such a catastrophe.
That scenario is hardly a normal landing but one following an emergency in which any number of factors might have come into play. The rocket motor had definitely malfunctioned.
I'd like to know if any of these aircraft,having completed their flight normally,expending their fuel,exploded on landing.
Cheers
Steve
Explosions,just like fires,need fuel. A small amount of those fuels will explode,but an aircraft dissappearng in a blinding explosion does not sound like a residual fuel explosion
I'm guessing the the fuel dump wasn't as effective as it was supposed to be. Something must have been onboard that aircraft to cause such a catastrophe.
That scenario is hardly a normal landing but one following an emergency in which any number of factors might have come into play. The rocket motor had definitely malfunctioned.
I'd like to know if any of these aircraft,having completed their flight normally,expending their fuel,exploded on landing.
Cheers
Steve
