Me-163

[the lancaster kicks ass]

true, but maybe these plans will be of use to others on the board........

 

[Vince57]

and by the way, this is not an He280 (see loomaluftwaffe's siggy to see one), but a DFS194, the prototype of the Me163.

And no, should the Me262 have been produced in numbers from 1942, it wouldn't have 'saved' Germany. The Nazis had declared war on too many countries and there was no way to escape from being crushed from both sides, east and west.

Allies were also building jet aircraft (Bell P59, Gloster Meteor, BI-1 in USSR), but their policy was saturation bombing and massive destruction of german industrial potential. They didn't lack human resources and needed reliable efficient aircraft, so they produced those in numbers.
On the other side, Germany had less and less pilots and needed each aircraft they could get airborne to be as destructive as possible. That's why they made experimental machines operational. Most of those designs were further used postwar. The Bell X1, the rocket powered plane that broke the wall of sound, really looked like a little brother to the Me163.
It is said in books that german test pilot Heini Dittmar has exceeded mach1 during the war in a 163.

 

[delcyros]

Actually, the Me-163 entered service in summer 1944, way before the Me-262 became operational as fighter A/C. And interestingly, the Me-163 went out of service in feb.1945, exactly when the Me-262 fully went into service as interceptor. The reasons are pointed out above by Erich.
I might add that the largest T-Stoff producing plant was located in Hamburg and bombed repeatedly in january 45, worsening the fuel situation.
A Slovenian collegue did a lot of research in the claims and found much previously unknown claims from january and february. It totals 20+ but he had no access to loss lists and therefore couldn´t verify them.

 

[ChrisMAg2]

Very few, if any, kills were scored by the Me-163. I imagine Erich will have more precise information on that. I believe some of the Me-163s were fitted with five upward-firing 50mm rockets in each wing triggered by a photo-receptor on the upper fuselage. When a 163 flew beneath an Allied bomber it would great a shadow firing the rockets into the bomber's belly. Potentially a devestating weapon but I don't think it worked so well in practice.

Actually only one single Me 163 was equipped with the experimental SG 500 "Jägerfaust". It flew right from the proving ground to action and achieved one confirmed B-17 kill.
As second and more were only planned.

 

[Gimmeacannon!]

Sat in a 163 and it is bl**dy uncomfortable so doing so at nearly 650 mph would be murder, good side and forward view but naff to the rear and having those damned great cannon so close would have sent your eyeballs into spasm.

 

[Gimmeacannon!]

and by the way, this is not an He280 (see loomaluftwaffe's siggy to see one), but a DFS194, the prototype of the Me163.
The Bell X1, the rocket powered plane that broke the wall of sound, really looked like a little brother to the Me163.
It is said in books that german test pilot Heini Dittmar has exceeded mach1 during the war in a 163.

You really have to stand close to a 163 to realise just how small they are and at a guess I would say the X1 was much larger plus it had a straight wing and all-moving tailplane 'borrowed' from the cancelled British Miles M52.
It wouldnt surprise me to learn that the 163 had exceeded the speed of sound in a dive as it has everything going for it, a small compact but very strong airframe with very low drag factor and a swept wing, the DH 108 Swallow was a simular configuration and that exceeded the speed of sound easily once the bugs were ironed out using a jet engine not rocket.

 

[Matt308]

And wasn't the fuel mixture so deadly that the 163 caused more casualties among its handlers than upon the Allies?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

good side and forward view but naff to the rear

just what is supposed to be fast enough to bounce it from the rear anyway

 

[Gimmeacannon!]

just what is supposed to be fast enough to bounce it from the rear anyway

Quie a few 163 and 262 were lost due to being bounced coming into land, once the 163 were down and losing speed they were easy meat for escort fighters because they just couldnt fight back.
The 262 could at least open up the throttles but once they had their landing gear down they were travelling too slow with too much drag, unlike a piston engine the early jet engines took time to build power and speed.

 

[Bullo Loris]

Hi, on the world there are 3 Messerschmitt Me-163, you can find this:

1) 120370, Messerschmitt Me-163B-1a Komet, preserved/Deutsches Museum, ex. RAF AM210, Munich

2) 191659/15, Messerschmitt Me-163B-1a Komet, preserved/Museum of Flight, Luftwaffe II/JG 400 marks, East Fortune



3) 191904, Messerschmitt Me-163B-1a Komet, preserved/Luftwaffenmuseum, Gatow

Bullo Loris

 

[genkideskan]

Check this out

Engine start process


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk31Lmkz170


And here s an outstanding website

Me 163B Komet

 

[Bullo Loris]

Thanks genkideskan for the 2 sites, I like this!.

Bullo Loris

 

[Civettone]

To me this website clears up most of the urban legends surrounding the Komet:
Komet Me163 - Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was - Flight Journal.com Page 5

Kris

 

[Erich]

we also must include info according to Mano Ziegler or Wolfgang Späte

....

by the way Rudi told me he never flew on operations with the Komet either so we have a chap although given Gruppenkommandeur responsibilites never did fly in action. No big deal there were others in the same category