silence
Senior Airman
Anyone know what the installation of two small RATO boosters under the fuselage did for the 262's RoC?? (I just build a model with them and the idea intrigues me.)
Me 262 w/ RATO
- Thread starter silence
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The RATO units only had a burn time of about 30 seconds, they only used them for quick take offs. Then dropped them by parachute, so they could be recovered and reused.
I'm sure they did give a pretty spectacular climb for that half minute.
I'm sure they did give a pretty spectacular climb for that half minute.
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
that way you could operate them off of smaller fields....taking off anyway.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Aircraft are considerably lighter in weight with external ordnance and most fuel gone. So you shouldn't need as much runway for landing.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
The ones the Me 262 used were 1000lbs when using two and 2000lbs when using one.Burn time on them was 10sec.
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
There was also one version of the Me 262C with a Walter rocket built into the aircraft (as opposed to the BMW jet/rocket engine combo or RATO units mounted on the airframe) in the tail.
Had the airframe been enlarged to suit that seems to me to be a promising idea for fast take-off, climb, acceleration and endurance (especially if the 2 chamber throttle equipped rocket the Me 263/Ju248 was to be fitted with could be used).
I can't find a source on-line but I think I remember reading that the inclusion of the rocket compromised range under jet power due to the space it its fuel took up. No doubt there were CoG weight issues involved....and this is possibly why RATO units the BMW combo were looked into as well.
Although RATO would seem to be a cheap known quantity in the late war (jet) LW.
Had the airframe been enlarged to suit that seems to me to be a promising idea for fast take-off, climb, acceleration and endurance (especially if the 2 chamber throttle equipped rocket the Me 263/Ju248 was to be fitted with could be used).
I can't find a source on-line but I think I remember reading that the inclusion of the rocket compromised range under jet power due to the space it its fuel took up. No doubt there were CoG weight issues involved....and this is possibly why RATO units the BMW combo were looked into as well.
Although RATO would seem to be a cheap known quantity in the late war (jet) LW.
Last edited:
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
i understand that...but i do not know how much the rockets reduced the take off roll. generally landing roll is ~70 - 75% of the take off. if the rockets knocked 30% or more off of the take off....it might be a tight squeeze to get back in. all i can find on the 262 is the length of runway needed....and it gives 3700' - 4950' for both. it doesnt give a specific distance for either landing or take off....well that i can quickly find.
l'Omnivore Sobriquet
Airman 1st Class
Saw a He-162 cutaway with one of these small cylindrical powder boosters under belly, in the days. Haven't seen any back up for this since.
Good idea certainly when you need to throw schoolboys up there...
Good idea certainly when you need to throw schoolboys up there...
bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
i was looking for 262 specs and this is about all i could find at the moment...does mention using a jet assist take off...
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/262PilotHandbook.pdf
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Me262/ME262WendeL.pdf
