I agree there certainly was not a secret one in service, I was just wondering your thoughts. I too actually have allways thought the same thing because it was a flying wing design.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting, Kitty!I also think the Me-163B had a throttled motor, if memory serves the RLM wouldn't accept it into service without a throttle. (I think that was one of the reasons for problems with reliabillity) A kerosene/nitric acid fuel would have been safer to use, and less expensive. The Russians had some rockets using such, like the BI-1 wich was designed several years before the Me-163. In great contrast tho the 163 the BI-1 had no fuel accedents but it had severe aerodynamic problems resulting in nose-down trim with inoperable elivators over 750 kph, pretty much the opposie problems of the 163. Also like has beed suggested before, a 163 (particularly the advanced C varient) would have made a good jet fighter with a lightweight HeS-30 engine. (particularly with rocket boosters for takeoff and initial climb, thike in the Natter)
The real problem is that nitric acid or nitrogen was in extremely high demand. The Allied bombing campaign reduced nitrogen production to only a fraction of the original production. I always liked the rocket fighters because they didn't use precious gasoline. But I think hydrogen was even harder to come by.And on the fuel choice, maybe the nitric acid would have been too corrosive for their designs. A new engine and fuel suystems would have to be designed for this fuel. Though overall it was less corrosive than either of the other fuels used in the Walter engine (and much less volitile and unstable) but the properties were different, as it was resisted by different metals, high purity aluminum is very resistant to nitric acid. Though if alcohol or kerosene were used as the fuel this would be almost infinitely more stable than the hydrazine used in the Walter rockets. Also, I'm not sure if the Russian engine's reaction was as easy to initiate as with peroxide/hydrazine, though it was certainly a hypergolic mixture I don't think it reacted as violently, so the combustion properties would be different which would mean a different combustion chamber (possibly higher pressure) and, possibly, nozzle.
Ok, so not operationally. That's what I thought...By the dual chamber I think you mean the Walter engine with the "cruise" chamber added which was designed to run at low thrusts more efficiently, potentially increasing endurance by 50%! I believe two were tested on 163b's, but on an experimental basis only.
I think you've got your facts wrong on that.The 163C was to use it, along with improved fuel capacity, a larger wing, longer tail, retractable tricycle landing gear, a bubble canopy, and not least a pressurized cockpit which raised the ceiling to 52,000 ft. This engine was also supposedly much more reliable and the 163C was to have improved fuel containment and systems, greatly improving reliability. Fuel tankage was nearly doubled, and powered time was extended to 12 min (9 min combat) with the old engine, with the new engine I'd expect an endurance of around 18 min (with ~12 min combat). IMHO the C model was the best, and better than the proposed D model or Me 263... Still not as good as a twin-jet version would be, but the obvious choice to model the jet on would be the 163C.
I think this is an outdated story. The problem was that the pilots were not used to flying and attacking at these speeds, so sure it was difficult. But nothing what additional training wouldn't have cured. Or why did the MiG-15 manage to shoot down B-29s a few years later?Then there's the problem of ammunition capacity and firing time. Its MK 108's carried a maximum of 120 rounds between them and all the account's I've read say it was extremely difficult to aim at a slow moving large bomber in a single pass, let alone small fast fighters.
300 in service? Yeah right? Perhaps a 100. And if you shoot down 9 four-engined heavy bombers for the cost of 15 cheap lightweight fighters, then that's not bad, and a better rating than the Bf 109 or Fw 190D achieved.To quote from Warplanes of the Luftwaffe 'in 1945, with some 300 in front-line service, only I/JG 400 was able to engage the enemy; it claimed 9 bombers but lost 15 aircraft in doing so'
Meanwhile, another redesign was taking form as the Me 163 D, which retained the original overall design of the 163 B, but included the fuselage plug for increased tank capacity and discarded the takeoff "dolly" and landing skid for a proper, retractable tricycle undercarriage. Work on this version was "farmed out" to Focke Achgelis, who produced a single prototype in early 1944.[5]
But by this time it appears that Willy Messerschmitt had tired of the entire project, and moved all work on the advanced models to Junkers. Here a new design effort under the direction of Heinrich Hertel at Dessau attempted to combine the 163 C's advanced features with the landing gear from the 163 D. The resulting Junkers Ju 248 used a three-section fuselage to ease construction. The V1 prototype was completed for testing in August 1944, and was glider tested behind a Junkers Ju 188. Apparently the Walter 109-509.C engine was fitted in September, but it is not clear if it was ever tested under this power. At this point the RLM re-assigned the project to Messerschmitt, where it became the Me 263. This appears to have been a formality only, with Junkers continuing the work and planned production[6].