Flying Me163

delcyros · 01-21-2006, 04:29 AM

It is towed by another plane(Me-163 glider remake). They tried different ones but find that a Wilga (polish plane) is suited best for this task. It behaves very well.
May I ask a question? I read once from a slovenian, who collected all claims of all Me-163 units (I and II Gruppe JG400), that he was able to get as much as 23 claims up to march 45. He wasn´t able to get informations about april and may but it seems possible that no sorties were flown in this period. I do not know any details but I suspect that are claims only, not officially confirmed, right?

the lancaster kicks ass · 01-21-2006, 04:33 AM

the wilga, i would've thought they'd use something with a bit more substance.............

cheddar cheese · 01-21-2006, 05:50 AM

Well the -163 is a small plane...

FLYBOYJ · 01-21-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

FJ, Alder, Cheddar
Maybe I can get a bulk discount on the flowers!!!

Me, I appreciate the important things in life. You know, walking, breathing that kind of thing.

I will stick to the Glider version, I must look up how it performed as a glider, I suspect it could go a fair lick.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-22-2006, 06:41 AM

You have to look at this way. With modern rocket engines it would not be so unsafe now. I would do it with a modern engine.

delcyros · 01-22-2006, 07:29 AM

The original rocket engine wasn´t that unrelieable.
It worked properly and it did not explode without reason. (except for testing period)
A problem was that it suffered flameouts under heavy neg. g-forces.
Another was the critical landing situation using a skid.
Not to speak of the effect remaining fuel would have...
I personally would have favoured the use of SG115 semi automatical vertical firing grenades together with 24 R4M for a removal of both MK108. This was tested independently by each other on Me-163 A (R4M) and Me-163 B (SG115).

Haztoys · 01-22-2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delcyros

The original rocket engine wasn´t that unrelieable.
It worked properly and it did not explode without reason. (except for testing period)
A problem was that it suffered flameouts under heavy neg. g-forces.
Another was the critical landing situation using a skid.
Not to speak of the effect remaining fuel would have...
I personally would have favoured the use of SG115 semi automatical vertical firing grenades together with 24 R4M for a removal of both MK108. This was tested independently by each other on Me-163 A (R4M) and Me-163 B (SG115).

You say "The original rocket engine wasn't that unrelieable. Its worked properly and it did not explode without reason"'.

If this is true .. I'm not saying it is not true you guys know more then me

.. What and why did they change "said" rocket motor to turn the Me-163 in to a diedly airplane..

And

Why did it use a skid? And not landing gear?

Thanks David

Hazardous Toys inc

Glider · 01-22-2006, 11:20 AM

So if you are willing to accept:-
a) an engine cutting out in heavy negative G, and at that speed any negative G is likely to be heavy.
b) a skid that often didn't extend, resulting in a landing that could damage the pilots back (or cause c or d)
c) any remaining fuel that leaked and mixed was highly explosive
d) any remaining fuel leaking into the cockpit would disolve the pilot alive
e) a one shot landing at I don't know what speed

It was quite a safe aircraft, if the engine kept going.

Sorry it was a death trap

Gnomey · 01-22-2006, 11:23 AM

But with a modern engine it wouldn't be so much so, if it had the original engine and fuel, I wouldn't go anywhere near it...

Glider · 01-22-2006, 12:11 PM

Your right to a degree, but I'll watch (and sell life insurance).

cheddar cheese · 01-22-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Why did it use a skid? And not landing gear?

I think it was to save weight and materials. The updated Me-263/Ju-248 featured retractable tricycle landing gear.

More info on this site: www.walter-rockets.i12.com/walter/me263.htm

Gnomey · 01-22-2006, 01:59 PM

I will watch, get my PPL and then go and fly it (hopefully).

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-22-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by delcyros

The original rocket engine wasn´t that unrelieable.
It worked properly and it did not explode without reason. (except for testing period)
A problem was that it suffered flameouts under heavy neg. g-forces.
Another was the critical landing situation using a skid.
Not to speak of the effect remaining fuel would have...
I personally would have favoured the use of SG115 semi automatical vertical firing grenades together with 24 R4M for a removal of both MK108. This was tested independently by each other on Me-163 A (R4M) and Me-163 B (SG115).

My point exactly, I would only fly the thing with a modern engine!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haztoys

Why did it use a skid? And not landing gear?

As CC said for weight issues. It had landing gear that it would jettison shortly after takeoff. The Me-263 had retractable landing gear installed.

Dragonsinger · 05-03-2008, 11:39 AM

Hey Glider
Take a look at these pictures.
First one is Col. Lucas Vallejos, preparing his Me163 Turbine powered Comet for flight. Model was scratch built with the help of Col. Joe Beshar.
Second was shot at Old Warden during a free flight contest.
Enjoy
Dragonsinger

kool kitty89 · 05-03-2008, 05:49 PM

The full scale one would probably work with a jet too (I say J85/CJ610) with intakes at the wing roots probably the most practical. Small enough to install w/out major modification, a a good amount of thrust. (particularly considering you'd need to carry less than 1/3 the fuel, and even then with much longer endurance prably ~30 min near full throttle, plus the J85's incredible thrust/weight over 7/1)