Me163 v P-47 (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Well from the underside the Me-163 is tailless as it has no tialplane (the XP-56 was designed likewise). And if the P-47s were on a bombing/ground attack run, it could be possible that a Me-163 would be sent to intercept them. If the interception distance distance was rather short (~10km) there should have been enough fuel to pull off the maneuvers that this plane was said to have. (climb to altitude, intercept target, dive to attack, climb + dive 3 more tiomes then climb to altitude and head home)

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)
 
Regardless of if it actually was a Me-163 or not, is it realistic that the P-47s didn't attempt to scram or tango a bit? From the story they appear to act like bombers and just stay in formation.
 
Remember, the P-47 wasn't renouned for its maneuverabillity, particularly at lower altitudes and even morso if they were loaded with ordinance, which is likely as by early 1945 most of P-47s duties in Gernany were as fighter-bombers. It tended to rely on speed and dive capabillity to escape, which would be difficelt aganst the 163.

It's possible there were some Me-163's sent to intercept some P-47s on an attack run of an airfeild.
 
Even pilots, with the benefit of available intelligence, couldn't always identify an aircraft. The following is an encounter report from a bolt driver.

78-myers-28aug44.jpg
 
So what plane could that have been? A Me-262 prototype? I doubt it was a meteor, and the cocpit placement doesn't match the Ar 234 Blitz. Tail doesn't match a He-280...

The overall description matches the Ar-234, except for the cockpit, and when viewed from above, does look quite like a B-26. The wing and nose description doesn't match the 262. compare: http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/ar234_1_3v.jpg and http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/b26_marauder_3v.jpg

Insidentally, the B-26 used tricycle landing gear, though many US bombers did.

Dose anyone have pictures of the sketches of the Me-262, derived from spy info, that were used by the allies? I remember seeing some on this site somewhere...
 
In which case, the above document, or the original case? Either way, it couldn't have been a Ho-IX (Ho-229), since only one powered prototype was completed and crashed durring a test flight.
 
There were so many experimental variants of the -262 around that it is well within possibilities. Add f.e. the drop snoot variant and it matches the above report quite nicely...
 

Attachments

  • Me262.jpg
    Me262.jpg
    11.9 KB · Views: 202
There were so many experimental variants of the -262 around that it is well within possibilities. Add f.e. the drop snoot variant and it matches the above report quite nicely...

Except for the wing and to a lesser extent the nacelles. The statement that the wings were tapered at both edges (trapizoidal) is what really made me think of the Ar-234.
 
I go back to my statement, a Me 262A-2 of KG 51 or 54 on ground attack duties which they were famous for even in the jet. as I said mis-id with all the confusion going on who is going to sit there and watch combat take place when it is right in front of you and everyone is yelling in the chaos. the Me 163 was ordered for US bomber killing not to engage US fighters, and by the time US had entered well into Germany I. u.II./JG 400 were running for their lives from the Soviets
 
But I don't think the Ho-229 could have pulled off the kind of maneuvers that were said to have been performed. It also didn't have te specific thrust to dive and climb like that.

The 229 was rather large, as it was originally conceived as a fast bomber/fighter-bomber, so I cant see it outmaneuvering, or outfighting a fighter, even one as heavy as the P-47.
 
But I don't think the Ho-229 could have pulled off the kind of maneuvers that were said to have been performed. It also didn't have te specific thrust to dive and climb like that.

The 229 was rather large, as it was originally conceived as a fast bomber/fighter-bomber, so I cant see it outmaneuvering, or outfighting a fighter, even one as heavy as the P-47.

I honestly dont know how maneuverable the 229 was, but why do you think it would not be maneuverable eneogh?
 
I could be wrong but, its just so big and heavy, it was 55 ft wide and weighed over 15,000 lbs loaded (over 17,000 max), and as most flying wings it had poor yaw control, using wing-mounted air-brakes to turn, so lining up a shot woul be difficult. With that high surface area I don't see it turning that fast (again just speculation). I'm confident it could out-maneuver bombers but not most fighters. The 262 would have been more maneuverable and I still can't see it shooting down 4 Jugs alone without some trouble. Besides there is virtually no chance that some secret Ho-229 was deployed in the war. Even a Me-262 would loose a lot of airspeed pulling off somthing like that and by the third pass it's likely the Jugs would be prooving quite difficult to continue outflying them.

By the description given and the way it was said to mode the craft sounds verry much like a Me-163.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back