Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 56

Me163 v P-47

Stories Discuss Me163 v P-47 in the World War II - Aviation forums; He-163 had a tail though... I think it was just misidentification....

  1. #16
    Der Crew Chief DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA/Germany
    Posts
    40,578
    Country
    United States
    Country II
    Germany
    Post Thanks / Like
    He-163 had a tail though...

    I think it was just misidentification.



    fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

  2. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fascinating story chinggie...

    Even if we are before a case of misidentification of a plane itīd appear Chinggies guy is very confident about the scene he witnessed...more misteries that sadly might remained unsolved.

  3. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    I could never figure out what happened either. Joe died more than 15 years ago.
    I did not really think that it could have been a Me163B because there is no way that it could have looped 4 times without thrust (well, I wouldn't think so anyway).
    There is a story in Ziegler's book about a test pilot who buzzed Herman Goring when they display flew the Me163A at very low alt. I think they were able to re-light the motor after giving it a burst?
    A Me163C may have been able to pull a flew loops because it had some throttle control, but I have never seen anything about the C in combat (?).
    The He163 or Me262 is perhaps most likely but Joe was clear about the plane being tail-less. Horton maybe?
    A few more shreads of his story have come back to me - I believe that he said something about the action being over very quickly and that he saw or counted the four smoke plumes from the crash sites. He also told me about seeing a P-51 get its' tail shot off by a Focke-Wulf and no chute from the P-51 before it crashed. I remember being upset about this because I was a P-51 fan.
    I frequently asked him about tank to tank engagements, but he would never answer about this.

    EDIT - It appears that two Me-163B were made operational with the addtional 300lbf thrust cruise motor. This gave extended powered flight time - up to 19 min.
    Last edited by Chingachgook; 02-11-2007 at 12:00 AM.

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Posts
    2,037
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is a story in Ziegler's book about a test pilot who buzzed Herman Goring when they display flew the Me163A at very low alt. I think they were able to re-light the motor after giving it a burst?
    A Me163C may have been able to pull a flew loops because it had some throttle control, but I have never seen anything about the C in combat (?).
    technically, it is not such a problem. The -163B had four thrust settings + idle, which gave amply of thrust controll. It was possible to relight the engine as long as 50 Kg of fuel were remaining in the tanks. There is no reason to doubt the -163 aerobatic abilities, which included loops.
    ---delcyros---

  5. #20
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    People the Salamander is designated the He-162, not the He-163.

    Wouldn't have mentioned it if it wasn't for the fact that it was incorrectly repeated 4 times, hehe

  6. #21
    World Travelling Doctor? Gnomey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Royal Deeside/Swansea, UK
    Posts
    33,100
    Country
    Great Britain
    Country II
    United Kingdom
    Post Thanks / Like
    That would be looking at the Me-163 and not thinking (or I typo'd).


    "Success is not Final, Failure is not Fatal, it is the Courage to Continue that Counts"
    Sir Winston Churchill

    "To him the People of the World Largely owe the Freedom and Liberties they Enjoy Today"
    Enscription on Hugh Dowding's (AOC Fighter Command 1936-40) statue in London


    My Photo Collections on Flickr

  7. #22
    Der Crew Chief DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA/Germany
    Posts
    40,578
    Country
    United States
    Country II
    Germany
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ooops I put 163 as well. Dont know why I did that I have allways known that it was the 162.


    fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

  8. #23
    Senior Member kool kitty89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,415
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    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)
    Last edited by kool kitty89; 10-26-2007 at 04:01 PM.

  9. #24
    Senior Member Aggie08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,012
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    "I had ten rockets on board, and as I wasn't particularly fond of head-on attacks, I salvoed the whole lot at him. The rockets didn't hit him but but they must have scared the bejesus out of him, for he did a steep turn to starboard... I let him have the full blast, all eight fifty-calibers. I had never seen an aircraft completely disintegrate in the air the way this Me-110 did..."
    Bill Dunn, 406th Fighter Group



    Matt

  10. #25
    Senior Member kool kitty89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,415
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.
    Last edited by kool kitty89; 10-27-2007 at 04:49 PM.

  11. #26
    Senior Member Jank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    679
    Post Thanks / Like
    Even pilots, with the benefit of available intelligence, couldn't always identify an aircraft. The following is an encounter report from a bolt driver.

    Last edited by Jank; 10-28-2007 at 01:45 PM.
    August 12, 1944 - In an armor cover mission at the Falaise track, Charlie Rife, 368th FG, 395th FS, takes 37mm fllak rounds to both wings. His wingman, Richard Kik, takes a 20mm round to the engine that knocks out two cylinders. Both make it back.

  12. #27
    Senior Member kool kitty89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,415
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    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/3vue...arauder_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...
    Last edited by kool kitty89; 10-30-2007 at 05:31 AM.

  13. #28
    Senior Member eddie_brunette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Nelspruit, Mpumalanga
    Posts
    573
    Country
    South Africa
    Post Thanks / Like
    A Horten?

  14. #29
    Senior Member kool kitty89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,415
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    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.

  15. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    Posts
    2,037
    Post Thanks / Like
    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...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Me163 v P-47-me262.jpg  
    ---delcyros---

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198