Me163 v P-47

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

He-163 had a tail though...

I think it was just misidentification.

[Udet]

Fascinating story chinggie...

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

[Chingachgook]

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.

[delcyros]

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.

[Soren]

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

[Gnomey]

That would be looking at the Me-163 and not thinking (or I typo'd).

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ooops I put 163 as well. Dont know why I did that I have allways known that it was the 162.

[kool kitty89]

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)

[Aggie08]

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.

[kool kitty89]

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.

[Jank]

Even pilots, with the benefit of available intelligence, couldn't always identify an aircraft. The following is an encounter report from a bolt driver.

[kool kitty89]

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...

[eddie_brunette]

A Horten?

[kool kitty89]

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.

[delcyros]

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...