Me163. Was it worth the trouble it caused for the Allies and the Axis? Any info on the aircraft would be a big help. Including pictures please. I'm trying to find out how many kills the 163 got before the end of the war and how many were shot down by Allied fighters (or bomber gunners). I've read that I/JG 400 claimed nine bombers but lost 14 aircraft in doing so.
Me163. Was it worth the trouble it caused for the Allies and the Axis? Any info on the aircraft would be a big help. Including pictures please. What sort of info are you looking for the specification? Eric brown wrote of the BF 163 To sum up, the Komet was of dubious operational iveness, and was probably more lethal to its pilots than enemies, and, on balance, its operational record ly justified the tremendous research effort that carried service status. There is no gainsaying, however, that the 163B was a brilliant conception.'Given more breathing e for development than a wartime environment, the Walter rocket motor could probably have been ight to higher stages of reliability and flexibility, and the could have proved the grave embarrassment to the daylight bombing offensive that had been feared n Allied intelligence first reported its existence.
You wouldn't think it could fly to look at would you? It just looks like a torpedo with wings. I'm now off to check my Jane's book to swat up on which bird it actually is. Nice picture, my darling. Kitty
Thanks Morse. I'm after anything, spec wise. I know a bit about the fuel used (T-stoff and C-Stoff) and refuelling. I know it used 30mm MK108 cannon with 60 rounds each. Now that is some firepower, surely it wouldn't take many rounds to knock down a B-17 or Lib? The picture looks good. What a great looking aircraft (without the covers).
Guessing you've seen it but the final 2 paragraphs on this page sum it up quite nicely for me. http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/messme163.html All that effort for what? 9 bombers knocked out? Another evolutionary dead end persued to the n'th degree by a nation clutching at technology to win a war that was already lost. I'd love to see one re-created though, (a-la those 262's) but who'd have the Brass Balls to climb into it and press the big red switch?
I found these, which look good. I'll have another look but I thought I saw something about one recreated.
I swear to God RAF Cosford has one of these things in the WW2 hangar, just sat under the wing of the Lincoln. I'd press the big red button.
Aren't there quite a few survivors? (as opposed to flyers, big difference) There always seem to be with Rocket/Jet powered kit as the Allies snapped up every spare one left lying about for research?
The National Museum at East Fortune has one as well next to a Jeep and Spitfire. There seems to be quite a lot of them about!!
It was an interesting concept which couldn't really have been pursued any further and was a waste of resources like many late war German projects (Bachen Ba-349 "Natter").
Thanks Morse. I'm after anything, spec wise. I know a bit about the fuel used (T-stoff and C-Stoff) and refuelling. I know it used 30mm MK108 cannon with 60 rounds each. Now that is some firepower, surely it wouldn't take many rounds to knock down a B-17 or Lib? The picture looks good. What a great looking aircraft (without the covers). Me 163B-1A Specification Type Single-seat Intorceptor fighter. Power plant HWK 509 A-2 bi-fuel rocket motor posessing a maximum thrust of 3,750 lb. Armament Two 20-mm MG 151 cannon with 100 r.p.g or two 30mm MK108 cannon with 60 R.P.G. Performance: Max Speed 515 mph at sea level, 596 mph between 10,000 and 30,000 FT. powered endurance 7.5 min; intital climb rate 16000 Ft/min; time to 30,000 ft, 2.5 min, to 39,500 Ft 3.5 min ; service ceiling 39, 500 ft. weights Empty equipped, 4,200 lb; maximum loaded 9,500 lb Dimensions; span 30 ft 7 1/2inches; length 19ft 2 1/2 inches: height 9 ft 01/2 ins. Wing Area 1999.132 sq ft Green William., The Warplanes of the Third Reich, PBS, London, 1970 PP603 - 4. Green points out that the MK 108 had problems and quotes a report on a 8th AF bomber, which was attacked by I./JG 400 which failed to hit one of the bombers.
It was an interesting concept which couldn't really have been pursued any further and was a waste of resources like many late war German projects (Bachen Ba-349 "Natter"). I've read that they were trying to sort out a proper landing gear and a way to make the engine more reliable. If they had this aircraft in numbers, it could have been a big problem to daylight bombing. The big problem was with closure rate as 163 was so fast, it was difficult to get a bead on the enemy. I'm going to do some more research over the next few days if time allows.
Green points out that the MK 108 had problems and quotes a report on a 8th AF bomber, which was attacked by I./JG 400 which failed to hit one of the bombers. What sort of problems, Morse?
What sort of problems, Morse? Although there were drawbacks with the MK 108, such as an insufficient flat trajectory (the shell "arced" too much due to the low muzzle velocity) and that the ammunition belts sometimes ripped when the guns were fired while the aircraft was banking sharply, http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108.html the soviet built NR23 which was used in the Mig15, suffered the same problem with low trajectory. it was said that Allied fighter pilots could look around and see the shells flying past them at low speed!
Anyone know what the small propeller in the nose did? I wondered if it was a compressor for the fuel pumps, but in that case how was the fuel pumped before the a/c gained enough speed to turn the propellor. Adrian
The Me 163 was literally a glider with a liquid rocket motor installed in it, this tiny aircraft was capable of attaining the then unheard of speed of 596mph, albeit for only a few minutes. Only one unit was equipped with this last ditch fighter, J.G.400, formed in March-May 1944 and first seeing action in August of that year. Komets of this unit were flown against American bomber formations and made an incredible sight as they zoomed at terrific speed through the ponderous masses of four engined B-17s. After reaching sufficient altitude an Me163 pilot had only two and a half minutes rocket power remaining before his motor consumed all the fuel and ceased functioning, whereupon the aircraft became a highly vulnerable 'glider' The commander of the second gruppe of JG400 Major Robert Olejnic, once destroyed three B-17s in rapid succession over Altenburg in Thuringia. Allied records show that the type was known to have attacked with R4M rockets and that one B-17 was destroyed by ten 50mm shells discharged from two five barrelled guns mounted vertically in the Komets wingroots, their firing was triggered off by the action of light-sensitive cells. German aircraft are not my subject but I thought I'd add my bit to this topic. Peter.
Reference thread fastest plane of WWII. It was probably the most dangerous(to the pilot)plane of WWII as well. Good idea but way too soon for production, just didn't have the time to go on those grand engineering adventures, silly Germans, lucky for us.
Anyone know what the small propeller in the nose did? I wondered if it was a compressor for the fuel pumps, but in that case how was the fuel pumped before the a/c gained enough speed to turn the propellor. Adrian Didn't the small propellor help to stabilise the jet in flight? Not sure. i didn't read the info board at Cosford as i was way to busy flitting back and forth between the Lincoln and the Mossy. Sorry.
Anyone know what the small propeller in the nose did? I wondered if it was a compressor for the fuel pumps, but in that case how was the fuel pumped before the a/c gained enough speed to turn the propellor. Adrian The small propellar ran the electrical generator for the engine.
