Me163 -so that's how well they flew...

[HP42]

I've got a 163 in the stash somewhere and it always struck me as looking a bit like a flying brick. Then I saw this wee video and it looks like it was a nifty little glider (after burnout obviously) after-all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRj4aROMCl4

Is the scheme authentic in any way after taking into account the lack of swastika and addition of modern German flag? I also notice it's wheeled rather than a skid undercarriage. I wonder what it's like to fly?

Edited March 29, 2015 by HP42

[Duncan B]

It shouldn't be a surprise that they got the glider bit to work well, the Germans were very good at gliders and had lots of experience in tails ones in the immediate pre war years. Rocketry was also very popular during that period too of course.

Duncan B

[Simon]

Me-163 V41 PQ+KL was used by Major Wolfgang Spater of EK 16. and apparently painted in the red livery by his ground crew to resemble von Richthofen's WW1 fighters - the tail would have had a swastika, but I assume modern German law prevents that, hence the German flag.

Simon

[Mike]

It's a glider reproduction, IIRC. Note the hump with main wheel under the fuselage where the skid would usually be. Looks good though, doesn't it? Wonder if they could power one with a traditional jet or ducted fan engine?

[HP42]

Wonder if they could power one with a traditional jet or ducted fan engine?

They might be better off with a hybrid rocket engine, solid fuel (rubber or polythene) with nitrous oxide. As rocket engines go it's about as safe as it gets and you can shut it down if needed. The fuel is pretty safe too. I guess it's burn time would be very limited to 20 or so seconds but if taken up as a glider initially it could fire up the rocket and at least go most of the way to emulating the 163 of old but without most of the ridiculous risks of the original design.

Thinking aloud again, I wonder how well the original would have glided with the Walter rocket motor and cannons in place, as the latter were rather chunky lumps of metal. I guess the answer the pilots would be hoping for would be 'gently and forgiving' given the propensity of any unburned propellant to go boom on landing.

[Graham Boak]

Lippisch did a much work on flying wings, initially using gliders, so there was a considerable body of experience behind the design. Descriptions of the Me163 do describe it as handling very well in gliding flight.

[viscount806x]

I've got a 163 in the stash somewhere and it always struck me as looking a bit like a flying brick. Then I saw this wee video and it looks like it was a nifty little glider (after burnout obviously) after-all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRj4aROMCl4

Is the scheme authentic in any way after taking into account the lack of swastika and addition of modern German flag? I also notice it's wheeled rather than a skid undercarriage. I wonder what it's like to fly?

Capt Eric Brown says in one of his books that in his test flying career he flew one unpowered and that in his opinion it was the only tail less design that he came across which wasn't a killer.

[JohnT]

Capt Eric Brown says in one of his books that in his test flying career he flew one unpowered and that in his opinion it was the only tail less design that he came across which wasn't a killer.

He is the only non German to have flown one under rocket power. His book Wings of the Luftwaffe is an excellent reference and read. "A tool of desperation. Breathtaking, but potentially lethal under rocket power. Remarkably docile in glide flight."

[steelpillow]

The Me 163 flew well, spending most of its time in the air as a glider having used the rocket mainly to gain altitude. It wasn't viceless (what warplane was), but it was the culmination of twenty years' methodical research by Otto Lippisch into tailless high-speed flight. Like any high-speed aircraft capable of transonic flight, its main aerodynamic problem was to slow down enough to land safely. It had fixed leading-edge slots in the outer wing to help with that. Even so, the sparks from the landing skid combined with fuel residues dribbling out of the exhaust nozzle caused more pilot deaths from explosions on landing than actual combat.

Here is a sneak preview from a book I am writing:

Alexander Lippisch had been inspired as a fourteen year old by a Wright brother's flight over Berlin in 1909. The pioneer tailless aircraft of Dunne [in Britain] and, in Germany, Igo Etrich also caught his imagination. Once the war was out of the way, the adult Lippisch began experimenting with tailless designs. His early mentor, Fritz Wenk, taught him the basic theory. The wing sweep and washout characteristic of the Dunne monoplanes reappeared in various combinations in many of his subsequent designs, while others adopted the reflex traling edge of Weiss and Etrich. Many of Lippisch's designs would also feature the endplate fins introduced by Hill [of Pterodactyl fame].
Around 1930 Lippisch began developing the triangular or delta wing. He studied aerofoils with positve, zero and negative cambers before designing the first, the Delta I. Here, probably unknowingly, he picked up on a chain of developments tracing back to Weiss [A British contemporary of Dunne]. Hill had been developing theoretical methods to help with preparing his designs, and those relevant to Weiss' upturned trailing edge had been taken to Germany by Glauert, who there cooperated with Birnbaum to further develop Hill's approach. When Lippisch heard of it and used it in his Delta I studies, he probably assumed its origins would have traced back to Etrich.
Lippisch and Hill may in a way be regarded as two sides of a single coin working on tailless aircraft. Both were influenced by much the same pioneers, both studied much the same issues from their individual perspectives and experimented with similar designs. They came to know each other and would have inevitably traded ideas in conversation. Hill and his wife visited Lippisch's gliding ground at Wasserkuppe in 1930 and were cordially received, while the next year Lippisch delivered a lecture on glider design - with and without tails - to Hill's local Westland Aircraft Society in Somerset. As late as 1938 Lippisch visited London to deliver a lecture and Hill was there to listen and to open the discussion which followed.
In 1936 Lippisch briefly followed Dunne and Wenke in introducing turned-down wing tips to his designs. He abandoned the idea in the late 1930s while he was developing the tailless swept-wing rocket test vehicle, variously known as the DFS 39d, Projekt X or Delta IVd, that would eventually emerge as the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet rocket fighter. He decided that the downturned tips were unsuited to high-speed flight, having a tendency to flutter at these speeds. Although not mentioned in the text of his book [The Delta Wing, pub. Iowa State University], tip wash-out is clearly visible in photographs of both the Delta IVd and the Komet. The aerofoil sections given in his book show why - they had little or no reflex camber at the rear and without washout the plane would have been unstable.
Soon he abandoned even this last vestige of Dunne. The wing sections for his follow-up Me 263 study (confusingly, not the same design as the later Ju 248 / Me 263) show noticeable reverse camber for approx 25% of chord. Washout for this design would not have been necessary, although sweepback was kept for other reasons.
It is a matter of simple geometry that if a wing is twisted to wash-out the tip, while the leading and trailing edges remain straight, it is not possible to achieve a true delta planform and a finite chord at the tip is necessary. If the tip chord is reduced below the appropriate minimum, then either the leading or trailing edge must bend. This may have been the reason that Lippisch's later supersonic deltas used only reverse camber for stability.

[Denford]

I'm surprised that a braking parachute wasn't (apparently) used for landings.

The Ar234 had one.

[Graham Boak]

Braking parachutes help stop an aircraft once it is on the ground. They do not help an aircraft to fly at a steady slow speed on approach.

Having said that, I did once see a Jaguar crossing the threshold and popping its chute at the same time, but I suppose if you're the Deputy Chief Test Pilot at the end of a hard day you can get away with things like that.

[viscount806x]

Braking parachutes help stop an aircraft once it is on the ground. They do not help an aircraft to fly at a steady slow speed on approach.

Having said that, I did once see a Jaguar crossing the threshold and popping its chute at the same time, but I suppose if you're the Deputy Chief Test Pilot at the end of a hard day you can get away with things like that.

And, on an unrelated but interesting note, the DH121 could deploy thrust reversers on the pod engines in flight and get a phenomenal rate of descent from it.

[Stonar]

I believe that Lippisch credited Beverly Shenstone (who worked in Lippisch's design office in the winter months of 1930-31) with introducing him to the aerodynamic calculus theories of Glauert. Shenstone spoke and wrote excellent German and published papers in German during this period.

There is some evidence that later, when working at Supermarine, Shenstone attempted to lure Lippisch to Southampton. It never happened and the war intervened, but there's a what if for you.

[Spitfire31]

A tailless Spitfire?

Kind regards,

Joachim

[mhaselden]

Even so, the sparks from the landing skid combined with fuel residues dribbling out of the exhaust nozzle caused more pilot deaths from explosions on landing than actual combat.

It was my understanding that the 2 fuel components spontaneously combusted when mixed together, and it was the jolt of landing that caused unused fuel to mix and explode. Was my understanding wrong?

Edited March 30, 2015 by mhaselden

[steelpillow]

It was my understanding that the 2 fuel components spontaneously combusted when mixed together, and it was the jolt of landing that caused unused fuel to mix and explode. Was my understanding wrong?

You may be right, I know less about the Komet's reasons for self-destruction than its reasons for staying in the air. But I do recall reading about it somewhere.

[bobmig]

Here's a good documentary episode on the Komet:

You may also enjoy Mano Ziegler's book, "Rocket Fighter".

[Stonar]

I think that the most likely cause of an explosion, if that's what happened, would be the mixing of any residual fuels, either due to ruptured vessels or some other means.

The C-Stoff (essentially containing the fuel for the 'hot' reaction in the motor) also contained the catalyst to decompose the oxidant and fuel for the 'cold' reaction, T-Stoff, which was essentially hydrogen peroxide. Mix these and you will have an explosion, uncontrolled, unlike in the motor (hopefully).

The T-Stoff alone could decompose with a potentially explosive reaction, particularly if the steam and gas resulting from the decomposition were to be confined where they shouldn't be !

That's twice today I've 'done' chemistry, something I gave up years ago