Das "Kraftei" ME 163 Komet, der Raketenjäger, als Objekt Abfangjäger mit knapp 1100 Km/h. das schnellste der 40er Jahre. Dazu kommt noch die Massive Feuerkraft mit 2x Maschinenkanonen MK 108 / 30mm. 2-3 Treffer reichen für den Abschluss einer B-17 Fliegende Festung.
8:08 I'm no expert but it seems to me there has been some confusion somewhere along the line about these propellants. Hydrogen peroxide readily flashes into steam if it contacts a catalyst, and has often been used for driving rocket turbopumps. Sodium or calcium permanganate, while being oxidizers, would seem rather useless as fuels while in a water solution and are probably serving here as catalysts for the hydrogen peroxide, either directly or after conversion to manganese dioxide. So it seems far likelier to me that the fuel pump turbines were driven by T-stoff than by Z-stoff.
You mention the fact that the fuel composition was dangerous. I heard another clip where the fuel would eat through a person and therefore, filling the tanks was a dangerous job plus bouncing down the field must have worried some pilots about the fuel as well as the bogies bouncing up and hitting the aircraft. I summary a pretty dangerous plane.
Very interesting video! 👍👍👍 I'm German and your pronunciation of "Strahlruder" is not bad actually! Make the "ah" in the word a long "aaah" and you're almost perfect!
From everything I know. It used way to much energy to take off, gain altitude. Belly dropped from a bomber like the X-15 it would have had better flight times. Or ramp launched like the V-1. But, those devices took up space. Still, an overlooked one time only weapon. Knowone else has yet to build one. A rocket powered fighter. With common sense swept wings.
Question - That incredible climb rate, was there any danger of a pilot getting the Bends from being elevated into a much thinner atmosphere so quickly?
No . The changes in ambient pressure are of a far lesser degree in altitudes above sea level, and the pressure is decreasing. Walking about at 20,000 feet , is possible. And with oxygen, there would be little discomfort. At 20,000 feet below sea level, a human body would be flat as a pancake. The main problem , would be equalisation of pressure in ear /nose/ throat , in a rapid ascent .
@@KB4QAA Could have been but nobody knows for sure (since at altitudes of 7, 6 kilometers, the air is so thin that the speed of sound drops to around 1126 km/h). Chuck Jaeger was "just" the first to break the sound barrier on camera. Still a great achievement ;D.
@@jeffreyhagelin6047 Yeah, as a matter of fact, i read that the Me 163 most certainly couldn't vreak the local speed of sound without loosing control. The sweped wings basically allowed for a speed approximatly around the speed of sound but no further.
Models in wind tunnels have proven the design was not capable of supersonic flight. Aeronautical engineers were very interested in this flight article and they tested the heck out of it. If flight tests are all that count to you, it isn't that difficult to find articles on the development of the 163 that describe the flights where is was carried aloft and released like the X-1. It went very fast but the Germans never claimed it broke the speed of sound, as much as they would have liked to.
It's related to the amount of wing compared to the body. The "tail wing" is known as the 'stabilizer' and the 'elevator.' An airplane with a wing that runs more than half the length of the airplane is very stable. The movable pieces on the tail's stabilizer are used to point the nose of the airplane up and down, like an elevator. On the main wing of a regular airplane the movable parts are used to shape the wing so it's better at taking off, landing, or flying level. On a plane without a tail wing those parts on back of the wing have to do both jobs.
@@cowboybob7093 - not true. Imaging having to balance an aircraft on a pedestal while not moving. Depending on how heavy the aircraft is in the nose, in the forward, middle and end section, and the tail, you need to balance it somewhere infront of the main wings, directly under the wings, or after the wings. That is your center of gravity (CG). Now imagine the aircraft flying and the the wings providing lift (WL). Unless the CG is located precisely at the WL point, the aircraft will start tipping over, either nose down or nose up. The traditional way to counter that tipping motion is to add tail wings that can provide a counter-lift to force the nose down or up. The ME 163 have no tail. Instead the wings are swept back so the wing tips are provides the counter lift. Imagine if you cut the tips off, moved them just a tiny bit back, and stuck them on a pole jutting out from the body. Now you have your tail wings (more like slightly aft wings), but the effect is the same: to provide counter-lift to the main wings. That is the main reason for having tail wings: To balance the plane while in the air. A happy side effect is to be able to also point the nose up and down by un-balancing the plane and make the plane go up and down.
Did they ever use jettisonable JATOs for takeoff? Seems a simple way to get more combat endurance. Of course a small craft like the 163 might be hard to control with a couple JATO mounted off the center line. Probably invitation to disaster.
![[Part 1] ทารกน้อยถูกทิ้ง👶 หญิงชราเก็บขวดขายเลี้ยงดูเขาจนโต #โลกการละคร](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nPTDvFCExks/mqdefault.jpg)
Das "Kraftei" ME 163 Komet, der Raketenjäger, als Objekt Abfangjäger mit knapp 1100 Km/h. das schnellste der 40er Jahre. Dazu kommt noch die Massive Feuerkraft mit 2x Maschinenkanonen MK 108 / 30mm. 2-3 Treffer reichen für den Abschluss einer B-17 Fliegende Festung.
8:08 I'm no expert but it seems to me there has been some confusion somewhere along the line about these propellants. Hydrogen peroxide readily flashes into steam if it contacts a catalyst, and has often been used for driving rocket turbopumps. Sodium or calcium permanganate, while being oxidizers, would seem rather useless as fuels while in a water solution and are probably serving here as catalysts for the hydrogen peroxide, either directly or after conversion to manganese dioxide. So it seems far likelier to me that the fuel pump turbines were driven by T-stoff than by Z-stoff.
Very good collection of videos. I saw a video of someone with an rc model of the ME163, including a dolly! Was sweet and funny.
0:57 That climb is pretty impressive
Good footage, informationally correct and seamless narration. Well done. Do more.
9.30 ish...the beginning of the take off roll...bumps and bounce...good little video ✔✌
Mind you, by then airstrips did be nothing more than mowed meadows...
The 163A has a thinner wing. Did they make it fatter just to slow it down?. Like breaking the sound barrier and losing control?.😎
Simply great !
Thanks for posting !
5:42 look at that glossy paint, what a little hotrod !
You mention the fact that the fuel composition was dangerous. I heard another clip where the fuel would eat through a person and therefore, filling the tanks was a dangerous job plus bouncing down the field must have worried some pilots about the fuel as well as the bogies bouncing up and hitting the aircraft. I summary a pretty dangerous plane.
All test pilots deal with danger but in this plane has to be the most dangerous
Nope. The most dangerous German aircraft did be the Bachem 349 _"Natter"..._
Thank you.
Thank you!
Very interesting video! 👍👍👍
I'm German and your pronunciation of "Strahlruder" is not bad actually! Make the "ah" in the word a long "aaah" and you're almost perfect!
Die Aussprache von Peenemünde ist noch besser: "Pinimandie"...
Looks like those BD jets you can buy
From everything I know.
It used way to much energy to take off, gain altitude.
Belly dropped from a bomber like the X-15 it would have had better flight times.
Or ramp launched like the V-1.
But, those devices took up space.
Still, an overlooked one time only weapon. Knowone else has yet to build one.
A rocket powered fighter.
With common sense swept wings.
Question - That incredible climb rate, was there any danger of a pilot getting the Bends from being elevated into a much thinner atmosphere so quickly?
I don't think so but their ear drums took a beating through the sudden change in altitude. They underwent training in a pressure vessel for this.
No . The changes in ambient pressure are of a far lesser degree in altitudes above sea level, and the pressure is decreasing. Walking about at 20,000 feet , is possible. And with oxygen, there would be little discomfort. At 20,000 feet below sea level, a human body would be flat as a pancake. The main problem , would be equalisation of pressure in ear /nose/ throat ,
in a rapid ascent .
Landing must've scared the crap outta ya.
not to mention the hit by the dolley, but a punctured fuel tank = instant death in this
> I would, but you said not to.
please resherch George Artelt---I think he tested one
Good...good movie. 👍👍👍
Gta 5 bought me here.. the starling plane😂😂😂
Vídeos muy interesantes, pero por favor audio o subtítulos en español.
First supersonic aircraft
J: No. Still Yeager and the X-1. Me-163 was not capable of exceeding Mach 1.
@@KB4QAA
Could have been but nobody knows for sure (since at altitudes of 7, 6 kilometers, the air is so thin that the speed of sound drops to around 1126 km/h). Chuck Jaeger was "just" the first to break the sound barrier on camera. Still a great achievement ;D.
@@mandernachluca3774
Highest speed was after a dive recovery at 702 miles per hour.
The rudder was missing as a result.
@@jeffreyhagelin6047
Yeah, as a matter of fact, i read that the Me 163 most certainly couldn't vreak the local speed of sound without loosing control. The sweped wings basically allowed for a speed approximatly around the speed of sound but no further.
Models in wind tunnels have proven the design was not capable of supersonic flight. Aeronautical engineers were very interested in this flight article and they tested the heck out of it. If flight tests are all that count to you, it isn't that difficult to find articles on the development of the 163 that describe the flights where is was carried aloft and released like the X-1. It went very fast but the Germans never claimed it broke the speed of sound, as much as they would have liked to.
The take off roll and climb wouldn’t look right without someone’s head in the foreground or a truck or other things to get in the way of the camera.
Why can some aircraft fly without a tail wing?
It's related to the amount of wing compared to the body. The "tail wing" is known as the 'stabilizer' and the 'elevator.' An airplane with a wing that runs more than half the length of the airplane is very stable. The movable pieces on the tail's stabilizer are used to point the nose of the airplane up and down, like an elevator. On the main wing of a regular airplane the movable parts are used to shape the wing so it's better at taking off, landing, or flying level. On a plane without a tail wing those parts on back of the wing have to do both jobs.
@@cowboybob7093 - not true. Imaging having to balance an aircraft on a pedestal while not moving. Depending on how heavy the aircraft is in the nose, in the forward, middle and end section, and the tail, you need to balance it somewhere infront of the main wings, directly under the wings, or after the wings. That is your center of gravity (CG).
Now imagine the aircraft flying and the the wings providing lift (WL). Unless the CG is located precisely at the WL point, the aircraft will start tipping over, either nose down or nose up. The traditional way to counter that tipping motion is to add tail wings that can provide a counter-lift to force the nose down or up.
The ME 163 have no tail. Instead the wings are swept back so the wing tips are provides the counter lift. Imagine if you cut the tips off, moved them just a tiny bit back, and stuck them on a pole jutting out from the body. Now you have your tail wings (more like slightly aft wings), but the effect is the same: to provide counter-lift to the main wings.
That is the main reason for having tail wings: To balance the plane while in the air. A happy side effect is to be able to also point the nose up and down by un-balancing the plane and make the plane go up and down.
@@JanBruunAndersen Trim, you've just described trim. Congratulations, you've affirmed my post.
Sound like Greg. 🤔
Did they ever use jettisonable JATOs for takeoff? Seems a simple way to get more combat endurance. Of course a small craft like the 163 might be hard to control with a couple JATO mounted off the center line. Probably invitation to disaster.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY why use jato when it can go at a 70 degree angle at 600 mph anyways?