Messerschmitt Me 163 Pt.2 Plus Me 263 and More!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 фев 2020
- Me 163, 263, and the B2 Bomber's dirty secret
I hope you folks like this video. There just isn't a lot of really solid information on the 163, which means this video is a bit different from others on this channel. I have to interject my own opinions to fill in blanks a bit more than I would like.
Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom...
On the subject of Rocket engines, I didn't say they are not effected by altitude, I said power doesn't decrease with altitude. I'm basing that on the following statement on the Wikipedia Rocket page: "At full throttle, the net thrust of a rocket motor improves slightly with increasing altitude, because as atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude, the pressure thrust term increases."
Regarding the B2, those comments seem to have hurt some people's feelings. First, I said the the B2 does NOT have a Lavatory. That IS correct. If anyone disagrees, I invite you to post a link showing that it does have Lavatory. I did not say there is no toilet. There is a non flushing type IN the cockpit behind the pilot's seat.
So, if they have a toilet, why use an adult diaper? It's because the "toilet" is really a small stainless steel bowl, like a tiny camping toilet and does not have the capacity for long trips. To make up for that pilots take "piddle packs" or alternatively use adult diapers. Source: www.airspacemag.com/military-...
The same pilot told me about the medication. that's supported here by a quote from Doctor Capt. Caleb JamesHere is the quote: "For especially long missions, James said doctors will prescribe medication “in the event that those members need that little bit of extra push to help them stay focused on the mission.”
Source for that quote: www.defensenews.com/air/2019/...
So, I have a source for everything I said about the B2, in addition to the B2 pilot I talked to.
Hanna Reitsch. Since this isn't a political channel, I am not all that interested in using up video time discussing her political beliefs. I am focused on her aviation exploits. There is conflicting information about her crash. Some say it was a 163A, some a B. In either case, she never flew a B in powered flight.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles... 
Авто/Мото
Hanna Reitsch had her accident in an Me 163b, not in an "a". She had used her political power to try and finagle her way into the flight test program of the Me 163, and had been allowed to fly the Me 163b as a glider IIRC 4 times. She continued to try to assert her will to get into the real experimental flight test issues of the aircraft, so Späte came up with the idea to let her be a production type test pilot for new production run aircraft to confirm they handled like they were supposed to. This would get her out of the experimental test pilot's hair because they viewed her as being non-current (spending too much time away doing other things) and meddling in their jobs. The Kroneis factory had a contract for the first 70 production run Me 163b's, and Kroneis arranged for her to be his factory pilot. The accident happened on her very first factory acceptance flight. Trust me, I know the story better than most anyone out there. My father was was her tow pilot that day, and also the only Me 163 test pilot present, and also the only other Me 163 pilot to have landed an Me 163 with the take-off dolly still attached (so he knew what her problems were). I don't want to "hunt & peck" a book at this point, but suffice it to say that she just royally botched up the approach to the airport. The accident was her fault because the aircraft could have been landed safely with the dolly still attached. After she recovered from her injuries, she then took the regular 5 flight transition course for new Me 163 pilots coming from other aircraft. Those 5 flights were in the Me 163a model with the last one IIRC being under power. It was then that she went back to Späte demanding to be allowed to fly the Me 163b under power. Späte refused on the grounds that he now had a lot of combat pilots to train and could not afford her a "joyride". It was at that point that she got mad and never came back. My father also pointed out that shortly after that episode, Späte was transferred back to the Eastern front. My father felt that it just made no sense to transfer the commander away just as everything he had worked for was starting to come together. My father's gut feeling was that Hanna had exercised her power and vindictiveness. On another note, you rely entirely too much on Mano Ziegler's book. He sensationalized a lot in order to sell books, and didn't really have the intimate involvement to tell the whole story. He was sort of a peripheral player. There are a number of other books out there which are better from a historical perspective.
MROD2b whatsapp an amazon story! Have you or your father written his story? I'd buy it.
Quite an interesting point of view, to be certain. There's so much "History" out there, in all aspects, that either over-glorify or under-glorify historical figures, and it's often difficult to determine what is factually accurate and what isn't (for instance, Paul Revere's _Midnight Ride,_ and so forth). I tend to find your perspective believable.
I can believe this from what I've read of her personality. Pretty sure she had pull with Hitler being buddy buddy. It's amazing what first hand information straight from the source that pops up in RUclips comments on history videos, even more fun when it's you yourself doing it... it's like Bill Gates said... business at the speed of thought. Well, almost, delayed only by the few hours, days, or years until the right person stumbles across the video or the comment in a search or skim... birds of a feather, flock together.
choppergirl.air-war.org
@@moriahmolotovschroeder-hug5632 My father was never a publicity hound or a glory seeker. He was a professional test pilot who would never lay claim to anything unless he had ironclad proof, and above all just wanted history to be recorded exactly as it happened without any spin attached. He never had the desire to write a book, and in the end he said that a lot of his story had already been written down in various forms, just not all collated in one place. He is in all the Me 163 books as he and Dittmar were the two primary experimental test pilots on the aircraft. Perhaps the most accurate involving him is Jeff Ethell's book Komet The Messerschmitt 163. His involvement in the 10 May 1940 glider assault on the Maginot Line and his in involvement with the Horten flying wings (mostly post war) is found in other places. Regarding the Hanna Reitsch story, he was always afraid of her political pull
even long after the war. She had her legion of supporters, so he never publicly came out with the story I shared here in fear of retribution. He was the only qualified observer there. He
saw everything, and accompanied her in the car to the clinic
and hospital afterwards. Everyone just took her word for what happened, and no one asked my father what he saw or thought. Every other published account was second hand
heresay. Towards the end, I was his firewall in helping him filter out who among all the folks clamoring for contact with him, that he would actually respond to. I finally convinced him to tell me the whole Hanna Reitsch accident story because I knew that people would be asking me about it long after he
was gone. So, he did in excruciating detail, but it is way too long to type here. His end vindication was that she and her accident set the program back by 6 months during which time he had to redo all the flight tests that could have had
something to do with her accident. In the end, there were
absolutely NO changes made to the aircraft or it's handling.
Most everyone who flew it (including Hanna) raved about the
great handling qualities, so that confirmed to him that she was just making excuses to try and cover up her own errors. To
him as a professional test pilot, if you screwed up, you had to
admit it, so to him, she had committed a cardinal sin....and it almost got the whole program canceled.
@@robertgantry2118 Thank you. It is the truth, which is sometimes hard to come by. Please my other answer in this thread.
No wonder this thing was so slow, with that tiny propeller they put on it!!!
but its soooo aerodymanic....
LMAO!
Hahaha...
They first used rubber-band power, but a critical shortage in the strategic Latex stockpile left Goering no choice but to have a seven-squirrel* treadmill spin the prop. *With amphetamines.
Just wanted to add that the MK in MK 108 isn't Mk (or mark). It is M.K. as in Maschinenkanone. Really awesome videos. I really enjoy the channel.
Yeah was about to say...
Max, you are correct sir. Great point!
And that weapon-system was called Jagdfaust SC500. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdfaust Unfinished parts(frames) found and identified after war in Central Bohemia(Czechoslovakia). On your picture was FW190 probably with SG116 ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/sonder-geraet-116.44901/ Both were 5cm/2inch
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I'm a flight simmer and I used to refer to them as Mk. 108s as well. You definitely can't deny that Mark One Oh Eight rolls off the tongue really nicely. :)
@@M4xPower Yeah, but it's German, so it must be complicated. :-D
Rockwell International used two F-106 Delta Darts as chase aircraft during the B-1b flight test program. I worked there, and watched them fly on numerous occasions at Sierra Highway and Avenue N in Palmdale CA. It was certainly cool to see those old F-106's flying out of US Air Force Plant 42 during the early days of the B-1b program.
The B-2, the entire outer wing, was twisted something like 7 degrees leading edge down. And during the modification program for the B-2, new inboard elevons were fitted that had the trailing edge twisted upwards, i.e. reflex airfoils. Reflex airfoils are another means of stabilizing a tailless aircraft, mainly for aircraft with minimum sweepback.
I used to fly a lot of radio control aircraft in my younger days. And have built many tailless aircraft, either with washout or reflex airfoils. The reflex airfoil changes the way the center of pressure and the center of gravity interact. Radio control aircraft I built with reflex airfoils would have this crazy tendency to bob the nose up-and-down when speed over a certain range was there. It was like the cp was arguing with the cg over who was right.
Back in the eighties I worked at an aerospace company. Once I attended a professional dinner where I sat next to an engineer from Naval Air Station Oceana. He commented that although they tested Sidewinder air to air missiles without warheads, they still had a tendency to hit and destroy the target drones. As drones were expensive, they would routinely crank in an offset to the Sidewinder guidance system to ensure it would not hit the drone. He went on to say that this was not necessary with the Falcon missile, as it never hit the drone. The Falcon was refereed to as "the friendly missile".
Yet the Swiss spent a fortune when buying the french Mirage III in the sixties as they wanted the best of the best and so they wanted the U.S. Falcon missile system fitted to their Mirage III. The radar and electronics (from Hughes I think) was called "Taran" presumably to guide the Falcon. In almost 35 years of service you can find actually only few early pictures of Swiss Mirage III mounted with Falcon on the center point of the fuselage. The whole acquisition program went to so much overcost it became a political scandal and the Swiss Parliement ordered a reduction in half of the initial order to recoup the budget over-inflation.
Interesting, I heard a lot about the 163 from my older brother who a tail gunner in a B17. He saw both the 163 and the 262, not mention the Messerschmidt and the Focke Wolf. He died about 15 years ago and I wish he was still so he could comment on the bombers point of view.
So interesting. The stories he could tell....
R.I.P.
My late uncle, a B-17 copilot with 27 missions over Europe, told me that one of his gunners shot down a 163 making a vertical pass by aiming his fifty caliber machine gun far ahead of the 163's flight path and simply holding down the trigger until the 163 flew through his barrage fire.
The late, Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown, RN, had flown this plane after capture. He holds two records that will never be beaten: he flew the most types of aircraft, and he has the most carrier landings and takeoffs. He also holds many firsts: first to land twin engine plane on carrier - the Mosquito, and first to land jet on carrier.
Yes, 'Winkle' Brown was absolutely hopping-mad that he was prevented from flying a 163.
Officially, for safety reasons...
@@lawrieflowers8314 The actual powered flight happened later at Humul airfield with a selected German ground crew assisting. (Eric Brown speaks fluent German) During this flight he climbed at a 45degree angle at a speed of 450mph, reaching 32,000feet in 2.75 minutes. ruclips.net/video/8PN9AP710e0/видео.html
Eric Brown's book " Wing's on my sleeve " is an excellent read.
Brown also flew the de Havilland DH-108 which was a Vampire with the tail removed and the wings replaced with ones based on the Me-163. Built at a time when the Brits thought tailless aircraft might be the key to supersonic flight, it had all the trans-sonic issues of the Me-163 together with a greater propensity to spin and a nasty divergent longitudinal oscillation if one pulled g's at a high mach. They built 3 and all 3 crashed, killing 3 experienced test pilots. It's still considered the first British aircraft to go supersonic, although today most consider that it was not the first British aircraft to go supersonic in controlled flight.
Gort interceptor: F-102 and F-106, bomber B-58,
all influenced by Lippisch.
Guess I won't be sleeping for a while.
Just hit that prop pitch air brake 👌
Adam, your youtube channel is great!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Likewise, thanks for the praise!
38:34 *quietly draws a line on the "Become a B2 pilot" entry on the to-do list
This channel is a hidden gem.
I've been learning more about aviation aerodynamics with this channel than with a large number of other channels combined.
Thank you ever so much.
This channels comment section is a hidden gem, minus my comments :D
I'm surprised that Greg's videos don't get more views, although, knowing how people are, I shouldn't be surprised at all. Learning is just too much work for most people, I think, and they'd rather be entertained at all times rather than learn anything of value in their spare time.
Indeed...
If they only knew how entertaining learning things of value can be :)
@@robertgantry2118 Sad isnt it, short attention span of most on youtube means videos longer than 15min rarely do well, youtube also are not fond of videos with certain symbols and subject matter, even if they are just reporting on history which absolutly should never be censored. Without a doubt the best millitary aircraft related content on yt and its criminal he doesnt have the 1m+ subs he deserves, hopefully one day he explodes. Thanks Greg if you happen to read this.
I believe the coal in the coal fired turbines was processed coal in the form of precision briquettes. They were contained in a matrix, heated to red heat and spun at high speed in a compressed airflow. It appears feasible, although I'm not sure if the turbine was ever manufactured. Coal has a lot of potential in various forms and should not be lightly dismissed. It's still a valuable resource, loathed of course by the carbon zero narrative.
The "Cornfield Bomber" is the nickname given to a Convair F-106 Delta Dart, operated by the 71st Fighter-Interceptor Squadron of the United States Air Force. In 1970, during a training exercise, it made an unpiloted landing in a farmer's field in Montana, suffering only minor damage, after the pilot had ejected from the aircraft. The aircraft, recovered and repaired, was returned to service, and is currently on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.
Alexander Lippisch is one of the great aircraft designers in history, what a legacy he left behind.
The design criterion for the B-21 bomber (replacement for the B-2): Gentlemen, we need you to design a stealthy airframe around............ this toilet...........
If you look at the plan view of the 263, you'll notice it has a "waistline" in the centre fuselage which indicates knowledge and application of the Area rule needed for supersonic flight.
You can see this applied on most supersonic fighters. Mirages, F106, F104, F4, F16 which only emerged in the late 50's, 60's and 70's
This is quite an important topic... PERHAPS Greg could review the drawings he has access to, and help us clarify if the 263 truly had any "Area-Rule" design considerations, or not.
I forgot all about that Coal Powered Interceptor until you reminded me. Man the solutions to the desperate fuel shortage.
Another informative video as always Greg, all that explanation about Aircraft CG and Lift and was very nicely explained as well. I would wager you would do well as a teacher on topics like these, since videos are testament to that since they are so well explained. Demanding watcher attention but not wallowing in its own terminology and jargon.
I've heard North Korea has coal powered submarines. lol
Yeah the idea of a coal powered fighter is a new one on me !!
what else did they consider ? ... wood burners ? .. bottled farts ? ...
The Germans certainly cornered the market of crazy ideas !! :D
Coal powered?!
It would've made sense on logistics trucks... maybe even on tanks. But on fighters/interceptors? No.
Haha, ah but did they fly ? :D :D :D
even so, how cool/crazy is that !! how many miles to a log I wonder ? :)
If I remember rightly the Russians had some vehicles that would run on anything that could be burnt .. still though a coal powered fighter is going to take some beating !! ... it's how the Victorians would have done it, eat your heart out Jules Verne !! :D :D :D
@Gort Yes but then the allies bombed the synthetic oil refineries. At that point it was only coal.
I remember when you could buy WW II surplus flight suits from ads in surplus equipment catalogs and the backs of magazines. They were described as having waist pockets and also waste pockets.
I remember playing a game called Wing of the Luftwaffe in the early 90's and the ME163 had the vertical rocket weapon.
Or Aces Over Europe. One of my first PC games (besides Castle Wolfenstein/Doom).
LucasArts Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe was a favorite!
Interesting info about the changing CG in a Mustang. That explains a LOT about it's reputation during takeoffs. I'm not a full-scale pilot, I've flown a lot of R/C aircraft...many of which have been homebrew 'TLAR' (That Looks About Right) designs. Yeah, a CG that's too far aft can rapidly become a nightmare. Sure, a CG that's too far forward can get bad, but too far aft gets catastrophic a lot faster.
I was building a model of the Douglas F4D (later designated the F-6) Skyray, when I thought that it reminded me of another aircraft. I started looking around and there was the Me163. I checked and sure enough Alexander Lippisch’s name popped up. Short service career, but Mach 1 and first carrier-launched aircraft to hold the world’s absolute speed record (Wikipedia). It was a nice build.
Back in the day we referred to the F4D as the "Ford".
C-Stoff fill point: About a foot from the T-Stoff fill point if the ground crew is attentive, about a mile if they’re not. Great video, very informative in particular about the challenges of operating this thing and turning it around. Which seems rather a common theme for rocket planes that use hypergolic fuels. Thanks again.
HR was remembered in the film Operation Crossbow when she flew the manned V-1.
I haven't seen it, but every time I have seen her depicted in a movie, I feel it's been poorly done.
OK, I just watched a clip, not bad.
@Dennis Moore She didn't get launched from a catapult though, but got dropped from a bomber like they did with the X-15.
She was also seen in Untergang.
And one of the main characters in Yann&Henriet comic book "Bear's Tooth"
A "manned V1"? Hmm?? Actually, with Hanna Reitsch at the controls, that would have been "a womaned V1" wouldn't it??? :)
I grew up near Hamilton AFB during the 1960s. When I moved there the F-101 Voodoo was stationed there. In about 1966 (?) the group was reequipped with F-106 Delta Darts. I lived six miles away, but when they took off in full afterburner the surrounding countryside shook.
The post war influence of german designs (and designers) is just unbelievably fascinating.
Would love to hear more about it (maybe on both sides of the iron curtain)!
Once again a fantastic video Greg!
My passion for aviation gave me more understanding of physics than the years of school. One of my new teachers was Mr. Greg. I listen with pleasure, thank you my friend!
In 1972-73 I was a student at a University in Taipei studying Chinese. I lived just off 中山北路, not far from the "combat zone" near the JUSMAG compound. Your video shows a very different ambiance to the area than it had in 1972.😎
Thank you for the explanation of tailless aerodynamics. I have always wondered how they work.
A great video. The 163 pilots went way beyond brave into crazy. The airframe basically great for an interceptor, the rocket motor is just not ready for prime time
30:43 Funny thing about that, Messerschmitt was actually working on an early SAM called Enzian that was based off of the Me 163 airframe.
Thanks for the great video! As a side note: Famous British Navy Pilot Eric Brown flew the Me 163 without the rocket motor and fuel on board. He was full of praise for the handling. He would have loved try out the plane with the rocket motor, but that was not to be.
As I recall the low muzzle velocity on the MK108 was an intentional design concession to increase the rate of fire. Since MG151s weren't cutting it, they needed a good bomber killer weapon, and 30mm did the job very well, but most cannons that large fired rather slow, making it difficult to get enough hits in during a high speed pass.
So in order to increase the number of hits in a pass, they accordingly wanted a higher rate of fire. To achieve this the 108 used a very unique chambering system that gave it a much higher rate of fire than similarly sized cannons, but that system required a very specific muzzle velocity to get the timing just right, one that happened to be fairly slow. For shooting at a giant bomber in a high speed pass though, where aim is less important than burst mass, low muzzle velocity and accuracy were considered acceptable concessions.
Thanks. I love the detail you put out.
In the 1980’s my Dad and I used to go to the Florida gulf to fish for Red Fish. When there, we would seen F-15’s and F-106’s from Tyndall AFB doing dissimilar air combat maneuvering with F-16’s from Elgin AFB. You can’t miss seeing an F-15 in afterburner at any altitude. You could get a glimpse of an F-16, but as soon as he rolled or turned, you’d lose him. Both of those aircraft roar, the F-15 More so. The F-106 hummed or moaned. You could pick it out for a second or two because of to size, but, like the F-16, in hard maneuvers it just disappeared.
These videos coming out so quickly is awesome thank you!
i love the "heavily medicated" euphemism.
on mildly unrelated note if you'd find time to comment on P-39 balance and spin characteristic it would be great.
It may just be one pilot taking zolpidem to sleep while the other is flying, and later they change around.
@@MultiZirkon No, they take stimulants. Specifically dextroamphetamine. B2s are probably one of the only aircraft they use dextroamphetamine on. Caffeine pills are used on all sorts of USAF flights though.
Facinating history! Thanks Greg.
Great video as always. Felt like there needed to have been an, "And on that bombshell, good night," at the end.
It sounds like the B-52 is much better to crew than the B-2. That last bit on the B-2 was disturbing to hear.
The B52 is the most useful military aircraft ever, considering its length of service and ongoing importance in the USA's Nuclear Triad.
Your comment about the P-51s with the fuselage fuel tank having CG issues.... I'm a tad bit surprised that you didn't mention the P-82/F-82 Twin Mustang issues since it had TWO fuselage fuel tanks!
Thanks Greg Another Excellent Production “Pitch Stability” Is an Interesting Topic 😀😊😎
I remember the F-106 very well, there was even one at the Midland Air Show, along with an F-104.
Some layman’s terms on why decreasing thrust didn’t extend the 163’s flight time: a rocket engine works by using the nozzle to turn high pressure low velocity gas into low pressure high velocity gas. If you lower the pressure in the chamber by throttling the fuel, this results in lower exhaust velocity.
Four of my favorite words: “Greetings, this is Greg”.
Excellent video! Thanks for posting!
What an incredible plane and such an interesting story. Many thanks for the addendum on Lippisch Coal Interceptor!
Have a great day!
Greetings from Guatemala!
This was one of your most interesting videos in my opinion
The best aircraft videos I have seen yet, honest yet correct via the time frame, including the Wright Brothers videos. Keep up the great work Greg...
Your point about not judging past decisions with what we know now is well taken. Looking back at US weapons development 1945-60, we tried a lot of weird stuff that ended up going nowhere, and it reads like a lot of money was just wasted. But the rapid postwar development of technology (nukes, electronics, jets, missiles) made it difficult to be sure what was going to be needed in the future- so try everything!
I enjoy your channel. Thank you very much for taking the time and effort that you do take, it's always excellent.I trust you and yours remain happy, safe and well. Bon Chance sir
I absolutely love this channel. I'm so captured by it that I find myself wearing adult diapers for a binge watch.
iPads make Adult Diapers obsolete in this instance... Trips to the Head are easy...
😁
lol, that ending made me laugh a bit. Nice video with lots of information!
Fascinating stuff as always. I'm pretty sure negative wing twist is called wash _out_.
Your videos just get better and better.
I love the detailed technical stability and control description of the flying characteristics of aft C of G: It would fly like crap...
Boy, thank you Greg, for that disturbing visual about the 30-hour plane rides! hahaha I kid, I kid. This really was a fascinating two-part series, and I hope to see more of its kind in the future. Thank you for all the research you are doing and the information you're putting out here. We love it!
Another excellent video. Especially liked the history linking the Me-163 to the F-106. Hadn't thought of that before but it makes sense. Some observations on the F-106 based on flying against the F-106 unit from Griffis AFB at College Dart in 1976. Tyndall AFB had gone operational on their Air Combat Maneuvering Range (ACMR) and, after years if not decades of neglect, started running ADC units through College Dart to give them some dissimilar air combat maneuvering experience. They did not have dedicated adversary aircraft at that time so they invited other units to provide opposition. My navy unit--VF-51--accepted the invitation.
The Griffis CO briefed us on what to expect. Main problem was they knew the AIM-4 was worthless so we started by pretending they had a weapon by giving them AIM-9D/G capability. Believe they were scheduled for the gun pack upgrade but hadn't gotten it yet. Next, the plane had terrible visibility for ACM that really made the pilot's job difficult. Also, while the plane had a good turn it had dangerous departure characteristics that made using maximum turn performance problematic. An F-106 departure could readily progress to a spin and spin recovery was not a given. Really hard to re-establish controlled flight with that highly swept delta wing once a spin developed. Our hard wing F-4N departed readily in certain flight regimes but also recovered nicely if you followed departure control procedures. You know your aerodynamics so just think about spinning a plane with 60 degrees of leading edge sweep. That said, we got into a rolling scissors with their CO and he really knew how to fly that airplane. We had to extend out the bottom since he was eating our lunch in the rolling scissors. However, as I mentioned in a previous comment, the F-106 slowed down fast due to energy bleed and didn't accelerate well when starting from a high AOA. Made it easy for the F-4 to extend away once a F-106 got slow. Plus, after flying against Topgun A-4s and F-5Es, it was nice to fly against a plane as big as the F-4 where you could extend and still keep sight. Overall, our F-4s did quite well against the F-106. However, in 1976 Navy ACM training was quite strong while the Air Force was still working to re-establish effective ACM training. That training disparity determined results more than direct aircraft comparisons. In fact, Navy section tactics at that time were driven by the fact that the F-4 didn't turn well. We just found other ways.
Great post David, Thank You!
Back in the eighties I was once at a professional dinner where I ended up sitting next to an engineer from Naval Air Station Oceana. He described to me how although they tested AIM-9 Sidewinders without warheads, they still often struck and destroyed target drones. Drones are expensive, so they would program an offset into the AIM-9 guidance system to be sure it missed. He told me this was not necessary with the AIM-4 Falcon, as it always missed anyway. Their nickname for the AIM-4 was "the friendly missile".
Brilliant video as usual. Long pitot tube could have been required due to spanwise airflow? I noticed the lack of wing fences and notches.
The fact they never upgraded the F-106 weapon bay and radar is really a shame. Thank you for explaining the lineage between the crazy coal-powered Lippisch interceptor and the Delta Dagger, which is my favourite century aircraft. Never would have noticed that myself.
An informative, broad, fun, coverage. Thanks for posting, Greg.
I thought that deltas bleed off energy in turns much faster than other types.
This is the third video I've seen on this channel, bu they are all excellent; very informative without being dull. Great work!
I appreciate you watching this video. I personally like my two 163 videos, and although they are not super popular, I'm glad I made them.
Convair also made the (basically unknown) F2Y Sea Dart (a "seaplane"/"floatplane" fighter) and the much better known B-58 Hustler!
You can actually see a short clip of the F2Y in the premier of Sea Hunt (s1, e1): Sixty Feet Below....
Props to this poster for the fascinating informative videos.
Great video!
I especially liked your explanation of CG. Flying an RC model of the me163, including the Mirage, I can say that flying wings are really quite tricky when it comes to their CG, with no such problem with pitch authority/stability, and can be very much more sensitive when trying to maintain a neutral CG than compared to a more traditional design like a bf 109. Though despite only being a model it's a real joy to fly. Mine also takes off with a detachable dolly and being electrically powered it's a real demon in the sky with about the same flight time as the real one haha. It's most tricky during take offs and landing, as the latter you really got to try and bleed it's speed. Most probably my fastest plane in the hanger than compared to my other warbirds. Some people with a GPS tracker on their models have clocked it at around 300km/h as claimed on forums.
Kerbal Space Program taught me about CoG and CoL (they call centre of pressure centre of lift). It isn’t just rocket science in KSP, it also has a (simplified) aerodynamic model for atmospheric flight. Both for returning space planes, like the shuttle and pure atmospheric craft, jet, rocket and prop. I’d recommend this game/simulation to anyone trying to get their heads around the concepts at the start of this vid.
Agreed.
@@CAL1MBO Over the last three years I’ve drifted away from KSP1 and KSP2, it will come as no surprise, has been, well. I haven’t bought it.
I enjoyed learning all the stuff I learned in KSP1, but right now I’m learning how to be a (virtual) pilot. DCS is my DoC these days! 😊
Another great video, thanks Greg
Great episode, Greg.
One of the other rocket powered planes Germany developed was the Bachem B339 Natter. Eric Brown mentioned the Me 163 in his book Wings Of The Luftwaffe
i'm pretty sure there was a picture of the Sondergerät SG 500 Jagdfaust in the Rocket Fighter book.. at least in the one i have..
well done!!
So happy I found your channel Greg. It's just the type of well researched nerdy aircraft content I need in my day.
I'm happy you're here Mike.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles thanks. I'mnbuilding an RC me 163 from scratch right now and the little table you found with the wings washout and other info is going to help a bunch.
Check my channel if you want to see a flight video
The mini prop in the nose is called a RAT (ram air turbine) which drops down in the airstream (in commercial aircraft) in flight during emergencies for regaining electrical power. (It spins an AC generator) Most McDonnell Douglas planes I built at the factory worked this way.
Great explanation even for a casual viewer!
I was hoping for more information on the high speed air launch tests I've heard of. I understand they were very close to Mach 1 when the wooden tail rudder broke off and gave everyone a big scare.
Another fun fact of the F-106 the nuclear air-to-air missile was developed in part by James Irwin the Apollo 15 LM pilot"
your right about the F-106, it was an aerodynamic masterpiece, it was the second fastest single engine interceptor made just a tad slower than the Mig-23 which had about 4,000 lbs more thrust.
there was a s-version of the 163, in glider version only, replacing the fuell tank (for the t-stof) for an seat where an instructor could sit.
a bit akin too the 2 seat p-38.
+bibia666 The Russians had a captured Me-163 trainer, likely scrapped when Stalin ordered everything scrapped for his new air force. I would have to do some looking to see if the AAF or RAF captured one. plane-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Messerschmitt-Me-163S-Habicht-8.jpeg
I can see why the cannon isn't that effective, probably due to the very short barrel. It only has a velocity of 1770 fps. (the A10's 30mm is close to 3300 fps) There are 12ga shotgun slug as fast as the MK 108's rounds. But that is slow for a bullet, and being a big 30 mm one with a lot of drag--- and it's going to bleed off speed fast and would be subsonic in less than couple hundred yards.
Have you considered doing a video or a series over the P-39? It gets a terrible reputation in the US service as a bad fighter but I've heard the Soviets used it very effectively. I always thought it was a cool design and the P-63 seemed to fix many of the issues.
It was poorly suited for high altitude because it lacked a supercharger, and it was less maneuverable than its foes in the pacific theater. However it was excellent at low altitude and the Soviets used it to great effect.
How about a used vegetable oil ram jet? A French Fry Fighter?
Wanted to add some trivia related to your last comments on crew comfort of the B2. The Russian SU34 2 man side by side cockpit has room for a crew member to lay down on the floor and nap. There is a flight deck behind the seats which has a lavatory and a galley. It’s also has a respectable ferry range of 2800 miles. I doubt the SU34’s were anywhere near the $1B cost of the B2’s.
Su 34 was based on su 27...guess who paid for the development costs?
@@01Bouwhuis I dunno. Maybe O’Biden sent some of that sweet Ukrainian corruption money?
The DM1 is on public display at the NASM Udvar Hazy Center in Northern Virginia. The aircraft is only partially assembled; the wing tips are not attached. It is tucked behind the Do335 and AR 234.
Thanks, that's great to know!
I just got around to watching this ( May 2024 ). One correction: The
B-2 Spirit in fact has an onboard chemical toilet, ( vented ) a small cot
to allow one crewman to lay down and rest, and an onboard ..... wait
for it..... MICROWAVE OVEN ! Crew comforts are not totally ignored.
It must be noted: These were ' aftermarket ' add-ons, implemented
after the aircraft came into service.
Lot's of airplanes have add-ons. That doesn't excuse the omission in the first place. Furthermore it still doesn't have a lav.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The B-2 Spirit is a
two seat bomber. Like the DeHavilland DH-4 Liberty
Bomber, The Douglas SBD Dauntless, The Grumman
A-6 Intruder, or the McDonnel Douglas F-15 E Strike
Eagle. Did ANY of these other aircraft have an onboard
toilet, a bunk bed, a microwave, or a ' lav ' ?
The B-70 and the F-111 both had Ejection Compartments-
which were a failure. The B-1A had the same design, but
was replaced in the B-1B with four Ejection Seats.
Look, if you want to fly in an aircraft with an onboard
bathroom, take an Airbus. If you want to penetrate
hundreds of miles into enemy territory and deliver a
nuclear strike package, and get out alive, you will have
to make a few sacrifices in terms of comfort to gain
some performance and survivability.
If I'm flying for 20 hours, I want a lav.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles If you are trying to evade
three SAMs at once, all you need is a Diaper !
12:28 this may be a little off in the weeds but rocket thrust is affected by altitude. The nozzle geometry is optimized for a specific altitude. Without knowing for which altitude the nozzle was optimized it's difficult to quantify the effect in real life performance.
Love these videos!
Can you expand on that ? Interesting.
From Wikipedia: "At full throttle, the net thrust of a rocket motor improves slightly with increasing altitude, because as atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude, the pressure thrust term increases." While I don't doubt there is some scenario where power will decrease, I think its going to be insignificant relative to a jet.
Indeed this is the reason for staging in rockets such as the Saturn V. Ideally, the gases should be expanded to reach the ambient pressure. I don't really understand the problem of attempting to do too much expansion though.
If you don't expand enough, after the gases leave the nozzle, they then expand outwards which wastes some of the energy.
Scott Manley has a great video that covers how atmospheric pressure interacts with rocket exhaust and nozzle design. In short, as atmospheric pressure decreases the exhaust needs more room for expansion to get maximum efficiency. A nozzle optimized for low altitude work is too narrow for maximum efficiency in a vacuum.
Interesting that you mention the book "The women who flew for Hitler". I just finished it, and really enjoyed it. Not really any flying stuff that would appeal to pilots, but interesting to read their experiences of living through the war. I knew who Hana Reitch was previously, but learned a lot more ( negative ) about her from this book. I'm going to read Éric Brown's book next...
35:43 "Mach 2.3....Which was very fast for 1959." It's very fast for 2020 too, just sayin'. Sure, it didn't have supercruise, so range. But a measurement that turns up is "zero lift to drag" ratio, and the same design school B-58 and F-106 are the lowest I've seen. Although the B-2 is probably right there too. And I'm betting the B-58 was in it's clean config. Man, how much ice cream could they make in that fuel pod?!? #wwiistory
33:00 that top view of the fuselage reminds me of the delta dart which used area rule. Is there any chance that the germans knew about this, and thus employed the area rule to the fuselage of the 263?
I would be interested to know if the Japanese copy of the Me163 was an exact copy or it was Internally different. By the way thats a cool museum picture with the hanging Me163 with the Gloster Whittle in the background. Also that XF92 without the vertical fin looks a lot like the drone that was attached to the SR71.
My Dad R.I.P. was a Navy F-4 Pilot over Nam!! Later a Pilot at China Lake testing/ improving weapons and ECM stuff.
Chuck Yeager described shooting down one of the jets as it approached for landing. He admitted it wasn't very sporting but that seemed not to bother him. : )
If my memory is correct, he described shooting down an Me 262. And was quite specific as to the type. Sorry.
@@paulmanson253 I think I remember reading that Yeager was the first to shoot down a 163 as it was on final approach. However I find as I get older some memory's tend to blend together.
It was an Me 262 and it was his job... pretty sure no B-17/B-24 crews ever complained.
Love your work on the channel, Greg. Still hoping you'll one day do a multi-part look at the P-38 Lightning. Fascinating aircraft. 😁
I am working that in to my Mosquito vs. series, the first episode is up.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Great, that's the only one I haven't played yet. Go figure! 👍
Just a note about the Delta Dart, according to J.Broughton/Red Rupert One, his favorite aircraft type was the F-106.
I was stationed in Duluth, Minnesota while in the USAF in the early 1960s. The most spectacular takeoff I've ever seen was a F106B flown by Col. Harrison Thyng.( Naturally, us enlisted folks called him 'Harry Thing! ) He was an ace in the Med in U.S flown Spitfires during WW2, and an ace in Korea in F86s. He rotated the 106 about half way down the runway and went straight up to about 50k ft. in afterburner!
@@N7BLW Mr. Sebring, my dad, R. Engeman, of Oregon, was a 102/106 engine mechanic in Duluth the same time it appears you were there. Think he was discharged in late '62, just before the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Interesting fact. When the BMW Radial (which was quite short) was replaced with a Junkers Jumo liquid cooled engine (which was much longer) in the FW190D series. The Germans had to add an extra section between the cockpit and tail to 'manage' the position of the C.G.
Cool. Thanks for sharing
Was it Prandtl who identified the importance of sweep and washout in proverse yaw characteristics? I am sure he was a contemporary of Lippisch and the Horten brothers....
Amazing as usual.
I enjoy all of your individual episodes and the detail you go into. I was wondering if you could do a episode on the German Type 82 Kübelwagen verse the United States 151 Jeep or some type of variation of either?
That would be an interesting video. I have access to the Jeep, but not the Kube.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles That is a bummer... Well, I look forward to your next episode... If I find any technical data on the Type 82 I'll forward to you...
Greg, I happened to find some information on the VW Type 82 Kübelwagen. Maybe if you decide to do an episode this link will work.
www.allworldwars.com/German%20Volkswagen%201944%20Technical%20Manual.html
Nice job!
Got a good laugh on the bit about Consolidated & Vultee merger but you only introduced Consolidated. That pretty much sums up Vultee's contribution to the war. Anyways great video as always Greg.
Yup, I couldn't think of a Vultee aircraft that everyone would recognize.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles BT 13
Just to add some I63 real world experience,
I had the privilege to work with William (Bill) Poulter when working at a British avionics company. On a sales demonstration to Dornier at Oberphanenhoffen, Bill was flying the company Jetstream and as we approached the field he said,
"last time I was here I was flying my (unarmed) PR Spitfire at 40 odd thousand feet to photograph the Dornier factory and suddenly green tracer appeared from behind. I was hit by at least one shell in the engine which continued to run but covered the windscreen in oil. I saw the source of the tracer, an Me163 which overshot at some speed and diving away."
Bill told me that he immediately turned South towards the Alps and Yugoslavia in the hope of clearing the mountains before the engine failed. It ran for about ten minutes until it seized due to oil loss. The Alps were in cloud so after gliding for some time to as low an altitude as he dared still in IMC, he bailed out not sure if he had cleared the mountains.
Turns out he had made it over the Alps and arrived safely but not sure which country he was in.
Turns out it was Yugoslavia.
He eventually made it to Southern Italy then in Allied hands and back to UK but that's another story.
Wow, that must have been scary bailing out in the clouds not knowing where you are.
Amazing story
Widebody Airbus A310 I flew would transfer 5 tons of fuel after flap retraction into the horizontal stabiliser tank to move cg aft and therefore reduce trim drag in cruise
I'm interested an a comparison of the ME163 and the Dehavilland DH108 swallow. I haven't heard of any incidents of the ME163 breaking into pitch oscillation. Enjoy very much. Thx.