So, regarding the propellants, to summarise: they used two indistinguishable liquids which explode on contact with each other. Both of which have their own sets of materials they should not be allowed to contact with (including each other's tanks and fuel lines), else there'd be an explosion. They put the most dangerous of the two in a tank right behind the pilot, and later proceeded to install two extra tanks in the cockpit. They did all this in a small, fast aircraft and sent it up against other aircraft firing bullets at it. And finally, they did not tell the pilots what the fuels were. I don't care how technologically brilliant this all was, the Germans were completely out of their minds back then. Excellent video, thank you very much. Looking forward to the next instalment!
The dangers of the Me 163: Hard landing: explode. Fuel leak: explode. Engine failure on takeoff: explode. Shrapnel in any part of the fuel system: explode. Carelessly refuel: explode. Forget the lyrics of Erika: explode.
Read somewhere that the T-stoff could only be stored in pure aluminum tanks. This meant the T-stoff tanks were not made of aircraft grade aluminum alloys, but rather soft pure aluminum, what today would be considered 1000 series alloy.
While the 163 was quite explody, it had many other ways of inflicting death or serious injuries on its pilots, some much more gruesome than a simple explosion...
These mishaps actually did not occur as often as some may think. The biggest problem with the Me-163 operations was not how dangerous the propellants were, it was the severe shortage of high purity hydrogen peroxide which was both difficult & expensive to produce. The programme could have been made both safer and far more cost-effective if a dedicated LOX-Methanol powered advanced trainer version had been built. Von Braun had already developed such a motor before the outbreak of the war. Prototypes of said motors were successfully test flown several times in couple modified He-112 fighters as far back as 1937.
I flashed back to Ian at Forgotten Weapons channel on how to equip the Elbonian military, namely how to make the WORST choices in guns. This would be the perfect airplane for the Elbonian Air Force.
I am certain that Elbonian Defense Minister is not THAT stupid that he doesn't notice ludicrously low endurance and very temperamental special fuel mixture it uses.
Back in the late 1990's we had a German exchange pilot at our Squadron at Cannon AFB, NM the 524th. We both shared a love for WWII German aircraft and he told me through some of his research on the ME 163, his favorite aircraft, that if the wings had been swept back just 3 degrees more the aircraft could have hit mach 1. According to him, there is a team of Germans who want to build a modern version of the 163.
..problem being that all that speed is great but it's supposed to be a defense fightern which it was not and could not be. Just for starters there was no contemporary sighting mechanism nor machine gun that could actually be used in an aircraft this fast, in combat much less faster.
hmm, not likely, the lack of a horizontal tail surface would make it uncontrollable (sudden pitch change) as the shock wave in the transonic range moves across the wing and changes the center of pressure / lift... that's why Hanna Reitsch crashed in it... that's why the DH Swallow crashed, also no tailplane....
@@PRH123Hanna Reitsch crashed-landed an unpowered Me 163B on a glide test, because she failed to release the wheeled dolly when her tow lifted off. Women. There are multiple claims that the 163, flown by Dittmar, broke the sound barrier on more than one occasion, while in a dive, and post dive/on the level, when released. The layout was stolen by the DH 108, which broke the sound barrier. A more pronounce sweep, which the DH 108 did have, might be all the 163 needed(s)
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles although their "virtues" are relatively fixed in comparison with their "virtue", which is what is negotiated in the end. On the other hand, it is the virtues, which prompt an interested party to undertake negotiations in the first place...
Always appreciate Greg's dry humor and gift for understatement; but he has now joined the select group of video authors that have earned my "Sinus & Squeegee Award" after I spontaneously bathed my monitor with morning coffee . . .
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Why tow gliders with combat capable and in demand DB601 powered Me110s when something far more utilitarian like Junkers 52 should do just fine? Though perhaps Me110s were obsolescent by then and their 601s not the latest versions. right?
Stoff has a number of meanings Today it’s mostly “fabric” as in a woven material for clothing It can also mean material a bit as the “stuff” that things are made from There is Werkstoff which for an engineer generally means the material used to manufacture something (eg the specific alloy or wood etc.) Or Wirkstoff as in a chemical used for a certain purpose In the list you show us I would translate it with compound or material
In this case the meaning is "fluid". As well the fuel lines most likely were lined with asbestos, or were made with asbestos seals, as that was a very well understood seal method then, and quite reliable and something that was common there for steam applications.
Last time I was this early the Luftwaffe still had spare aviation fuel! On a more serious note, thank you for the consistently thorough and fascinating content, Greg.
I’m impressed with his knowledge and research here. Most WWII fighters he covers are right in his wheelhouse (heh) with reciprocating engines. The Komet was more of a bomb with an opening on one end that occasionally held off exploding long enough to fly.
Well done Greg. Did seem you were grasping for the right word to use when talking about the fuel reaction. The type of reaction between these liquid bi-propellant fuels that ignite on contact is called a hypergolic reaction. There are many types of these fuels that have been used in various rocket program's, and they are indeed very dangerous to work with. Almost always toxic, and even carcinogenic, however, very necessary; especially when in a vacuum where ignition of safer fuels is harder to achieve. Looking forward to part two.
Thanks Central. I was struggling to find the right word. Chemistry is way outside my scope of knowledge. I didn't even know the word "hypergolic" existed.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I've dabbled in it a bit. If I had unlimited time and money; I'd go back to school, and pursue more classes in chemistry. It's a fascinating subject.
If you are interested in rocket fuels, "Ignition!" is a great book. You might find a copy online as I think its out of print. For some amusing online articles, look for "Things I won't work with". Relevant to hypergolic fuels is the "peroxide peroxide" one. Crazy stuff.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The book Ignition! by John D. Clark is a great source for info on rocket propellants. He was a chemist that worked in the field for decades starting I think in the 40's. The book is very well written and quite entertaining, even for the chemically illiterate like me.
Greg, "Stoff" just means a chemical substance of kind. It could be a mixture or a pure element. Hydrogen, H2, is Wasserstoff (stuff from which water comes); Nitrogen, N2, is Stickstoff (stuff that will asphyxiate you); Oxygen, O2, is Sauerstoff (stuff from which sour things come, i.e., acids); Fuels are Brennstoff (stuff that ignites and burns); Bombs contain Sprengstoff (stuff that springs violently, i.e., explodes).
Thanks Greg! Very interesting. I just shortly want to mention the development of the ME 163. The following has been told to me by either my father or Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz: Long, long story short. After the war the Russians made two attempts to kidnap Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz, along with his wife and young son, in the American sector in Berlin. The Russians came in American uniforms and Jeeps. The commandant of the sector advised Hans Pancherz to flee to Sweden. He had kept one inflatable rubber raft from either the Ju 290 or Ju 390. Hans Pancherz was in charge of the test flying of the Ju 390 (America bomber). He paid a fisherman to drop him off outside of Trelleborg, Sweden. My father was reached of a rumor that there was a former Chief Test Pilot (in German, Versuchflieger) from Junkers operating a crane in the harbor of Landskrona. My father checked up his credentials with his contacts in Germany (among others, he knew Hanna Reitsch personally since his time in England prewar). It all checked out. Hans Pancherz was also an Engineer. My father employed him at his company (MFI, Malmö Flygindustri) where Hans Pancherz worked until his retirement (and a little after that. Including, but not limited to Saab 340). After the crash that killed the test pilot of the He 162, Pancherz was reassigned to finish the test flying of the He 162. There was a problem with inverted aileron effect, but in the other end of the speed scale that you mention. Hans Pancherz sorted that out. He was also assigned to oversee all development of jet and rocket aircrafts. This brings us to the Ju 248. A development of the Me 163. It had a retractable landing gear, 3 point. The engine were also different. Depending on how you look at it you can say it had two rocket engines for longer endurance. The goal was 30 minutes of endurance. Hans Pancherz did all 14 test flights with the Ju 248, maybe all towed. Anyway, the ambitions was much higher, with supersonic flight in mind. These new supersonic wings was never finished in the work shop in 1945 as all resources vanished. The wings were calculated for Mach 1.6. When I was chairman of the Malmö section of "Swedish Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics" I persuaded onkel Hans to give a presentation of the Ju 248. Unfortunately I did not record it, my loss.... So, the books could have said Hans Pancherz instead of Chuck Yeager. Thanks again Greg! Looking forward for more!
Interesting chapter of history. I get the impression the Me 163 included much new technology; a second iteration of the concept would be developed far from the first.
@@drdoolittle5724 I doubt he needed to be forced. He was a aeronautical engineer in a country that lay in ruins. He was one many scientists and engineers that were happy to come to the States and ply their trade for defense contractors and NASA, provide for their families, and put a terrible recent past behind them. Lippisch was a intellectual bonanza for Convair, and I'm sure he, along with the other German engineers were treated with respect and admiration they never saw working in the 3rd Riech.
h bethune - Werner Von Braun & the scientists & engineers traveling with him actually followed the advance of the Allies across Germany so they could “surrender” to the Americans & “continue their work” working for the Americans. We took one look at the talent Von Braun was bringing with him & decided to “accommodate their desires”.
Greg considering reading/listen to the book "Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" for a wonderful review of all the insanely dangerous propellants they tried to make rocket fuel out of between the 40's and 60's. The book is not at all dry, almost gonzo even, fun read!
I heard a lecture in the 1980s at the Smithsonian by Rudolf Opitz, who was a Messerschmitt test pilot who flew Me 163s. There is a photo in a book I own of a plane he flew at over 600 mph, if I recall correctly. I took the book to the lecture, and have his signature alongside that photograph.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The book was William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich. I paid as much for that in the late '70s as I did some textbooks. I can share a photo of the signature if that would be of any interest to you as thanks for your outstanding content.
Greg, that’s always been a fascinating aircraft to me - and the more I understand about it the more I realize its dangerous characteristics. There’s something incredibly appealing about it. Thanks for giving us a chance to learn from your deep research on the subject. Part 2: is on my list. Good luck!
Excellent video Greg. For all of its high performance, the ME 163 sounds like a right pain to service and fly. Mistakes could be fatal and people make mistakes regularly, so consequences follow rapidly.
Absolutely fantastic video on the ME comet . It's incredible how much information has not ever been available that I've seen on this futuristic and extremely interesting plane what a great job and thank you this is what the Internet is for again great job thank you
Highly interesting video! Now I once read a very similar story to what happened to Joschi. In that case, after the wheels hit the plane, the engine also cut off and the plane basically landed itself on the end of the runway. So from the outside the plane looked undamaged, but then they also found out, that the pilot had been dissolved. Many ICBM`s also use hypergolic fuels. Also many of chinese space rockets and the russian proton rocket run on hypergolic fuels. Nasty stuff.
Great video as always. Years ago, say 50, I made some hand launched gliders with swept back paper wings. By bending the paper back on itself you can make a decent airfoil and they were super light. It was hard to get them to be stable. Dihedral didn’t work to well. The cg was basically in the wing, no righting lever. But I read in some forgotten book that twisting the wing so the angle of attack at the wing tip was GREATER than the angle of attack at the root (the opposite of the ME163 ) would stabilize the glider. It worked like crazy! I have no idea why. Of course it was a paper airplane it had no ailerons to worry about.
One of the test pilots named Rudy Opitz had an article in Flight Journal a couple of years ago. This expands on his article a lot and gives some background that was missing from the magazine, thanks for making the video Greg and keep it up.
Wow! Wasn't expecting this but very fascinating subject. Thanks Greg. Will eagerly await episode 2 while still hoping for the definitive series on the FW190 series. ;-)
And notice that Umlaut itself translates into 'changed sound' and indicates a clear change in pronunciation of the letter into something like the first e in English 'kernel.
Hang glider and sailplane pilot checking in. The sweep in a flying wing is also essential for pitch stability. They will always have geometric or effective washout (twist) so that the tips replicate the downforce function of the H-stab on a conventional aircraft. So not only does the washout avoid tip stall, but it is required for pitch stability. It IS just possible to do without the sweep by using reflexed airfoil, but sweep is far preferable because the tips are less effective at producing lift anyway, so losing that to negative lift is preferable to the loss at the TE of a straight wing you’d have with a reflexed ‘foil. Also the swept tip is farther aft, so has a longer moment, so less negative lift is required. There is a book (my friend had it) that details the Hortons work that goes into this in great detail.
I agree with basically everything you said. Thanks for chiming in. One of the dilemmas I face when making these videos is deciding how much to cover. If I went into the effects of sweep and cg on pitch stability, this video would have been 2 hours long because I can't just mention it, I have to fully explain it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks Greg. I can appreciate that there is only so much that you can cover. Before some asks, by "effective" washout I mean a thicker (vs. chord) and/or less cambered airfoil toward the tips, or polyhedral, which mimic the effect of twist vis-a-vis spanwise stall distribution.
Hi Greg, Fantastic video of one of my favourite planes of all time. I learnt a number of new things as well. Thank you so much for the video! One point I’d like to make is that the T-Stoff was a minimum of 80% hydrogen peroxide, also called High Test Peroxide. As an oxidiser, it performs well but has some handling and cleanliness requirements that are hair raising at best. It didn’t really take off as a mainstream storable propellant for these reasons. A sobering thought given the characteristics of the storable oxidisers that did prevail - Nitrogen tetroxide and IRFNA. Cheers, Tim from Australia 🇦🇺
Greg ! Thankyou ! I love airplanes ! Many different Airplanes ! Many German planes ! How ever as a young boy , This was my favorite German Machine ! I would have volunteered to fly this without fear ! I was a weird kid ! Not brave ,. However very enthusiastic . Now being old and far more cautious my dream plane would be a Me 263 powered by liquid oxygen and kerosine, and because of your report a pressurized model !
@@JoeOvercoat absolutely. I wouldn't have flown it. Kind of like running up to a lion and kicking it in the nuts. Just not a good idea. The t-stoff and c-stoff explains the whole worry about clear liquids on airplanes.
Note the Me 163 had an autostable (reflexed) air foil. It could not be stalled with the tanks more than half empty. 1 Me 163A was a small test bed with a "cold" monopropellant rocket that worked by decomposing hydrogen peroxide 2 Me 163B was the combat version with a HWK 509A1/A2 that used a bipropellant rocket hydrazine hydrate + 57% methanol + 13% water (the fuel) and Hydrogen Peroxide (oxidiser) The Me 163B had a couple of problems. a/ the Me 163 could intercept because it could climb at speed in a minute what would take a piston fighter at least 10 minutes. Once there it only had a few minutes to conduct the attack and this was often not enough to form up for a coordinated attack. b/ the two 30mm MK 108 guns were not quite enough for the speed of the attack. c/ no pressurisation d/ the skid could not accept high sink rates and was the cause of must accidents. The solution to the short endurance was the HWK 509B rocket which had the same rocket motor but added a much smaller sustainer for cruise that was much more efficient. That would give the Me 163 a few more minutes. However the Me 163B was never upgraded. Instead development of the larger Me 163C was begun. This was enlarged aircraft, had a pressurised bubble canopy and 4 x Mk 108 guns and of course the improved HWK 509B and latter C. The Me 163 was perhaps to much work so the Me 163D also known as the Me 263 or Ju 248. This was a stretched Me 163B with the boost/sustainer motor and retractable undercarriage. It did fly as a glider at least. The short range was not so much an issue as the ultra high climb rate and speed meant it didn't waste 10-15 minutes time getting there. It was at bomber height in a minute. Rudy Opitz, Me 163 test pilot said that pilots did survive over turned aircraft. They were fairly solid and precautions were taken.
Another absolutely fantastic video. The human aspect you covered provided a good look and understanding into the circumstances surrounding this planes development. It took a lot of bravery to willingly get into and fly that plane, understanding what it very likely would do to the pilot, reguardless of which side their country fought on.
Great video, Gregg...just at terrific job on a difficult topic. The discussion on sweptback wings is so informative...lots of new stuff to me. Enjoyed all of it...I would not have enjoyed riding in the cockpit surrounded on three sides by T-Stoff! Seriously dangerous stuff that stoff. Thanks for all the hard work and insights. Always exciting to see a new video from you.
Thanks for your work, 👍 it has been extremely informative and hilarious at the same time. Great sense of humour you have, a few occasions I started giggling and couldn't stop for while. ... at least T-Stoff and C-Stoff were water soluble ... so mechanics did not have to be working on a ticking bomb ... : )) ... Erprobungskommando 16. I'm not gonna try that German name ... ... His wing clipped that flag tower. Just barely, but in airplanes just barely is a problem ... ... Guess where they decided to put the additional tanks holding the flesh dissolving T-Stoff. If you answered, in the cockpit, you were correct ... And at the very end: ... Women with negotiatiable virtues ... Greg, you made my day
Almost 40 min? When you said that's it, I was like "Already?!" I thought I was itching for a Spitfire video, but it seems you know me better than I know myself. ;-)
33:56 "the tail" or empennage - Etymology: French empennage (“feathers of an arrow”) Thanks Wiktionary And thanks Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles I'm sure most people who watch this channel know about 'empennage,' but for the few who don't I hope this helps.
wow what an incredible subject, this entire airplane concept was just nuts, really enjoyed learning about, the history and technical insight in to this egg shape death trap
Thanks for going into some detail about the control surfaces of the airplane! I was always puzzled about their arrangement. I first knew about this unique machine from the expansion for the IL2 1946 video game. I did not realize how unbelievably dangerous the plane’s fuel was, and thought it was some kind of suicide unit just due to the way its gears fell away. Thanks for letting me know!
Greg are you a professor? This is fantastic information, thank you! I hope Military Aviation History aka Bismarck will cooperate with you in the future (for translation etc.)
I don't get why people would come to this channel and watch the videos...and give them a thumbs down. It's always interesting and well thought out commentary. Indeed a refreshing change of pace to all the other crap out there, I guess I just don't get it. It should be mandatory to explain yourself.. scoundrels ! Keep up the good work Greg !!
Dear lord, as a person studying for an A&P license I should have thought more about how the 163 fuel system worked. The dangers and restrictions of such a fuel are simply baffling and scary. Such a dangerous system as you talked about. Never truly thought it through. Its even scarier to me now. 32:44 And I just cringed when you mentioned that they put more T-Stoff inside cockpit. I will stick to a He-162 instead. Great video though, I very much look forward to Part 2.
I have always seen , and used the term "washout" preferable to "wing twist" . On RC Airplanes without flaps it really works to prevent tip - stall.Another thoroughly researched video. thanks.
The Me 163 seems to be essentially a surface to air missile built at a time when the only available guidance system was a human. Suppose that it was nice for that human that the "missile" was often reusable.
I always enjoy with your videos of planes of ww2 by depth of analysis and point of view, among the best that can be found in youtube. Thank you very much for your time and effort, keep going, maybe improving the sound a bit. Waiting for next. Best regards.
Thanks for sharing. Absolutely love your content. I’m not an airplane fanatic and don’t know much about them. I love the way you manage to explain fairly complex shit the way I can understand it.
Eric "Winkle" Brown considered the ME163 to have excellent handling characteristics; And considering he has flown more aircraft types than anyone in history he should know. Hanna Reitsch did a lot of the glide testing on the ME163. Heini Dittmar reached a max speed of 700mph in one. It also possible that Dittmar reached an altitude of 70,000 feet on one flight, that was towed to altitude; But Reitsch, Brown and Dittmar all suspiciously gloss over the true performance of the 163. All were friends - Brown covering extensively for Reitsch after the war. Reitsch’s memoir “The Sky My Kingdom” being an exercise in “I am just a bit dizzy innocent girl me” This from the Lady that went on to become the Mother of the Ghanaian Air Force.
Thanks for the mini hotel tour. If you spend time on foreign soil it’s always interesting to see the local history and learn how it interfaces with your own. I was born in Frankfurt to a career NCO and his new bride. Dad was stationed at Darmstadt. My penultimate duty station in the Army was at Wiesbaden, not far from Frankfurt or Darmstadt. I recently saw a picture of Ernst Udet standing in front of his last WWI mount, a Fokker DVIII. That photo was taken at Darmstadt. When you get out in it, the world is a smaller place than one would think. The ME-163 has always fascinated me if for no other reason than it seems to have been a really good way to kill some of the few remaining Experten that the Germans had. Thanks Greg.
Again, fantastic content, Greg! Thank you. Maybe an idea for future content: "WW2 - Link Trainer", the simulators that were used to train airforce pilots back then.
Hey Greg ! Congratulations on the channel. Real good, detailed and proper technical explanations. Fantastic "stoff", really XD I'd like to make a comment, and I'm not sure if someone pointed this out already. If so, I apologise in advance...anyway, here it goes: You are absolutely right when pointing out that the Me-163 have a noticeable wing twist, but I suspect the reason behind that aerodynamic feature does not have to do with aileron isues or wing tip stall...but rather with pitch stability. Wing twist is a common feature to all early tail-less aircraft designs, and its purpose is to create an opposing force-and therefore a momentum- to produce some leverage to counteract the momentum generated by the lift and the distance betweet the center of pressure (CP) and CG. Kind of a built-in trimming feature, if you like. By the way: that´s also the reason pretty much all flying wings have swept wings. This goes all the way back to the very early designs, like the D-8 for instance, since it constitute a kind of intuite way of dealing with pitch stability without elevators. Yes, it provides yaw stability and have a lot advantages at high speed...but the combination of wing twist + swept wing planform was the only way of dealing with flying wing's fundamental problem, at least in the minds of early 20th century aircraft designers...waaay before pressure distribution and aileron reversal became an issue (or even dreamt of, I'd say). In their defense, I'd only say it is kind of a natural way of thinking... -Need pitch stability w/o elevators => make a built-in counteracting force in the only aerodinamic surface available-the wing itself-and move it as back as possible ! All the best, man ! Carlos
An enlightening video, I'm very much looking forward to the second part. A couple things on pronunciation/translation: "Erprobungskommando" can be pronounced approximately as "air-PRO-boongs-commando", with the "boo" part pretty short. I see "sharp start" is also the translation used on Wikipedia for "scharfer Start", but it's not really the best. "Scharf" in this instance means "armed" or "live", as in "the mechanism is armed" or "live ammunition". "Live start" or "live takeoff" would be more accurate, I think.
Excellent as always Greg. " negotiable virtues" along with a talent for providing horizontal refreshments. I can't decide which would be more hair raising..flying this aircraft at high speed in combat.. Or simply sitting between two fuel tanks that contain a liquid that could dissolve you.
I'm glad someone understood the term "negotiable virtues". I try to keep it PG-13, and I couldn't quite figure out how to say what I wanted to say without moving into R rated territory.
Just viewing this and brought memories of seeing one of these at an Ottawa museum. When I saw one as child I thought how cool it was but this video reminds me how terrible the cost of War is
4 года назад+3
Can you do a video on the allegedly superior Nazi forgings used in their airframes. The MESTA press was built to make forgings for the U.S. aircraft industry after the military was able to inspect and reverse engineer German industrial forges at the end of the war.
Hi Greg - loving your channel. I'm a hang glider pilot. yup, the sweep of the wing is the only thing on a hang glider that provides yaw stability, the pilot can't affect yaw control. Our wings have twist or as we call it washout for the reasons you describe. When a HG wing starts to stall they do so first at a point about 20-25% out from the root. As the pilot continues to increase pitch up pressure the stall expands laterally both towards the root and tips. As the stall deepens the location of the center of lift keeps moving aft, due to the sweep and twist of the wing. Eventually the pilot is not able to move their weight far enough aft to counteract the pitch down forces on the wing and the nose falls through. It is the twist in the wing that keeps the tips flying and the sweep of the wing that places the tips far enough back to provide the pitch down moment that causes the nose to fall and the wing to accelerate and regain flying speed. Our wings also have reflex at the root. The first 1 or 2 battens at the root have the rear portion bent up to provide some pitch stability. There are also tubes called sprogs out near the tips that hold the tips up if the wing is in an unusual attitude in order to maintain pitch stability.
The Me-163 is probably one of the craziest projects the Luftwaffe used and I still don't know why carried on with it for so long given how dangerous it was. I think I'd rather be in a Zero in 1945 than in that thing.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Actually over the years I have read a great deal of WW2 history, in particular in regards to war birds. To my surprise I saw and watched some your FIAT stuff and saw we had some very similar interests.
With Joschi Pohs....I have read that it was a radio tower antenna he hit. I love the 163 and have written to both Rudolf Opitz ( I spoke with Rudi) and Wolfgang Spate. I had them both sign Spate’s book... Top Secret Bird. Both nice gentlemen.
Agree, that is the perfect translation, with "substance" being more 'intellectual' :-) Found quite often: Sauerstoff (oxygen ) Wasserstoff ( Hydrogen ), Stoffwechsel (Metabolism ) - the etymology actually is strongly related to fabric and to "stuff" as to "stuff something"
Exactly. English is in part rooted in anscient German. Stoff and stuff is an example. Others are, you and Du, dies and this, haben and have, Hut and hat, and many more.
@@matthouston4068 Oh yes I am fluent in today's Nederlands which is quite close to Afrikaans, they write "brandstof" in one word, and "stof" also means "dust", "stoffig" meaning "dusty". Are you from South Africa?
I've been to the Kansas Cosmosphere Space Center a few times as a kid, and they had a whole section on WWII German rocket work, including a corner devoted to the 163. At twelve years old I thought it looked really cool, like a full-size paper air plane with a rocket strapped to it, but I wondered what madman would dare to fly such a contraption, especially given the fuels.
It sounds like you pronounced wasserpoop with that amount of emphasis on poop that you did right on purpose! Good one XD I also really like the fact that your closed captioning actually spells and says "Wasser Poop" That is a nice touch indeed haha!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Was it because of the ending in your hotel room being added? I watched the first one and couldn't find any other differences.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles FYI: From February 2020 "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" in _Scientific American_ www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ It looks like Newton has started to get more credit than Bernoulli, but they both still apply and at least two other forces are clearly part of the dynamic.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
So, regarding the propellants, to summarise: they used two indistinguishable liquids which explode on contact with each other. Both of which have their own sets of materials they should not be allowed to contact with (including each other's tanks and fuel lines), else there'd be an explosion. They put the most dangerous of the two in a tank right behind the pilot, and later proceeded to install two extra tanks in the cockpit. They did all this in a small, fast aircraft and sent it up against other aircraft firing bullets at it. And finally, they did not tell the pilots what the fuels were.
I don't care how technologically brilliant this all was, the Germans were completely out of their minds back then.
Excellent video, thank you very much. Looking forward to the next instalment!
Yes, that pretty much describes it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for the reply! Hi from a Dutch fan :-)
The dangers of the Me 163:
Hard landing: explode.
Fuel leak: explode.
Engine failure on takeoff: explode.
Shrapnel in any part of the fuel system: explode.
Carelessly refuel: explode.
Forget the lyrics of Erika: explode.
Read somewhere that the T-stoff could only be stored in pure aluminum tanks. This meant the T-stoff tanks were not made of aircraft grade aluminum alloys, but rather soft pure aluminum, what today would be considered 1000 series alloy.
While the 163 was quite explody, it had many other ways of inflicting death or serious injuries on its pilots, some much more gruesome than a simple explosion...
And lastly: T-Stoff leak; pilot disolves.
These mishaps actually did not occur as often as some may think. The biggest problem with the Me-163 operations was not how dangerous the propellants were, it was the severe shortage of high purity hydrogen peroxide which was both difficult & expensive to produce. The programme could have been made both safer and far more cost-effective if a dedicated LOX-Methanol powered advanced trainer version had been built. Von Braun had already developed such a motor before the outbreak of the war. Prototypes of said motors were successfully test flown several times in couple modified He-112 fighters as far back as 1937.
One must remember what they were being used to combat. The payload of 1000 B 17s and B 24s are more dangerous and explosive.
I flashed back to Ian at Forgotten Weapons channel on how to equip the Elbonian military, namely how to make the WORST choices in guns. This would be the perfect airplane for the Elbonian Air Force.
I am certain that Elbonian Defense Minister is not THAT stupid that he doesn't notice ludicrously low endurance and very temperamental special fuel mixture it uses.
Back in the late 1990's we had a German exchange pilot at our Squadron at Cannon AFB, NM the 524th. We both shared a love for WWII German aircraft and he told me through some of his research on the ME 163, his favorite aircraft, that if the wings had been swept back just 3 degrees more the aircraft could have hit mach 1. According to him, there is a team of Germans who want to build a modern version of the 163.
..problem being that all that speed is great but it's supposed to be a defense fightern which it was not and could not be. Just for starters there was no contemporary sighting mechanism nor machine gun that could actually be used in an aircraft this fast, in combat much less faster.
hmm, not likely, the lack of a horizontal tail surface would make it uncontrollable (sudden pitch change) as the shock wave in the transonic range moves across the wing and changes the center of pressure / lift... that's why Hanna Reitsch crashed in it... that's why the DH Swallow crashed, also no tailplane....
@@PRH123Hanna Reitsch crashed-landed an unpowered Me 163B on a glide test, because she failed to release the wheeled dolly when her tow lifted off. Women. There are multiple claims that the 163, flown by Dittmar, broke the sound barrier on more than one occasion, while in a dive, and post dive/on the level, when released. The layout was stolen by the DH 108, which broke the sound barrier. A more pronounce sweep, which the DH 108 did have, might be all the 163 needed(s)
Stoff....Mix....formula
@@danieljoseph255"Women." Quite the comment. 🙄
"Negotiable virtues". Thanks for the tour and the laugh!
Tom gets it! You're welcome.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles although their "virtues" are relatively fixed in comparison with their "virtue", which is what is negotiated in the end.
On the other hand, it is the virtues, which prompt an interested party to undertake negotiations in the first place...
Always appreciate Greg's dry humor and gift for understatement; but he has now joined the select group of video authors that have earned my "Sinus & Squeegee Award" after I spontaneously bathed my monitor with morning coffee . . .
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Why tow gliders with combat capable and in demand DB601 powered Me110s when something far more utilitarian like Junkers 52 should do just fine? Though perhaps Me110s were obsolescent by then and their 601s not the latest versions. right?
One of the better Culture ship name suggestions I’ve heard.
Stoff translates best to "material" or "substance"
You mean it doesn't just mean "stuff"? :D
stuff
It can also mean Drugs, mostly other than Mariuana.
'Stuff' mate...
T-Stoff is a fuel, it also has other uses
Stoff has a number of meanings
Today it’s mostly “fabric” as in a woven material for clothing
It can also mean material a bit as the “stuff” that things are made from
There is Werkstoff which for an engineer generally means the material used to manufacture something (eg the specific alloy or wood etc.)
Or Wirkstoff as in a chemical used for a certain purpose
In the list you show us I would translate it with compound or material
Or "Stoff" could mean drugs too
That matches English in that "stuff" was also a word for fabric in that same sense though you don't hear that usage any more.
Der Stoff aus dem Träume sind
In this case the meaning is "fluid".
As well the fuel lines most likely were lined with asbestos, or were made with asbestos seals, as that was a very well understood seal method then, and quite reliable and something that was common there for steam applications.
the best Translation for Stoff when it comes to this is "Compound" in english
Last time I was this early the Luftwaffe still had spare aviation fuel! On a more serious note, thank you for the consistently thorough and fascinating content, Greg.
Last time I was this early, Goering still had an air force.
You are making no sense. WTF are trying to say. Try reading your crap before you post it
I thought I knew a lot about the Komet and then came Greg with this video and put me in my place.
I’m impressed with his knowledge and research here. Most WWII fighters he covers are right in his wheelhouse (heh) with reciprocating engines. The Komet was more of a bomb with an opening on one end that occasionally held off exploding long enough to fly.
Well done Greg. Did seem you were grasping for the right word to use when talking about the fuel reaction. The type of reaction between these liquid bi-propellant fuels that ignite on contact is called a hypergolic reaction. There are many types of these fuels that have been used in various rocket program's, and they are indeed very dangerous to work with. Almost always toxic, and even carcinogenic, however, very necessary; especially when in a vacuum where ignition of safer fuels is harder to achieve.
Looking forward to part two.
Thanks Central. I was struggling to find the right word. Chemistry is way outside my scope of knowledge. I didn't even know the word "hypergolic" existed.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I've dabbled in it a bit. If I had unlimited time and money; I'd go back to school, and pursue more classes in chemistry. It's a fascinating subject.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles BTW: I sent you a video link on Discord to a video that isn't public yet. Figured that you might enjoy it.
If you are interested in rocket fuels, "Ignition!" is a great book. You might find a copy online as I think its out of print. For some amusing online articles, look for "Things I won't work with". Relevant to hypergolic fuels is the "peroxide peroxide" one. Crazy stuff.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The book Ignition! by John D. Clark is a great source for info on rocket propellants. He was a chemist that worked in the field for decades starting I think in the 40's. The book is very well written and quite entertaining, even for the chemically illiterate like me.
Greg, "Stoff" just means a chemical substance of kind. It could be a mixture or a pure element. Hydrogen, H2, is Wasserstoff (stuff from which water comes); Nitrogen, N2, is Stickstoff (stuff that will asphyxiate you); Oxygen, O2, is Sauerstoff (stuff from which sour things come, i.e., acids); Fuels are Brennstoff (stuff that ignites and burns); Bombs contain Sprengstoff (stuff that springs violently, i.e., explodes).
Thanks Greg! Very interesting.
I just shortly want to mention the development of the ME 163. The following has been told to me by either my father or Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz:
Long, long story short. After the war the Russians made two attempts to kidnap Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz, along with his wife and young son, in the American sector in Berlin. The Russians came in American uniforms and Jeeps. The commandant of the sector advised Hans Pancherz to flee to Sweden. He had kept one inflatable rubber raft from either the Ju 290 or Ju 390. Hans Pancherz was in charge of the test flying of the Ju 390 (America bomber). He paid a fisherman to drop him off outside of Trelleborg, Sweden. My father was reached of a rumor that there was a former Chief Test Pilot (in German, Versuchflieger) from Junkers operating a crane in the harbor of Landskrona. My father checked up his credentials with his contacts in Germany (among others, he knew Hanna Reitsch personally since his time in England prewar). It all checked out. Hans Pancherz was also an Engineer. My father employed him at his company (MFI, Malmö Flygindustri) where Hans Pancherz worked until his retirement (and a little after that. Including, but not limited to Saab 340). After the crash that killed the test pilot of the He 162, Pancherz was reassigned to finish the test flying of the He 162. There was a problem with inverted aileron effect, but in the other end of the speed scale that you mention. Hans Pancherz sorted that out. He was also assigned to oversee all development of jet and rocket aircrafts. This brings us to the Ju 248. A development of the Me 163. It had a retractable landing gear, 3 point. The engine were also different. Depending on how you look at it you can say it had two rocket engines for longer endurance. The goal was 30 minutes of endurance. Hans Pancherz did all 14 test flights with the Ju 248, maybe all towed. Anyway, the ambitions was much higher, with supersonic flight in mind. These new supersonic wings was never finished in the work shop in 1945 as all resources vanished. The wings were calculated for Mach 1.6. When I was chairman of the Malmö section of "Swedish Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics" I persuaded onkel Hans to give a presentation of the Ju 248. Unfortunately I did not record it, my loss....
So, the books could have said Hans Pancherz instead of Chuck Yeager.
Thanks again Greg! Looking forward for more!
Wow, that's a great post. Thanks Rudolf.
Interesting chapter of history. I get the impression the Me 163 included much new technology; a second iteration of the concept would be developed far from the first.
Lippisch was a genius.
He worked for Convair on F 102/6.
do you mean 'worked' or forced labour?
@@drdoolittle5724
I doubt he needed to be forced. He was a aeronautical engineer in a country that lay in ruins.
He was one many scientists and engineers that were happy to come to the States and ply their trade for defense contractors and NASA, provide for their families, and put a terrible recent past behind them. Lippisch was a intellectual bonanza for Convair, and I'm sure he, along with the other German engineers were treated with respect and admiration they never saw working in the 3rd Riech.
It might be fun for Greg to do videos on certain engineers (and the planes they developed) that contributed a lot to aviation.
h bethune - Werner Von Braun & the scientists & engineers traveling with him actually followed the advance of the Allies across Germany so they could “surrender” to the Americans & “continue their work” working for the Americans. We took one look at the talent Von Braun was bringing with him & decided to “accommodate their desires”.
@@johntempest267 Lol I doubt they WEREN'T respected in the third reich.
Greg considering reading/listen to the book "Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" for a wonderful review of all the insanely dangerous propellants they tried to make rocket fuel out of between the 40's and 60's. The book is not at all dry, almost gonzo even, fun read!
This was recommended to me elsewhere, and I must agree with you. A great (and fun to read!) introduction to dangerous rocket fuels.
I heard a lecture in the 1980s at the Smithsonian by Rudolf Opitz, who was a Messerschmitt test pilot who flew Me 163s. There is a photo in a book I own of a plane he flew at over 600 mph, if I recall correctly. I took the book to the lecture, and have his signature alongside that photograph.
Wow, nice!
My father......
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The book was William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich. I paid as much for that in the late '70s as I did some textbooks. I can share a photo of the signature if that would be of any interest to you as thanks for your outstanding content.
These videos are just amazingly interesting, well presented and well narrated. You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.
As an aircraft addict, I find your work on utoob to be fantastic in just about every way.
If there were leaks and the C-stoff mixed with the T-stoff,
the pilot would be P-stof.
Lol
@The Silenced I was gonna make a pun of my own. But yours is FAR better. Kudos.
😂😂😂😂😂
Absolutely fantastic. Keep up the good work Greg!
I've got a tattoo of the Me-163 Komet across my chest; Gregg made me feel that I don't deserve to have it...
Man! What a great report..!!!
If you endured the pain of the tattoo then I would say you deserve it.
Greg, that’s always been a fascinating aircraft to me - and the more I understand about it the more I realize its dangerous characteristics. There’s something incredibly appealing about it. Thanks for giving us a chance to learn from your deep research on the subject. Part 2: is on my list. Good luck!
Excellent video Greg. For all of its high performance, the ME 163 sounds like a right pain to service and fly. Mistakes could be fatal and people make mistakes regularly, so consequences follow rapidly.
M.F. ...............the ultimate test of your ass !!!!!!
Thank you for your time making these
Absolutely fantastic video on the ME comet . It's incredible how much information has not ever been available that I've seen on this futuristic and extremely interesting plane what a great job and thank you this is what the Internet is for again great job thank you
Highly interesting video! Now I once read a very similar story to what happened to Joschi. In that case, after the wheels hit the plane, the engine also cut off and the plane basically landed itself on the end of the runway. So from the outside the plane looked undamaged, but then they also found out, that the pilot had been dissolved. Many ICBM`s also use hypergolic fuels. Also many of chinese space rockets and the russian proton rocket run on hypergolic fuels. Nasty stuff.
Thanks Paddy.
This video is evidence of why this channel is golden! Great work, Greg!
Great video as always. Years ago, say 50, I made some hand launched gliders with swept back paper wings. By bending the paper back on itself you can make a decent airfoil and they were super light. It was hard to get them to be stable. Dihedral didn’t work to well. The cg was basically in the wing, no righting lever. But I read in some forgotten book that twisting the wing so the angle of attack at the wing tip was GREATER than the angle of attack at the root (the opposite of the ME163 ) would stabilize the glider. It worked like crazy! I have no idea why. Of course it was a paper airplane it had no ailerons to worry about.
One of the test pilots named Rudy Opitz had an article in Flight Journal a couple of years ago. This expands on his article a lot and gives some background that was missing from the magazine, thanks for making the video Greg and keep it up.
My father...
Excellent videos, hit the taste buds real good
Another episode filled with amazing details and clear explanation without the fluff of national or company advocacy viewpoints!
Wow! Wasn't expecting this but very fascinating subject. Thanks Greg. Will eagerly await episode 2 while still hoping for the definitive series on the FW190 series. ;-)
17:50 If this helps, in German, you can replace umlauts over a vowel with an E after the vowel.
And notice that Umlaut itself translates into 'changed sound' and indicates a clear change in pronunciation of the letter into something like the first e in English 'kernel.
@@hassegreiner9675 or the "ur" in "burn"
Hang glider and sailplane pilot checking in. The sweep in a flying wing is also essential for pitch stability. They will always have geometric or effective washout (twist) so that the tips replicate the downforce function of the H-stab on a conventional aircraft. So not only does the washout avoid tip stall, but it is required for pitch stability. It IS just possible to do without the sweep by using reflexed airfoil, but sweep is far preferable because the tips are less effective at producing lift anyway, so losing that to negative lift is preferable to the loss at the TE of a straight wing you’d have with a reflexed ‘foil. Also the swept tip is farther aft, so has a longer moment, so less negative lift is required. There is a book (my friend had it) that details the Hortons work that goes into this in great detail.
I agree with basically everything you said. Thanks for chiming in. One of the dilemmas I face when making these videos is deciding how much to cover. If I went into the effects of sweep and cg on pitch stability, this video would have been 2 hours long because I can't just mention it, I have to fully explain it.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks Greg. I can appreciate that there is only so much that you can cover. Before some asks, by "effective" washout I mean a thicker (vs. chord) and/or less cambered airfoil toward the tips, or polyhedral, which mimic the effect of twist vis-a-vis spanwise stall distribution.
Definitely one of my Favorite Aircraft... Looking forward to part two.Thank You for posting!
Hi Greg,
Fantastic video of one of my favourite planes of all time. I learnt a number of new things as well. Thank you so much for the video!
One point I’d like to make is that the T-Stoff was a minimum of 80% hydrogen peroxide, also called High Test Peroxide. As an oxidiser, it performs well but has some handling and cleanliness requirements that are hair raising at best. It didn’t really take off as a mainstream storable propellant for these reasons. A sobering thought given the characteristics of the storable oxidisers that did prevail - Nitrogen tetroxide and IRFNA.
Cheers,
Tim from Australia 🇦🇺
Greg ! Thankyou ! I love airplanes ! Many different Airplanes ! Many German planes ! How ever as a young boy , This was my favorite German Machine ! I would have volunteered to fly this without fear ! I was a weird kid ! Not brave ,. However very enthusiastic . Now being old and far more cautious my dream plane would be a Me 263 powered by liquid oxygen and kerosine, and because of your report a pressurized model !
A good record for operational issues with the ME163, Rocket fighter is excellent. It is part of my book collection.
A most excellent book.
@@JoeOvercoat absolutely. I wouldn't have flown it. Kind of like running up to a lion and kicking it in the nuts. Just not a good idea.
The t-stoff and c-stoff explains the whole worry about clear liquids on airplanes.
I love your videos Greg! They are well thought out, and you speak intelligently on each subject!
Looking forward to part 2. What an amazing little death trap. Poor souls who lost their lives fighting for a lost cause.
The tragic thing is that all the sacrifice was not so much “ a lost cause “ but rather a cause not worth fighting for
The price of reaching out to touch the sky can be a high one to pay. ❤ and 🫡 for all those who have paid.
Thanks for posting. I finally learned about the development of all wing air crafts in Germany. In America I'm familiar with the Northrop designs.
Note the Me 163 had an autostable (reflexed) air foil. It could not be stalled with the tanks more than half empty.
1 Me 163A was a small test bed with a "cold" monopropellant rocket that worked by decomposing hydrogen peroxide
2 Me 163B was the combat version with a HWK 509A1/A2 that used a bipropellant rocket hydrazine hydrate + 57% methanol + 13% water (the fuel) and Hydrogen Peroxide (oxidiser)
The Me 163B had a couple of problems.
a/ the Me 163 could intercept because it could climb at speed in a minute what would take a piston fighter at least 10 minutes. Once there it only had a few minutes to conduct the attack and this was often not enough to form up for a coordinated attack.
b/ the two 30mm MK 108 guns were not quite enough for the speed of the attack.
c/ no pressurisation
d/ the skid could not accept high sink rates and was the cause of must accidents.
The solution to the short endurance was the HWK 509B rocket which had the same rocket motor but added a much smaller sustainer for cruise that was much more efficient. That would give the Me 163 a few more minutes. However the Me 163B was never upgraded.
Instead development of the larger Me 163C was begun. This was enlarged aircraft, had a pressurised bubble canopy and 4 x Mk 108 guns and of course the improved HWK 509B and latter C.
The Me 163 was perhaps to much work so the Me 163D also known as the Me 263 or Ju 248. This was a stretched Me 163B with the boost/sustainer motor and retractable undercarriage. It did fly as a glider at least.
The short range was not so much an issue as the ultra high climb rate and speed meant it didn't waste 10-15 minutes time getting there. It was at bomber height in a minute.
Rudy Opitz, Me 163 test pilot said that pilots did survive over turned aircraft. They were fairly solid and precautions were taken.
Thank you for your input. It's very informative. Is the image @16:07 an engine with the sustainer thrust chamber? (below the main one?)
It's a later 163 engine, I'll talk about it later.
Another absolutely fantastic video. The human aspect you covered provided a good look and understanding into the circumstances surrounding this planes development.
It took a lot of bravery to willingly get into and fly that plane, understanding what it very likely would do to the pilot, reguardless of which side their country fought on.
31:45 'On the 163a, tho', this is a 163b picture here, but just go with it
**Heini Dittmar left the chat*
Great video, Gregg...just at terrific job on a difficult topic. The discussion on sweptback wings is so informative...lots of new stuff to me. Enjoyed all of it...I would not have enjoyed riding in the cockpit surrounded on three sides by T-Stoff! Seriously dangerous stuff that stoff. Thanks for all the hard work and insights. Always exciting to see a new video from you.
Great video as always Greg, I am looking forward to part 2. Can you do a video series about the Ki-100 since you are in that part of the world?
I can, but it's all about time. I'll get to that eventually.
Wow, yes - some in-depth looks at the Ki-61 and Ki-100 would be fantastic!
Fantastic stuff. Looking forward part two. Your selfie was a surprise to me - I expected a much older man. You are indeed “looking good.”
LOL, thanks Maureen.
Thanks for your work, 👍 it has been extremely informative and hilarious at the same time. Great sense of humour you have, a few occasions I started giggling and couldn't stop for while.
... at least T-Stoff and C-Stoff were water soluble ... so mechanics did not have to be working on a ticking bomb ... : ))
... Erprobungskommando 16. I'm not gonna try that German name ...
... His wing clipped that flag tower. Just barely, but in airplanes just barely is a problem ...
... Guess where they decided to put the additional tanks holding the flesh dissolving T-Stoff. If you answered, in the cockpit, you were correct ...
And at the very end:
... Women with negotiatiable virtues ...
Greg, you made my day
Hi Robert, I'm glad I could help brighten your day a bit.
Wow! Great video! Thank you for the quick tour of the Imperial!
Almost 40 min? When you said that's it, I was like "Already?!" I thought I was itching for a Spitfire video, but it seems you know me better than I know myself. ;-)
A great deep dig of information as per usual. "Negotiable Virtues"... haha.. a new phrase in my lexicon.
33:56 "the tail" or empennage - Etymology: French empennage (“feathers of an arrow”)
Thanks Wiktionary
And thanks Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles
I'm sure most people who watch this channel know about 'empennage,' but for the few who don't I hope this helps.
One of the best 163 documents online
Stupidly dangerous+painful beautiful+stunningly fast= ME163
Yet again just like the ferdinand people who actually flew the 163 had positive things to say about it
bluewaffle 45 yes the Ferdinand was great if you used it as a Stug rather than a Panzer.
Not beautiful lol not at all
@@Dragunov302 kinda fat innit
Love your videos, looking good too!
Can't wait for part 2. Thank you sir!
To keep pilot safe from fire, or attempt to keep him safe, he wore an asbestos flight suit :D
wow what an incredible subject, this entire airplane concept was just nuts, really enjoyed learning about, the history and technical insight in to this egg shape death trap
Thanks for going into some detail about the control surfaces of the airplane! I was always puzzled about their arrangement. I first knew about this unique machine from the expansion for the IL2 1946 video game. I did not realize how unbelievably dangerous the plane’s fuel was, and thought it was some kind of suicide unit just due to the way its gears fell away. Thanks for letting me know!
You're welcome. I'm glad I could help.
Great to see what you look like Greg! Love your videos!
Greg are you a professor? This is fantastic information, thank you! I hope Military Aviation History aka Bismarck will cooperate with you in the future (for translation etc.)
LOL, I'm no professor, I hated school and never did well in it. I would cooperate with Bis on anything, I'm a big fan of his.
Very well done good video I watched it before this is a rewatch now have to rewatch number two
Thanks for re uploading with sound :)
I don't get why people would come to this channel and watch the videos...and give them a thumbs down. It's always interesting and well thought out commentary. Indeed a refreshing change of pace to all the other crap out there, I guess I just don't get it. It should be mandatory to explain yourself.. scoundrels !
Keep up the good work Greg !!
Side note: the 1985 SciFi cult film "The Stuff"...while different from Stiff....would dissolve you just the same. Enjoy your just desserts.
Stoff, not stiff. Sorry...I don't know how to edit typos on RUclips
Dear lord, as a person studying for an A&P license I should have thought more about how the 163 fuel system worked. The dangers and restrictions of such a fuel are simply baffling and scary. Such a dangerous system as you talked about. Never truly thought it through. Its even scarier to me now.
32:44 And I just cringed when you mentioned that they put more T-Stoff inside cockpit. I will stick to a He-162 instead.
Great video though, I very much look forward to Part 2.
Yup, it's a cool plane, but I don't really want to stand near one that hasn't had it's fuel system flushed.
Great video - looking forward to part two - thanks, Greg.
I'm working on it now. You won't have to wait long.
Hey, I remember seeing this pop up yesterday
I have always seen , and used the term "washout" preferable to "wing twist" . On RC Airplanes without flaps it really works to prevent tip - stall.Another thoroughly researched video. thanks.
Both terms are fine but twist is more self explanatory.
Excellent. Thank you for posting.
Incredible video! Thanks for posting it!
Let us know when you publish the part 2 video!
Greetings from Guatemala!
Thanks Carlos. Just for you I'll put it up in about 6 hours.
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles
Looking forward!
The Me 163 seems to be essentially a surface to air missile built at a time when the only available guidance system was a human. Suppose that it was nice for that human that the "missile" was often reusable.
I always enjoy with your videos of planes of ww2 by depth of analysis and point of view, among the best that can be found in youtube. Thank you very much for your time and effort, keep going, maybe improving the sound a bit. Waiting for next. Best regards.
Don't speak German but I did some digging and it's like compound or mixture
Thanks Jacob, makes sense.
in everyday usage it means material or fabric (as in cloth)
in chemical usage it also used for substance
It really can mean all kinds of stuff. Literally. It´s even used to refer to illegal drugs as in "You got the stuff?"
Thanks for sharing. Absolutely love your content. I’m not an airplane fanatic and don’t know much about them. I love the way you manage to explain fairly complex shit the way I can understand it.
Eric "Winkle" Brown considered the ME163 to have excellent handling characteristics; And considering he has flown more aircraft types than anyone in history he should know. Hanna Reitsch did a lot of the glide testing on the ME163. Heini Dittmar reached a max speed of 700mph in one. It also possible that Dittmar reached an altitude of 70,000 feet on one flight, that was towed to altitude;
But Reitsch, Brown and Dittmar all suspiciously gloss over the true performance of the 163. All were friends - Brown covering extensively for Reitsch after the war. Reitsch’s memoir “The Sky My Kingdom” being an exercise in “I am just a bit dizzy innocent girl me” This from the Lady that went on to become the Mother of the Ghanaian Air Force.
Reitsch>Brown, at least in this context.
Thanks for the mini hotel tour. If you spend time on foreign soil it’s always interesting to see the local history and learn how it interfaces with your own. I was born in Frankfurt to a career NCO and his new bride. Dad was stationed at Darmstadt. My penultimate duty station in the Army was at Wiesbaden, not far from Frankfurt or Darmstadt. I recently saw a picture of Ernst Udet standing in front of his last WWI mount, a Fokker DVIII. That photo was taken at Darmstadt. When you get out in it, the world is a smaller place than one would think. The ME-163 has always fascinated me if for no other reason than it seems to have been a really good way to kill some of the few remaining Experten that the Germans had. Thanks Greg.
Again, fantastic content, Greg! Thank you. Maybe an idea for future content: "WW2 - Link Trainer", the simulators that were used to train airforce pilots back then.
This is a really good idea
Hey Greg !
Congratulations on the channel. Real good, detailed and proper technical explanations. Fantastic "stoff", really XD
I'd like to make a comment, and I'm not sure if someone pointed this out already. If so, I apologise in advance...anyway, here it goes:
You are absolutely right when pointing out that the Me-163 have a noticeable wing twist, but I suspect the reason behind that aerodynamic feature does not have to do with aileron isues or wing tip stall...but rather with pitch stability.
Wing twist is a common feature to all early tail-less aircraft designs, and its purpose is to create an opposing force-and therefore a momentum- to produce some leverage to counteract the momentum generated by the lift and the distance betweet the center of pressure (CP) and CG. Kind of a built-in trimming feature, if you like.
By the way: that´s also the reason pretty much all flying wings have swept wings. This goes all the way back to the very early designs, like the D-8 for instance, since it constitute a kind of intuite way of dealing with pitch stability without elevators.
Yes, it provides yaw stability and have a lot advantages at high speed...but the combination of wing twist + swept wing planform was the only way of dealing with flying wing's fundamental problem, at least in the minds of early 20th century aircraft designers...waaay before pressure distribution and aileron reversal became an issue (or even dreamt of, I'd say). In their defense, I'd only say it is kind of a natural way of thinking...
-Need pitch stability w/o elevators => make a built-in counteracting force in the only aerodinamic surface available-the wing itself-and move it as back as possible !
All the best, man !
Carlos
An enlightening video, I'm very much looking forward to the second part.
A couple things on pronunciation/translation:
"Erprobungskommando" can be pronounced approximately as "air-PRO-boongs-commando", with the "boo" part pretty short.
I see "sharp start" is also the translation used on Wikipedia for "scharfer Start", but it's not really the best. "Scharf" in this instance means "armed" or "live", as in "the mechanism is armed" or "live ammunition". "Live start" or "live takeoff" would be more accurate, I think.
I love having all these Germans here, it really helps our little comment section community.
Excellent as always Greg. " negotiable virtues" along with a talent for providing horizontal refreshments. I can't decide which would be more hair raising..flying this aircraft at high speed in combat.. Or simply sitting between two fuel tanks that contain a liquid that could dissolve you.
I'm glad someone understood the term "negotiable virtues". I try to keep it PG-13, and I couldn't quite figure out how to say what I wanted to say without moving into R rated territory.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles women enterprising in the procreation practice sector?
Greg. Praise. That is all.
Just viewing this and brought memories of seeing one of these at an Ottawa museum. When I saw one as child I thought how cool it was but this video reminds me how terrible the cost of War is
Can you do a video on the allegedly superior Nazi forgings used in their airframes. The MESTA press was built to make forgings for the U.S. aircraft industry after the military was able to inspect and reverse engineer German industrial forges at the end of the war.
I don't know much about it.
There's a video with a bit of info on that on RUclips:
"America's Iron Giants - The World's Most Powerful Metalworkers"
Interesting stuff.
Hi Greg - loving your channel. I'm a hang glider pilot. yup, the sweep of the wing is the only thing on a hang glider that provides yaw stability, the pilot can't affect yaw control. Our wings have twist or as we call it washout for the reasons you describe. When a HG wing starts to stall they do so first at a point about 20-25% out from the root. As the pilot continues to increase pitch up pressure the stall expands laterally both towards the root and tips. As the stall deepens the location of the center of lift keeps moving aft, due to the sweep and twist of the wing. Eventually the pilot is not able to move their weight far enough aft to counteract the pitch down forces on the wing and the nose falls through. It is the twist in the wing that keeps the tips flying and the sweep of the wing that places the tips far enough back to provide the pitch down moment that causes the nose to fall and the wing to accelerate and regain flying speed. Our wings also have reflex at the root. The first 1 or 2 battens at the root have the rear portion bent up to provide some pitch stability. There are also tubes called sprogs out near the tips that hold the tips up if the wing is in an unusual attitude in order to maintain pitch stability.
Thanks, that's a great post.
The Me-163 is probably one of the craziest projects the Luftwaffe used and I still don't know why carried on with it for so long given how dangerous it was. I think I'd rather be in a Zero in 1945 than in that thing.
I think the Bachem Ba349 "Natter" is still even a little bit nuttier than the 163.
great presentation. Read quite a bit on the subject, but you added things I was unfamiliar with
Did you come here for my Fiat videos?
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Actually over the years I have read a great deal of WW2 history, in particular in regards to war birds. To my surprise I saw and watched some your FIAT stuff and saw we had some very similar interests.
Stoff=Stuff in the broadest sense
E: Very interesting video thx greg
Ps.: From Ger;)
More like substance, stuff in the english sense should be more like "Zeug".
With Joschi Pohs....I have read that it was a radio tower antenna he hit.
I love the 163 and have written to both Rudolf Opitz ( I spoke with Rudi) and Wolfgang Spate.
I had them both sign Spate’s book...
Top Secret Bird.
Both nice gentlemen.
"Stoff" tanslates quite simply to "stuff", "textile tissue", "matter", "material", in this case most aptly "substance".
Agree, that is the perfect translation, with "substance" being more 'intellectual' :-)
Found quite often: Sauerstoff (oxygen ) Wasserstoff ( Hydrogen ), Stoffwechsel (Metabolism ) - the etymology actually is strongly related to fabric and to "stuff" as to "stuff something"
Exactly. English is in part rooted in anscient German. Stoff and stuff is an example. Others are, you and Du, dies and this, haben and have, Hut and hat, and many more.
Pascal Chauvet interesting that in Afrikaans (Dutch derived European language in South Africa) fuel is known as ‘brand stof ’ - lit. fire substance
@@matthouston4068 Oh yes I am fluent in today's Nederlands which is quite close to Afrikaans, they write "brandstof" in one word, and "stof" also means "dust", "stoffig" meaning "dusty".
Are you from South Africa?
I've been to the Kansas Cosmosphere Space Center a few times as a kid, and they had a whole section on WWII German rocket work, including a corner devoted to the 163. At twelve years old I thought it looked really cool, like a full-size paper air plane with a rocket strapped to it, but I wondered what madman would dare to fly such a contraption, especially given the fuels.
For the german "Ö" just imagine the sound one makes when falling badly and not being able to breathe ;)
It sounds like you pronounced wasserpoop with that amount of emphasis on poop that you did right on purpose! Good one XD I also really like the fact that your closed captioning actually spells and says "Wasser Poop" That is a nice touch indeed haha!
Did you uploaded this same video before/yesterday? I got notification but couldn't watch that
yes
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Was it because of the ending in your hotel room being added? I watched the first one and couldn't find any other differences.
Nice series. Found it fascinating. Better than most stuff on the "history channel".
8:37 Well... The literal translation would be... Stuff, doesn't quite have the same ring as Compound-T I know.
More like "substance", "stuff" would be more analogous to "Zeug(s)"
@@MajinOthinusStoff and Stuff are cognates regardless.
thanks again Greg. love your stoff!
FIRST!....Greg, Just wanted to say I love your videos!
Thanks Steve.
Second! Same here love the vids
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles FYI: From February 2020 "The Enigma of Aerodynamic Lift" in _Scientific American_
www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/
It looks like Newton has started to get more credit than Bernoulli, but they both still apply and at least two other forces are clearly part of the dynamic.
Looking good, love it. Gotta stay positive.
I volunteer as translator for german and could also let you know how to pronounce things.
Love your IL2 videos!!!
Thanks Greg. Love your aircraft stuff.
wasn fast enough yesterday before you removed the vid :D
Once again outstanding!