think my post confused the issue in referring to earlier designs (DFS-40) as though they were the same aircraft. the DFS-40 had a small Argus engine, the ME-163 had only the small propeller serving to generate power.Denniss wrote:Never heard of a propeller engine in the Me 163. It was a Me 262 prototype with a Jumo 210 engine in the nose.
The CEP of the V-1 increased with range, so the long range V-1s would simply miss their targets better.thaddeus_c wrote:V-2 was a waste, the V-1 was cost effective and could have been further developed (simple fix of cutting payload increased the range, adding nitrous oxide boosted speed, etc.)
Allies' ground attack planes would love to have enemy airfields so close to their airbases, and Komets wouldn't be able to stop them.thaddeus_c wrote:a smart strategy (if they had been developed earlier) would have been to position 163s near V-1 launch sites (or bogus sites) as a distraction from industrial targets.
The entry is not taken from luftwaffe records, just from books: WW II Fighting Jets (Ethell, Price), Top Secret Bird (Späte)According to these Luftwaffe records it was a B-17 http://www.luftwaffe.cz/04-1945.pdf
There was only one Me 163 sortie on that day, the very last Komet combat sortie at all. The case is studied in Ransom/Cammann book on the Komet, with conclusions I described (sadly I don't have the book on hand at the moment). Of course, the Halifax/Lancaster could be hit by flak.Is it possible that the aircraft that survived was hit by something else? Considering this pilot claims it was shot down on the same day as the luftwaffe documents? Or possibly two where hit by Me 163 Jagdfaust? considering its mentioned as a kill? and the survived halifax is mistaken for the bomber shot down?
But as far as one doesn't check in primary documents, what losses were suffered by bombers near Leipzig during that mission, one can only speculate.think both weapons were well within the ability of the Germans to produce and had improvements slated to be made but for time.wm wrote:The CEP of the V-1 increased with range, so the long range V-1s would simply miss their targets better.thaddeus_c wrote:V-2 was a waste, the V-1 was cost effective and could have been further developed (simple fix of cutting payload increased the range, adding nitrous oxide boosted speed, etc.)
Allies' ground attack planes would love to have enemy airfields so close to their airbases, and Komets wouldn't be able to stop them.thaddeus_c wrote:a smart strategy (if they had been developed earlier) would have been to position 163s near V-1 launch sites (or bogus sites) as a distraction from industrial targets.
One of the coolest channels on YT does a great quick video about the SG500 Jagerfaust equip'd Me-163...David1819 wrote: ↑04 Sep 2014 23:23There are conflicting accounts hereGrzesio wrote: It was a Canadian Halifax - the bomber had its tail turret blown off together with parts of elevator, but made it home, finishing with belly landing. One crewman was killed (tail gunner), one or two were wounded. As far as I remember, the Jaegerfaust was fired manually in this case, without the intended photocell trigger.
According to these Luftwaffe records it was a B-17 http://www.luftwaffe.cz/04-1945.pdf
By squadron JG 400 Lt. Fritz Kelb 10 April 1945 using Jagdfaust
Then you have this from RAF archivesIs it possible that the aircraft that survived was hit by something else? Considering this pilot claims it was shot down on the same day as the luftwaffe documents? Or possibly two where hit by Me 163 Jagdfaust? considering its mentioned as a kill? and the survived halifax is mistaken for the bomber shot down?RAF (Mustang) pilot. The 165Sqdn ORB records for 10 April 1945:
"Twelve aircraft were airborne at 1535 hours on Ramrod 1534 as escort to the front of 200 heavy bombers (110 Lancasters and 90 Halifaxes) bombing the railway centre and marshalling yards at Leipzig. Our pilots experienced flak coming from the neighbourhood of Halle airfield judged to be 88mm. About this same time an Me-163 came up from the airfield, attacked and shot down one bomber from underneath continued its very fast ascent and prepared to dive down on the formation. F/Off Haslope followed it down in its dive firing most of the time and he claims one damaged".
More wringing-of-the-hands again Hans? Why are you even talking about war criminals?? NONE of that is being discussed here. The only one "lumping war criminals" into this discussion/thread is YOU.Hans1906 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023 20:57When I was younger, I knew the German fighter pilot Herr Wolfgang Späte personally.
He was a person of integrity, certainly not a liar or braggart, I remember the elder Herr Späte with a lot of respect.
Wolfgang Späte: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Späte
Wolfgang Späte did a great deal after 1945 to bring former enemies and opponents into dialogue with one another, and you have to give the man credit for that.
A war hero, recipient of the Knight's Cross, but also a very friendly old gentleman, who I still like to remember.
Today we shouldn't lump all the "heroes" of the time together, the men fought for their fatherland, they didn't know any better, and many didn't want to know, not all of them were war criminals.
Hans
Except Rudy Opitz didn't say that it was unstable at all, in fact he says: "a very good thing, every time at different speeds, normal to fly, very nice to fly." "It was very balanced through-out the speed range" "and people that had a lot of experience said it was one of the best-balanced aircraft that they had ever flown."von thoma wrote: ↑03 Sep 2014 03:19Rudolf Opitz, test pilot, described it as an unstable and dangerous plane.
He broke his back during a landing and fortunately survived.
Komet's achievements are described in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdgeschwader_400
Hi ShindenKai,Please, tell us more about your friendship with Späte.
That´s probably an accurate description. The -163 was basically a manually guided SAM, which generally relied on 2 x 30mm guns to bring down bombers. Not very effective against B17 and B24 but may have been developed against the prospect B-29 thread.ROLAND1369 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2023 14:17I can only give you the information I was told by my Father about the ME 262. He was a B 24 lead crew pilot in command of the 446 BG 2nd Air Division 8 AF. He said the few ME 163s which attacked them were totally ineffective. He said they seemed to stall through the formation firing without hitting anything. He stated they had no fear of them but certainly were highly concerned when the ME 262s were operating in the area. He said in the few attacks by the 163 no hits were scored, not so with the 262s.
See the #23 in the post above.were there any recorded kills from this recoilless weapon.
After reading the account of the British pilot flying one, building a replica is on my "to do" list after winning the lotteryShindenKai wrote: ↑16 Feb 2023 00:18Except Rudy Opitz didn't say that it was unstable at all, in fact he says: "a very good thing, every time at different speeds, normal to fly, very nice to fly." "It was very balanced through-out the speed range" "and people that had a lot of experience said it was one of the best-balanced aircraft that they had ever flown."von thoma wrote: ↑03 Sep 2014 03:19Rudolf Opitz, test pilot, described it as an unstable and dangerous plane.
He broke his back during a landing and fortunately survived.
Komet's achievements are described in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdgeschwader_400
All the above quotes come from this interview of Dr. Opitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj_B9G1Cnxs (@ 22:00+ minutes into interview)
IIRC, Mano Ziegler in "Rocket Fighter" also talks about the Me-163 being "un-stallable" which, again is the opposite of "unstable" in regard to an aircraft's in-flight handling characteristics.
Which is quite obviously true, the Me-163 would've been completely uncontrollable in its very high-speed climb otherwise.
The only thing dangerous about the aircraft was its very volatile/corrosive fuel and its VERY high landing speed without proper landing gear. You don't get to "go-around" to make a better landing attempt when in a glider. One try only. (Dr. Opitz also discusses all this in the above linked interview before the 22:00 minute mark)
In fact, it would be quite easy and safer to make a replica Me-163 or Me-263 powered by a safe rubber & nitrous oxide rocket, the same type used in the Space Ship One. (Though the SSO's rocket is unthrottled and has a much shorter burn time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne