me-163

[TheThang]

The me163's fuel system was quyite dangerous. The two fuels were nicknamed " B Stoff and C Stoff" B Stoff would melt the skin right off your body so the pilot had to wear a rubber spacesuit thing. IF you too an eyedropper with one drop a b and c stoff and put them on eachother you would blow your hand off. So all in all would you ever dare piloting one?

[scott123]

me 163's killed more of their own crews,than they ever did allied bombers.residue in the tank often exploded on landing.

[TrueKill]

Originally posted by TheThang
IF you too an eyedropper with one drop a b and c stoff and put them on eachother you would blow your hand off. So all in all would you ever dare piloting one?

no you wouldnt.

[Scherf]

108 cm, if IIRC. Yes, good.

[TracerX]

I have heard the same thing regarding this plane, but I don't know how accruate the info is since I have read an account from a German pilot who flew the 163 many times durring the war, and he gave a completely different view on how dangerous the aircraft was.  I wish I could find the link.  In the interview he was asked some of the same questions about the fuel and accidents, but he basicly debunked many of the long standing beliefs people have.  Maybe someone else knows the account I am thinking of?

[MiloMorai]

Thang,

the fuel was C-stoff and T-stoff.

Here is a link to the Walter motor which should be read, http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/walter/walter.htm

Tracer is this the article?
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp

scott,

there would only be an explosion when the T-stoff (hydrogen peroxide) came in contact with an organic substance. C-Stoff was methyl alcohol.

[TheThang]

i'm proven wrong. my neighbor friend had told me this a while back and i just took it he was right. thanks for correcting me guys. i thought it was an interesting thing so i posted it.

[bunch]

There have been a few books written by Me-163 pilots that go into the gory details of the trail & error assembly of the fuel system.  I have a couple of them & they are both worth reading...OK so hydrogen peroxide will take off your skin before you notice it, but i dont see many people bathing in petrol either.

[JAWS2003]

Who is crazy enough to fly a thing that runs on bleach and booze?

[CPorky]

The Germans did alot of work with Hydrogen Peroxide, including an experimental u-boat that used it and was able to attain very high speeds without having to recharge any batteries and could do the speed both above and under water.

It didn't work out, mostly due to the handling of the fuel and instead the model used for the project was found to be able to travel faster underwater and able to carry more traditional batteries. It was developed with the diesel/battery combo and was called the Type-XXI.

That is at least how I remember reading it...

[bunch]

Originally posted by JAWS2003
Who is crazy enough to fly a thing that runs on bleach and booze?

same guy that wants to fly over 550kts level in 1944.  i'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out an unpowered Me-163 could outdive every allied A/C

[Grendel]

Originally posted by scott123
me 163's killed more of their own crews,than they ever did allied bombers.residue in the tank often exploded on landing.

No it didn't. Perhaps you should read some actual accounts, rather than copypaste the urban legends?

I suggest for example book "Rocket Fighter" by Me-163 pilot Ziegler.

Interview of Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz is also enlightening:
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_1.asp

Popular Wisdom vs. a Test Pilot’s Experiences

1. Rocket engines would explode without warning.

RO: engines were reliable and relatively safe and were adjusted so as to shut down in the event of an imbalance in fuel flow. If there was a problem in engine performance, it related to shutdowns, not explosions. The only instances of engines blowing were in early testing of prototypes or when they had been damaged in battle or by accident.

  2. Leaking fuel could turn pilots to jelly, particularly if the plane flipped over.

RO: pilots, me included, survived overturned Komets, and an overturned ship would not necessarily leak fuel into the cockpit. When fuel contacted organic material, including skin, it ignited after only a few seconds. Our protective nylon suits would not ignite but were porous, and fuel could sop through to the skin.

[Tails]

I was going to say something about the stuff flashing on contact with skin rather than 'melting' it, but you beat me to it.

It was a very interesting design to use that particular twin-fuel system. No need for an ignitor in the motor, as the two fuels would spotaniously combust when they contacted each other.

And that is the reason I'd never fly one of the things in combat. ONE stray shot rupturing both fuel tanks....

[TrueKill]

Yea most the fuel was used up for the 30k or so climb then they made 1-2 passes on the buffs then stared lookin for a place to land that bathtub.

[Grendel]

The largest problem in early combat career of the 163 was, to my understanding from the writings of 163 combat pilots, was the ground controllers. They were used to the much slower traditional fighters, and could not adjust to the amazing climb rate of the rocket fighters. Therefore the ground controllers usually failed to direct the rocket interceptors to their targets - and given the limited amount of fuel, the interceptors didnt get another chance. The development of both the plane and the tactics is unique, fascinating story, really.