The 163 had that problem as well. Since they mixed in chemicals for the rocket fuel, it would sometimes blow up on takeoff.
Got proof this happened.
Suggested reading,
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrew.walker6/komet/flight/flight1.htm1. 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.
3. Forward-mounted flaps were necessary to counter a negative pitching moment from the trailing-edge flaps.
RO: the TE flaps were trim flaps only, and the deployment of the forward-mounted underwing flaps did not cause a pitch change.
4. The Komet’s dive to speeds resulting in compressibility were often fatal.
RO: no fatalities resulted from this, to my knowledge. The Komets in such dives recovered after reaching a lower altitude that neutralized the compressibility problems.
5. As many as 15 percent of Komets broke up while pulling out of high-speed dives where compressibility had became a factor.
RO: no such fatalities to my knowledge.
6. Stall characteristics were abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter pilots.
RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally designed to be docile for low-time pilots.
7. Only experienced pilots could adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.
RO: the plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick.
8. The Komet was not a successful fighter but future development would have made it a formidable interceptor.
RO: The 263—the next incarnation—had retractable landing gear, a pressurized cabin and considerably more fuel, but it never got beyond the early prototype stage.
I agree the 163B was not a successful fighter. Several hundred 163Bs were built,
but only 91 were operational as of December 31, 1944, and only 16 kills were attributed to 163s during the War. Note, however, that while under power or in a fast glide, the 163 could fly circles around any other fighter of its time.
In fact, the true contribution of the Komet was to high-speed flight as evidenced by the success of the delta-wing Concorde and delta-wing space shuttle. These Lippisch planform concepts live on today.
