Author Topic: RATO units  (Read 1458 times)

Offline fbWldcat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
Re: RATO units
« Reply #15 on: June 15, 2011, 05:25:50 PM »
There are a million different types of rockets, you know? Some more harmful than others. Just because the 163 is fueled separatedly doesn't mean the RATO pods had to be.

You're missing my point, though. Why would they fuel the 163 so carefully, but then keep the two so close together in the RATO units?
Based on what I read below, the RATO units were sometimes filled with the two volatile chemicals. And even if they aren't using the exact chemicals, they all contain a type of fuel, correct?

Quote
2. ' Since that time German progress in the development of liquid rocket
fuels has been additionally demonstrated by the operational employment of the
Me 163 fighter, the, A.4 long-range rocket,-and the F?>G 7S flying bomb (where
T and 2 Stoff are used for ground launching), while experimental work on a
number of G.A.P. projects concerned with assisted take-off units for bombers
and with controlled missiles for u3e against airoraft or shipping continues on
a high priority.

Quote
A special variant of the bifuel system which may be considered separately,
la the well-known T Stoff/Z Stoff combination, first used operationally in
assisted take-off units

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0122495
Landing is overrated.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I: I took the one less traveled by." - Robert Frost
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue." <S>

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: RATO units
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2011, 12:58:22 AM »
Wldcat, the only reason they did that with the Me163 was because those 2 very specific chemicals exploded on contact. You didn't hae to ignite them. They were also nasty and harmful.

Like I said, tons of different types of RATO fuels out there. Tons of variations with less caustic results. That means they're safer than a fully fueled Me163, and can be stored.

All hypothetical, naturally. But you shouldn't compare a Me163's methods of fuel storage with those of a RATO unit. They really don't compare.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: RATO units
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2011, 01:08:10 AM »
:rofl Great! Is there a website? I think the cat suggestion is brilliant.

No, it's just parts of the book. It works its way up from 1939 to 1940 etc. In between different entries it sometimes adds these short accounts of British citizen suggestions from that time. No website, just part of the book.

Definitely keep an eye out for it if you go browsing. Found a hardback picture here:



Mine's paperback, slightly different image (same picture, just placed differently, no white border, the text goes over the top of the photo, etc)

Offline fbWldcat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2970
Re: RATO units
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2011, 07:52:46 AM »
Wldcat, the only reason they did that with the Me163 was because those 2 very specific chemicals exploded on contact. You didn't hae to ignite them. They were also nasty and harmful.

Like I said, tons of different types of RATO fuels out there. Tons of variations with less caustic results. That means they're safer than a fully fueled Me163, and can be stored.

All hypothetical, naturally. But you shouldn't compare a Me163's methods of fuel storage with those of a RATO unit. They really don't compare.

It's not so much about the comparison to the 163 as it is that the RATO units are filled with some kind of fuel or another. (Fancy fuel tanks, anyone)?
Landing is overrated.
"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I: I took the one less traveled by." - Robert Frost
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue." <S>

Offline STXAce8

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 724
Re: RATO units
« Reply #19 on: June 18, 2011, 05:57:45 PM »
I think rato units are hot burning rockets and the 163 is a cold rocket.
ZLA- Don't Focke Wulf Us!
Ingame: Batz
Kommando Nowotny
Its over the top as Fack