ME-163 KOMET GERMAN ROCKET POWERED FIGHTER AIRCRAFT - AMC Pictorial Review 1 40040d HD 

Not a very useful defense fighter as you describe it. Being able to make at most two passes at the bomber formation with gun sighting from a fighter 200 mph slower shows that.

@@caribman10ur a bludclart

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Whittle Short sightedness by British commanders was the only reason that the British didn't have a jet fighter long before anyone else.

@@seanmcconkey72 lol, sure...

That was true in pretty much every aspect. We'd have colonies on Mars by now if they'd won.

@@l337pwnage It’s true. The problem was that the British air staff had to make decisions on what they could and could not produce, based on timeframe and industrial capacity. Whittle was hocking his idea in the 1930s.

@@l337pwnage Wehraboo alert…

That makes two of us. Same with Documentaries from the 80's, early 90's and Old (Usually by then Classified) training films.

Spent the last twenty minutes trying to figure out wtf asmr is 😂😂😂… I dig it these are always great for sure

@JZ's Best Friend C-Stoff was rocket fuel, not jet fuel. The combinations was hypergolic, meaning it ignited on contact, obviating the need for an ignition source. Modern rockets still use hypergolics such as Unsymmetrical Di Methyl Hydrazine (UDMH) and an oxidiser like Tri-Nitrogen Tetroxide. The disadvantage is that they are extremely toxic so they tend to be used sparingly and for special applications only.

@@thethirdman225 "...The disadvantage is that they are extremely toxic so they tend to be used sparingly and for special applications only." Like when you're losing a war.

@@currentbatches6205 I was referring to current applications, which was what the post I responded to was about.

@JZ's Best Friend I read books. Try "Ignition!" by John D. Clark.

@JZ's Best Friend Your maturity and education level would seem to reflect that.

It was. extremely so.

Yes, it was basically an at best reuseable SAM. It also wasn't all that effective as a gunplatform, too high speed and not enough flighttime. However, at the same time it needs to be mentioned that if they had been available in larger numbers and/or earlier, they could still have had a major impact on the bomber armadas. OTOH, German research into actual SAMs had already reached far enough that they probably should have focused on those instead. Even if their "single use only" would appear to make them much more expensive, they would not waste manpower needed elsewhere, they were generally more effective and would also not require the large infrastructure that actual aircrafts with extremely volatile fuel needed.

@@DIREWOLFx75 The Me163 were more expensive due to maintenance, crew, loss ratio and logistics. It was the German audiology that kept sams from being developed further due to them wanting heroes that could inspire and motivate them population. People tend to say that Germany was far ahead of its time, which is true in some aspects, however they were far behind in others. Good example is the the US assembly line production, radar, Norton bomb sight, B29, Atom bomb and many other innovations. The British with the enigma machine, intelligence services, S.A.S and the meteor which was ready by the end of the war.

@@mikkel066h "Good example is the the US assembly line production, radar, Norton bomb sight, B29, Atom bomb and many other innovations." USA was woefully behind technologically at the beginning of WWII. The one thing it had good was massproduction, and in that regard it was 2nd best in the world after Germany. USA progress in radar and the atomic bomb came solely due to the Tizard mission. Which essentially transferred EVERY UK and to a lesser extent French, Belgian, Dutch, Polish developments. It's one of the biggest most absurdly unfair "deals" of the war, because this tech transfer is what gave USA its future tech industry, and yet UK was forced to pay for LL, not getting even a dime for the technologies provided that kept USA as one of the world leaders technologically for decades. "It was the German audiology that kept sams from being developed further due to them wanting heroes that could inspire and motivate them population." I completely and utterly disagree. The main problem was lack of focus. Germany had as many projects ongoing as USA, USSR and UK TOGETHER. They spread their experts and industry far too thin. I once tried to do a comprehensive survey over what SAMs and AAMs Germany tried developing, and i simply quit counting after i had found over 150 of them and still nowhere close to finishing. Sure, most of those were shortlived and then migrated into a followup, but even if you just count the main lines of projects, it's still over 2 dozen, probably twice that. Including at least some that are blatantly unrealistic that should never have been kept going after the initial concept overview. If, from the very start they had simply selected the halfdozen most promising lines of development, and focused on those, at least a couple of them almost certainly would have become operational before the end of the war, at minimum. More likely, 1944. Even 1943 certainly not impossible. Because no, there were definitely no "heroworship" reasoning involved in interfering with missile development.

It’s not true to say it was extremely dangerous to the pilot. The aircraft handled extremely well and couldn’t even be stalled. It had a fairly high landing speed which combined with the primitive skid undercarriage (which couldn’t handle high sink rates) often lead to back injuries. That was to be solved on the Me 163D or Me 263 with a standard undercarriage. When Me 163 did over turn in a crash the propellant tanks were strong enough to not burst and he could walk away. The one occasion a pilot was dissolved occurred when his engine failed just after takeoff. He turned around to land but clipped a radio tower which crashed his aircraft. He probably died on impact but was dissolved by the propellants. It was upsetting to his squadron since they’d attended his wedding the day before. In most cases as safe as any other fighter.

That isn't a jet, bro. It's a rocket plane. Different entirely. Rockets are basically just riding a controlled bomb exploding. Jets are like car engines just new design that works well in the air. Would never work well in a car since jets accelerate and decelerate way too slowly to be "red light" functional. 😥

@@luke8857 Listen, I understand and appreciate the complexity of the tolerances, gears, and turbine blades but at the end of the day, a jet engine is not much more than a turbo with a continuous fuel source.

@@luke8857 not that big of a deal bro

@@luke8857 He didn't say this was a jet plane. He said it was the beginning of the jet age and he was correct.

Imagine the Gs this guy must have pulled -- not only in the near-vertical climb at start, but then in that almost 90-degree transition to level flight after he descended from operating altitude (negative Gs).

@@roberthaworth8991 I mean, less than an average takeoff in an EE. Lightning I imagine or manoeuvers in a modern fighter, but they didn't have g suits.

@@iainbagnall4825 Just extra tight lederhosen.

@@christhesmith😂

Yes, they have not to be coward! But it was the first stepp of the way, to where we are today. Someone has to make it. And, houw would it have looked like, if it have been elsewhere in the world? Here we see the absolute beginning, steps in the totally unknown! (sorry, my English is limited)

More like desperate stuff.

@@musikfreund54 Yes, germany makes the best tecnology in the world then it lose the war and usa and russia steal it.

@@adrianotero7963 Situation was desperate - but you got to have more than despair to fly one. I have to hate bombers.

@@keepingcalm6469 without a doubt.....all you had to do is show the pilot a newsreel of the aftermath of a bomber raid.

It's because forced laborers sabotaged the Komets on purpose.

@@rafa221 also because the entire design was a death trap to begin with... but yeah sabotage helped as well

@@thefolder69 The most dangerous part was the sled and landing process. But sabotage made the aircraft extremely deadly.

@@rafa221 i've heard this about the He-162 also

@@hellcatdave1 No no, the fuels were highly volatile and the smallest mistake could send it up in flames

It was war. They were desperate for alternatives that didnt use oil.The Walter motor is 'fairly' simple, the fuel injectors are pretty complex and precise little units, and iirc each motor used 10 of them. Not captured here is the sound, with 6-7 shock diamonds that little motor was loud, loud, loud.

No, when they landed, the fuel Tanks are empty! They Fuel is only for the Interception. Than it glieds to Earth.

@@asconajuenger The vapour is more dangerous than the liquids, since it's just as corrosive and reactive.

Only german enginnering are really innovative and futuristic those days and ever, those concepts and anothers like flying wings and flying saucers are studyed from 40's 'till today...

Do you know the " american way " to do this ? The GeeBee R1 racing aircraft leds to death a sort of good - and mad - pilots... A bigger engine with a minimal control surfaces and an imense drag frontal bullet aircraft...

3 were shot down by a total of 14 losses...... The refueling process was dangerous in itself, as you say, but the main cause of most of the losses was the leaking of the T-Stoff connection to the combustion chamber when the landing impacts was too hard. The dreaded and well-known white cloud - followed by an explosion.....

The compounds they used for fuel were nasty, angry chemicals. Many times during flight the tanks would rupture and cover the pilots in propellant, which literally dissolved them.

@@_MaxHeadroom_ Not "many" times...but it happend (mostly while landing, as I wrote) H²O² without the 8-Hydroxychinolin (T-Stoff) is in itself relativ harmless....Wolfgang Späte was pranked to dip his finger in.....but when you take a bath....well.....sooner or later even the rubber-ceramic seals could eroded on the aluminum extension of the combustion chamber. A hard landing impact was all than, what was needed. That was the problem...once a small amount of T-Stoff hit organic fat, a violent reaction ensued, which could then result in the injectorpump injecting an uncontrolled amount of C-Stoff into the chamber and causing the famous explosion. The C-Stoff, as combustion bearer, was btw. made from methanol, water and hydrazine nitrate...You would lose your eyesight, but you can drink it......^^

Cry

You should be glad Periscope films has this material to begin with whiner....

Please learn why there is that bar in the first place.. then get back to us.

@@johnbattista9519 The bar is there, obviously, to cover over the range markings on the graph showing intercept profiles.

@@ZerokillerOppel1 These films are all from the US National Archives.

Like in the Apollo 11

Reminds me of Wylie Coyote sitting astride a giant firework and lighting the fuse 😜👍🏻🇬🇧

🧢

@@thebaxter9241 big one too

Great story thanks for sharing

nice made up story typical of youtube kids seeking attention

I want to believe you. I really do.

Halt mein beir

@@horacegentleman3296 Correction: Halt mein bier

@@Hanz_Otto whoops

@@Hanz_Otto Bier ist ein Nome und wird groß geschrieben

You mean like what the British did with the Mosquito?

👍

@@unvaxxeddoomerlife6788 The Starfighter must have felt incredibly safe compared to the Komet...

The enemy 163B defect was about three minutes too short range which was required to form up an attack. The skid undercarriage was also inconvenient and had a poor sink rate. The solution was the Me 163D/Me 263 which was enlarged and had 66% more range and endurance. The Me 163B was only a test. The more capable Me 163C or Me 163D with more fuel and a boost sustain rocket chamber with much greater efficiency was to be the main version.

@@williamzk9083 I guess thankfully the German engineers never had the time or the resources to mass-produce these better versions of this or that rocket/ jet aircraft... Although I'm not sure it would have made a difference in the end... Germany would have lost regardless, it would just have taken longer...

one day someone will read your comment and think the same about you ... and so on :)

not rly its bound to happen to everyone

@@reapthewhirlwind6915 plus DEATH IS TOTAL FREEDOM. Life is slavery!

- I think the same when I watch old 1930's movies on Turner Classics on cable. And also think these people had no clue to what was waiting for them in the 1940's.

like the whole project....

I got to hear him speak. He was a hoot. He really loved the plane and even decades later sounded giddy as he spoke about it.

@@fredblonder7850 he was one of not many who actually flew the plane....that technology was way ahead of its time.....going vertical after takeoff must have been a rush.....even with all of its dangers.

when Covid hit, and the govt was recommending HAND SANITIZER, I told everyone "you're gonna find out the sanitizer is toxic too!" Months later, the govt and msm said over 100 brands of Hand Sanitizer were VERY BAD FOR YOU and maybe lethal!!! SAME PATTERN EVERY TIME.

@@dumpygoodness4086 hand sanitizer is good for you, dont drink it though or inject it in your veins, if you do its on you, for being stupid

@@dumpygoodness4086 No shit hand sanitizer is toxic, you're not supposed to drink it.

@@orue5499 DEAR GIULIANI BRO, over 100 BRANDS OF HAND SANITIZER were found to have DANGEROUS chemicals, the main one of which COULD BE FATAL if it touched your skin, ya dumbfuck.

@@dumpygoodness4086 Dudes, C-stoff is completely different. It's so caustic it would dissolve your flesh in minutes. Happened to a few German pilots.

Hydrazine is still used in modern jets for powering the emergency power unit.

@@Triggernlfrl Thanks I was going to mention that.

Cant imagine the looks on their faces when the saw those planes in action

@@blucheer8743 , he said at debriefing when they came back, an officer asked "Did any of you see anything unusual during your run?" He said the room with wild! It was then that the officers displayed an intelligence photo of the ME-163 on the screen.

@@danielbell9779 that’s a movie we’ll never see! There is a documentary about the German flying wing the Norton brothers build they found stored and forgotten about in USA… the Germans used aluminum and plywood to build it and it was coated with a charcoal paint used as a primitive stealth coating… we were lucky the war ended when it did.

@@blucheer8743 no we weren't lucky because germany got annihilated. Also it wasn't intentionally stealth. Purely coincidence by the design.

@@blucheer8743 Also look at the Northrop N1-M. The Germans werent the first to develop a "flying wing"-design...

Our pleasure! Believe it or not, this film was rescued from a drum of films found at Wright AFB. Love our channel? Help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference. Join this channel to get access to perks: ru-vid.com/show-UCddem5RlB3bQe99wyY49g0gjoin

During careless landings, yes

@@Suo_kongque how do you not have a careless landing with a ski for landing gear

They were correct. If Germany had populated their airforce with the Me-163 it would have been a war winner...........for the Allies because all the Luftwaffe pilots would have not existed after 7 days of flying that pocket rocket bomb. 💥

The me-262 was junk, the me-163 was suicide

Now imagine this....What if the Germans sold them to Japan....with small nukes strapped to them....

@@kristophermeharg7048 first how would they get it to Japan? Why would they give it to Japan when they are losing their own war? And how would you strap an atomic bomb when you don't have the atomic bomb invented.

There is a famous quote by Chuck Yeager saying first time i saw a jet i shot it down.

@@kristophermeharg7048 japan copied the design

Geography

Im pretty sure any country with a decently sized landmass and population can do that, lol.

@@Berend2004 Really? Name a single country that has been completely devasted as many times as Germany since the 18th century and has bounced back as a world class engineering and industrial power. Just one!

@@johnz4860 Poland, lol. Lmao. They could easily beat Germany today in a conventional ground war. Germany is unable to defend itself due to gross bureaucratic incompetence

@@Berend2004 Maybe. But then Poland would depend on German investments (yet again) to have a workable economy

no: trust from the rocket was 1700kg and weight a take of was 3950kg to maximum 4110kg, real climb angle was ~40°. Hanna Reitsch the well known german test pilot did say: the speed reach 800km/h at end the airfield and the me 163 climb to 9000m in 2 minutes...nota: the germans use only metric like all continental europeans...

Check Bachem BA? "Natter"

They were on the defensive for most of the war you need all the advantages you can get

Whittle wasn't really the inventor of the jet engine. Hans Von Ohain was a contemporary of Whittle's and the idea of the gas turbine jet engine had come and was understood by technical experts in multiple nations. That's why Von Ohain's engine was installed in the He 178 and became the very first jet aircraft to fly on 27 August 1939. Whittle's engine first flew in the Gloster E.28/39 on 15 May 1941, almost two years after the Germans' first flight.

@@drott150 There's a video interview of Hans Von Ohain himself who said (speaking perfect English) that Whittle was ten years ahead of everyone, and that in his opinion, the RAF could have been demonstrating a 500 mph fighter prototype in 1935, in which case there would not have been a World War 2, because the Nazis would not have dared to start it.

@@basilmcdonnell9807 Whittle was not ten years ahead of anyone. If he were, the British would have at least beaten the Germans into the air by a year or two. Instead, they were 2 years behind them. Sure, Whittle had to deal with an disinterested British government. But then the Germans had to deal with the terms of the armistice that strongly limited their aircraft, militaria and technology for many years. So it doesn't add up.

@@drott150 He was talking about jet engines not jet aircraft, there is a difference. Germany broke the terms of the WW1 armistice almost a soon as the ink was dry on the paper. They began rebuilding their military in the 1920's . There was no limit on their technology and they ignored and disguised limits on anything else.

German Power ...

@@klausakkermann4245 one Tiger destroy 25 tanks sherman of USA the Day D , month 6, Day 6 , hour 6 , . 666 ? Extrange..

⁠​⁠@@diana8259 there were well over 40 shermans for every tiger, the horton 229 was a fantasy, the arado 55 was a folly, the me-163 was a suicide box for the pilot

Still better than flying in unpressurized allied bombers in 30 000ft for several hours...

@@KapitanPisoar1 My surprise was in the rate of ascent, and the physiological changes which that would entail. The slow climb of the bomber gives plenty of time to adjust, albeit to very harsh conditions, but three minutes to the same height must have been gruelling. Apparently the pilots had to have special diets to avoid stomach gasses causing problems.

@@direktorpresident I have read books about the use of this aircraft. The pilots must have a special diet. Foods that caused bloating caused severe intestinal spasms. They actually ate things that were rare at the time, e.g. white bread, scrambled eggs, etc.

@@KapitanPisoar1 a lot better actually because one works and the other blows itself up sometimes.

If the fuel leaked out of the tanks that were on either side of the cockpit, the pilots stood a good chance of being dissolved alive.

It may be Rudolf Opitz

Woulda, coulda, shoulda… :facepalm:

There is no chance the Lippisch P.13 could have gone supersonic. It simply didn’t make enough power.

@@thethirdman225 That's what it said: I was sceptical but the proposed motive power was considered by people more expert than me to have been viable.

Why should they mention it in this video?

Not really. By the end of the war, America Britain, and then after the war, soviets all had jets. The British meteor was the groundwork for modern jet engine design and was found to be superior to german rocketry and jets.

@@amckittrick7951 to be fair, Frank Whittle, a british man, invented the jet engine

@@West_Coast_Gang yes, true. The jet is a british invention

and now it's in a museum

German technology is the finest in the world!

I had no idea it was ever tested under power, at least in the US. Was this this tested elsewhere?

@@AxialFlux Eric Brown is a british pilot

@@codemy666 Ah, that makes sense then.

@@AxialFlux Look him up, he had a quite an impressive career

@@drott150 Eh, I am pretty sure he did. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eXLcUKB-jws.html

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re referring to?

That's only 186mph. A B-17's cruising speed is 150 mph, with a top speed of 287. At cruising, that thing is only advancing at a rate of 36 mph from behind. It's head-on attacks where you get a short window, but that's normal. Unless you are advancing absolutely perfectly flat head-on, you also have have parallax issues to deal with.

Hanna was the first human being to fly faster than 650 MPH and live to tell the tale, just barely.

The only way that could possibly have happened, would have been in a dive, probably a death dive. In any case, it's not documented in any way. Yeager was first to do it and live.

Russians may have towed one to altitude in 46 .

@@johnziegelbauer4999 If they did they didnt test it under power. The only documented flight under power after the war was done by Captain Eric Brown, Royal Air Force. They did this only once, after many, many, many gliding test flights. The plane didnt come close to the sound barrier. Aerodynamics limited its high speed performance. Also you have to consider the structural weakness of the plane. Many pilots have claimed to have broke the sound barrier before the X-1, but none could get confirmed, and most of them claimed that it was in a dive. The X-1 did it on a straight line, and it was documented... so...

He had nothing to do with any of this. Hellmuth Walters engines and fuel were used on those planes.

200 mph takeoff on a grass field and 180 mph landing speed with a sled sounds like they would of been their own worst enemy but if they had enough time to make it safer, reliable could of been different but the fueling of the plane would have been dangerous too they probably were gonna use prisoners for that job too

WOuld have killed more unfortunate pilots and the even more unfortunate re-fuelers, you mean. The plane, alhtough fascinating from an aeronautical scientific advancement sort-of-way, was a dangerous death-trap waiting to happen.

xj900uk totally agree, I imagine the designers and developers had a nice pair of binoculars to watch it testing, they wouldn’t have been too close, it might of even sped up the end for Germany as it might of depleted the number of pilots sooner similar to the problem Japan ran into

Он в лендлиз не входил.

@@wladimirgrimailov1380 Да! Я знаю эту песню - Основа нашей победы - это лендлиз! Современный Лендлиз вам не поможет. Нацисты будут наказаны.

They weren’t around until 1944