At work.
From a layman's understanding we get;
The good points of a jet equipped 163,
Cheap pretty much all wood fuselage. Easy to build and quick to assemble.
Use of 'Low priority' fuels. Diesel, ethanol etc can be pushed through the burners.
The jet engines actually used both less metal over all (The aren't a monolithic block of steel with holes drilled into them) as well as, percentage wise at least, less limited materials intensive.
Memory may be failing me but I also think the mass produced jet engines can be fabricated both with less skilled labour and less specialist tooling than an 'Otto' engine.
The down sides,
Short engin life expectancy. Due to the above mentioned 'Cheaper' materials, less skilled production.
While the turbine doesn't burn fuel as fast as the rocket motor. It's still spraying it through the burners faster than an 'Otto'.
This coupled with smaller fuel tanks. Pretty sure the 163's wings weren't actually built with any sort of spaces for tankage. Added to the fact that more of the fuselage is taken up by engine and duct trunking.
I would be interested to see people's estimates of how much fuel the jet version could/might carry hence giving an idea of just how long the machine could stay aloft.
The now much reduced power to weight ratio. No more bare minutes to 40K feet for the jet version.
Just some thoughts to add to the discussion.
Cheers.