WI: the Me 163 is designed around a jet engine

It was inspired by the ME 163 though. I think the DH 108's failings are indicative of what would have happened to the ME 163 as speeds increased. All the more so when you add in the stresses on an aircraft in combat.

The jet Me 163 will be slower than the Me 262, and certainly slower than OTL Me 163 or DH 108. I can't recall any instances of Me 262 or Me 163 greatly suffering when going very fast.
 
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.
 
The 163 was designed to climb rapidly to altitude and then go into combat unpowered, combat manoeuvring under power is going to do unexpected and quite possibly undesirable things to its stability in at least pitch.
 
IIRC, the leading edges of the Me 163C *may* have been intended as fuel tanks - I've seen at least one photo that indicated it but can't remember which book it was in.

And there was at least one occasion when the 163 went supersonic, admittedly in an out of control climb almost vertically, only to come back under control when the rudder was torn off and the fuel ran out.
 
At work.

The 163 was designed to climb rapidly to altitude and then go into combat unpowered, combat manoeuvring under power is going to do unexpected and quite possibly undesirable things to its stability in at least pitch.

Pretty sure there was a tow to altitude with full tanks and then the rocket was ignited. Don't think that one came apart.

There were also accounts of 163's making powered pasees through the B-17 formations. Hence the realization that hitting targets at large disparate speeds was difficult. Leading to the development of the vertically firing, light/shadow triggered rocket packs.

Does anyone know if the multi - nozzle, 'Cruse' motor engine arrangement was actually flown on the 163?

Cheers.
 
At work.

the ME-263 solves most of the faults, adding solid fuel boosters and R4M rockets solve more?

?

The 263 certainly addressed certain aspects of the 163. Attached landing gear. 'Cruse' motor.

However, I don't think the vertical rocket system installed on the 163 were R4M's?

Cheers.
 

Deleted member 1487

Improved versions of that in service with the USAF were famously inaccurate, even with far more being launched with computing gunsights, like on the F-94 and F-89
For the R4M that was a feature not a bug; they wanted it to saturate a large section of sky to break up bomber boxes.
 
It's clear the Me-163 was ONLY ever meant to be rocket powered and any jet powered version would be a completely new aircraft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet

It's hard to see where that jet fighter would have fitted into the Nazis planning. It might have been a Volksjager contender but would have then probably suffered the same fate at the competitors to the He-162. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Fighter_Program

The Ta-183 was probably the best of them but still wasn't complete by the time the war ended. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183
 
At work.

Well.... if we're going the all in emergency fighter then Lippisch P-13a coal powered ram jet fighter should get a mention.

Though, what I think the OP is asking is "How viable would the basic air frame be if converted from rocket power to jet?"

Cheers.
 

thaddeus

Donor
the ME-263 solves most of the faults, adding solid fuel boosters and R4M rockets solve more?

The 263 certainly addressed certain aspects of the 163. Attached landing gear. 'Cruse' motor.

However, I don't think the vertical rocket system installed on the 163 were R4M's?

sorry if that post was confusing, meant they might have added the Schmidding solid fuel boosters as the Bachem Natter did for the initial takeoff, also armed the aircraft with R4M rockets instead of guns they barely were able to aim.
 
At work.

sorry if that post was confusing, meant they might have added the Schmidding solid fuel boosters as the Bachem Natter did for the initial takeoff, also armed the aircraft with R4M rockets instead of guns they barely were able to aim.

Ah!

Well.... I don't think the 163 nor the 263 really needed any 'Extra' kick to get off the ground.

Unless you're suggesting 'Going vertical' like the Natter and Wesp?

As for rockets? I believe the vertical, photoelectric triggered system as installed does have some confirmed effectiveness.

The R4M are the honking big tube launched ones? Or the flatter packed smaller ones? (That they eventually realized they could simply 'Double stack' them for twice the fire power)

Cheers.
 
I'm thinking this is a 'if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle' situation. Such an Me163 would be so different that it wouldn't be the Me163. Maybe something closer to the Volksjager.
I suspect the changes would be so great that even completely unrelated SAMs like Enzian would have more in common with the Me 163 than a hypothetical jet-powered version like this. It would be practically a clean-sheet aircraft (and the Me 163 resembles a manned SAM in general).
 

marathag

Banned
I suspect the changes would be so great that even completely unrelated SAMs like Enzian would have more in common with the Me 163 than a hypothetical jet-powered version like this. It would be practically a clean-sheet aircraft (and the Me 163 resembles a manned SAM in general).
Or not that many changes
 

thaddeus

Donor
.... I don't think the 163 nor the 263 really needed any 'Extra' kick to get off the ground.

Unless you're suggesting 'Going vertical' like the Natter and Wesp?

As for rockets? I believe the vertical, photoelectric triggered system as installed does have some confirmed effectiveness.

The R4M are the honking big tube launched ones? Or the flatter packed smaller ones? (That they eventually realized they could simply 'Double stack' them for twice the fire power)

was not suggesting a vertical launch although it might have almost that effect, but rather to extend the operating time.

have no idea the number of R4M rockets to use just that they seem the appropriate weapon? the vertical photovaic activated setup still required getting into right position? the rockets just getting into the right vicinity?
 
Well.... I don't think the 163 nor the 263 really needed any 'Extra' kick to get off the ground.

They look into fast interceptor that clime fast up after take off
The Me263 "Heimatschutz" were equip with rocket engine for that.

On Lippisch P.15 to P.20 Design
It had some issue with realty (so far i know)
one was Willy Messerschmitt who not like the idea, next to that Herman Göring issue with it
And RLM demand for twin Jet-engine fighters like Me263 do problem with short lifespan of the Jet-engine.
yes they change that for Heinkel He 162 Volksjäger and they suffer engine-out problem with deadly result for the pilot...
 
Top