They've been putting LS engines in homebuilts for over 20 years now. Not commonplace, but they don't draw much of a crowd, either.
They've been putting LS engines in homebuilts for over 20 years now. Not commonplace, but they don't draw much of a crowd, either.
Adrian_Thompson said:In reply to MadScientistMatt :
Wood was not the issue with the 162. Wood is an outstanding material for aircraft, especially ones not designed for a long life.
Didn't mean to imply the wood was the problem with those - I was mostly thinking that wooden construction means an He-162 replica might be something you could build at home without specialized tools as long as you didn't have a reasonable sense of self-preservation. The main problem seems to have been rushing it into production before the bugs were worked out.
ebonyandivory said:In reply to Woody :
Lotsa good stuff in that story! Did you think to show him some clips from Alice (Flo at Mel's Diner saying "kiss my grits")
In 2003, how would you have suggested he do that? :) No YouTube, no Google Video, no smartphones - it's a different world!
In reply to MadScientistMatt :
The issue for the 163 was the fact that the two liquids used for fuel looks a lot alike and would explode if they mixed, the refueling procedure was crazy. That and the fact it only had something like 7 minutes of powered flight after it took off.
In reply to Aaron_King :
And melt organics (i.e. skin) on contact. More Komets were lost to accidents than in combat. Many Simply exploded on the tarmac.
Hypergolic fuels are still used in rockets (e.g. Russian Proton-M) and are not as terrible as might be expected (60 years ago, with lightly trained personnel and marginal safety equipment...well..).
The results where quite spectacular though. A 163 could make 30,000 in a minute!! The absolute hot rod of WWII (not really in time for the war) was the Bearcat, and that was right around 3,000 ft/min!!
I am a bit amazed no one has done some sort of kit for the 163. Very pretty and simple design. I suspect the flying wing aspect is one reason, and what to power it with is another (you could go the mini jet BD5 route of course)
Apparently someone did build a glider version:
In reply to aircooled :
I have a copy of "Rocket Fighter" and a 1/72 scale model of one on my shelf at home. One thing that never sunk in was how small they were until I got to see one at the Air Force Museum.
In reply to aircooled :
This is the flying replica. 1:1 scale glider built in Germany
(Ron White) "Hit something hard, I don't wanna limp away from this motherberkeleyer."
I've always wanted to build a homebuilt... but a Me 163? Y'all are nuts.
If you're gonna build a warbird...here's the place to start.
They do have a few rocket powered Long-EZs.
In reply to Appleseed :
When cruise missiles were seriously introduced back in the 80's, I figured that a VariEZE with one of the turbojets from a cruise missile would be able to accelerate while climbing vertically. I don't remember the numbers but that's a ridiculously small powerplant and it produces an impressive level of thrust. Unfortunately, I don't even want to think about what that engine would cost and I doubt, given it was intended for a one-way mission, that it was designed with longevity in mind.
Appleseed said:They do have a few rocket powered Long-EZs.
Please at least tell me they are throttleable (how the F do you spell that?)
Why not use one of the small Williams jets as they use in things like 
In reply to Adrian_Thompson :
If that motor is anything like the Cosy MkVI (think side by side LongE-Z) I saw at Oshkosh, on/off only.
psteav said:I've always wanted to build a homebuilt... but a Me 163? Y'all are nuts.
That's why I was thinking a Heinkel He 162 Volksjager instead. Nearly the same top speed as an Me 163, only half the insanity.
You'll need to log in to post.
