So, regarding the propellants, to summarise: they used two indistinguishable liquids which explode on contact with each other. Both of which have their own sets of materials they should not be allowed to contact with (including each other's tanks and fuel lines), else there'd be an explosion. They put the most dangerous of the two in a tank right behind the pilot, and later proceeded to install two extra tanks in the cockpit. They did all this in a small, fast aircraft and sent it up against other aircraft firing bullets at it. And finally, they did not tell the pilots what the fuels were. I don't care how technologically brilliant this all was, the Germans were completely out of their minds back then. Excellent video, thank you very much. Looking forward to the next instalment!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Yes, that pretty much describes it.
@SolarWebsite
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks for the reply! Hi from a Dutch fan :-)
@TheBockenator
4 жыл бұрын
The dangers of the Me 163: Hard landing: explode. Fuel leak: explode. Engine failure on takeoff: explode. Shrapnel in any part of the fuel system: explode. Carelessly refuel: explode. Forget the lyrics of Erika: explode.
@sheritonn5019
4 жыл бұрын
Read somewhere that the T-stoff could only be stored in pure aluminum tanks. This meant the T-stoff tanks were not made of aircraft grade aluminum alloys, but rather soft pure aluminum, what today would be considered 1000 series alloy.
@rlosable
4 жыл бұрын
While the 163 was quite explody, it had many other ways of inflicting death or serious injuries on its pilots, some much more gruesome than a simple explosion...
@elroyfudbucker6806
3 жыл бұрын
And lastly: T-Stoff leak; pilot disolves.
@drrobcwillis
3 жыл бұрын
These mishaps actually did not occur as often as some may think. The biggest problem with the Me-163 operations was not how dangerous the propellants were, it was the severe shortage of high purity hydrogen peroxide which was both difficult & expensive to produce. The programme could have been made both safer and far more cost-effective if a dedicated LOX-Methanol powered advanced trainer version had been built. Von Braun had already developed such a motor before the outbreak of the war. Prototypes of said motors were successfully test flown several times in couple modified He-112 fighters as far back as 1937.
@johntempest267
3 жыл бұрын
One must remember what they were being used to combat. The payload of 1000 B 17s and B 24s are more dangerous and explosive.
@stevecastro1325
3 жыл бұрын
I flashed back to Ian at Forgotten Weapons channel on how to equip the Elbonian military, namely how to make the WORST choices in guns. This would be the perfect airplane for the Elbonian Air Force.
@mikejohansson6711
4 жыл бұрын
Back in the late 1990's we had a German exchange pilot at our Squadron at Cannon AFB, NM the 524th. We both shared a love for WWII German aircraft and he told me through some of his research on the ME 163, his favorite aircraft, that if the wings had been swept back just 3 degrees more the aircraft could have hit mach 1. According to him, there is a team of Germans who want to build a modern version of the 163.
@caribman10
Жыл бұрын
..problem being that all that speed is great but it's supposed to be a defense fightern which it was not and could not be. Just for starters there was no contemporary sighting mechanism nor machine gun that could actually be used in an aircraft this fast, in combat much less faster.
@PRH123
Жыл бұрын
hmm, not likely, the lack of a horizontal tail surface would make it uncontrollable (sudden pitch change) as the shock wave in the transonic range moves across the wing and changes the center of pressure / lift... that's why Hanna Reitsch crashed in it... that's why the DH Swallow crashed, also no tailplane....
@danieljoseph255
11 ай бұрын
@@PRH123Hanna Reitsch crashed-landed an unpowered Me 163B on a glide test, because she failed to release the wheeled dolly when her tow lifted off. Women. There are multiple claims that the 163, flown by Dittmar, broke the sound barrier on more than one occasion, while in a dive, and post dive/on the level, when released. The layout was stolen by the DH 108, which broke the sound barrier. A more pronounce sweep, which the DH 108 did have, might be all the 163 needed(s)
@devilliers123
9 ай бұрын
Stoff....Mix....formula
@Gerle71
13 күн бұрын
@@danieljoseph255"Women." Quite the comment. 🙄
@TCFixerDude
4 жыл бұрын
"Negotiable virtues". Thanks for the tour and the laugh!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Tom gets it! You're welcome.
@daszieher
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles although their "virtues" are relatively fixed in comparison with their "virtue", which is what is negotiated in the end. On the other hand, it is the virtues, which prompt an interested party to undertake negotiations in the first place...
@T1mbrW0lf
4 жыл бұрын
Always appreciate Greg's dry humor and gift for understatement; but he has now joined the select group of video authors that have earned my "Sinus & Squeegee Award" after I spontaneously bathed my monitor with morning coffee . . .
@alan6832
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Why tow gliders with combat capable and in demand DB601 powered Me110s when something far more utilitarian like Junkers 52 should do just fine? Though perhaps Me110s were obsolescent by then and their 601s not the latest versions. right?
@Activated_Complex
2 жыл бұрын
One of the better Culture ship name suggestions I’ve heard.
@rudolfabelin383
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks Greg! Very interesting. I just shortly want to mention the development of the ME 163. The following has been told to me by either my father or Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz: Long, long story short. After the war the Russians made two attempts to kidnap Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz, along with his wife and young son, in the American sector in Berlin. The Russians came in American uniforms and Jeeps. The commandant of the sector advised Hans Pancherz to flee to Sweden. He had kept one inflatable rubber raft from either the Ju 290 or Ju 390. Hans Pancherz was in charge of the test flying of the Ju 390 (America bomber). He paid a fisherman to drop him off outside of Trelleborg, Sweden. My father was reached of a rumor that there was a former Chief Test Pilot (in German, Versuchflieger) from Junkers operating a crane in the harbor of Landskrona. My father checked up his credentials with his contacts in Germany (among others, he knew Hanna Reitsch personally since his time in England prewar). It all checked out. Hans Pancherz was also an Engineer. My father employed him at his company (MFI, Malmö Flygindustri) where Hans Pancherz worked until his retirement (and a little after that. Including, but not limited to Saab 340). After the crash that killed the test pilot of the He 162, Pancherz was reassigned to finish the test flying of the He 162. There was a problem with inverted aileron effect, but in the other end of the speed scale that you mention. Hans Pancherz sorted that out. He was also assigned to oversee all development of jet and rocket aircrafts. This brings us to the Ju 248. A development of the Me 163. It had a retractable landing gear, 3 point. The engine were also different. Depending on how you look at it you can say it had two rocket engines for longer endurance. The goal was 30 minutes of endurance. Hans Pancherz did all 14 test flights with the Ju 248, maybe all towed. Anyway, the ambitions was much higher, with supersonic flight in mind. These new supersonic wings was never finished in the work shop in 1945 as all resources vanished. The wings were calculated for Mach 1.6. When I was chairman of the Malmö section of "Swedish Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics" I persuaded onkel Hans to give a presentation of the Ju 248. Unfortunately I did not record it, my loss.... So, the books could have said Hans Pancherz instead of Chuck Yeager. Thanks again Greg! Looking forward for more!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Wow, that's a great post. Thanks Rudolf.
@patnolen8072
4 жыл бұрын
Interesting chapter of history. I get the impression the Me 163 included much new technology; a second iteration of the concept would be developed far from the first.
@RocketGurney
4 жыл бұрын
Last time I was this early the Luftwaffe still had spare aviation fuel! On a more serious note, thank you for the consistently thorough and fascinating content, Greg.
@thomaszhang3101
4 жыл бұрын
Last time I was this early, Goering still had an air force.
@aarongray7724
4 жыл бұрын
You are making no sense. WTF are trying to say. Try reading your crap before you post it
@johntempest267
4 жыл бұрын
Lippisch was a genius. He worked for Convair on F 102/6.
@drdoolittle5724
4 жыл бұрын
do you mean 'worked' or forced labour?
@johntempest267
4 жыл бұрын
@@drdoolittle5724 I doubt he needed to be forced. He was a aeronautical engineer in a country that lay in ruins. He was one many scientists and engineers that were happy to come to the States and ply their trade for defense contractors and NASA, provide for their families, and put a terrible recent past behind them. Lippisch was a intellectual bonanza for Convair, and I'm sure he, along with the other German engineers were treated with respect and admiration they never saw working in the 3rd Riech.
@sail4horizon
4 жыл бұрын
It might be fun for Greg to do videos on certain engineers (and the planes they developed) that contributed a lot to aviation.
@TraditionalAnglican
4 жыл бұрын
h bethune - Werner Von Braun & the scientists & engineers traveling with him actually followed the advance of the Allies across Germany so they could “surrender” to the Americans & “continue their work” working for the Americans. We took one look at the talent Von Braun was bringing with him & decided to “accommodate their desires”.
@carlosandleon
3 жыл бұрын
@@johntempest267 Lol I doubt they WEREN'T respected in the third reich.
@964cuplove
4 жыл бұрын
Stoff has a number of meanings Today it’s mostly “fabric” as in a woven material for clothing It can also mean material a bit as the “stuff” that things are made from There is Werkstoff which for an engineer generally means the material used to manufacture something (eg the specific alloy or wood etc.) Or Wirkstoff as in a chemical used for a certain purpose In the list you show us I would translate it with compound or material
@DerKurfuerst
4 жыл бұрын
Or "Stoff" could mean drugs too
@Mishn0
4 жыл бұрын
That matches English in that "stuff" was also a word for fabric in that same sense though you don't hear that usage any more.
@ataarono
4 жыл бұрын
Der Stoff aus dem Träume sind
@SeanBZA
4 жыл бұрын
In this case the meaning is "fluid". As well the fuel lines most likely were lined with asbestos, or were made with asbestos seals, as that was a very well understood seal method then, and quite reliable and something that was common there for steam applications.
@evilreddog
4 жыл бұрын
the best Translation for Stoff when it comes to this is "Compound" in english
@iflycentral
4 жыл бұрын
Well done Greg. Did seem you were grasping for the right word to use when talking about the fuel reaction. The type of reaction between these liquid bi-propellant fuels that ignite on contact is called a hypergolic reaction. There are many types of these fuels that have been used in various rocket program's, and they are indeed very dangerous to work with. Almost always toxic, and even carcinogenic, however, very necessary; especially when in a vacuum where ignition of safer fuels is harder to achieve. Looking forward to part two.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks Central. I was struggling to find the right word. Chemistry is way outside my scope of knowledge. I didn't even know the word "hypergolic" existed.
@iflycentral
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles I've dabbled in it a bit. If I had unlimited time and money; I'd go back to school, and pursue more classes in chemistry. It's a fascinating subject.
@iflycentral
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles BTW: I sent you a video link on Discord to a video that isn't public yet. Figured that you might enjoy it.
@nascheme
4 жыл бұрын
If you are interested in rocket fuels, "Ignition!" is a great book. You might find a copy online as I think its out of print. For some amusing online articles, look for "Things I won't work with". Relevant to hypergolic fuels is the "peroxide peroxide" one. Crazy stuff.
@jamesburleson1916
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The book Ignition! by John D. Clark is a great source for info on rocket propellants. He was a chemist that worked in the field for decades starting I think in the 40's. The book is very well written and quite entertaining, even for the chemically illiterate like me.
@smithcopiedhimself
3 жыл бұрын
Greg, "Stoff" just means a chemical substance of kind. It could be a mixture or a pure element. Hydrogen, H2, is Wasserstoff (stuff from which water comes); Nitrogen, N2, is Stickstoff (stuff that will asphyxiate you); Oxygen, O2, is Sauerstoff (stuff from which sour things come, i.e., acids); Fuels are Brennstoff (stuff that ignites and burns); Bombs contain Sprengstoff (stuff that springs violently, i.e., explodes).
@laertesl4324
4 жыл бұрын
I thought I knew a lot about the Komet and then came Greg with this video and put me in my place.
@Activated_Complex
2 жыл бұрын
I’m impressed with his knowledge and research here. Most WWII fighters he covers are right in his wheelhouse (heh) with reciprocating engines. The Komet was more of a bomb with an opening on one end that occasionally held off exploding long enough to fly.
@lumox7
4 жыл бұрын
If there were leaks and the C-stoff mixed with the T-stoff, the pilot would be P-stof.
@johnhanley9946
3 жыл бұрын
Lol
@Activated_Complex
2 жыл бұрын
@The Silenced I was gonna make a pun of my own. But yours is FAR better. Kudos.
@drcovell
Ай бұрын
😂😂😂😂😂
@rikvanderzanden2834
4 жыл бұрын
Stoff translates best to "material" or "substance"
@aaronseet2738
4 жыл бұрын
You mean it doesn't just mean "stuff"? :D
@faunbudweis
4 жыл бұрын
stuff
@MyFabian94
4 жыл бұрын
It can also mean Drugs, mostly other than Mariuana.
@FrancisMaxino
4 жыл бұрын
'Stuff' mate...
@UrMomsChauffer
4 жыл бұрын
T-Stoff is a fuel, it also has other uses
@frbe0101
4 жыл бұрын
Greg considering reading/listen to the book "Ignition!: An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" for a wonderful review of all the insanely dangerous propellants they tried to make rocket fuel out of between the 40's and 60's. The book is not at all dry, almost gonzo even, fun read!
@VRichardsn
Жыл бұрын
This was recommended to me elsewhere, and I must agree with you. A great (and fun to read!) introduction to dangerous rocket fuels.
@gendoikari6062
4 жыл бұрын
I've got a tattoo of the Me-163 Komet across my chest; Gregg made me feel that I don't deserve to have it... Man! What a great report..!!!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
If you endured the pain of the tattoo then I would say you deserve it.
@gizmophoto3577
4 жыл бұрын
I heard a lecture in the 1980s at the Smithsonian by Rudolf Opitz, who was a Messerschmitt test pilot who flew Me 163s. There is a photo in a book I own of a plane he flew at over 600 mph, if I recall correctly. I took the book to the lecture, and have his signature alongside that photograph.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Wow, nice!
@mrod2b216
4 жыл бұрын
My father......
@gizmophoto3577
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles The book was William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich. I paid as much for that in the late '70s as I did some textbooks. I can share a photo of the signature if that would be of any interest to you as thanks for your outstanding content.
@EinachserLS
4 жыл бұрын
These videos are just amazingly interesting, well presented and well narrated. You, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman.
@timcross2510
4 жыл бұрын
As an aircraft addict, I find your work on utoob to be fantastic in just about every way.
@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs
4 жыл бұрын
Note the Me 163 had an autostable (reflexed) air foil. It could not be stalled with the tanks more than half empty. 1 Me 163A was a small test bed with a "cold" monopropellant rocket that worked by decomposing hydrogen peroxide 2 Me 163B was the combat version with a HWK 509A1/A2 that used a bipropellant rocket hydrazine hydrate + 57% methanol + 13% water (the fuel) and Hydrogen Peroxide (oxidiser) The Me 163B had a couple of problems. a/ the Me 163 could intercept because it could climb at speed in a minute what would take a piston fighter at least 10 minutes. Once there it only had a few minutes to conduct the attack and this was often not enough to form up for a coordinated attack. b/ the two 30mm MK 108 guns were not quite enough for the speed of the attack. c/ no pressurisation d/ the skid could not accept high sink rates and was the cause of must accidents. The solution to the short endurance was the HWK 509B rocket which had the same rocket motor but added a much smaller sustainer for cruise that was much more efficient. That would give the Me 163 a few more minutes. However the Me 163B was never upgraded. Instead development of the larger Me 163C was begun. This was enlarged aircraft, had a pressurised bubble canopy and 4 x Mk 108 guns and of course the improved HWK 509B and latter C. The Me 163 was perhaps to much work so the Me 163D also known as the Me 263 or Ju 248. This was a stretched Me 163B with the boost/sustainer motor and retractable undercarriage. It did fly as a glider at least. The short range was not so much an issue as the ultra high climb rate and speed meant it didn't waste 10-15 minutes time getting there. It was at bomber height in a minute. Rudy Opitz, Me 163 test pilot said that pilots did survive over turned aircraft. They were fairly solid and precautions were taken.
@Mishn0
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your input. It's very informative. Is the image @16:07 an engine with the sustainer thrust chamber? (below the main one?)
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
It's a later 163 engine, I'll talk about it later.
@greenbean7853
4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your time making these
@markfryer9880
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent video Greg. For all of its high performance, the ME 163 sounds like a right pain to service and fly. Mistakes could be fatal and people make mistakes regularly, so consequences follow rapidly.
@dannycalley7777
Жыл бұрын
M.F. ...............the ultimate test of your ass !!!!!!
@Larpy1933
3 жыл бұрын
Greg, that’s always been a fascinating aircraft to me - and the more I understand about it the more I realize its dangerous characteristics. There’s something incredibly appealing about it. Thanks for giving us a chance to learn from your deep research on the subject. Part 2: is on my list. Good luck!
Yet again just like the ferdinand people who actually flew the 163 had positive things to say about it
@xgford94
4 жыл бұрын
bluewaffle 45 yes the Ferdinand was great if you used it as a Stug rather than a Panzer.
@Dragunov302
4 жыл бұрын
Not beautiful lol not at all
@squidwardtentacles244
4 жыл бұрын
@@Dragunov302 kinda fat innit
@robertweeks4240
4 ай бұрын
Great to see what you look like Greg! Love your videos!
@richardschaffer5588
4 жыл бұрын
Great video as always. Years ago, say 50, I made some hand launched gliders with swept back paper wings. By bending the paper back on itself you can make a decent airfoil and they were super light. It was hard to get them to be stable. Dihedral didn’t work to well. The cg was basically in the wing, no righting lever. But I read in some forgotten book that twisting the wing so the angle of attack at the wing tip was GREATER than the angle of attack at the root (the opposite of the ME163 ) would stabilize the glider. It worked like crazy! I have no idea why. Of course it was a paper airplane it had no ailerons to worry about.
@lycossurfer8851
4 жыл бұрын
One of the test pilots named Rudy Opitz had an article in Flight Journal a couple of years ago. This expands on his article a lot and gives some background that was missing from the magazine, thanks for making the video Greg and keep it up.
@mrod2b216
4 жыл бұрын
My father...
@MadeleineTakam
4 жыл бұрын
Eric "Winkle" Brown considered the ME163 to have excellent handling characteristics; And considering he has flown more aircraft types than anyone in history he should know. Hanna Reitsch did a lot of the glide testing on the ME163. Heini Dittmar reached a max speed of 700mph in one. It also possible that Dittmar reached an altitude of 70,000 feet on one flight, that was towed to altitude; But Reitsch, Brown and Dittmar all suspiciously gloss over the true performance of the 163. All were friends - Brown covering extensively for Reitsch after the war. Reitsch’s memoir “The Sky My Kingdom” being an exercise in “I am just a bit dizzy innocent girl me” This from the Lady that went on to become the Mother of the Ghanaian Air Force.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Reitsch>Brown, at least in this context.
@gumbykevbo
4 жыл бұрын
Hang glider and sailplane pilot checking in. The sweep in a flying wing is also essential for pitch stability. They will always have geometric or effective washout (twist) so that the tips replicate the downforce function of the H-stab on a conventional aircraft. So not only does the washout avoid tip stall, but it is required for pitch stability. It IS just possible to do without the sweep by using reflexed airfoil, but sweep is far preferable because the tips are less effective at producing lift anyway, so losing that to negative lift is preferable to the loss at the TE of a straight wing you’d have with a reflexed ‘foil. Also the swept tip is farther aft, so has a longer moment, so less negative lift is required. There is a book (my friend had it) that details the Hortons work that goes into this in great detail.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
I agree with basically everything you said. Thanks for chiming in. One of the dilemmas I face when making these videos is deciding how much to cover. If I went into the effects of sweep and cg on pitch stability, this video would have been 2 hours long because I can't just mention it, I have to fully explain it.
@gumbykevbo
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks Greg. I can appreciate that there is only so much that you can cover. Before some asks, by "effective" washout I mean a thicker (vs. chord) and/or less cambered airfoil toward the tips, or polyhedral, which mimic the effect of twist vis-a-vis spanwise stall distribution.
@roryvonbrutt7302
4 жыл бұрын
Absolutely fantastic video on the ME comet . It's incredible how much information has not ever been available that I've seen on this futuristic and extremely interesting plane what a great job and thank you this is what the Internet is for again great job thank you
@cabletie69
4 жыл бұрын
The Komet is my favourite IL2 mission. Burn, roll, dive attack and repeat. Great fun. Thanks Greg.
@davidhills703
4 жыл бұрын
This video is evidence of why this channel is golden! Great work, Greg!
@McRocket
2 жыл бұрын
'Negotiable virtue'. Great term...new one for me. I hope I remember it. ☮
@kristinarain9098
3 жыл бұрын
To keep pilot safe from fire, or attempt to keep him safe, he wore an asbestos flight suit :D
@JFrazer4303
5 ай бұрын
Given the success of the Komet as a flying machine, it's a wonder that they didn't pursue some of the Lippisch variants like different P.15 that put jets in it. They ranged from single jet and the same dolly & skid, to twin jets and actual retractable wheels. Once pilots understood its particular quirks & features, it flew very well. Lippisch's last iteration of the "Delta", with substantial fin (eventually without the little canards) also flew well. Several modern delta type variations also work well: see the Dyke and the Verhees light planes which are quite well mannered and pilot friendly. Then there's the remarkable Wainfan "Facetmobile" of the '90s, which is currently working on a modern 2seat upgrade. Arguably better in all important criteria than "normal" planes.
@johnvorres4351
2 жыл бұрын
Greg ! Thankyou ! I love airplanes ! Many different Airplanes ! Many German planes ! How ever as a young boy , This was my favorite German Machine ! I would have volunteered to fly this without fear ! I was a weird kid ! Not brave ,. However very enthusiastic . Now being old and far more cautious my dream plane would be a Me 263 powered by liquid oxygen and kerosine, and because of your report a pressurized model !
@gunfisher4661
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent videos, hit the taste buds real good
@timbanicevich5565
4 жыл бұрын
Hi Greg, Fantastic video of one of my favourite planes of all time. I learnt a number of new things as well. Thank you so much for the video! One point I’d like to make is that the T-Stoff was a minimum of 80% hydrogen peroxide, also called High Test Peroxide. As an oxidiser, it performs well but has some handling and cleanliness requirements that are hair raising at best. It didn’t really take off as a mainstream storable propellant for these reasons. A sobering thought given the characteristics of the storable oxidisers that did prevail - Nitrogen tetroxide and IRFNA. Cheers, Tim from Australia 🇦🇺
@gregorypadilla5422
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for posting. I finally learned about the development of all wing air crafts in Germany. In America I'm familiar with the Northrop designs.
@DankNoodles420
2 жыл бұрын
It sounds like you pronounced wasserpoop with that amount of emphasis on poop that you did right on purpose! Good one XD I also really like the fact that your closed captioning actually spells and says "Wasser Poop" That is a nice touch indeed haha!
@chrisdominguez7485
Жыл бұрын
Another episode filled with amazing details and clear explanation without the fluff of national or company advocacy viewpoints!
@PaddyPatrone
4 жыл бұрын
Highly interesting video! Now I once read a very similar story to what happened to Joschi. In that case, after the wheels hit the plane, the engine also cut off and the plane basically landed itself on the end of the runway. So from the outside the plane looked undamaged, but then they also found out, that the pilot had been dissolved. Many ICBM`s also use hypergolic fuels. Also many of chinese space rockets and the russian proton rocket run on hypergolic fuels. Nasty stuff.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks Paddy.
@alexanderroesch2287
4 жыл бұрын
The German word for fuel is "Treibstoff" (also translatable as "propellant"). It is a contraction of two words derived from "treiben" (= to propel), and "Stoff" (= substance). On this basis, it is simply convenient to call two different components of a propellant to also end with "stoff". Thus calling them C-Stoff, T-Stoff, and Z-Stoff makes sense (if you're German!)
@larryg3326
4 жыл бұрын
The Me 163 seems to be essentially a surface to air missile built at a time when the only available guidance system was a human. Suppose that it was nice for that human that the "missile" was often reusable.
@belliott538
4 жыл бұрын
Definitely one of my Favorite Aircraft... Looking forward to part two.Thank You for posting!
@reddirtroots5992
3 жыл бұрын
Nice video. Thanks for the peak of the hotel in Taipei. 👍
@brent-JG26
4 жыл бұрын
I love your videos Greg! They are well thought out, and you speak intelligently on each subject!
@herbertpocket8855
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for going into some detail about the control surfaces of the airplane! I was always puzzled about their arrangement. I first knew about this unique machine from the expansion for the IL2 1946 video game. I did not realize how unbelievably dangerous the plane’s fuel was, and thought it was some kind of suicide unit just due to the way its gears fell away. Thanks for letting me know!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
You're welcome. I'm glad I could help.
@Trashcansam123
2 жыл бұрын
“Stoff” probably literally just translates to “stuff”. I remember my science teacher saying long ago that “stuff” might sound like a word that only laymen use, but it’s actually a useful non-descript and unpretentious term that scientists like.
@randyallen2771
4 жыл бұрын
Wow! Wasn't expecting this but very fascinating subject. Thanks Greg. Will eagerly await episode 2 while still hoping for the definitive series on the FW190 series. ;-)
@williamforbes6919
4 жыл бұрын
Another absolutely fantastic video. The human aspect you covered provided a good look and understanding into the circumstances surrounding this planes development. It took a lot of bravery to willingly get into and fly that plane, understanding what it very likely would do to the pilot, reguardless of which side their country fought on.
@therlinjames6407
3 жыл бұрын
One of the best 163 documents online
@cannonfodder4376
4 жыл бұрын
Dear lord, as a person studying for an A&P license I should have thought more about how the 163 fuel system worked. The dangers and restrictions of such a fuel are simply baffling and scary. Such a dangerous system as you talked about. Never truly thought it through. Its even scarier to me now. 32:44 And I just cringed when you mentioned that they put more T-Stoff inside cockpit. I will stick to a He-162 instead. Great video though, I very much look forward to Part 2.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Yup, it's a cool plane, but I don't really want to stand near one that hasn't had it's fuel system flushed.
@scotfield3950
2 ай бұрын
Once again outstanding!
@thorritz8520
9 ай бұрын
Just viewing this and brought memories of seeing one of these at an Ottawa museum. When I saw one as child I thought how cool it was but this video reminds me how terrible the cost of War is
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
4 жыл бұрын
A good record for operational issues with the ME163, Rocket fighter is excellent. It is part of my book collection.
@JoeOvercoat
4 жыл бұрын
A most excellent book.
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer
4 жыл бұрын
@@JoeOvercoat absolutely. I wouldn't have flown it. Kind of like running up to a lion and kicking it in the nuts. Just not a good idea. The t-stoff and c-stoff explains the whole worry about clear liquids on airplanes.
@Elfunko99x
Жыл бұрын
My fathers friend gave me his flightschool portfolios from the early 70s, i have a feeling they were aerodynamics for naval aviators, the graphs etc were much the same. Just thought its a funny coincidence seein similar graphs here. Or maybe they used the sames graphes and aged yellow paper now also.
@bakters
4 жыл бұрын
Almost 40 min? When you said that's it, I was like "Already?!" I thought I was itching for a Spitfire video, but it seems you know me better than I know myself. ;-)
@robadzso
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your work, 👍 it has been extremely informative and hilarious at the same time. Great sense of humour you have, a few occasions I started giggling and couldn't stop for while. ... at least T-Stoff and C-Stoff were water soluble ... so mechanics did not have to be working on a ticking bomb ... : )) ... Erprobungskommando 16. I'm not gonna try that German name ... ... His wing clipped that flag tower. Just barely, but in airplanes just barely is a problem ... ... Guess where they decided to put the additional tanks holding the flesh dissolving T-Stoff. If you answered, in the cockpit, you were correct ... And at the very end: ... Women with negotiatiable virtues ... Greg, you made my day
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Hi Robert, I'm glad I could help brighten your day a bit.
@jaydeister9305
4 жыл бұрын
Wow! Great video! Thank you for the quick tour of the Imperial!
@cowboybob7093
4 жыл бұрын
33:56 "the tail" or empennage - Etymology: French empennage (“feathers of an arrow”) Thanks Wiktionary And thanks Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles I'm sure most people who watch this channel know about 'empennage,' but for the few who don't I hope this helps.
@thirstysailor579
4 жыл бұрын
Shiet, ain’t that typical; everything is going great but then randomly one day everything goes to shit. May Joschi soar the eternal skies in peace.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
My feelings exactly.
@roryvonbrutt7302
4 жыл бұрын
Very well done good video I watched it before this is a rewatch now have to rewatch number two
@maureenbonnotz4309
4 жыл бұрын
Fantastic stuff. Looking forward part two. Your selfie was a surprise to me - I expected a much older man. You are indeed “looking good.”
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
LOL, thanks Maureen.
@HernanMoragaMmHs
4 жыл бұрын
Love your videos, looking good too! Can't wait for part 2. Thank you sir!
@cparedes2302
4 жыл бұрын
Incredible video! Thanks for posting it! Let us know when you publish the part 2 video! Greetings from Guatemala!
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks Carlos. Just for you I'll put it up in about 6 hours.
@cparedes2302
4 жыл бұрын
Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles Looking forward!
@Pyotr_Velikiy
4 жыл бұрын
Looking forward to part 2. What an amazing little death trap. Poor souls who lost their lives fighting for a lost cause.
@jonathangriffiths2499
3 жыл бұрын
The tragic thing is that all the sacrifice was not so much “ a lost cause “ but rather a cause not worth fighting for
@drcovell
Ай бұрын
The price of reaching out to touch the sky can be a high one to pay. ❤ and 🫡 for all those who have paid.
@carltyson4393
4 жыл бұрын
Great video, Gregg...just at terrific job on a difficult topic. The discussion on sweptback wings is so informative...lots of new stuff to me. Enjoyed all of it...I would not have enjoyed riding in the cockpit surrounded on three sides by T-Stoff! Seriously dangerous stuff that stoff. Thanks for all the hard work and insights. Always exciting to see a new video from you.
@JeffCurtisIflyHG
4 жыл бұрын
Hi Greg - loving your channel. I'm a hang glider pilot. yup, the sweep of the wing is the only thing on a hang glider that provides yaw stability, the pilot can't affect yaw control. Our wings have twist or as we call it washout for the reasons you describe. When a HG wing starts to stall they do so first at a point about 20-25% out from the root. As the pilot continues to increase pitch up pressure the stall expands laterally both towards the root and tips. As the stall deepens the location of the center of lift keeps moving aft, due to the sweep and twist of the wing. Eventually the pilot is not able to move their weight far enough aft to counteract the pitch down forces on the wing and the nose falls through. It is the twist in the wing that keeps the tips flying and the sweep of the wing that places the tips far enough back to provide the pitch down moment that causes the nose to fall and the wing to accelerate and regain flying speed. Our wings also have reflex at the root. The first 1 or 2 battens at the root have the rear portion bent up to provide some pitch stability. There are also tubes called sprogs out near the tips that hold the tips up if the wing is in an unusual attitude in order to maintain pitch stability.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks, that's a great post.
@SBarsinister1
2 жыл бұрын
A great deep dig of information as per usual. "Negotiable Virtues"... haha.. a new phrase in my lexicon.
@mirrorblue100
4 жыл бұрын
Great video - looking forward to part two - thanks, Greg.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
I'm working on it now. You won't have to wait long.
@ninaakari5181
4 жыл бұрын
Greg are you a professor? This is fantastic information, thank you! I hope Military Aviation History aka Bismarck will cooperate with you in the future (for translation etc.)
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
LOL, I'm no professor, I hated school and never did well in it. I would cooperate with Bis on anything, I'm a big fan of his.
@johngalt3568
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the mini hotel tour. If you spend time on foreign soil it’s always interesting to see the local history and learn how it interfaces with your own. I was born in Frankfurt to a career NCO and his new bride. Dad was stationed at Darmstadt. My penultimate duty station in the Army was at Wiesbaden, not far from Frankfurt or Darmstadt. I recently saw a picture of Ernst Udet standing in front of his last WWI mount, a Fokker DVIII. That photo was taken at Darmstadt. When you get out in it, the world is a smaller place than one would think. The ME-163 has always fascinated me if for no other reason than it seems to have been a really good way to kill some of the few remaining Experten that the Germans had. Thanks Greg.
@claudenewbolt2659
2 жыл бұрын
AS ALWAYS, THIS MAN IS ON TOP OF THIS SHIT!
@johndonaldson3619
4 жыл бұрын
31:45 'On the 163a, tho', this is a 163b picture here, but just go with it **Heini Dittmar left the chat*
@davidwaynechoate8059
4 жыл бұрын
I have always seen , and used the term "washout" preferable to "wing twist" . On RC Airplanes without flaps it really works to prevent tip - stall.Another thoroughly researched video. thanks.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Both terms are fine but twist is more self explanatory.
@enriquepadilla4154
4 жыл бұрын
wow what an incredible subject, this entire airplane concept was just nuts, really enjoyed learning about, the history and technical insight in to this egg shape death trap
@BrickNewton
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for re uploading with sound :)
@hueyiroquois3839
4 жыл бұрын
17:50 If this helps, in German, you can replace umlauts over a vowel with an E after the vowel.
@hassegreiner9675
4 жыл бұрын
And notice that Umlaut itself translates into 'changed sound' and indicates a clear change in pronunciation of the letter into something like the first e in English 'kernel.
@johanmetreus1268
2 жыл бұрын
@@hassegreiner9675 or the "ur" in "burn"
@tiitsaul9036
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing. Absolutely love your content. I’m not an airplane fanatic and don’t know much about them. I love the way you manage to explain fairly complex shit the way I can understand it.
@david_fisher
4 жыл бұрын
Thanks Greg. Love your aircraft stuff.
@KBKriechbaum
4 жыл бұрын
Again, fantastic content, Greg! Thank you. Maybe an idea for future content: "WW2 - Link Trainer", the simulators that were used to train airforce pilots back then.
@williamforbes6919
4 жыл бұрын
This is a really good idea
@seanmcardle
4 жыл бұрын
thanks again Greg. love your stoff!
@henriklarsen8258
3 жыл бұрын
The wing design is primarily for stability more than supersonic performance. Alexander lippich is a major source for the functional flying wing. Moder day hanggliders etc. owe a lot to him. The lippich wing is delta planform for yaw stability, and have usually wash out wingtips or higher lift wingtip profiles, in order to keep wingtips flying when the wing center section stalls. Hence a stable stall piching forward, and not inducing spins. The tailless glider/hangglider called swift is a perfect example
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
3 жыл бұрын
That's all covered within the two episodes, except of course the part about hang gliders, good point.
@henriklarsen8258
3 жыл бұрын
Sorry, i was too fast commenting. You mentioned stability later..
@TheScorpionStrike
4 жыл бұрын
I've been to the Kansas Cosmosphere Space Center a few times as a kid, and they had a whole section on WWII German rocket work, including a corner devoted to the 163. At twelve years old I thought it looked really cool, like a full-size paper air plane with a rocket strapped to it, but I wondered what madman would dare to fly such a contraption, especially given the fuels.
@martijn9568
4 жыл бұрын
The Me-163 is probably one of the craziest projects the Luftwaffe used and I still don't know why carried on with it for so long given how dangerous it was. I think I'd rather be in a Zero in 1945 than in that thing.
@galier2
4 жыл бұрын
I think the Bachem Ba349 "Natter" is still even a little bit nuttier than the 163.
@martijn9568
4 жыл бұрын
Hey, I remember seeing this pop up yesterday
@P61guy61
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent. Thank you for posting.
@VincentComet-l8e
4 жыл бұрын
Apparently, the 163B had a wooden wing, quite something in an aircraft that flew at over 400mph in a 70° angle of climb.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
Yes it does!
@VincentComet-l8e
4 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles With that very pronounced sweepback, so different from the dead straight one-piece wing of a Mosquito, it makes you wonder how the mainspar(s) were joined or bent at the critical junction point.
@nstl440
4 жыл бұрын
Really amazing what they achieved with minimal resources.
@Ligustinus
4 жыл бұрын
I always enjoy with your videos of planes of ww2 by depth of analysis and point of view, among the best that can be found in youtube. Thank you very much for your time and effort, keep going, maybe improving the sound a bit. Waiting for next. Best regards.
@billbolton
4 жыл бұрын
Great insight into this interesting unique aircraft.
@elgato9445
4 жыл бұрын
Excellent as always Greg. " negotiable virtues" along with a talent for providing horizontal refreshments. I can't decide which would be more hair raising..flying this aircraft at high speed in combat.. Or simply sitting between two fuel tanks that contain a liquid that could dissolve you.
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
I'm glad someone understood the term "negotiable virtues". I try to keep it PG-13, and I couldn't quite figure out how to say what I wanted to say without moving into R rated territory.
@johanmetreus1268
2 жыл бұрын
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles women enterprising in the procreation practice sector?
@masbeetleboy
4 жыл бұрын
Great video as always Greg, I am looking forward to part 2. Can you do a video series about the Ki-100 since you are in that part of the world?
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
I can, but it's all about time. I'll get to that eventually.
@mirrorblue100
4 жыл бұрын
Wow, yes - some in-depth looks at the Ki-61 and Ki-100 would be fantastic!
@fritzkuhne2055
4 жыл бұрын
i just cant get over how impressive work these men did back in the day, engineers and especially the death- defying test pilots. two canisters of flesh dissolving, explosive fluid strapped down next to you, basically in your line of sight. flying a plane thats trying to kill you at any second...
@Naggstek
4 жыл бұрын
Looking good, love it. Gotta stay positive.
@StevePlegge
4 жыл бұрын
Serious question from a physics-based lifelong airplane nut: How is it that a dropped trolley can bounce up higher than it started from and hit the (presumably) climbing 163? Sure, it could hit some sort of ski-jump like surface feature, but that would just convert some of the horizontal speed to vertical speed, meaning that it would come back up *behind* the 163. I've been reading about this issue for 50 years and never understood how it was an actual thing. Help me Greg, you're my only hope! 😎
@roryvonbrutt7302
4 жыл бұрын
I've always wondered that myself seems very highly unlikely
@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
4 жыл бұрын
If you drop something it can't bounce higher that the point from which it started. However there is another factor here, and that's the 150mph (more or less) forward speed. Think of it this way. I can shoot my 8mm Mauser from shoulder height, say about 5 feet. If I aim it at a wedge shaped piece of metal 40 feet in front of me, it can ricochet way above that 5 foot starting point. I think it hit an imperfection in the surface that was at just the right angle to launch it up, or perhaps for some reason the 163 sunk a bit after the drop, I really don't know, that's the best I can do for you.
@LUKEY_D_FRESH
Жыл бұрын
awesome video! i bet they served some good luftwaffles at the hotel.
@BeachTypeZaku
2 ай бұрын
"The F15 about 45 degrees..." Sir, with your engineering background, I demand an exact angle.😘
@garyyoung4074
Жыл бұрын
I always heard the airframe flew very well as a glider. I saw one in Dayton on static display. It's not that small. Build a modern airframe and put a small turbojet in it and 2 seats. What a cool project!
Пікірлер: 893