vintage motorglider for sale

[Tony[_5_]]

needs a little work.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Mar 7, 12:17*pm, Tony > wrote:
> needs a little work.
>
> http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655

MIke Opitz's father Rudy Optiz flew those.

Technical correction: It's a rocket, not a jet. Big difference.

Bob K.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 7, 2:14*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:17*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > needs a little work.
>
> >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>
> MIke Opitz's father Rudy Optiz flew those.
>
> Technical correction: It's a rocket, not a jet. Big difference.
>
> Bob K.

Sure it's not a turbo jet but does that mean it's not a jet? You get
a jet of water out of a garden hose. You get a jet of exhaust from a
rocket, or a thruster, whu not from a rocket.

To quote one source - "This broad definition of jet engines includes
turbojets, turbofans, rockets, ramjets, and pulse jets."

Andy

[Mike[_37_]]

On Mar 7, 2:30*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2:14*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 12:17*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > needs a little work.
>
> > >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>
> > MIke Opitz's father Rudy Optiz flew those.
>
> > Technical correction: It's a rocket, not a jet. Big difference.
>
> > Bob K.
>
> Sure it's not a turbo jet but does that mean it's not a jet? *You get
> a jet of water out of a garden hose. *You get a jet of exhaust from a
> rocket, or a thruster, whu not from a rocket.
>
> To quote one source - "This broad definition of jet engines includes
> turbojets, turbofans, rockets, ramjets, and pulse jets."
>
> Andy

I was taught that a rocket carried its own O2 source while a jet
depends on oxygen from the atmosphere. Bob probably was referring to
this distinction which is correct.

[GM]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> needs a little work.
>
> http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655

Can this one be aero-towed or winch launched? Getting the fuel for the small rocket engine might become a problem. That stuff was said to have some nasty habits like catching fire when it comes in contact with certain materials and being extremely corrosive.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Mar 7, 8:05*pm, GM > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > needs a little work.
>
> >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>
> Can this one be aero-towed or winch launched? Getting the fuel for the small rocket engine might become a problem. That stuff was said to have some nasty habits like catching fire when it comes in contact with certain materials and being extremely corrosive.

Alexander Lippisch (the Me163's designer): "If you put in your
finger, you get back only the bone". I don't remember whether the
fuel or the oxidizer was worse.

T8

[Tony[_5_]]

On Mar 7, 7:05*pm, GM > wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > needs a little work.
>
> >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>
> Can this one be aero-towed or winch launched? Getting the fuel for the small rocket engine might become a problem. That stuff was said to have some nasty habits like catching fire when it comes in contact with certain materials and being extremely corrosive.

i think i saw something online that the US acquired a few after the
war and towed them with B-29's while test pilots checked them out.
Perhaps we need to notify the Commemorative Air Force and see if they
will put a towhook on Fifi!

[Bill D]

On Mar 7, 6:47*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 7:05*pm, GM > wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> > > needs a little work.
>
> > >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>
> > Can this one be aero-towed or winch launched? Getting the fuel for the small rocket engine might become a problem. That stuff was said to have some nasty habits like catching fire when it comes in contact with certain materials and being extremely corrosive.
>
> i think i saw something online that the US acquired a few after the
> war and towed them with B-29's while test pilots checked them out.
> Perhaps we need to notify the Commemorative Air Force and see if they
> will put a towhook on Fifi!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8

[Marc]

On Mar 7, 1:14*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:17*pm, Tony > wrote:
>
> > needs a little work.
>
> >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>
> MIke Opitz's father Rudy Optiz flew those.
>
> Technical correction: It's a rocket, not a jet. Big difference.
>
> Bob K.

Someone needs to get in touch with Jet Propulsion Laboratory and
Aerojet, they have the wrong names! ;^)

Marc

[JohnDeRosa]

And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? It
glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Mar 7, 8:52*pm, JohnDeRosa > wrote:
> And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? *It
> glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

well, i could say something about a 1-26, but my Cherokee isn't much
better...

[Mike[_37_]]

On Mar 7, 7:52*pm, JohnDeRosa > wrote:
> And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? *It
> glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

Troop gliders were gliders-not sailplanes.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Mar 7, 9:52*pm, JohnDeRosa > wrote:
> And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? *It
> glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

Well, take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8

I wonder if you could actually soar that thing on a booming day in
Nevada. I wouldn't bet against it.

T8

[Peter von Tresckow]

The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)

Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?

Pete

"Evan Ludeman" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 9:52 pm, JohnDeRosa > wrote:
> And in what sense of the word would you call this a "glider"? It
> glides as well as a rock...or an F-16 for that matter.

Well, take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8

I wonder if you could actually soar that thing on a booming day in
Nevada. I wouldn't bet against it.

T8

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Mar 8, 8:36*am, "Peter von Tresckow" > wrote:
> The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)
>
> Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?
>
> Pete

No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
engines) were aero towed during the development program. The
"production" Me 163Bs had flight profiles that included significant
glides while returning to base. It's a fascinating story, written up
in a couple of books and well worth reading. It was by all accounts a
really nice handling airplane. I wonder if this was the fastest
wooden airplane ever built? It said to have exceeded 1000 km/hr. It
was a strictly subsonic aerodynamic design. IIRC, they did fly it up
to the point of shock formation and it clearly wasn't going to go
well :-).

Period film shows Me163s flying at very high speed in the pattern, ca
200 mph. This was done (as I was given to understand) more to
minimize exposure to Allied aircraft than of aerodynamic necessity.

T8

[Berry[_2_]]

In article
>,
Evan Ludeman > wrote:

> On Mar 8, 8:36*am, "Peter von Tresckow" > wrote:
> > The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)
> >
> > Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?
> >
> > Pete
>
> No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
> engines) were aero towed during the development program.

Someone built a non-powered full-scale replica a few years ago. It was
lighter than the original and I don't know if it used the same airfoils
or not. The builder flew it as his personal sailplane. There were/are
videos on the net of it flying and even thermalling. I think it has
since gone to a museum.

XCOR Aerospace, the outfit that put rocket engines on a Long EZ, was
offering to build rocket powered full scale Me-163 replicas a while
back. I don't think they got any takers.

[Peter von Tresckow]

"Berry" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 8, 8:36 am, "Peter von Tresckow" > wrote:
>> > The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)
>> >
>> > Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?
>> >
>> > Pete
>>
>> No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
>> engines) were aero towed during the development program.
>
> Someone built a non-powered full-scale replica a few years ago. It was
> lighter than the original and I don't know if it used the same airfoils
> or not. The builder flew it as his personal sailplane. There were/are
> videos on the net of it flying and even thermalling. I think it has
> since gone to a museum.
>
> XCOR Aerospace, the outfit that put rocket engines on a Long EZ, was
> offering to build rocket powered full scale Me-163 replicas a while
> back. I don't think they got any takers.

LOL I just found a few references to the L/D of the ME-163 being around 17.
IIRC that's the same as a 2-22 :-)

Granted the 163 probably had a much higher minimum sink though.

Peter

[Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
"Peter von Tresckow" > wrote:

> "Berry" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 8, 8:36 am, "Peter von Tresckow" > wrote:
> >> > The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)
> >> >
> >> > Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?
> >> >
> >> > Pete
> >>
> >> No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
> >> engines) were aero towed during the development program.
> >
> > Someone built a non-powered full-scale replica a few years ago. It was
> > lighter than the original and I don't know if it used the same airfoils
> > or not. The builder flew it as his personal sailplane. There were/are
> > videos on the net of it flying and even thermalling. I think it has
> > since gone to a museum.
> >
> > XCOR Aerospace, the outfit that put rocket engines on a Long EZ, was
> > offering to build rocket powered full scale Me-163 replicas a while
> > back. I don't think they got any takers.
>
> LOL I just found a few references to the L/D of the ME-163 being around 17.
> IIRC that's the same as a 2-22 :-)
>
> Granted the 163 probably had a much higher minimum sink though.
>
> Peter

Found the link to the flying replica:
http://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/kurz.htm

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Marc Ramsey wrote:

> Someone needs to get in touch with Jet Propulsion Laboratory and
> Aerojet, they have the wrong names! ;^)

From the ever-authoritative Wikipedia:

> A jet engine is a reaction engine that discharges a fast
> moving jet which generates thrust by jet propulsion in
> accordance with Newton's laws of motion. This broad
> definition of jet engines includes turbojets, turbofans,
> rockets, ramjets, and pulse jets. In general, most jet
> engines are internal combustion engines[1] but non-
> combusting forms also exist.
>
> In common parlance, the term jet engine loosely refers
> to an internal combustion airbreathing jet engine (a
> duct engine). These typically consist of an engine with
> a rotary (rotating) air compressor powered by a turbine
> ("Brayton cycle"), with the leftover power providing
> thrust via a propelling nozzle...

So, yeah, in the strict technical sense you are correct: Any reaction
motor that discharges a jet of exhaust can be called a jet. But I'm
going to claim the broad low ground of "common parlance."

Anyhow, your winch project with Bob Korves is looking good!

http://ranlog.com/winch/

Let me know if you need some occasional welding or fabrication. If
you've got one Bob K. on your project, two is going to be better,
right?

Thanks, (the other) Bob K.

[Marc]

On Mar 8, 8:01*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> > In common parlance, the term jet engine loosely refers
> > to an internal combustion airbreathing jet engine (a
> > duct engine). These typically consist of an engine with
> > a rotary (rotating) air compressor powered by a turbine
> > ("Brayton cycle"), with the leftover power providing
> > thrust via a propelling nozzle...
>
> So, yeah, in the strict technical sense you are correct: Any reaction
> motor that discharges a jet of exhaust can be called a jet. But I'm
> going to claim the broad low ground of "common parlance."

As late as the mid-60s, it was still common parlance to refer to
"turbojet" engines, to distinguish them from other forms of jet
propulsion (thus cleverly revealing that I'm old enough to remember).
As a completely random aside, for those who might be interested in a
key but now nearly forgotten figure in the history of both Jet
Propulsion Labs and Aerojet, look up Jack Parsons in your favorite
search engine. He was the quintessential "rocket scientist"...

>
> Anyhow, your winch project with Bob Korves is looking good!
>
> http://ranlog.com/winch/
>
> Let me know if you need some occasional welding or fabrication. If
> you've got one Bob K. on your project, two is going to be better,
> right?

We've hit that point where we're 90% done, and the remaining 10% is
taking as long as the rest. Thanks for the offer!

Marc

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:12:04 -0800, Bill D wrote:

> On Mar 7, 6:47Â*pm, Tony > wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 7:05Â*pm, GM > wrote:
>>
>> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>> > > needs a little work.
>>
>> > >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>>
>> > Can this one be aero-towed or winch launched? Getting the fuel for
>> > the small rocket engine might become a problem. That stuff was said
>> > to have some nasty habits like catching fire when it comes in contact
>> > with certain materials and being extremely corrosive.
>>
>> i think i saw something online that the US acquired a few after the war
>> and towed them with B-29's while test pilots checked them out. Perhaps
>> we need to notify the Commemorative Air Force and see if they will put
>> a towhook on Fifi!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8

That's obviously the unpowered replica.

Nearly a year ago I visited RAF Cosford on a wet day during a CGC
gliding expedition to The Mynd. Cosford which has a fantastic collection
of Cold War British aircraft including all the V-bombers as well as a
wonderful collection of late 60s British experimental jets and a
selection of WW2 aircraft including a Me-163B. I was intrigued to see it
has a tow hook in exactly the same place as that replica and wonder why.
Was it for aero-towed retrieves if it had to land out after a combat
sortie and/or for moving them between airfields?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Mark Jardini[_2_]]

The 163 used 100% peroxide as the oxidizer. Nasty stuff that would
"burn" anything it could come in contact with.

F-16 doesn't glide any better than a lawn dart.

F-15 glides beautifully. I once rode in one that glided 75 miles from
flight level 400, in flight idle, joker fuel, to pattern altitude
without touching the throttle.

mj

[Craig Funston[_2_]]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:34:02 -0800, Martin Gregorie
> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:12:04 -0800, Bill D wrote:
>
>> On Mar 7, 6:47 pm, Tony > wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 7:05 pm, GM > wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>>> > > needs a little work.
>>>
>>> > >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>>>
>>> > Can this one be aero-towed or winch launched? Getting the fuel for
>>> > the small rocket engine might become a problem. That stuff was said
>>> > to have some nasty habits like catching fire when it comes in contact
>>> > with certain materials and being extremely corrosive.
>>>
>>> i think i saw something online that the US acquired a few after the war
>>> and towed them with B-29's while test pilots checked them out. Perhaps
>>> we need to notify the Commemorative Air Force and see if they will put
>>> a towhook on Fifi!
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8
>
> That's obviously the unpowered replica.
>
> Nearly a year ago I visited RAF Cosford on a wet day during a CGC
> gliding expedition to The Mynd. Cosford which has a fantastic collection
> of Cold War British aircraft including all the V-bombers as well as a
> wonderful collection of late 60s British experimental jets and a
> selection of WW2 aircraft including a Me-163B. I was intrigued to see it
> has a tow hook in exactly the same place as that replica and wonder why.
> Was it for aero-towed retrieves if it had to land out after a combat
> sortie and/or for moving them between airfields?
>
>

Here's an excellent video with lots of detailed shots. Tost hook is
clearly shown. Also, I'd never noticed the split flaps / drag devices
which are deployed in this video. Revolutionaly airplane in many aspects.

Craig
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Craig Funston[_2_]]

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:54:15 -0800, Craig Funston
> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:34:02 -0800, Martin Gregorie
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 18:12:04 -0800, Bill D wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 6:47 pm, Tony > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 7, 7:05 pm, GM > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 3:17:37 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>>>> > > needs a little work.
>>>>
>>>> > >http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=276309655
>>>>
>>>> > Can this one be aero-towed or winch launched? Getting the fuel for
>>>> > the small rocket engine might become a problem. That stuff was said
>>>> > to have some nasty habits like catching fire when it comes in
>>>> contact
>>>> > with certain materials and being extremely corrosive.
>>>>
>>>> i think i saw something online that the US acquired a few after the
>>>> war
>>>> and towed them with B-29's while test pilots checked them out. Perhaps
>>>> we need to notify the Commemorative Air Force and see if they will put
>>>> a towhook on Fifi!
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmSNqHckry8
>>
>> That's obviously the unpowered replica.
>>
>> Nearly a year ago I visited RAF Cosford on a wet day during a CGC
>> gliding expedition to The Mynd. Cosford which has a fantastic
>> collection
>> of Cold War British aircraft including all the V-bombers as well as a
>> wonderful collection of late 60s British experimental jets and a
>> selection of WW2 aircraft including a Me-163B. I was intrigued to see it
>> has a tow hook in exactly the same place as that replica and wonder why.
>> Was it for aero-towed retrieves if it had to land out after a combat
>> sortie and/or for moving them between airfields?
>>
>>
>
> Here's an excellent video with lots of detailed shots. Tost hook is
> clearly shown. Also, I'd never noticed the split flaps / drag devices
> which are deployed in this video. Revolutionaly airplane in many
> aspects.
>
> Craig

It might help to add the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrMmmWDdzf0&feature=player_embedded


--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[kirk.stant]

On Mar 8, 3:47*pm, Mark Jardini > wrote:
> The 163 used 100% peroxide as the oxidizer. Nasty stuff that would
> "burn" anything it could come in contact with.
>
> F-16 doesn't glide any better than a lawn dart.
>
> F-15 glides beautifully. I once rode in one that glided 75 miles from
> flight level 400, in flight idle, joker fuel, to pattern altitude
> without touching the throttle.
>
> mj

Hmm, that's 11/1, with idle thrust (which is not trivial in an Eagle).
F-16s use 6/1 for flameout approach (1000' for every mile away from
field), probably at around 250 - 300 knots.

F-15 is wonderful, but hardly a glider!

I've done formation recoveries on the wing of F-4s in Aggressor T-38s
(this is a long time ago!). F-4 was at probably 75 - 80%, while the
38 was at idle and using the speed brakes to maintain formation. No
doubt which was the better "glider" between those 2 jets!

Kirk
66

[Kemp[_2_]]

In my wave flight presentations, I always end the talk with a slide
stating that the ideal wave machine is:
- Vne high (most important)
- Proven design
- Self-launching
- and from manufacturers we already know.
.... then I have a pic of the Me163. Wow! Now it's only a matter of
money to restore it to flight status.......

Kemp

[BruceGreeff]

Yes it was aerotowed and yes it was a glider for most of it's flying
time. However.

Apparently (Rudi Optiz) they trained pilots by taking a 13m sailplane
and shortening the wingspan to 6m!

Landing approach speed in the 200mph range (that is past my glider's Vne...)
The rudder only became effective at 80mph.
Best climb speed around 420mph - which would give a 70 degree climb at
full power.

Not for the faint hearted.

Bruce

On 2012/03/08 5:40 PM, Berry wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Evan > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 8, 8:36 am, "Peter von > wrote:
>>> The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)
>>>
>>> Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?
>>>
>>> Pete
>>
>> No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
>> engines) were aero towed during the development program.
>
> Someone built a non-powered full-scale replica a few years ago. It was
> lighter than the original and I don't know if it used the same airfoils
> or not. The builder flew it as his personal sailplane. There were/are
> videos on the net of it flying and even thermalling. I think it has
> since gone to a museum.
>
> XCOR Aerospace, the outfit that put rocket engines on a Long EZ, was
> offering to build rocket powered full scale Me-163 replicas a while
> back. I don't think they got any takers.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Grider Pirate[_2_]]

On Mar 8, 3:12*pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:47*pm, Mark Jardini > wrote:
>
> > The 163 used 100% peroxide as the oxidizer. Nasty stuff that would
> > "burn" anything it could come in contact with.
>
> > F-16 doesn't glide any better than a lawn dart.
>
> > F-15 glides beautifully. I once rode in one that glided 75 miles from
> > flight level 400, in flight idle, joker fuel, to pattern altitude
> > without touching the throttle.
>
> > mj
>
> Hmm, that's 11/1, with idle thrust (which is not trivial in an Eagle).
> F-16s use 6/1 for flameout approach (1000' for every mile away from
> field), probably at around 250 - 300 knots.
>
> F-15 is wonderful, but hardly a glider!
>
> I've done formation recoveries on the wing of F-4s in Aggressor T-38s
> (this is a long time ago!). *F-4 was at probably 75 - 80%, while the
> 38 was at idle and using the speed brakes to maintain formation. *No
> doubt which was the better "glider" between those 2 jets!
>
> Kirk
> 66

I'd bet good money that an F-22 will out-glide any of the 4th and
earlier generation fighters. Look ma! No external stores!