WW-II rocket motor on E-bay - opinions ?

[BeepBeep]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rocket-Engine-German-Walter-ME-163b-Messerschmitt-Komet_W0QQitemZ6551110440QQcategoryZ4078QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem


Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?

that is - without

(a). any tech manual documentation
(b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses
some toxic chemicals for fuel).
(c). blowing oneself up

[St. John Smythe]

BeepBeep wrote:
> Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?
>
> that is - without
>
> (a). any tech manual documentation
> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses
> some toxic chemicals for fuel).
> (c). blowing oneself up

How to put this...if I had the tech manual, the fuel and oxidizer, the
permits and immortality, I still wouldn't attempt to fire it up. Too
many ways to have more fun than that with propellant systems these days.

--
St. John

[Roy]

The engine uses T-stoff or C-Stoff IIRC a forerunner of todays
Hydrazine was what C-Stoff was, and T-Stoff was mainly Hydrogen
Peroxide.......Supposedly it could turn your flesh to jello if it got
on you and it was known to spontaneously ignite if spilled on organic
materials like cotton or wood etc.
T-Stoff was used in early models of the engine, and C-Stoff in later
models.......exhaust approx 1800 deg with the C and 600 with the T
Might be neat to have, but not something I would want to fool with.
Should not be any permits needed for any of the chemicals used to
make the "(X)"-Stoff


On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:40:02 GMT, "St. John Smythe"
> wrote:

>===<>BeepBeep wrote:
>===<>> Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?
>===<>>
>===<>> that is - without
>===<>>
>===<>> (a). any tech manual documentation
>===<>> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses
>===<>> some toxic chemicals for fuel).
>===<>> (c). blowing oneself up
>===<>
>===<>How to put this...if I had the tech manual, the fuel and oxidizer, the
>===<>permits and immortality, I still wouldn't attempt to fire it up. Too
>===<>many ways to have more fun than that with propellant systems these days.


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~~~~~ }<(((((o>

[Scott Schuckert]

In article >, BeepBeep
> wrote:

> (a). any tech manual documentation

Sure!

> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses some toxic chemicals for fuel).

Hydrazine and methanol, according to Wikipedia. The methanol is no
problem; the hydrazine is considered a hazardoussubstance and probably
regulated to some extent. (VERY hazardous - i've read reports of what
happened in WWII when pilots were splashed with the stuff).

> (c). blowing oneself up

Ah, there's the rub. These blew up pretty regularly 60 years ago when
they were new. I don't even want to be in the same COUNTY with you when
you try this one...

[miket6065]

In my much younger days I knew the Merrerschmidt test pilot, Karl Bauer. I
was very young then but I do remember hearing him give a series of lectures
at this aviation historical group my dad belong to, about his flying
experiences during WWII. Each week a different person gave his experiences
during aviations greatest and worst moments.

Karl told us that one of his friends was killed by the Komet when it crashed
on landing. The plane flipped over and the fuel cell broken open. By the
time the ground crew/medics arrive the pilot had the back of his head
dissolved by the fuel. Dad and I talked about this years later and it seems
Karl refused to fly the Komet. Probably the only Me design he didn't fly.

Point of interest, Dad told me that the Gigant flying transport originally
was a glider. But after a very nasty crash in which over 100+ paras were
killed and four aircraft crashed it was converted to engines. Probably was
that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems in the
wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into speaking tubes
giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as the
glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had some direct
power control on the engines.

Really interesting man, saddly he died when a nurse screwed up a put an air
bubble into his vein. The bubble hit his heart and that was it. I remember
dad crying when he heard the news. Karl was very respected by the
historical community.

[Al Gloer]

a - no
b - The origial fuels were, IIRC, hypergolic and ignited on contact. I think
tit was a hydrazine and alcohol mix. I also rember reading that you almost
had to wear a space suit to fuel the beast..
c - no (see b)

"BeepBeep" > wrote in message
...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Rocket-Engine-German-Walter-ME-163b-Messerschmitt-Komet_W0QQitemZ6551110440QQcategoryZ4078QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem
>
>
> Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?
>
> that is - without
>
> (a). any tech manual documentation
> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses
> some toxic chemicals for fuel).
> (c). blowing oneself up
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:05:55 -0400, "BeepBeep"
> wrote:

>http://cgi.ebay.com/Rocket-Engine-German-Walter-ME-163b-Messerschmitt-Komet_W0QQitemZ6551110440QQcategoryZ4078QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem
>
>
>Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?
>
>that is - without
>
>(a). any tech manual documentation
>(b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses
> some toxic chemicals for fuel).
>(c). blowing oneself up

I was lucky enough to get a good tour of the Garber Facility back in
the late '80s. One of the things they emphasized was that "museum
quality" and "airworthy" were two, very different things.

This would be a cool conversation piece. Or an instrument of
self-immolation. Owne'rs choice, I guess.

Bill Kambic

[Roy]

I have had hydrazine on me already and it amaounted to nithing more
than having water splashed on you. I hgot dosed with it my a dumb
a$$ed fuel troop when he was working on a EPU on an F-16C, and two
others also got it all over them..Of course the place went into a
panic, they made us strip down on the flight line, butt nekid, the
fire department came and hosed us down and sprayed us with chlorox,
carried us wrapped up in sheets to the base hospital, where they
washed us and washed us some more and took blood tests, and continued
to take blood tests for over 6 months just about every week or
two.......It did not burn or sting or anything else it was like
water....

For hydrazine and also the fuels the Komet used it has to pass over a
catylyst bed which caused it to ignite or actually decompose, and in
the decomposing process it created heat and flame

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:34:57 -0400, Scott Schuckert >
wrote:

>===<>In article >, BeepBeep
> wrote:
>===<>
>===<>> (a). any tech manual documentation
>===<>
>===<>Sure!
>===<>
>===<>> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses some toxic chemicals for fuel).
>===<>
>===<>Hydrazine and methanol, according to Wikipedia. The methanol is no
>===<>problem; the hydrazine is considered a hazardoussubstance and probably
>===<>regulated to some extent. (VERY hazardous - i've read reports of what
>===<>happened in WWII when pilots were splashed with the stuff).
>===<>
>===<>> (c). blowing oneself up
>===<>
>===<>Ah, there's the rub. These blew up pretty regularly 60 years ago when
>===<>they were new. I don't even want to be in the same COUNTY with you when
>===<>you try this one...


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~~~~~ }<(((((o>

[Keith W]

"Scott Schuckert" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, BeepBeep
> > wrote:
>
>> (a). any tech manual documentation
>
> Sure!
>
>> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses some toxic chemicals
>> for fuel).
>
> Hydrazine and methanol, according to Wikipedia. The methanol is no
> problem; the hydrazine is considered a hazardoussubstance and probably
> regulated to some extent. (VERY hazardous - i've read reports of what
> happened in WWII when pilots were splashed with the stuff).
>


Thats only the fuel or C-stoff which was 57% Methanol, 30% hydrazine
hydrate and 13% water. The killer was the oxidiser, t-stoff which was 80%
concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This compound causes spontaneous
combustion when in contact with almost any fuel, including human flesh.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Keith W]

"BeepBeep" > wrote in message
...
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Rocket-Engine-German-Walter-ME-163b-Messerschmitt-Komet_W0QQitemZ6551110440QQcategoryZ4078QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem
>
>
> Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?
>
> that is - without
>
> (a). any tech manual documentation
> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses
> some toxic chemicals for fuel).

Oh yes indeedy.


> (c). blowing oneself up

The Me-163 killed far more of its own pilots than it did
the enemy and many died horribly in fuel accidents
and when their rocket motors exploded.

There are plenty of relatively safe modern rocket
motors available, running a 60 year old Walter
rocket is just an expensive way of committing suicide.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

Do yourself a favor and first read the history of the ME-163, especially
about pilots who were burned to death by the rocket motor's fuel!

end

"BeepBeep" > wrote in message
...
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rocket-Engine-German-Walter-ME-163b-Messerschmitt-Kome
t_W0QQitemZ6551110440QQcategoryZ4078QQrdZ1QQcmdZVi ewItem
>
>
> Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?
>
> that is - without
>
> (a). any tech manual documentation
> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses
> some toxic chemicals for fuel).
> (c). blowing oneself up
>
>
>


--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 163 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!

[Roger Conroy]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> wrote:
>
>> This would be a cool conversation piece. Or an instrument of
>> self-immolation. Owne'rs choice, I guess.
>
> Mount it to the back of a car, get some fuel for it, make sure there's
> people with cameras about, and you'll be a living legend in DAFUL :-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler
> --

No, you'd be a DEAD "legend".
You'd probably qualify for a "Darwin Award" nomination.

[old hoodoo]

a) it would be very dumb to do it without a major overhaul and an
extensive study of the engine....actually, might be worthwhile to make a
replica with modern materials and run that.
b) a permit? What is a permit going to do for you? You don't need no
stinkin' permit...unless you really need a permit...then you get one.
c) there is risk if everything, but historically speaking, firing one
up and documenting on video/audio for posterity would be very
worthwhile. With the right people (definitely not the mythbusters)
taking the proper precautions, running this engine, while a major
undertaking, under controled conditions ought to be tried....but only
if you are going to do it under near lab conditions. Just my
opinion...it isn't an ordinary "motor".


BeepBeep wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/Rocket-Engine-German-Walter-ME-163b-Messerschmitt-Komet_W0QQitemZ6551110440QQcategoryZ4078QQrdZ1QQcm dZViewItem
>
>
> Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?
>
> that is - without
>
> (a). any tech manual documentation
> (b). any kind of hazmat permits (presuming it uses
> some toxic chemicals for fuel).
> (c). blowing oneself up
>
>
>

[Doug Sams]

Keith W wrote:

> Thats only the fuel or C-stoff which was 57% Methanol, 30% hydrazine
> hydrate and 13% water. The killer was the oxidiser, t-stoff which was 80%
> concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This compound causes spontaneous
> combustion when in contact with almost any fuel, including human flesh.

What about the Z-stuff? What was it? And which of the
others (C or T) replaced it?

Doug

[Gord Beaman]

"miket6065" > wrote:
snip

> Probably was
>that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems in the
>wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into speaking tubes
>giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as the
>glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had some direct
>power control on the engines.
>

I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
attributed to that fact.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Jim Carriere]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "miket6065" > wrote:
> snip
>
>
>>Probably was
>>that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems in the
>>wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into speaking tubes
>>giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as the
>>glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had some direct
>>power control on the engines.
>>
>
>
> I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
> Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
> touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
> with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
> attributed to that fact.

I think the difference is the FEs and pilots were together in the
cockpit of the Argus, not connected only by Gosport tubes (or
whatever the Germans called them).

I think there are still crewed aircraft around where the pilot can
reach the engine controls but normally the FE operates them... not
that I have any time in heavies myself, just hearsay.

[Keith W]

"Doug Sams" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Keith W wrote:
>
>> Thats only the fuel or C-stoff which was 57% Methanol, 30% hydrazine
>> hydrate and 13% water. The killer was the oxidiser, t-stoff which was 80%
>> concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This compound causes spontaneous
>> combustion when in contact with almost any fuel, including human flesh.
>
> What about the Z-stuff? What was it?

A catalyst, usually either calcium permamgante or potassium permanganate.


> And which of the
> others (C or T) replaced it?
>

C-stoff, early engines used to Z-stoff to make the T-stoff
dissassociate into steam and O2. This was the so called 'cold' engine.
The same reaction was used to drive the turbine fuel pump
for the V-2 and the Walter turbines in the experimental type
XXVI U-Boats

Two of these were briefly used as test craft by the RN post war and were
nicknamed HMS Exploder and HMS Excruciator by their crews !

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[miket6065]

Gord, but I was told that the FEs were in the wings, not in the cockpit.
This wasn't like the B29 where the FE was behind the pilots and within near
reaching distance.

[Peter Stickney]

Gord Beaman wrote:

> "miket6065" > wrote:
> snip
>
>> Probably was
>>that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems
>>in the wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into
>>speaking tubes
>>giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as
>>the
>>glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had
>>some direct power control on the engines.
>>
>
> I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
> Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
> touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
> with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
> attributed to that fact.

Gord, good to see that you're still here!
The B-36 was also an FE-oriented airplane. The pilots had a set of
coarse throttles, but all the fiddling and fine adjustment was done
by the FEs (later models had 2 on duty at any given time). Of
course, they had a lot to do - 6 engines, 6 props, 2
turbosuperchargers/engine, multispeed cooling fans (Which would chew
up 200 hp/engine if you set 'em wrong) and, if they had nothing
better to do, they could go out into the wing & change out the
accessory sections.
BTW, I just noted a new book in one of the local shops in the making
of "The Dambusters" - lots of beautiful shots of Lancasters, both
inside & out, from about your era - (Mid '50s). I think the Statute
of Limitations is off now, so - after the movie came out, you guys
weren't, uhm, taking the opportunity to practice chasing down the
local lakes at 60', were you? (Just in case they needed to make the
sequel, after all).

Oh, yeah - the John Wayne estate's just released one of his better
movies, after sitting on it for a couple of decades- "Island in the
Sky". It's the story of a C-47 (Captained by John Wayne) on the
North Atlantic Run (Preque Isle, Gander/Goose, Bluie West 1,
Reykavik, Prestwick) forced down somewhere in Labrador or
Newfoundland during Winter, and the search for the missing plane. It
was adapted by Ernie Gann from his novel of the same name, which is
based on events that actually happened while Gann was a Civil
Contract pilot on the North Atlantic Run. The film was directed by
Lafayette Escadrille veteran William Wyler - so it's got Authentic
Aviation through the roof. It's damned good, and not your typical
John Wayne movie. (And Wyler's presence shows that while Bomber
Pilots make History, Fighter Pilots _do_ make movies.)
I caught it on cable, but I understand it's also being released on
DVD.


--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[Peter A. Stoll]

Peter Stickney > wrote in news:iaens2-sk7.ln1
@adelphia.net:

> Oh, yeah - the John Wayne estate's just released one of his better
> movies, after sitting on it for a couple of decades- "Island in the
> Sky".

<snip>
> I caught it on cable, but I understand it's also being released on
> DVD.
>
>
Yes, it is in my Netflix queue (DVD)--today shows as "short wait", which in
theory means they have some in stock out to members, but are falling a
little short of user demand.

Peter A. Stoll

[mark johnston]

"Keith W" > wrote in message
...
>
> "[snip]
> Thats only the fuel or C-stoff which was 57% Methanol, 30% hydrazine
> hydrate and 13% water. The killer was the oxidiser, t-stoff which was 80%
> concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This compound causes spontaneous
> combustion when in contact with almost any fuel, including human flesh.
>

A note of personal experience. As a young high school student with an
active interest in rockets and pyrotechnics, I fabricated a "cold" rocket
engine inspired by the Walter designs. The motor used 30% Hydrogen peroxide
(strongest stuff my school's chem lab had) and a catalyst composed of
manganese dioxide ( I think, it was pulled out of old non-alkaline D cell
batteries). Didn't make much thrust but it generated a lot of impressive
steam and noise. The peroxide was nasty stuff. Even at 30% concentration,
if you got any on your skin, it would be bleached white instantly and then
begin to slough off.

I can remember urging my physics teacher to try to get some higher
concentration of peroxide to improve the performance. Sometimes I wonder
how I lived through my teens.

Mark

[Gord Beaman]

Jim Carriere > wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "miket6065" > wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>>Probably was
>>>that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems in the
>>>wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into speaking tubes
>>>giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as the
>>>glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had some direct
>>>power control on the engines.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
>> Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
>> touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
>> with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
>> attributed to that fact.
>
>I think the difference is the FEs and pilots were together in the
>cockpit of the Argus, not connected only by Gosport tubes (or
>whatever the Germans called them).
>

Well, partially true, the F/E was 3 or 4 feet behind the Co-Jo
with all the aircraft system controls (electrical, fire fighting,
hydraulic systems, his own throttles, all other engine controls
and all engine instruments (pilots had a few very basic engine
instruments) and was connected with an intercom system

>I think there are still crewed aircraft around where the pilot can
>reach the engine controls but normally the FE operates them... not
>that I have any time in heavies myself, just hearsay.

I think that's so but on the Argus they never did.

Actually this is a great system especially on an ASW a/c where
the pilots need to 'keep their heads out of the cockpit' (so to
speak).

They didn't need to pay any attention to all the 'housekeeping
chores' inherent in the operation of four highly tuned and
critical piston engines and aircraft systems. They'd just say
"Engineer maintain 180 knots" (or whatever) then forget about the
a/c and concentrate on what was going on outside... worked good.

I have over 6,000 hours logged on them and I've never seen either
pilot touch the throttles. The left seat did reverse the engines
with the reversing throttles on the landing roll though.

I understand that the C-124 Globemaster is operated similarly.
(?)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

"miket6065" > wrote:

>Gord, but I was told that the FEs were in the wings, not in the cockpit.
>This wasn't like the B29 where the FE was behind the pilots and within near
>reaching distance.
>
Yes, I just noticed that Mike...and the B-29 F/E was quite a
distance behind the pilots actually (not to mention was facing
backwards!...musta been bad during problems keeping engine
numbers straight!) Engines are always numbered from left to right
(1,2,3,4 while facing in the direction of travel)

The Argus engineer's station was much closer to the pilots than
the B-29 and was facing front too (about 3-4 feet behind the
copilot)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Jim Carriere]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> They didn't need to pay any attention to all the 'housekeeping
> chores' inherent in the operation of four highly tuned and
> critical piston engines and aircraft systems. They'd just say
> "Engineer maintain 180 knots" (or whatever) then forget about the
> a/c and concentrate on what was going on outside... worked good.
>
> I have over 6,000 hours logged on them and I've never seen either
> pilot touch the throttles. The left seat did reverse the engines
> with the reversing throttles on the landing roll though.

That makes sense. About the only time I can see a pilot moving the
throttles in that kind of cockpit, other than a very urgent
emergency, is on the runway when timing is important.

It's nice when a crew can work like what you describe- everyone doing
there jobs and doing them well.

[Gord Beaman]

Peter Stickney > wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>> "miket6065" > wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>> Probably was
>>>that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems
>>>in the wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into
>>>speaking tubes
>>>giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as
>>>the
>>>glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had
>>>some direct power control on the engines.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
>> Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
>> touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
>> with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
>> attributed to that fact.
>
>Gord, good to see that you're still here!
>The B-36 was also an FE-oriented airplane. The pilots had a set of
>coarse throttles, but all the fiddling and fine adjustment was done
>by the FEs (later models had 2 on duty at any given time). Of
>course, they had a lot to do - 6 engines, 6 props, 2
>turbosuperchargers/engine, multispeed cooling fans (Which would chew
>up 200 hp/engine if you set 'em wrong) and, if they had nothing
>better to do, they could go out into the wing & change out the
>accessory sections.

Thanks Peter, U2. and yes, I have a book on the B-36...wooHoo!
quite the machine indeed, very impressive...D R O N E !... what a
sound they made when flying over...make your chest vibrate...

>BTW, I just noted a new book in one of the local shops in the making
>of "The Dambusters" - lots of beautiful shots of Lancasters, both
>inside & out, from about your era - (Mid '50s). I think the Statute
>of Limitations is off now, so - after the movie came out, you guys
>weren't, uhm, taking the opportunity to practice chasing down the
>local lakes at 60', were you? (Just in case they needed to make the
>sequel, after all).
>

Sure! that's why we did it!, just to be ready. :)

I have 575 hours in the Lanc and I almost don't dare say what I
think of that a/c because it was loved by so many. Well, it
certainly did do yeoman service during the war but in actuality
it was a damned dangerous machine. I was in 405 (MR) Squadron in
the early fifties for 5 years. We had, I think about 10 of them
and we lost 6 in those 5 years (lots of lives lost as well). Just
for comparison, we had, I think, 33 Argus for over 20 years and
only lost 2.

The damned Lanc had a terrifically high lift wing (for those
humongous bombloads) and a very far forward mounted MLG plus very
soft oleos and large soft tires. This added up to a ticklish a/c
to land. Put it 'on' the slightest bit firmly and it'd BOUNCE.

The soft tires and oleos, placed so far forward would ram the
nose UP and that tremendously powerful wing would snap you up a
hundred feet almost instantly, then you'd gingerly but quickly
try to add a bit of power to ease the 'second coming'...I've seen
many three or more bounce attempts, each worse than the preceding
till you're outta runway so you pork on full power at the top of
the last bounce and 'go around'... I've got a bunch of those hair
raisers...quite scary indeed.


>Oh, yeah - the John Wayne estate's just released one of his better
>movies, after sitting on it for a couple of decades- "Island in the
>Sky". It's the story of a C-47 (Captained by John Wayne) on the
>North Atlantic Run (Preque Isle, Gander/Goose, Bluie West 1,
>Reykavik, Prestwick) forced down somewhere in Labrador or
>Newfoundland during Winter, and the search for the missing plane. It
>was adapted by Ernie Gann from his novel of the same name, which is
>based on events that actually happened while Gann was a Civil
>Contract pilot on the North Atlantic Run. The film was directed by
>Lafayette Escadrille veteran William Wyler - so it's got Authentic
>Aviation through the roof. It's damned good, and not your typical
>John Wayne movie. (And Wyler's presence shows that while Bomber
>Pilots make History, Fighter Pilots _do_ make movies.)
>I caught it on cable, but I understand it's also being released on
>DVD.

Thanks Peter...I'll pick em up!...BTW, remember that awful film
about the Gimli Glider?. I have the book and the true story as
well.

I really admire the Capt, I think that he did one hell of a job
in getting that thing down with no fatalities (even though the
whole incident was his fault). Anyway, Capt Pearson has a sail
boat here at the Silver Fox Yacht club in Summerside and I was
lucky enough to meet him and shake his hand and congratulate him
on the fine job.

He was an honest gentleman and said "Well, I pretty damned well
HAD to get them outta trouble, after all it was all my fault in
the first place" :). I had to agree with him, and did. Nice
chap.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[JD]

Gord,

Many years ago, I flew into Hamilton, I believe Mount something or other to
fly an airshow. Got in a few days in early as I had friends in Toronto. 1st
day there, I got to go up in the Canadian Warbird Heritage Museum's Lanc.
No stick time but did notice the high wing lift and the landing we made has
a very long roll out. The pilot explained to me that the gear and tires we
a bit touchy on landings.

If I recall, they lost that bird in a mishap.

Jake

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Stickney > wrote:
>
>>Gord Beaman wrote:
>>
>>> "miket6065" > wrote:
>>> snip
>>>
>>>> Probably was
>>>>that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems
>>>>in the wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into
>>>>speaking tubes
>>>>giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as
>>>>the
>>>>glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had
>>>>some direct power control on the engines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt that this is correct...on the Canadian ASW aircraft (the
>>> Argus) the pilots didn't operate the engines either, they never
>>> touched them, and we flew that aircraft for over twenty years
>>> with the flight engineers operating them...no accident was ever
>>> attributed to that fact.
>>
>>Gord, good to see that you're still here!
>>The B-36 was also an FE-oriented airplane. The pilots had a set of
>>coarse throttles, but all the fiddling and fine adjustment was done
>>by the FEs (later models had 2 on duty at any given time). Of
>>course, they had a lot to do - 6 engines, 6 props, 2
>>turbosuperchargers/engine, multispeed cooling fans (Which would chew
>>up 200 hp/engine if you set 'em wrong) and, if they had nothing
>>better to do, they could go out into the wing & change out the
>>accessory sections.
>
> Thanks Peter, U2. and yes, I have a book on the B-36...wooHoo!
> quite the machine indeed, very impressive...D R O N E !... what a
> sound they made when flying over...make your chest vibrate...
>
>>BTW, I just noted a new book in one of the local shops in the making
>>of "The Dambusters" - lots of beautiful shots of Lancasters, both
>>inside & out, from about your era - (Mid '50s). I think the Statute
>>of Limitations is off now, so - after the movie came out, you guys
>>weren't, uhm, taking the opportunity to practice chasing down the
>>local lakes at 60', were you? (Just in case they needed to make the
>>sequel, after all).
>>
>
> Sure! that's why we did it!, just to be ready. :)
>
> I have 575 hours in the Lanc and I almost don't dare say what I
> think of that a/c because it was loved by so many. Well, it
> certainly did do yeoman service during the war but in actuality
> it was a damned dangerous machine. I was in 405 (MR) Squadron in
> the early fifties for 5 years. We had, I think about 10 of them
> and we lost 6 in those 5 years (lots of lives lost as well). Just
> for comparison, we had, I think, 33 Argus for over 20 years and
> only lost 2.
>
> The damned Lanc had a terrifically high lift wing (for those
> humongous bombloads) and a very far forward mounted MLG plus very
> soft oleos and large soft tires. This added up to a ticklish a/c
> to land. Put it 'on' the slightest bit firmly and it'd BOUNCE.
>
> The soft tires and oleos, placed so far forward would ram the
> nose UP and that tremendously powerful wing would snap you up a
> hundred feet almost instantly, then you'd gingerly but quickly
> try to add a bit of power to ease the 'second coming'...I've seen
> many three or more bounce attempts, each worse than the preceding
> till you're outta runway so you pork on full power at the top of
> the last bounce and 'go around'... I've got a bunch of those hair
> raisers...quite scary indeed.
>
>
>>Oh, yeah - the John Wayne estate's just released one of his better
>>movies, after sitting on it for a couple of decades- "Island in the
>>Sky". It's the story of a C-47 (Captained by John Wayne) on the
>>North Atlantic Run (Preque Isle, Gander/Goose, Bluie West 1,
>>Reykavik, Prestwick) forced down somewhere in Labrador or
>>Newfoundland during Winter, and the search for the missing plane. It
>>was adapted by Ernie Gann from his novel of the same name, which is
>>based on events that actually happened while Gann was a Civil
>>Contract pilot on the North Atlantic Run. The film was directed by
>>Lafayette Escadrille veteran William Wyler - so it's got Authentic
>>Aviation through the roof. It's damned good, and not your typical
>>John Wayne movie. (And Wyler's presence shows that while Bomber
>>Pilots make History, Fighter Pilots _do_ make movies.)
>>I caught it on cable, but I understand it's also being released on
>>DVD.
>
> Thanks Peter...I'll pick em up!...BTW, remember that awful film
> about the Gimli Glider?. I have the book and the true story as
> well.
>
> I really admire the Capt, I think that he did one hell of a job
> in getting that thing down with no fatalities (even though the
> whole incident was his fault). Anyway, Capt Pearson has a sail
> boat here at the Silver Fox Yacht club in Summerside and I was
> lucky enough to meet him and shake his hand and congratulate him
> on the fine job.
>
> He was an honest gentleman and said "Well, I pretty damned well
> HAD to get them outta trouble, after all it was all my fault in
> the first place" :). I had to agree with him, and did. Nice
> chap.
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)

[John Dallman]

In article >,
(Gord Beaman) wrote:

> Thanks Peter, U2. and yes, I have a book on the B-36...wooHoo!
> quite the machine indeed, very impressive...D R O N E !... what a
> sound they made when flying over...make your chest vibrate...

Wonder if there's anyone around who's heard both a B-36 and a Tu-95 Bear?
That's supposed to have a very distinctive sound, but I've never seen or
heard one.

> The damned Lanc had a terrifically high lift wing (for those
> humongous bombloads) and a very far forward mounted MLG plus very
> soft oleos and large soft tires. This added up to a ticklish a/c
> to land. Put it 'on' the slightest bit firmly and it'd BOUNCE.

Yeow... Since I read about them, I've suspected one of the bravest Lanc
crews were the team that test-flew each one for the first time at the Avro
factory. They were doing six or seven a day for much of WWII.

---
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:50 +0100 (BST), (John Dallman)
wrote:

>In article >,
(Gord Beaman) wrote:
>
>> Thanks Peter, U2. and yes, I have a book on the B-36...wooHoo!
>> quite the machine indeed, very impressive...D R O N E !... what a
>> sound they made when flying over...make your chest vibrate...
>
>Wonder if there's anyone around who's heard both a B-36 and a Tu-95 Bear?
>That's supposed to have a very distinctive sound, but I've never seen or
>heard one.

<hand enthusiastically raised> ME! ME! ME! :-)

When I was in grade school back in the '50s in Joliet, IL a flight of
B-36's went over. Time has dimmed a lot about the event (including
the precise number of aircraft). But it was an IMPRESSIVE sound. It
was also the first time I had heard the term "aluminum overcast." ;-)

When deployed aboard INTREPID in '71 we were overflown by Bears from
time to time. It was a distinct sound, different from any turboprop
I'd heard before.

>> The damned Lanc had a terrifically high lift wing (for those
>> humongous bombloads) and a very far forward mounted MLG plus very
>> soft oleos and large soft tires. This added up to a ticklish a/c
>> to land. Put it 'on' the slightest bit firmly and it'd BOUNCE.
>
>Yeow... Since I read about them, I've suspected one of the bravest Lanc
>crews were the team that test-flew each one for the first time at the Avro
>factory. They were doing six or seven a day for much of WWII.

That would add up to real "pucker factor" by about tea time! :-)

Bill Kambic

[Joe Delphi]

"Juergen Nieveler" > wrote in message
. ..
> wrote:
>
> > This would be a cool conversation piece. Or an instrument of
> > self-immolation. Owne'rs choice, I guess.
>
> Mount it to the back of a car, get some fuel for it, make sure there's
> people with cameras about, and you'll be a living legend in DAFUL :-)
>
> Juergen Nieveler

Any you would probably end up paying more for phone service too! (Apologies
to Vonage)


JD

[Gord Beaman]

Jim Carriere > wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> They didn't need to pay any attention to all the 'housekeeping
>> chores' inherent in the operation of four highly tuned and
>> critical piston engines and aircraft systems. They'd just say
>> "Engineer maintain 180 knots" (or whatever) then forget about the
>> a/c and concentrate on what was going on outside... worked good.
>>
>> I have over 6,000 hours logged on them and I've never seen either
>> pilot touch the throttles. The left seat did reverse the engines
>> with the reversing throttles on the landing roll though.
>
>That makes sense. About the only time I can see a pilot moving the
>throttles in that kind of cockpit, other than a very urgent
>emergency, is on the runway when timing is important.
>

The aircraft had very powerful nosewheel steering and a goodly
amount of rudder so differential engine power was never needed on
the ground, even for the takeoff roll.

Most of our pilots learned early to keep their knuckles well
clear of their quite long throttles when they (if they) called
"Aborting, power off" on the takeoff roll because those throttles
were capable of breaking fingers as they smashed back to idle at
the speed of light...there was no minimum time allowance for
throttle travel in that direction and we all took delight in
making them 'klang' on the idle stops... :)

>It's nice when a crew can work like what you describe- everyone doing
>there jobs and doing them well.

Yes, it was indeed a joy, and was helped by our system of
'crewing up'...it wasn't unusual to have the same flight crew for
a year or two...however poor 'that' was for standardization...
but we worked hard to keep standard with bull sessions and lots
of flight simulator time.

I certainly enjoyed my 8 years on them, they were by far the best
aircraft for the engineer that the Canadian Forces ever had, or
is likely to have.

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Gord Beaman]

"JD" > wrote:

>
>Many years ago, I flew into Hamilton, I believe Mount something or other to
>fly an airshow. Got in a few days in early as I had friends in Toronto. 1st
>day there, I got to go up in the Canadian Warbird Heritage Museum's Lanc.
>No stick time but did notice the high wing lift and the landing we made has
>a very long roll out. The pilot explained to me that the gear and tires we
>a bit touchy on landings.
>
>If I recall, they lost that bird in a mishap.
>
>Jake

Well, I don't think we lost it Jake (I certainly hope not at
least). That's the Mynarski Lanc and it's one of the last two
flyable Lancasters left in the world. The other one is in
England. You're quite lucky to have gotten a 'flip' in it sir!...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

[Keith W]

"John Dallman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Gord Beaman) wrote:
>

>
> Yeow... Since I read about them, I've suspected one of the bravest Lanc
> crews were the team that test-flew each one for the first time at the Avro
> factory. They were doing six or seven a day for much of WWII.
>

Not to mention the women who flew them from the factories
to the front line squadron bases. I recall one RAF erk telling me
of the surprise he got when one landed and 2 very pretty girls
got out. He was still waiting for the air crew when he realised
they were the pilot and flight engineer.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "St" == St John Smythe > writes:

St> BeepBeep wrote:
>> Anybody think this can actually be lit off ?
>>
>> that is - without
>>
>> (a). any tech manual documentation (b). any kind of hazmat
>> permits (presuming it uses some toxic chemicals for fuel).
>> (c). blowing oneself up

St> How to put this...if I had the tech manual, the fuel and
St> oxidizer, the permits and immortality, I still wouldn't
St> attempt to fire it up. Too many ways to have more fun than
St> that with propellant systems these days.

I keep remembering reading about the Mitsubishi Shusui rocket fighter
development (maybe the Gakken series book), and how the engine was
really really shaky, with poor materials, lack of experience of the
engineers, and so forth. Not to mention the inherent dangers of
rockets and explosive fuels. When testing the motor, all the staff
would get into a slit trench and simply stay there until the engine
burned its fuel out, not daring to stick their heads up (from previous
experience). One new chap decided it was a good idea to have a look
see, and put up his head. One of the other lads shouted to him to get
down, but it was too late. The engine exploded and the blast simply
tore his head off his shoulders.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan