vintage motorglider for sale

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

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

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.

"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

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

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