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

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

"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 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

"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 =----

"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

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-Ge...cm 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

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

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rocket-Engine-Ge...cm 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

"BeepBeep" wrote in message
...
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rocket-Engine-Ge...cm 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 =----

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-Ge...erschmitt-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!

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-Ge...cm 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