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

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

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

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

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.

"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)

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.

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.

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.

"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

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...