World's Only Flying Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet (Kraftei)- The First Rocket-Powered Fighter Aircraft!

[@knightflightvideo]

Watch more videos of this event or by other airshows on the playlists of my channel below. 🙂 Messerschmitt: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZbclWhjic2lb5o Warbirds: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKnJYWiQh8-Mo8U Hangar 10: kzbin.info/aero/PL_kDcX2_3upoEavcA1EWAHRzMmIG6CB8K Supermarine Spitfire: kzbin.info/aero/PL_kDcX2_3upoWC3ftQ-dNfj6_cjXCxVvF Airshows: kzbin.info/aero/PL_kDcX2_3upoftlBOhtnzEPE_eiDNejG-&disable_polymer=true

[@semperfidelis9896]

what air show is that?

[@richardverney6702]

@@ranekeisenkralle8265 You are being harsh. In real life it only had powered flight for about 5 to 10 minutes, after which it glided. Its original design contemplated that it would always be gliding into land. Just enjoy the gliding flight characterists of this replica which gives a good glimpse into the gliding characteristics of the real thing.

[@pepzo_mix]

See the flight in relive, manching Germany.. Awesome plane

[@markcantemail8018]

This is great ! Thank you for the video . I enjoyed seeing this even without the Rocket being fired . People do not realize how risky that just the fueling process was ? That plane glides just the way it was designed to do . Very agile !

[@DonBaldwin]

@@richardverney6702 The rocket chemicals were caustic and dangerous for the pilot, sometimes causing chemical burns on their legs. A good re-enactment that should be enjoyed by all.

[@LighthouseCape]

I know that the rocket motor is way too dangerous to use, but it's still a bit disappointing that it was nothing more than slow glider from the takeoff.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

well there was the "rocket racing league" that proposed to use LOX and kerosene. Not too dangerous. then again maybe one of those tiny jet engines? easily slip in some NACA ducts that would be stealthy and not pollute the look of the aeroplane.

[@mostneuter]

Those were famous to explode at landing, even with empty tank, not a good idea

[@frankbutaric3565]

The rocket motor is not dangerous the fuel is

[@golf3ofwisdom436]

And with that power if you dont land corect you are going to break your spine

[@rickvanlandingham2874]

@@mrrolandlawrence I've worked with pure hydrogen peroxide. I was told if I got it on my skin I would die. The Komet used 80% hydrogen peroxide. In the 1970s top fuel dragster teams were illegally using hydrazine mixed with nitro. Hydrazine hydrate is also deadly on contact in its pure form.

[@rudolfabelin383]

A late friend of mine flew it. Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz, he was a "Versuch flieger" (highest test pilot level) at Junkers. At the end of the war he was in charge of the development of all jet and rocket aircraft. He was the only pilot that flew the Ju 248, all 14 flights. Basically the same aircraft as Me 163, but with two rocket engines instead. One larger and one smaller. The Ju 248 was planned to go through the sound barrier. But it never happend, as supplies was short at the end of the war. The supersonic wings for the Ju 248 was never finished of this reason. They wings were calculated for Mach 1.6. After the war, Flugkapitän Hans Pancherz lived in Sweden and worked at my fathers company, Malmö Flygindustri, MFI.

[@RomanTheMexican]

i can't tell him in person, but i would like to tell him thank you for your service

[@AlexanderSilver1996]

@@RomanTheMexican ... The Nazi? I can't tell if you're joking or not

[@SubayAdamm2]

@@AlexanderSilver1996 not every german soldier is nazi

[@uptightsl]

​@@AlexanderSilver1996 Soldiers and Soldiers, all deserve a thank you for their service, regardless of their side.

[@roach9799]

@@uptightsl besides, the real nazi nazis were the SS, most others were just german soldiers or airmen

[@Radiogirl1931]

This is amazing because a Komet pilot actually built this glider in his garage, and the crazy thing is, although it looks the same, he redesigned the structure to be lighter and safer and it has excellent flight characteristics. I love seeing stuff like this.

[@mel_163]

@Radagast Cartmanbra what

[@MrSpamdagger]

@Radagast Cartmanbra no they werent, they were a reusable fighter

[@Benjamin_Bischoff]

@Radagast Cartmanbra there was never an intention by Messerschmitt to use this as a kamikaze plane, it was made of wood and would have had little to no fuel when it got to altitude, as well as being equipped with machine guns

[@elliotfischer7391]

​@radagastcartmanbra5845that's the Japanese Cherry Blossom.

[@bobbwc7011]

A machine straight from hell. The climb rate was insane due to the rocket motor. 10000 meters in 3 minutes. The German pilots experienced completely new issues related to swift climbing and high service ceilings without a pressured cabin and pressured pilot suits. Risk of barotrauma of the small intenstine, colon, ear, and what not. This was insanity.

[@theothertonydutch]

Also there was the flesh-melting fuel to worry about if you actually survived the landing.

[@aloysiusbelisarius9992]

@@theothertonydutch I was just about to say that. The rocket fuel was so corrosive, so volatile, and so unstable that many of those planes blew up on the ground...or, if they didn't blow up, the fuel would leak into the cockpit and literally turn the pilot into soup. If that weren't so tragic it would be funny, how the Nazi hierarchy thought that to be an acceptable weapon and not the nuclear research a few of their scientists were trying to develop. Since all the knowledgeable scientists in nuclear science were Jewish, and thus none left in Germany, they fell behind in that development. They could not report a timeline of when, or even whether, their research could possibly be weaponized; and our own development was so well-shielded against their espionage network (though not the case with the Russian espionage network) that they were pretty much on their own. The German hierarchy just never expressed an interest in nuclear development since there was no guarantee that it could be weaponized in short order. But suicide rockets...oh, yeah, put 'em up there! I wonder if that served as some inspiration for Wile E. Coyote...

[@n.l.3776]

@Radagast Cartmanbra The japanese had a license to produce and possible plans for using them as kamikaze bombers but they werent intended as such by the developers and only seven were produced in japan. Armed with 2 Mk 180 cannons in the nose they were inteded to fly a swift attack on bombing formations over germany, land, refuel, repeat. Reports state that the sled, which was used instead of conventional landing gear due to aerodynamics, in combination with the insane speeds these had made the landing so incredible bumpy that it quote "shook the pilots till total exhaustion" (roughly translated, my english isnt so great), so they needed a short break before being thrown into the sky again. The same source states that they were only able to fly two attacks instead of the intended 3-4. So contrary to the comments here, although this thing was absolutely terrifying to be in, pilots did often fly multiple sorties in them. The abundancs of ways to die in this thing and the not existant care/research into accelerating or climbing this fast made it incredibly dangerous and the pilots could only attack once before gliding back to base making it pretty bad at its job. And no, its not kamikaze, why would you say something like that. The body consists of wood, the fuel would be mostly used up by the time they finally found a target, the germans barely had any good pilots left, an untrained pilot wouldnt last in this thing and there is no mention of it ever being used like that. Sources on this: "Welt" article from the eighth of may 2018 on the me 163 and the (german) Wikipedia article on the me 163

[@DevSolar]

@radagastcartmanbra5845 False. I./JG 400 lost a total of 14 Me 163's (6 shot down, 9 to other causes). Several members of that squadron lived for quite some time after the war. Mano Zeigler wrote several books about the Me 163 before he died in 1991, age 83. Paul Rudolf Opitz was one of the test pilots during the development, and later flew in I./JG 400 as well. He died in 2010, at the ripe age of 100 (!). The squadron commander, Major Wolfgang Späte, later became supervisor for air safety in West Germany's Luftwaffe, and retired in 1967 as Lieutenant Colonel. He, too, wrote a book about the Me 163 before he died in 1997, age 86. Please stick to things you actually *know* instead of making things up.

[@Whitpusmc]

I assume this is a replica?

[@jimbradshaw4]

Ignoring the comments about the lack of jet propulsion (for obvious reasons) in the flight, thank you so much for the upload. It was a thrill to see such a legendary aircraft actually flying!

[@paulallen8109]

jet propulsion isn't the same as rocket propulsion Rockets are purely chemical.

[@scruffyy111]

The plane would be extremely dangerous and risky to fly with a rocket powered engine because of the unstable fuel and the plane

[@Thel.Vadam69]

@@scruffyy111 lol this one rocket plane was destroyed more by it's engine and lots of other hazards other than allied fire

[@robertwilliamson6121]

@@scruffyy111 Uhm……rockets are flying all the time these days. They could easily make a safe rocket engine for this now.

[@eatshit8034]

@@robertwilliamson6121 not easily. Rockets are incredibly complex and temperamental machines. For a plane thats likely to fly 3-5 times a year developing a rocket that requires round the clock maintenance and tons of pre-flight prep-work is fucking stupid and cost prohibitive

[@leokimvideo]

Even today it still looks incredibly futuristic, maybe a little gas turbine in the rear would be a nice addition.

[@LucasTheUltimate]

All the german aircraft towards the end of the war were truly WAY ahead of their time. It's actually real lucky that they got to that advanced technology only when the war was about to end...

[@zap2747]

@@LucasTheUltimateYeesh no kidding

[@cubegears]

@@LucasTheUltimate unlucky* look at the state of the world now

[@EperogiLimousine]

A lot of this futuristic stuff was improbable and expensive, either way it wouldn’t work @@LucasTheUltimate

[@EperogiLimousine]

This is why you have no friends Jared @@cubegears

[@rickdavis3593]

World's only GLIDING Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet

[@knightflightvideo]

Two of the three Me 163B prototypes were un-powered gliders. Also some un-powered Komet were build, used as training aircraft.

[@9999plato]

They began as gliders. Motors came LATER.

[@sonny2dap]

As far as I'm aware every flight ended up with them gliding back to a landing.

[@marymargaretapplin8510]

The video's title intrigued me too. Is the T and S fuel and engine too volatile for today's safety standards?

[@MrArmybiker]

Rick Davis The Rockets only burned for 10 Minutes or so, after that, they where not more than very fast Gliders. The Me163 was used for defending smaller Areas like an Airfield or something else like that. Sorry for my English, i don't use it too much😉

[@SillyPuddy2012]

Flying on rocket power or being towed and gliding, makes no matter. It's amazing to see one of these in flight period.

[@rocketboy917]

My sentiments exactly.

[@mbolduc]

I WAS LIED TO

[@ark-mark1]

I think that title was misleading. That is not flying but gliding and I really expected and would have liked to see it fly with rocket power. There are modern safe and affordable rocket motors so it's not impossible. What comes to gliding, yes it's a beautifull sight still. Thank you for the video but not the title.

[@waterlicker8635]

I know, probably one of the main reasons why it was towed is because the two liquids they used in the fighter were extremely explosive and they didn’t want to damage this plane, the liquids were so explosive to where when refueling, they had a special cleaning crew to clean the plane and the fueling pipe and tank in case there is still some left of one liquid and they refueled it with the other one and they had to do everything so fast that a few planes exploded, another reason is probably due to lack of sources for the two liquids

[@waterlicker8635]

istván read what I typed

[@Glenn-kc5eu]

its crazy how modern looking it is despite being made in the 40's

[@BestGorillaJoke]

Kinda like the de havilland comet, but it was built in the 60s I think

[@chrisdiehl-cannon2620]

They had info giving to them. Look up what Warner Von Braun had to say on the subject. Bet you'll be surprised by what you find.

[@dietergoes5626]

@@chrisdiehl-cannon2620 Wernher von Braun

[@chaowingchinghongfingshong3109]

@@BestGorillaJoke Late 40s, actually!

[@凸凹島]

This thing is no way at all modern looking

[@ryanhampson673]

Imagine seeing this for the first time back then.. No propeller roaring rocket noise.. Straight up science fiction!

[@poochie6062]

Sorry but from what I know, back then these aircraft used highly explosive chemicals to create thrust for about 30-45 min in the air and were used to intercept high altitude bombers. These things were very unsafe for instance they needed the two different fuel trucks to fuel at different times in the case the chemicals don’t mix up and blow everything sky high.

[@danielwhyatt3278]

Yeah and it looks like something straight from a science fiction book of the old days. Totally retro looking, even by first generation standards.

[@javiergilvidal1558]

@@poochie6062 More German over-engineered nonsense. In a year's operation time, that contraption only downed 19 bombers, for the loss of at least 15 Komets. Another thing that stupefies me: the ultra-speed fetish, both of this thing and all the jet-powered "Wunderwaffen". If your target is moving at well below 500 km/h, I can see no practical way of approaching, firing and hitting target while moving at well over 700 ... All in all, that was extremely expensive, dangerous and resource-consuming technology for technology's sake!

[@D_U_N_E]

@Javier Gil Vidal During this time Flak and other ground based anti-air were not cutting it. Standard fighters could not easily rapidly respond to the bombers that are flying extremely high. The German people viewing their, distinctive disadvantage believed they could not succeed via conventional approaches. They were interceptors. Today we could just use Ground to Air guided missiles to take down high altitude targets accurately. Though back the. You had to either use inaccurate flak cannons, which used a colossal amount of ammunition, for usually low return rates. Thus the German people thought a high-speed glider would be more successful at taking down the bombers. When you work out the cost to a bomber to a komet, while the numbers they delivered are by no means a success, they are neither a total failure. Though like many say, the Germans had too many R&D programs, though when you are fighting at an overwhelming disadvantage, you can't really fight a conventional war. If anything, had the Germans been a little crazier and tried harder in developing atomic weapons, perhaps things may have went more their way.

[@martinw9568]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqfRlHyohpJ0rq8

[@christophermccoy4605]

"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth-shattering kaboom!" - Marvin The Martian

[@tuga_ace]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Whiteshell204]

this one isn't powered by hydrogen-poroxide

[@alexanderweigand6758]

@@Whiteshell204 Would be interesting to add the engine. Or to add one engine. Must mit be the original. But close to the original.

[@anonimosu7425]

He float He attack Most importantly He no explode

[@donkeyslayer4661]

He gets shot down by hungry Allied pilots, who ruled the skys over Germany at this time.

[@ConnerV]

Amen

[@derbenutzer5958]

@@donkeyslayer4661 who got shot down by hungry veteran pilots for bombing all the innocent civilians. Whats your point with that ignorant comment?

[@definitelynotjames]

he protecc he attacc but most importantly for 6 minutes he sit in the bacc

[@beanron8035]

@@donkeyslayer4661 Other way around

[@nachtjager77]

My somewhat adopted grandfather, Joachim Hohne, flew these at Udetfeld and Sprottau with III/JG 400 in November and December of '44. Wish he could've seen this.

[@knightflightvideo]

Thanks for watching and the interest information! :-)

[@argh1989]

Curious about how to adopt a grandfather. Grandpa died when I was still a kid and I think Grandma could use a little company sometimes. Where did you get yours from?

[@willusa2927]

Hats off to your grandfather

[@eliaslundstedt5607]

Mad lad. I have no Idea how theese could fit the balls of the people flying them

[@brzezu8697]

nachtjager77 ich wohne aus Sprottau

[@Kimdino1]

I was thinking 'Surely, they ain't gonna fly it, that fuel was so f*%!&ing dangerous. But it was well managed and a joy to see. I was amazed at what a floater it was, it didn't want to come down, once in ground effect had it just wanted to go on and on & on & ...... Amazing! Thanks for showing it.

[@Perktube1]

Imagine showing up with that to a sailplane competition.

[@space__idklmao]

I heard it was a better glider than most purpose built gliders of its time.

[@louisavondart9178]

The originals had to be fitted with air brakes because they just didn't want to land.

[@marvindebot3264]

It's considerably lighter than an original one, they landed hard.

[@robertchapman6795]

I remember seeing a doco on these, with original test footage in my early teens. One landed hard and caught fire. The pilot literally dissolved as he tried to escape!

[@Hawkeye2001]

Imagine the technology that went from the Wright flyer in 1903 to the first flights of the ME-163 in just 40 years.

[@jonaspersson122]

I never thought about that. That is actually mindboggling!

[@davebrittain9216]

With that being said you would think by this time we would have transporters like on Star Trek lol.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

That is what happens to war technology with two world wars 20 years apart. Tanks went from nonexistent in 1914 to the Centurion in 1945.

[@steffenrosmus9177]

Actually it is from Gustav Whitehead to Me 163 in 42 years😉

[@thekaiseroftheeast3895]

@@jonaspersson122 We went from not being able to fly at all to landing on the moon in just 60 years.

[@msquaretheoriginal]

The actual 163 was essentially a rocket-powered glider, if that makes any sense. It was designed from the outset to fly well without power because the rocket motor could only run for about 8-9 minutes total. So the ones that did make it home did so on the glide.

[@Someguy6571]

And were more often than not shot to hell while they were gliding. Since there was nothing they could do to dodge the allied fighters.

[@JaleelJohanson62]

Folks..... The rocket powered version was a virtual death trap..... Enjoy this version....

[@admiralpawz4699]

JaleelJohanson62 siting down in the cabin and driving = INSTANT DEATH

[@Dondolini94]

we have no evel knievel of the sky to try

[@jamesricker3997]

The rocket version killed more German pilots than allied pilots

[@harrison00xXx]

virtual? the Komet sent many good pilots, also a woman (in the WW2) in the hospital. i think it was one of the most dangerous aircrafts ever built, thanks to the (pretty unique) rocket motor... but i saw some fights of onboard cams in ww2, and i think, as a dive bomber and fighter, this plane was awesome for this time landing is the most dangerous, what i knew were more Me163 destroyed while regular landings than allied fire...

[@Renodox]

is that a warning or a advertisement 🤔

[@g.a.c.4139]

Even without a rocket motor, its an impressive craft, and the pilot is gutsy to get in that thing. Its basically a modified flying wing, with teeth. The landing looks tricky without spoilers and no horizontal stabilizers. Would the Komet be a good candidate for a modern turbine engine conversion? I'd like to see that conversion, as long as the originality of the Komet is not permanently altered (this aircraft is historically significant, and it should be preserved as well as flown). Thanks for posting this video.

[@sergeig685]

It is not a flying wing. It has a tail and clearly defined fuselage. And its landing characteristics are described as "very docile".

[@RsRj-qd2cg]

Actually I think a modern replica could be safely built with a new rocket engine. Or steam powered.

[@2adamast]

G.A.C. It's a replica glider. Putting a motor would permanently alter it's nature.

[@jamesthornton9399]

Where would you put the inlet???

[@TheHenirik]

this is a replica built in 2006 if understand the german correctly

[@snarkymatt585]

Well it's more like a Komet trainer than the actual Komet... still cool though.

[@CaCidinho]

I mean... Who would bring 30 milimiter cannons and a dangerous outdated rocket engine to an air show?

[@jacplac97]

We are talking about an aircraft that had high probability of exploding, at literally any moment. During re-fueling, take-off, mid-flight, and landing, or leaking its fuel into the cockpit, turning the pilot into a half-liquid pile of goo.

[@quackityalt7213]

@@CaCidinho Many people? that's typically what people watch the video for when it has "komet" in the name

[@HatcheDWheeL]

​@Jay Millar It's litterally "just" bleach.

[@brandons9398]

HatcheDWheeL Right, just hydrazine and methanol, lol

[@joelmartin2549]

I see a few life-saving changes had to be made from the original design.

[@SilverShamrockNovelties]

yeah. such as removing the rocket motor entirely.

[@Maximilian7992]

Doosh Bagg and replacing the landing skid with a wheel

[@BrettonFerguson]

I doubt these changes would have saved any lives if they had done this in 1944 when it was used. Try towing it up to altitude with allied fighters flying around.

[@provablegrub4581]

Joel Martin There weren't many problems with the original design. Only, you know, the high chance of exploding on landing... nothing major.

[@dentidens7834]

ist ja aber eher ein „kraftloses Ei“

[@hisheighnessthesupremebeing]

Looks like someone got the scaling wrong on the propeller drawing..

[@flightisallright]

Actually, it's not meant for propulsion. It's just there as a generator.

[@operatorpsyduck2035]

@@flightisallright Actually, it's not meant to be a serious comment. It's just there to entertain people.

[@NotNicot]

Me 163: *Attacks a B-17 Bomber* Jerry: "That thing has no propeller, how does it fly??" Johnny: "It does have one! But it's so small, how does it power the aircraft?!" Nicky: "That's really weird, what'd ya think Micky?" Micky, the top gunner, with Four 30mm Mk103 cannon shots to his chest: "I don't know mate, but it sure does pack'up some blasting."

[@Saipan2297]

Nicolas Tohá I like to read this in a calm Australian accent

[@hochspannunglebensgefahr5339]

General Psyduck shut the fuck up loser.

[@DEeMONsworld]

I had the pleasure of meeting Rudi Opitz, one of the few men who survived flying the Komet. A very diminutive man, (you had to be small to fit). His recollections were very interesting to hear first hand, he said few pilots had the skills to fly the plane, and even if you did your chances of surviving several flights without injury was slim, He was burned by the corrosive fuel while flying, when it leaked from the fuel tank and got under his protective suit. Other pilots broke their backs on landing as the skid often malfunctioned.

[@christopherterrell1805]

In the late 90's Rudy Opitz was one of my Glider flying mentors, along with Al Santilli who was still an FAA Examiner into his 90's who's original Glider pilot's license was signed off by Orville Wright. Very proud to have both of their signatures in my logbook.

[@andrewpearson106]

Wow thats amazing

[@soundpainter2590]

C.M. Terrell WOW, that is, Priceless !

[@marcosalvarez7096]

Guss Kvist not every soldier of the third reich was nazi ...

[@GraemePryce1978]

@@marcosalvarez7096 Hmm. They all declared allegiance to Hitler, but I agree with you broadly. A lot of them just wanted to be good soldiers with what began as the most advanced army in the world. They were quite heavily indoctrinated and propagandised as well, so it's only fair to let sleeping dogs lie and leave history in the past where it belongs. Regardless of who they were fighting for, a lot of them were very brave and honourable men, and to fly craft like the ME163 they certainly must have had nerves of steel.

[@GJones462-2W1]

While scanning through available videos, I saw this one, and shouted out loud "WHAT?" I had no idea there was a flying ME-163 in existence. Way too cool.

[@nomidubidabi]

Yep, but not an original though.

[@MrCcragg27]

yea it dosent even have an engine, or they didn't fire it up. what the damn hell. shouldn't even be allowed to exist

[@deltavee2]

Failed the hell out of a couple of service crews too. The fuel was extremely nasty to work with. Apparently a pilot was dissolved in his cockpit when a fuel line broke. Nasty Stoff.

[@vet6822]

c and z stoff turned a few folks into jelly in ww2....aka "back in the day".....

[@beaconrider]

They only went on one mission because on a raid, the British put some bombs into the factory that made the fuel. The factory never came back on line.

[@ballooningonmars4888]

My father was a test pilot on a gliding-only pre-version - when he was 17....

[@bzzzz1314]

Wow, amazing. Did he tell you much about it?

[@NotNicot]

@@bzzzz1314 He probably did, with a note on his grave saying "and his last words were: 'SCHEIZE THE GLUE IS NOT HOLDING ON'"

[@howcanyoureadthistheresnop9244]

Nicolas Tohá they used glue on the he 162

[@2spooky2play66]

Nicolas Tohá Wrong plane.

[@viruspter1dactl]

This has 69 likes so i cannot like it

[@zenzen9131]

My friend's father, Hans Becker, used to fly the Do27 tow plane for this until he sadly died a few years ago. A wonderful man and sadly missed :(

[@robbbarnett4978]

Great to see! I like seeing the flights of this back in the 40's. I remember it having wheels that would drop off after takeoff. What a beast. Amazing, but more amazing were the ones who actually were brave enough to pilot this thing.

[@judodavid1]

I believe Yeager flew one on it’s dual-fuel

[@montylc2001]

Ya. A few didn't live to brag about it.

[@charlesyoung7436]

Those detachable wheel trucks could even take a bad bounce and hit the aircraft off the rebound. If the rocket fuel tank got hit and split open, the pilot could end up melted by the corrosive propellant.

[@hydrolito]

If wheels drop off how do they land it in a river?

[@FritzKraut]

It is a reconstruction in wood. Very nice to show the aerodynamical potential of Alexander Lippischs design. He designed the plane. Not Messerschmitt. Makes no sense to complain that this privat reconstruction has no engine. Just enjoy what we have here. As a young glider pilot in the mid 1980ies at Dornier airfield in Oberpfaffenhofen i had an ex ME 163 B fighter pilot as instructor. Any time our plane was hooked on he told me "take the sun between your legs son!"

[@clintatk]

The Komet was designed to be towed and released just as demonstrated. It also was designed to be a very good glider and always landed as a glider. To have fueled this rare museum piece would have been insane.

[@kenirwin276]

My brother-in-law Phil Owen somehow acquired a complete engine from an ME 163 Komet. When Rudi Opitz heard about it, he paid him a visit as he just had to see it and they had a great talk about it. This was in the '50s. I recall the turbine fuel pump, which ran on Hydrogen Peroxide, was larger than the rocket combustion chamber. He donated it to the Air Force Museum and they were glad to receive it because it was in better condition than the example they had.

[@elorex1661]

The Me163 was built to climb up to 30000ft in 2 or 3 minutes to intercept enemy bombers. It then glided back down to base. After takeoff the landing gear was detached to reduce drag so when landing they just skidded down the runway. Many accidents happend there, many young pilots lost their lifes because their plane exploded or ended up upside down somewhere next to the runway. "Raketenjäger Me163" is a great book by Mano Ziegler, a test pilot who survived this plane. He talks about his colleagues jumping out of the skidding plane at high speeds because they feared an explosion, about how they sent a casked full of rocks to the deceaseds family because they couldn't find a single part of a pilot whos plane exploded. Also talks a lot about technical stuff... Really interesting book.

[@peterbird7979]

RN pilot Eric Brown flew a powered one of these after WW2, his comments were something like 'most flying wings were just dangerous death traps, but the designers got this thing just perfect, it was just amazing to fly.'

[@tubewatcher3100]

Outstanding camera work tracking and keeping the Komet in frame. The plane is very cool too. Thanks for the video.

[@feedingravens]

It seems little is known about that plane, so some info. This replica is from Josef Kurz, usually building replicas of gliders from the 1930s. His "masterpiece" might be the DFS Habicht from 1936 (for the Olympics in Berlin), from the original planset, the first dedicated aerobatic glider, designed for a max speed of 380 km/h, more than any other glider in the world. In a time of spruce, plywood and fabric... For those that say "why not with engine": The ONLY flight pattern the Me 163 was capable of was to start and climb to 12,000 meter (36,000 feet) in 5 minutes until the engine burnt out, from then on it was ONLY gliding (including the attack run). So displaying the plane as glider is how you would have seen it. Seconds after the start you would have seen nothing more than the streak of the jet exhaust goin vertically upwards with 900 kph. The engine could hardly be throttled, and not relit. Premature engine flameout was extremely dangerous, the fuel remains tended to explode when landing on the skid the original had. Leaking propelliant dissolved organic matter (humans), so you better took care to get rid of that stuff asap. Just to say it, the plane was NOT designed for supersonic flight, it would have needed a different airfoil for that. So should you go into horizontal under power you ran into a high-speed stall due to the supersonic compression shockwave delaminating the airflow, making the plane uncontrollable and braking it down (not necessarily apart). But if it did not kill you, the pilots said it was a delight to fly. They built about 350, and formed a combat test group. But the concept was pretty insane: the range was nil, so you needed to have the airfield directly there where the bombers came. The fighter escorts soon found out, just wait til the Me 163 runs out of speed, it cannot pull away anymore. And when the planes were on the ground, they just lay around in the middle of the runway, perfect targets for strafing runs. So the airfield needed heavy flak defence and an own protective fighter screen around the airfield, usually Fw-190s. Maybe something interesting regarding escort fighters 1943/44: It was decided by the USAAF that whilst bombing was important, fighting down the german air defence (incl .the Me-163) was of the higher importance. So the bombers were almost used as bait to get the germans in the air, and the prime task of the escort fighters was NOT to fence off the attacker from the bombers, but to chase after the german fighters and shoot them down, even if that meant leaving the bombers alone. Of course that meant at some point you have gotten rid of the german fighters, but in the meantime... The german could then make use of that, lure away the US fighters, and then another group attack the lone bombers. That tactic cost the lives of about 50,000 bomber crews. What is even more amazing, it took the Allies until July 1944 to attack the german fuel production in earnest. The fuel production needs space, it could not "easily" be relocated underground like e.g. fighter production. And within weeks the german had lost about 70% of their fuel production capacity. Fuel had always been a problem, the germans were always notoriously short on fuel, great tanks and planes with hightech that could hardly be used due to lack of fuel. Had the allies realized that this is an absolute achilles heel, that going for that one industry incapacitates EVERYthing, and started this campaign a year earlier, I am pretty certain that the war would have lasted a year less. It was even so that because the fuel production was the main source of sulphur in Germany, and the fuel production in the end was at about 2% of the max value, the germans would have run out of gun powder a few months after capitulation.

[@Trojan0304]

Classic plane. Thanks for capturing this rare bird.

[@obfuscated3090]

Komet is descended from gliders and was tested as a glider before rockets were fitted. After the rocket burned out it glided to attack bomber formations then back to base.

[@judodavid1]

There are not that many left, less than 50 survived if I recall. I have seen the one in Savana, out west there is another one, and possibly the Smithsonian has one. There is one in England and one in Scotland. Canada and Germany also have one. Where is this particular model located?

[@knightflightvideo]

This Me 163 Komet Glider replica is now located at the Dornier Museum Friedrichshafen in the static display. abpic.co.uk/pictures/code-number/PK%2BQL

[@judodavid1]

Thank you @@knightflightvideo, good video of an interesting subject. I have seen 2 original M163 in static displays in the US.

[@knightflightvideo]

You are welcome! We have two original Me 163 here in Germany. The first one is displayed at Flugwerft Schleißheim near Munich, and the other one is located at the Luftwaffe Museum in Berlin.

[@judodavid1]

@@knightflightvideo I knew the Luftwaffe museum has an original but I did not visit that museum when I was in Germany.

[@knightflightvideo]

Maybe next time. :)

[@airailimages]

Remarkable to see. Thanks for uploading it.

[@knightflightvideo]

U're welcome! Thanks for watching! :)

[@countrysamurai]

Beautiful aircraft...I was able to write, talk to Rudolf Opitz (Test Pilot) and wrote to Wolfgang Spate (C/O of Erprobungskommando 16 and JG 400) years ago. Rudi Opitz flew the Me-110 that towed Heini Dittmar to altitude for both the first gliding flights and when he broke the powered record of 1000 kph. And on many other occasions, and flew the 163 himself. Both testing and combat. These were two of the most influential men (and Dittmar) testing and using it in combat.. The Germans were very advanced...first aircraft to break 1000 kph in level flight and perhaps broke the sound barrier years before Chuck Yeager did. Alexander LIppisch and Hellmuth Walther. Incredible

[@Perktube1]

With no T-stoff or D-stoff, at least have an Estes engine in it, or a smoke trail. Still nice tho.

[@gahrzahk]

Good book: Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants, by John D. Clark, Rutgers U. Press. Great history of the development of rocket fuel, from propellants more dangerous that nitroglycerin to chemicals less worse.

[@lebensraummetal]

@@gahrzahk Excellent book. and after that try Taming Liquid Hydrogen: the Centaur

[@rogertycholiz2218]

Perktube - I assume that D-stoff and T-stoff were hydrogen peroxide and pure oxygen.

[@charlesborden8111]

@@rogertycholiz2218 C-Stoff und T-Stoff (substance C and substance T) too be correct. C-Stoff was a mixture of Methanol, Hydrazine hydrate, water, and Potassium tetracyanocuprate. T-Stoff was Hydrogen peroxide, water, and stabilizers. And guaranteed to kill a person if they looked at it funny.

[@LouAlvis]

@@charlesborden8111 i love it when you talk that way

[@brantsemallory726]

Thanks for the upload, great to see some of the German planes from WW2 still being flown. As a Brit we get to see our planes quite often but never anything from the 'other' side.

[@rabbitbmx]

Check out Flying Legends, plenty of German planes shown there every year :)

[@pickfairguy]

A true expression of British sportsmanship and fair play !

[@Kay_213_]

pickfairguy Well what else did you expect from the British? That’s there whole thing isn’t it?

[@gamertardguardian1299]

History is sensitive to some people

[@joesantamaria5874]

Nonsense. Duxford flies lots of German aircraft every summer at Flying Legends. Best air show there is. They also have many aircraft on static display, 163, 262, FW190, etc........you should go, it’s wonderful.

[@RCHeliJet]

Fantastic i saw the Model just over 10x time but not the real Me 163, Thanks thumb up

[@knightflightvideo]

Vielen Dank fürs anschauen und kommentieren! :-)

[@maviba]

It looks good, but thats not a real Me 163, its a replicat, built as a pure glider ;-)

[@idasmith8644]

[Nephew of Ida] An original fly with the rocket engine is impossible. You need a 2 component "gas" , the "C" and the "T". One drop before the fly together and you have an explosion like with nitroglycerine.

[@nicomeier8098]

I'm sure there are modern rocket engines that could be mounted and are not as dangerous......? Seeing it fly on its own and taking off would be fantastic.

[@WgCdrLuddite]

Obviously a fake. It didn't explode.

[@TheCerebralDude]

If anyone is wondering what is the difference between rocket engines and jet engines, rockets have the own organic air supply, while a jet takes in air around it through its air intakes in front of its engines then thrusts the air back out to create thrust

[@OldEastGermany]

Chuck Yeager (USA) was never the first to break the sound barrier, it was definitely Germany.

[@omaliveatlast4688]

I believe it happened when the poor pilot had the canopy fly off and he was knocked out and during its tragic decent it broke the sound barrier shortly before impact . Unless anyone knows better ?

[@Gallus-gallus]

What, the whole country?!

[@RacerXGTO]

@@omaliveatlast4688 The Komet never broke the sound barrier, at best, it could true 620mph, still not the sound barrier. P-51 pilots were discovering a mysterious barrier while in a high speed dive with their planes. The flight controls had no effect once that barrier was crossed, because the air would float right over their elevators. Some pilots died. The lucky ones who knew how to slow down, regained control of their flight controls, but shared the experience as some sort of barrier in the sky that should never be crossed if they wanted to live again. All the planes in WW2 lacked the flight controls for mach 1 flight, where Bell technicians discovered there had to be a dramatic change in the X-1's elevator design past 700mph.The traditional hinged 2-piece elevator was the problem, Bell solved it by making the entire elevator move as 1 piece. Then the sound barrier was broken beyond 700 mph. Pay attention to all models of the Bell X1, the two piece hinged elevator was not the X1 that broke the sound barrier.

[@lauraradigan4114]

Magnificent piece of flying of a extremely challenging historic aircraft. It glides well but seems difficult to get down without airbrakes. Well done.

[@harrison00xXx]

Laura Radigan its extremely lightweight. especially with no rocket motor. it would be really nice to see this thing with rocket start and flight :) someone should make it R/C, and lets go,.....

[@terraboundmisfit]

Fell asleep waiting for him to light the candle, woke up to a dry dream.

[@meganary876]

Amazing! I had no idea one of these was still in existence, much less actually flying...well done!

[@teecar9868]

It's not.... it's a new copy. There's only one in existence, in pieces in the Smithsonian.

[@chrispassauer3960]

There in a complete and original one in the Australian war memorial

[@angelsone-five7912]

@@teecar9868 There is one in the Imperial War Museum.

[@makuwusky]

@@teecar9868 The Flying Heritage and Combat Armor museum in Everett WA has one as well flyingheritage.org/Explore/The-Collection/Germany/Messerschmitt-163-B-Komet.aspx

[@kelby810]

@@teecar9868 That's totally incorrect. There are ten surviving Me-163s on display around the world. Might you be confusing this aircraft with the Ho-229? The Ho-229 is the larger flying wing design with twin jet engines, and the only surviving example is indeed in pieces awaiting restoration. Please fact check yourself before trying to correct others. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet#Surviving_aircraft

[@mikestanmore2614]

I was wondering who was crazy enough to refuel and fly that little firecracker. No-one since Winkle Brown, it seems. Oh well, they spent most of their operational life gliding.

[@Peasmouldia]

I bet Captain Brown RN didn't have that much float on landing. The original had the glideslope of a house brick. His record of most military types flown is quite safe I recon.

[@planpitz4190]

Are you sure famous test Pilot Winkle Brown flew the original one with the Walter rocket engine fueled with highly corrosive and flammable chemicals?

[@gregbuck701]

They would only glide on their RTB, when the bombers came over they'd zip all over doin their thing......but sitting ducks gliding home. Faster than shit under power.

[@andrewpease3688]

@@Peasmouldia my understanding is that allied test pilots were keen to fly the me 163 with the rocket but none actually did, including Brown. Dr Walter managed to talk them out of it with a demonstration of the explosion resulting from just 2 drops of the propellant mixing together.

[@tlangdon12]

@@andrewpease3688 Eric Brown did fly the ME163 fuelled with T-Stoff/C-Stoff. His interview confirms it.

[@BAVBavarianAviationVideonews]

Was für ein Anblick, auch als Segelflieger ein schöner Warbird! Alle Daumen hoch Olli! ;)

[@walterconcrete5017]

The really amazing thing is that Rudy Opitz lived to 99

[@walterpalmer2749]

Powered or not, it’s still impressive.

[@hadrianaugustus5712]

There’s one of these on display at the air and space museum in Chantilly, Virginia

[@cley123]

The Komet used peroxide as fuel and was in many ways more dangerous to its pilot than it was to its enemy, as it tended to explode on landing.

[@knightflightvideo]

This is true. Thanks for watching and commenting! :-)

[@derptank3308]

Yeah...that's probably why they didn't fit it with the actual rocket engine it had during ww2

[@jamesclukey7488]

Or break their back .... no landing gear, ...

[@lordraptor11]

considering upon landing there was no fuel left in the aircraft that is not possible.

[@lordraptor11]

so now an empty tank will explode on landing i really wish i knew where you guys get this innacurate information from.

[@firefightergoggie]

I was actually really worried they were going to light that thing up for real. Thank God it was a glide demo. Komets were real widow makers. Great to see though. Living history.

[@Shaun_Jones]

Actually, the Komet had a lower crash rate than the bf 109, it’s just that me 163 problems were especially horrific.

[@firefightergoggie]

@@Shaun_Jones - wrong. Considering the death rate from the test phase alone, it's a miracle that there hundred examples were even built. Finding volunteers to fly the the aircraft proved a challenge because of the death rate of flying the machine in combat. Next time, try and check your facts a little more closely.

[@Suo_kongque]

Shaun Jones yeah, but a lot of early jets had problems. The engines tended to blow up.

[@iv9545]

@@Suo_kongque It's not a jet, it's a rocket. Pulse jet = / = Rocket.

[@AmericasChoice]

My Dad was a B-17 Waist-Gunner 1944-45 He saw one of these and a couple ME-262. He said the Komet was so fast you just got a glimpse and it was gone.

[@ironpizza5150]

All yes the lf-22 starling

[@yourdad2932]

Is not GTA

[@kermudgeounthepowerful7642]

So what? I looked this up because of the starlings power in the air

[@xXNexxus_-MindXx]

IKR but I don’t see the flame like in gta XD

[@shanehannigan7895]

Why u do dis because there was two variants one with a rocket witch was a death trap and the other without a rocket

[@wpso2859]

@@yourdad2932 stfu pussy

[@mrmanch204]

Crazy, brilliant, thank you.

[@PRH123]

Incredible that an aircraft that is capable of flying at high Mach close to the speed of sound, also glides so beautifully with no power…. I don’t think there was or is any other aircraft that had - has such a broad flight envelope…

[@guenterschmidt5982]

Habe das modell von mir entworfen und gebaut 1972zur DM in Roothenburg Wümme vorgefürt

[@zahladnedanecajodnane9684]

Really?

[@e.sstudios1015]

Wow

[@ligmastigma2822]

For reals?

[@ligmastigma2822]

What made u decide to start a KZbin account?

[@PatriceBoivin]

I am always happy to see that some people are repairing, maintaining vehicles from WW2. It's sad when we see rusted hulks pulled out of lakes or farmers' fields, or abandoned in industrial parks or other places to rust and rain. Even if it was just for educational purposes, having functional vehicles is so useful.

[@mjd4174]

But you miss the point, like many here, that this only LOOKS Like an Me 163 but is not even close to being constructed in the same manner. It is a sailplane replica. Well done but it is not a real Me 163, it is a great lightweight replica.

[@theaninova]

For anyone wondering "Kraftei" means something along the lines of "Strong egg"

[@jeaboud]

Just one word to describe this Plane. Marvelous. If we realize that the Me-163 was designed und built almost 80 years ago we can only say: brave GERMAN technology.

[@rustykilt]

It looked great but was a killer..

[@DFX2KX]

Brave is... Not the word you'd use to describe this thing. Innovative and suicidal are better descriptors. Don't get me wrong, these things are cool, but when your aircraft uses a hypergolic mix of kerosene and 90% Hydrogen Peroxide that requires the entire plane be hosed down after each fuel was added so it didn't *explode*, you might have a problem.

[@paulallen8109]

You can also say this was born more out of *desperation* . They knew they could never compete with the allies when it came to quantity of war material so they put all their faith in "wonder weapons". By the end of the war they gambled really high because they knew they couldn't play it safe anymore or attempt any "poker face". Btw, the atomic bomb was way more technically advanced than this plane and no Germans were involved in the making of that one. Oh, and the allied computers used to decipher the German Enigma code.

[@martentrudeau6948]

Me 163 Komet, futuristic for the 1940's, way ahead of it's time.

[@martentrudeau6948]

Beautiful aircraft, incredible technology.

[@jeffmoore9487]

How many production rocket planes types have there been since flight began? I think just one - the Me163.

[@loskop100]

The planes that first broke the sound barrier were rocket powered

[@SilverShamrockNovelties]

Germany was losing the war. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Alot of the weapons forced into service late in the war were ill-conceived. Still, some of them saw a degree of success in the right situation.

[@charlestorruella6140]

Jeff Moore not true the USA had a number of rocket planes they where called the x planes google them Chuck Yeager broke the sound barriers with one

[@maxwellcrazycat9204]

This aircraft reminds me of those carvings that look like small airplanes that were found in South America. Either Aztec or Inca.

[@mysticvirgo9318]

She does glide extraordinarily well :)

[@yuppy1967]

That is such a advanced design for its time,so amazing! ✈️

[@banana_in_a_tuxedo]

too bad it didn't work

[@paulsnell534]

Omg that is totally amazing. Anyone who could fly such a machine let alone land it has to an awesome pilot.

[@sffhhh5210]

America(Bell X1) allegedly brock Sound barrier, it was the German ME163(1944) and not America.

[@OldEastGermany]

Correctly the Messerschmitt Me 163 reached the sound barrier first, the Americans were not.

[@juankenon]

The 163 claims aren't terribly credible, even the pilot himself disavows it. The only probable ww2 claim could come from the Natter's ill-fated manned test flight, but that would have definitely been an uncontrolled flight.

[@althejazz]

Utterly amazing - such a clean aircraft and even unpowered it was very, very fast. I read Mano Ziegler's book 'Rocket Fighter' many years ago and I was impressed with the sheer guts of the chaps who flew these things and thank goodness the current pilots don't have to take those risks.

[@tonywatson7988]

Iwas an apprentice airframe fitter in the RAF from 1958 to 1963 and towards the end of that time one of these aircraft appeared in our workshops. I never learnt how it had been acquired but it was there to be refurbished. I assume that did happen but I didn't know what happened to the aircraft after that but Mr Google tell me that Between 1961 and 1976, this aircraft was displayed at the Imperial War Museum in London. In 1976, it was moved to the Imperial War Museum Duxford.

[@mrdfac]

Wow. WOW! Thank you. I never thought I would see that.

[@WildBillCox13]

Nice. Thanks for posting. It was a great glider. That much is in the record. The gliding characteristics, according to Hannah, were absolutely adorable. The model in the video looks like the unpowered testbed used to test the flying characteristics, before series production began.

[@knightflightvideo]

My pleasure. Thanks for watching and commenting! :-)

[@Namminamm]

I think its a replica actually...

[@locutus155]

Apparently they were also a complete sod to land because of the tailless design.

[@geoffphillips8029]

It's a replica,has no engine and a fixed wheel landing gear.I read it was built entirely by eye by its designer,/builder.

[@magoolew5131]

@@geoffphillips8029 Yes, the original planes had a skid to land on in the front and a small tail wheel. They took off on a set of wheels that would be dropped by the pilot by releasing the skid, then pulling the skid back up for flight. They were carted off the field after landing by a buggy, taken back and put on wheels on both wings where they sat ready to be fueled for their next mission.

[@irvingnerdbaum7256]

GREAT VIDEO OF THE Me-163! Thanks!

[@arabic_cat5808]

Wait thats Lf-22 Straling?

[@bifflowenklein5037]

I had no idea there was one of these around, let alone still flying. Incredible!

[@marvindebot3264]

This one is a reproduction built in the 60s

[@mjd4174]

There isn't.

[@danieljoseph255]

I’d love to see the use of a simple, solid-fuel rocket motor with this beauty-whether it were of sufficient class/size to produce some effective thrust to prolong the flight, or whether it were merely a model rocket motor for display purposes…neither would require more than a small port to house the motor case, and could be ignited remotely by the pilot once released

[@NickPDX22]

I dunno why but the whole time rather than honking hold my beer I was thinking “Hold my wing bro! *I SAID JUST HOLD MY WING*

[@MrOrmesby]

I never thought I would see the day when an Me 163 would be back in the air, even if it was just in glider mode. I know they used to glide back to their landing strips once their fuel was spent, but with them being so small and compact I don't really think of them as gliders. They were of course an exceptionally dangerous aircraft to fly, if either of their two fuel systems came into contact with one another, say in a hard landing, it resulted in a massive explosion. More German Me 163 pilots were killed in flying accidents than in combat.

[@MarionOhioPolice]

That and the front wheels bouncing back up at the aircraft on takeoff.

[@taylorsukoshi6126]

Or the peroxide leaking and vaporizing the pilot.

[@justforever96]

Not a surprise. They spent a hell of a lot more time in testing, and in trying and failing to intercept bombers than they ever did in actually shooting at said bombers. Stands to reason that more pilots would die that way...even if they WEREN'T fatally flawed aircraft.

[@justforever96]

Um....yeah, peroxide doesn't do that.

[@jamesricker3997]

When landing the fuel tanks we're filled with highly combustionable fumes

[@sweatymrkim4578]

I sat in the cockpit of one these last year at the National Museum of Flight in North Berwick, Scotland. Cheers Davey for pulling some strings to allow it.

[@HagersvilleHunk]

Very,very impressive. Excellent workmanship and flying skills.Keeping history alive!

[@bootchop88]

well to keep history alive, the aircraft would have proudly displayed its original war markings. The history is being erased.

[@1985_Honda_CRX_Si]

I love the comically smol propeller it has

[@goast_the_vixen7428]

The best part

[@StratosHawk]

I had my suspicions when I saw the pilot without a fireproof suit. But it was very graceful in the air...

[@camil721]

Wonderful! Such grace and precision in a (supposed to be-) rocket fighter ! My admiration for the builders (original AND replica) and for the high class pilot!

[@radiantjet418]

Amazing! To think that was designed in the early 1940s and glides perfectly!!!

[@charchee1950]

It's designer was amazing at glider designs, not a rocket scientist though for obvious reasons. He lacked proper research because his projects were extremely rushed. Still it's an amazingly good design, im pretty sure it was the first plane to go over 1000km/h and he had other designs for supersonic aircraft. Imagine seeing a jet break the sound barrier in the 40s! Lippisch was his name if your interested, it has been 2 years since your comment so idk

[@chosh3637]

German engineering

[@davecrupel2817]

It may not be a truly flying komet. But I never get tired of seeing that bold blood red paint job. Damn fine looking old toy!

[@miletello1]

I read the title and was like who's the dumb enough to fly the damn thing.

[@malcolmstreet1]

Interesting that it's part of the EADS Heritage flight, along with at least an Me109G and a new-build Me262. The big difference from the original is weight - 500kg at take-off vs 3500! Note also that they've replaced the original retractable landing skid with a deepened fuselage and wheel - the skid sometimes didn't extend and injured the pilot's back in the ensuing hard landing.

[@tiltingatwindmillsorhowdav2086]

Simply the best! Better than all the rest! Rocket on? If I could offer only one suggestion, IMHO, it would be that it needs a rocket engine. Still it’s way better than my Comet. So far.

[@BlueStar712]

Loved this plane since I first saw it when I was very young. This and the me262 were incredible for their time, thank you so much for posting this glimpse into the past!!!

[@mikeromney4712]

"... I know you wanted to please me men, but the paint has to go down again. That's at least 15 or 20 kg of paint, since we already have these weight problems ..." Wolfgang Späthe, 1943 Bad Zwischenahn - after he saw that newly painted red bird the first time......:)

[@Nighthawke70]

You'd be bonkers to do this but... One could put a hybrid solid motor in it, similiar to what SpaceShip One and Two use, Rubber/Nitrous combination. It'd smoke like the devil and the thrust absolutely mind-boggling, it'd kick you in the pants and FLY! That is if the local aviation authority would even consider it...

[@BASavage81]

Impressive! Most impressive. That was very neat to see a Comet in the air again, even without its most dangerous rocket motor. I wonder if somepone will make a replica with a safe rocket motor and safer landing gear so we can get a glimpse of what it was really like to see a Comet operate at full capacity.

[@knightflightvideo]

Thank you for the kind comment! Yes, that would be fine to see a flying replica with a safe rocket motor. But i think it will never happen in Germany.;-)

[@bbelcher4355]

Would someone there be willing to assist someone here in the U.S. in building one with a rocket on it? What about prints for the plane itself? Are they available?

[@blonder70]

B Belcher You should contact the "Flugmuseum Messerschmitt" (Flight museum Messerschmitt) in Manching noth of Munich: www.flugmuseum-messerschmitt.de/messerschmitt/flugzeug/me163/index.html

[@Angelum_Band]

As long as it happens. Spain maybe?

[@93corollausa94]

A hydrogen peroxide cold rocket might do it

[@KazutoBlogch]

Thinking that almost all the allied victories against this rocket were when the Me 163 had no combustible and was limited to gliding.

[@michaelprocter1298]

To the men and woman who take the time and care to restore these aircraft to either static or flying condition must be a labour of love. But to see them flying is amazing....to think all of them were designed to kill people in war and to the men that flew them now friends and swap stories of there exploits and say which plane was the best. But you can't deny how good the German pilots were in there score of kills and how they keep flying till they either couldn't fly anymore or were killed in action. And that also goes for all WW2 pilots in defending there country. The bravest warriors.

[@satriyayogananda2442]

what a cute plane

[@MrDaiseymay]

That's what Allied bomber crew thought---or--what the fucks that?

[@firepower7017]

Philip Croft Why would they question something that they had like literally a few months after this was built the brits had made the Meteor

[@YDDES]

Fire Power701 The Gloster Meteor was nothing like it. The Meteor had a turbojet engine and the Me 163 had a rocket engine.

[@SilverShamrockNovelties]

because allied bomber crews probably never saw a meteor before they were getting raked by a "glider" moving faster than their gunners could track it.

[@LuisRamos-ou8zb]

That was what most allied pilots would say... until fired upon with the two 30-mm cannons...

[@philipsmith1990]

This leaves so many questions unanswered. It seems reasonable that a rocket plane would be designed for high speed flight so it is surprising that it can be towed into the air by a light aircraft. I want to know what the lift off speed is. I wonder how the flight performance particularly stall speed was determined. It seemed remarkably docile at low speed in the landing.

[@luke8857]

Listen bro, you can look at specs on wiki. This plane was designed as an airstrip superiority fighter. It could take off and hit altitude in maybe 20 seconds. PROVIDED it didn't simply explode on the runway. The idea was to use the rocket - then ascend to say 20,000 feet quick as a rabbit can hop a hole... then attack and save the airstrip and planes in the area. Dangerous as hell. But she is very fast. It climbs at a rate of 16,000 feet per minute, so it can hit an attack altitude within about 75 seconds. The rocket doesn't last forever, so it becomes a glider eventually. She did prove useful though. I think there's a legend where one pilot took out a bomber and like 4 attack fighters acing on a single mission. Other times though, this plane exploded, or just dudded in the sky and died. It wasn't reliable. It killed test pilots, too. It exploded on runways. It owned the skies. Would I fly one? HELL NO. Was it fearsome? If systems were operational and the thing was flying this was like an Me-262 RUN AWAY

[@guts-141]

And landing that thing was literally pain in the ass and spine Also a Pilot melted to death due to the fuel leaks after landing

[@luizcarlosdeiricci8957]

The Luftwaffe Jet Flea Thanks for the post 👍😉👏

[@kkuenzel56]

No C-Stoff or T-Stoff!?

[@logoseven3365]

kkuenzel56 No annoying "boom" either.

[@orbitalair2103]

With modern silicone and other inert seals, the rocket would probably be far more reliable. 90% Hyd Peroxide attacks anything organic. The rocket engine was amazing engineering. You would be amazed how small it actually was. Static tests film is awesome to watch, it had to be super, super loud.

[@joelmartin2549]

no dead people either.

[@Nighthawke70]

I'd ask Scaled to whip up a hybrid motor made with the rubber and nitrous. Its hardly throttable but it can be shut off.

[@alastairward2774]

orbitalair the UK used the technology when it had its own space agency launching rockets and satellites back in the 50s and 60s.

[@billthomas1115]

Eric "Winkle" Brown who is credited with having flown more aircraft types than anyone else says this was the most dangerous plane he ever flew. He did the first landing of a jet on a carrier BTW. When I saw the header it didn't think possible that anyone would actually fly it again. So it was just the world's worst glider, but interesting anyway.

[@welshpete12]

Yes he did and in a biograph he describes flying and he says it was easy to get away from you . Which I think is a understatement if ever there was ! They were very vulnerable to attack after the fuel was exhausted. One did manage to shoot down a Mosquito but they were just to late in the war to do much damage . The design was given to the Japanese , who built one but larger . I do not know if it did fly before the end of the war or no.

[@MPI1000]

Regardless of the war ending they still had trouble doing damage anyway, because the closure rate on their intended targets (bombers) were such that you had literally fractions of a second to shoot before you collided with your target. With a few minutes of powered flight there was only so many attempts you could make also.

[@pteppig]

yes, it would have been a way better idea to aim the cannon off center, like "schraege musik" guns which were also used for bomber attacks

[@argh1989]

Literally everything that made the real deal dangerous was removed from this aircraft. No rocket engine or fuel tanks to leak and explode. They also removed the cannons, the extendable landing skid and likely the armoured glass, too. All of that combined makes this thing incredibly lightweight, so the wingloading is probably close to that of an STOL prop. The only quirky bit about this glider remains the lack of a seperate horizontal stabiliser.

[@StefanMarjoram]

Just finished his amazing book. Actually he says 'a very easy and pleasant aircraft to fly as a glider'. I think it was the rocket fuel and skids that made it so dangerous.

[@jamesjames3525]

We never give enough credit to trail blazers of modern aircraft design. Great video. Loved it.