Talk:Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Identities[edit]

The text claims that Me 163A V4 had the Stammkennnzeichen KE+SW, but the image caption next to it claims it shows the Me 163A V1 with those Stkz. William Green's Rocket Fighter also captions the KE+SW individual as the V1. I don't think the Stkz. would have been reused for the V4, or does anyone know something to the contrary? 83.250.197.97 10:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Duration[edit]

The flight duration under performance is said to be 8 minutes. Are you sure this is correct? I would say the engine burn time might be that, but it would be able to glide after that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.199.252 (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angle and Climb Speed[edit]

Did it really climb at an angle of 80 degrees after takeoff? That's practically vertical, straight up. TomD22 15:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source from a Luftwaffe pilot here stating a 45 degree climb after traveling horizontal to reach 725kmph. He explains that he reached 10km in 2 min 45 sec, and there are several charts with similar average climb speeds (his comes out to about 60m/s, there is an official chart averaging 58m/s. Why is it listed at 160m/s in the article? It's incredibly misleading. - G

Splitting off japanese variants[edit]

The data for the Japanese variant should either be condensed (the same dimensions are repeated for each variant) or moved to a seperate article. For some reason, the original text used 'grider' instead of 'glider' in a number of spots, was this some sort of joke? Or just an unfortunate translation? Fixed.

Most likely not a joke. Native Japanese speakers often confuse "r" and "l" when speaking in English, and as a result misspell English words in the same way. The "grider" rendering may have been written by a Japanese. Former colleagues who frequently went on business trips to Japan would stop in at the "Backus Rounge" in Ipponmatsu, as the sign in front proclaimed. We would spell it "Lounge". —QuicksilverT @ 17:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Quoting first line in this article: "The Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet was the only operational rocket fighter aircraft."

Is this true? .. What of the Messerschmitt 262 and such ?

I believe the difference is between a rocket engine and a jet engine. The Me 262 and similar planes used jet engines.
Totally correct, jet engines versus rocket are night and day. The opening sentence is correct.Chairboy 02:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that not only landing was problematic. The engine had also a habit for blowing up without any reason. Can someone verify this?

The engine wasn't the issue as much as carrying volatile fuels that exploded upon contact. I have a video on the Komet with Luftwaffe training footage showing C-Stoff being dripped into a bucket of T-Stoff. Each drop caused a sizeable fireball. Obviously, the demonstrator was wearing heavy asbestos gloves! I could see a cupful of fuel causing enough of an explosion (esp. in a confined area) to blow the aircraft apart. Oydman 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Messerschmitt 163 was an interceptor not a fighter. Also, a rocket engine and a jet engine are basically the same concept in this case. And if you want to go off rocket fighters, the Japanese had a rocket fighter entitled Oka, which was intended for kamikaze's. The German's also devoloped a different rocket fighter, the Natter, which was designed to ram the tails of B-17c bombers. And on the exploding issue, that is true. The pilot was surrounded by volitile materials and if he breathed to heavily or heaved his body then there was some possibility of combustion. Also, sometimes the fuels burning would ignite the cockpit and consume the aircraft.

Couple of misconceptions in the above paragraph. Jets and Rockets are different, and the opening sentence is accurate. Second, an interceptor is a subset of a 'Fighter'. Third, the Natter never entered service. There was a single manned flight, and the pilot was killed.Chairboy 02:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Jet=Air Burning, Rocket=Self-Contained oxidizer, requires no air Oydman 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pilot was surrounded by volatile materials in the 'B' version (Komet) especially, the tanks for one part of the fuel mixture were either side and below him, with fuel feeds behind the bulkhead at head level. No, it is ridiculous to suggest an aircraft designed for combat be at risk of explosion due to the pilot breathing too heavily! The numerous explosions were a result of the extreme volatility of the fuels when mixed, which often occurred in an uncontrolled way e.g. leakage. Even landings risked the plane exploding - the fuel tanks were 'empty' but still a residual amount of the two fuels remained - and a landing that ended up damaging the plane would sometimes be fatal. --Soop62 21:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard there is Komet somewhere in Europe or US that is being put to full flight condition with rocket engine (just like in WWII) for the purpose of airshow aerobatics and display flights - sounds really interseting! Does anyone have a link to project website or more info on when it's gonna fly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.249.63.227 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 June 2005

ok, here it is, I found a link http://www.xcor.com/me163.html
maby someone can put the link to main page? This seems to be the only known project of putting the Komet to flying condition (a full replica) + some modern modifications —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.249.63.227 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 June 2005
Please sign your messages with ~~~~ to cut down on confusion. I'm not familiar with the one you're mentioning, but XCOR lists this as a future plan, except it'll be a new aircraft instead of a restored 163. See http://www.xcor.com/me163.html for more. Maybe someone/me should write up a blurb about this if it's substantial/likely to happen? Chairboy 23:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Walter R-1-203 cold engine is mentioned in this article and in the one for the ME-263. Does nayone have enough info on that engine to create an article (or even a stub)? Kevin/Last1in 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operations[edit]

A good source is Rocket Fighter, Mano Ziegler's memoir of his time as a test pilot for the Me 163 development program. His book describes development, flight test, pilot training and air combat techniques. The book is out of print, and even a paperback copy may cost close to US$100, if you can find one. It was originally published in German under the title Raketenjäger Me 163. I read the book around 1990, and some of my contributions to this article today are based on what I remember. Quicksilver 08:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can read German try to order it through www.amazon.de, costs around 6 Euro's secondhand.Dirk P Broer 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And around $10 through the secondhand department of www.amazon.com(and that's the English translation for you).Dirk P Broer 20:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read a dutch translation of Mano Ziegler's book around 1972 and seem to remember he claims in it to have broken the sound-barrier in an Me-163. Can anyone confirm this? It would certainly mean the oldest claim of Mach-1 flight (Though in a dive), even older than several claims that have been made for an Me-262. 81.244.207.165 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many such claims are unlikely to be true simply because of what is known as position error, and because of the shock wave that attaches to an object when it approaches Mach 1. Thus any indicated airspeed is likely to be incorrect.
Unless the airspeed measuring system on the aircraft is designed for speeds up to, and over, the speed of sound, (such as the system used with a Mach Meter) then any such claim is unreliable. Then, the only reliable indication of exceeding Mach 1 is an audible sonic boom, which is usually noticeable by everyone on the ground within several miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video of the flipping thing![edit]

Hi:

Look at what I found: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ME163+Komet

Is this it? --69.157.184.139 15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is! It would be interesting to find out how the contributor of the video came by it, details of when and where the film was shot, and if it would be possible to post a copy on Wikimedia. --QuicksilverT @ 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A DVD of the Komet is available at http://www.rocket.aero/me163.html
As of Nov 2 2016, there is a comprehensive video documentary, including precursors, development, variants, takeoffs, landings, fuel self-igniting, operational footage/history and Me 163 successors, at https://vimeo.com/3061727. Ian Page (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why it didn't do more for their war[edit]

The combat record sounds like they did more damage than their losses. In principle, they had already lost the war before it started, by firing their Jewish physicists, who went to the U.S. and worked on the atomic bomb. By 1944 there was no rational hope. I read that at the end of the war Lippisch was in Czechoslovakia, working on a (powdered) coal burning, supersonic fighter. Even that would not have helped. Actually, the 163 may have hurt their war effort by taking development effort and H2O2 away from submarines. None ever considered such decisions rationally. That they fought so well is a monument to how much workers (including engineers) and soldiers can accomplish without much help from leadership. David R. Ingham 06:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an engineer, I can vouch for that. We often succeed in spite of management. ;-) —QuicksilverT @ 04:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{By coincidence, my first experience in Germany had a similar aspect. Our leader, Claus Mayer-Böricke, made a negative contribution (like some other leaders I have had), but the work went on anyway.} David R. Ingham 07:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the initial "teething" problems, which took many months to solve, the weapons system proved woefully inadequate. The 30MM cannons were quite powerful, but had a slow rate of fire and often jammed. Only a skilled aerial marksman could keep a B17 in the sights (they were closing at greater than 500 MPH relative speed), and then only got off a few rounds. Compare to modern jet aircraft which use very high rate-of-fire cannon (gatling cannons and the like) to achieve maximum weight of ammunition/burst. Granted, the 30MM shell contained a powerful explosive, but at least 2 and generally 3 hits were needed to take down a heavy bomber. The ME-163 program had too many rookie pilots to get many kills even IF they had liberal amounts of fuel to fly with. Might have done as well or better with some kind of heavy rocket mounted internally in the wing roots. Get the bomber in your sights and fire the rockets in one shot. The Luftwaffe wanted an ability to make multiple firing passes, and that was unrealistic given the fundamental nature of the ME-163. Few, if any, piston-engined German fighters took out more than one B17 in a sortie either. 4.225.235.20 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good discussion of this in a "Control of a Swept Wing Tailless Aircraft Through Wing Morphing", a dissertation by Ricard Guiler. It has a better review of the literature than this article and is not quite so glowing about the Me 163's flight characteristics (shock stalls, mach tuck, etc). But another major limit to its effectiveness was that the Allies bombed the factories that made its fuel. DonPMitchell (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and Legal Issues in "Survivors" Paragraph[edit]

First of all, it's swastika, not swastaka, second, German law does have a few exceptions that allow for the display of nazi flags and insignia. Taken from StGB §86a: (3) Absatz 1 gilt nicht, wenn das Propagandamittel oder die Handlung der staatsbürgerlichen Aufklärung, der Abwehr verfassungswidriger Bestrebungen, der Kunst oder der Wissenschaft, der Forschung oder der Lehre, der Berichterstattung über Vorgänge des Zeitgeschehens oder der Geschichte oder ähnlichen Zwecken dient.

This basically means that the flags/insignia may be used e.g. for [...] art, science, research, teachings, reports of current or historical events or similar purposes.

So, displaying a swastika on a WWII-era plane in a museum is absolutely legal, as it is an accurate historical display. Similarly, swastikas may be shown in movies set in the era, like the Indiana Jones series - this does not extend towards computer games, though - the swastikas had to be edited out of the computer games for Indiana Jones Part IV, for example. A somewhat semi-official explanation to this is that movies are considered art, while computer games are not (of course, may computer game enthusiasts will beg to differ here). 84.56.148.122 22:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel problems[edit]

I recall reading (a LONG time ago), that a leaky fuel line caused one of the pilots to be 'liquefied' down to the bone. Anyone willing to chime in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 April 2007

This is a true story. I have a book on the Komet program, "Top Secret Bird: The Luftwaffe's Me-163 Comet" by Wolfgang Spate, the head of the Luftwaffe's testing program. He flew Komets on several occasions, as well as other fighters as a squadron commander. He mentions that a good friend had a Komet overturn (upon landing in a plowed field), spilling Hydrogen Peroxide (T-Stoff) all over the cockpit. The hapless pilot was largely liquified as a result. Spate, as head of the testing program, had to listen to the flight surgeon describing his friend's corpse's condition... gruesome.
Apparently, concentrated Hydrogen Peroxide will gladly oxidize almost any organic material, including Human flesh. One of the pilots -- it might have been Herr Spate himself -- had a pinhole leak, and it filled the cockpit with fumes. He barely got his plane back to earth as searing fumes nearly blinded and choked him. The best fuel tank technologies of the 1940s were barely able to contain T-Stoff, as they did not have the kind of advanced silicones and plastics that might have safely held the material. Oydman 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The event was also described by Mano Ziegler in Rocket Pilot. —QuicksilverT @ 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Athan[edit]

As a boy and teenager I visited the small air museum at RAF St Athan a few times in the 70s. It definitely contained an ME 163. OK I see this airframe is covered in the Gernmany section, glad my memory was correct! Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Me 163B-0.jpg[edit]

Image:Me 163B-0.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Me 163A-1.jpg[edit]

Image:Me 163A-1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identities[edit]

The text claims that Me 163A V4 had the Stammkennnzeichen KE+SW, but the image caption next to it claims it shows the Me 163A V1 with those Stkz. William Green's Rocket Fighter also captions the KE+SW individual as the V1. I don't think the Stkz. would have been reused for the V4, or does anyone know something to the contrary? 83.250.197.97 10:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stammkennzeichen KE+SW belongs to V4, there was never a Me 163 A V1! V1 is the DFS 194. Me 163 A V2 and V3 were used for strength tests. The V4 was the first flying prototype.--HDP 13:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stoff[edit]

Hellmuth Walter, in a paper on rocket engine development calls the hydrazine/methanol mixure "M-Stoff" not "C-Stoff". I'm skeptical about the accuracy of list of stoffs. DonPMitchell (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Stoff is hydrazine/methanol/water with potassium-copper-cyanide as catalyst.--HDP (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying the Me 163 section[edit]

Prior to my edit, that section contained 3 full paragraphs of direct quotation. We cannot and should not quote so much information from any source. I just cut out all but the first two paragraphs to make the section conform to policy; however, others can certainly come back and re-add some of that info, as long a it is summarized and put into our own words. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Ayyway, such info in detail is generally beyond the scope of WP aircraft articles, and should probably be limited to one or two paragraphs in the Design section. - BilCat (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me-163:s nickname[edit]

Messerschmitt Me-163 "Komet" is also known by its nickname: "Power-Egg" in German, "Kraft-Ei". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari-69 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that asserts that? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Finnish: that means "Voimamuna" - term "muna" has also other, like sexual meanings, not so harsh or rough. I'm adding a link herein: http://dbpedia.org/page/Messerschmitt_Me_163Ari-69 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This also is such a reliant source: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_163Ari-69 (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & Pronunciations[edit]

Both of the pronunciation notes 1 and 2 are incorrect.

Note 1 would properly be "Messer-shmit Koh-met". A double S in the German language continues to sound like the English pronunciation and would not be pronounced as a Z sound.

Note 2 would properly be "Pay-nah-meen-deh". The closest the English language can come to the German ü would be the double e sound as in the words "bee" or "keep". The actual pronuncation is somewhere between an "oo" and "ee" sound. The "de" at the end of Peenemümde would be a "deh" and not a "dah" sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearODice (talk • contribs) 07:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe[edit]

...is not the right name of the german air-force in 1988.--85.183.157.76 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's German for "German Air Force", what else would it be? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-1 and B-1a variants[edit]

According to Smith, J. Richard, Messerchmitt: An Aircraft Album. New York: Arco, 1971:

"Later in 1943 the first 'powered egg' (as the Me 163B was nicknamed) was delivered to EK 16. The operation Komets were originally equipped with two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in the wing roots under the designation Me 163Ba-1.... The operational squadrons were now equipped with the Me 163B-1a which differed from the earlier model in being equipped with two 30 mm MK 108 cannons, a Revi 16B gunsight and full armour protection [emphasis added]." (pp. 87-88)

So, that gives us another source for the "powered egg" designation, and resolves the ambiguity of the B-series designations. Interestingly, it omits any mention of the B-0 pre-production model, simply saying: "The pre-production aircraft all bore Versuchs numbers, the last recorded being the Me 163 V40. Aside from the B-series aircraft, a small batch of ten Me 163A unpowered gliders were built by Wolf Hirth for training purposes." (p. 87)

I didn't want to jump in and make the change, but I hope this information can be put to use. Cheers. Sacxpert (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mixed-up B-0 pre-production and B-1 production aircraft, the former with 2cm and the latter with 3cm cannon. The small a/b letters were typically used for different engine types/manufacturers like on the Me 262 with a for Jumo and b for BMW. Similar info is in the article as well. --Denniss (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read what the article said about small letters, and they were used for all sorts of things. In the Bf 110G-4, for example, a/b/c/d designations indicated different radar equipment. There was little rationalization of German sub-variant designations, and the Me 163 is another example. It's also possible that this author is correct. From what I read in the article, it sounds to me like wiki-editor speculation as to the source of the various designations. This, at least, is a valid, researched source. 12:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
There was no small letter added to the aircraft version just because of different radar installation. That's a common myth also plaguing the Ju 88 article. They sometimes got a small letter or roman numeral painted onto the nose to show different radar generations or usable frequency bands. Not everything written in books is true, especially on very old ones, but this also applies to Wikipedia. As several authors tend to collect info from other books and rebrand this as new book one has to be careful upon selecting sources. Recent research on german ww2 tanks revealed lots of myths and incorrect information in old, older and even recent/reprinted books, thank to Thomas L. Jentz and others to discover this. --Denniss (talk)
Of course books make mistakes. Naturally, such errors are compounded if a second author uses the first as a reference. That said, if one asserts that the books are incorrect, then we need other sources to prove they are wrong, and those sources need to be superior in terms of their references. It's not enough to simply assert "such-and-such an author is wrong" merely because someone read something contrary somewhere, especially if one is not a published author oneself. The matter is doubly tricky today, since online sources assert so many things based on flimsy evidence, speculation, or out-and-out fabrication, such as the Jagdpanzer Krokodil controversy. So, in this case, if the assertion is that Smith is wrong about the Ba-1 and B-1a designations, find sources that disprove this based on specific evidence, either from factory memoranda or official RLM documents. That's all I'm saying. I'm not wedded to any particular author's claims. Sacxpert (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allgemeine Geräteliste Me 163 B-0 (July 1943): MG 151/20 up to V45, MK 108 from V46. Me 163B manual from August 1944: no subversion stated, just MK 108 or MG 151/20 as armament. Me 163B weapons manual of May 1944 is for MK 108 only. [1] has some Me 163 entries but states only B-0 and B. Conversion section is of more interest as it shows some protos with BMW engine instead of Walther engine. --Denniss (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Germans who flew the Me 163[edit]

The "Flying the Me 163" section of the article only mentions a flight by Eric Brown. The "Delta-wing testing" section of Roland Falk's page mention that this other British test pilot had experience flying the Me 163. A seemingly good source is mentioned but I do not have access to it. Any opinion about whether we should include this information here ? Anyone has access to the cited source ? --Jean-Marc Liotier (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RAF had a ban on both flying and even fuelling the Me 163, because of scare mongering over the propellant's hazards (the RN OTOH adopted submarines with similar fuel chemistry and even commissioned them into service). Several UK test pilots flew the 163 as an unpowered glider, but AFAIK only Brown (famously quick to find and fly new aircraft types before anyone told him not to) managed to fly one under power, before he heard (sic) the letter of the ban. If you haven't yet, read Brown's own books. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Allies issued a ban on the fuels used - C Stoff and T Stoff - and ordered any remaining stocks found destroyed when encountered, as they were considered highly dangerous in untrained ,i.e., Allied, hands - which they were. Soon after hearing of this Brown managed to find a recently-surrendered Luftwaffe operational airfield with a number of intact Me 163B's, fuel stocks, and several Luftwaffe ground crews members who were willing - after he signed a waiver releasing them from any responsibility for his safety - to fuel and supervise the ground operations of an airworthy Komet while fuel was still available. Before the Me 163B flight Brown flew as a glider a non-operational Me 163A that was also present on the airfield to familiarise himself with the flight characteristics. Brown then flew the Me 163B from the ground using the rocket engine as-designed - described by him as IIRC "like being in charge of a runaway train" or something similar. Soon after this the remaining fuel stocks were as ordered, destroyed.
Other Allied pilots flew the Komet - Brown himself flew the RAE's Komet VF241 as a glider several times back at Farnborough - but only as gliders. Brown is therefore the only Allied pilot to ever have flown a Komet in powered flight, as it was intended to be flown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.50 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerously Unstable?[edit]

I've seen some articles that talk about the instability of swept wing designs and of the Me-163 in particular. Maybe there should be some investigation of this issue and something in the article to point this out. For example:

"Designers in Britain and America swiftly emulated Alexander Lippisch’s tailless rocket-powered Me-163 Komet, building similar (though jet-powered) designs, the de Havilland D.H.108 Swallow and Northrop X-4 Bantam. In service, though, the Me-163 had proved dangerously unstable, as fluctuations in the wing’s center of pressure triggered poorly damped longitudinal pitching, imposing high structural loads. (Pilots compared it to riding over a washboard road.) The Swallow killed experienced test pilot Geoffrey de Havilland (son of the firm’s founder) on September 27, 1946. Flying low over the Thames estuary at Mach 0.875, the aircraft abruptly pitched out of control and broke up." - Supersonic Revolution, R.P. Hallion, HistoryNet, 5/11/11. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This washboard quote he mentions seems to be attributed to the Northrop X-4 in other articles. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hallion may be inaccurate here. An article in Flying Magazine (Jan 1950) seems to support the notion that the Me-163 behaved quite well. "The plane is said to stall normally and also is reported to be non-spinnable because of the action of the tip slots." Lippisch seems to have been very thoughtful about the wing design. The one criticism of this and his delta-wing proposals was that he did not yet understand the value of thin wings. That was an idea I associated with the NACA, but I haven't researched that deeply. DonPMitchell (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, Eric "Winkle" Brown seemed to think the Me 163 was quite pleasant to fly, and had very good handling qualities. IIARC, he said that at the time Lippisch was the only one who had understood how to properly design a tailless swept-wing aircraft, and that the 163 was the only one that he had flown that flew well and was enjoyable to fly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The main way this article doesn't meet the Good Article Criteria is lack of citations and sources. The Land 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 21:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

why do all some non-american planes have those "being shot down" gun camera pics[edit]

while the american ones don't 94.154.66.240 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an exact answer, but images taken by American soldiers in the course of their duty are automatically in the public domain as a work of the U.S. federal government (see Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works). Such images are therefore available to be freely used on projects like Wikipedia. That may not be the case for photographs taken by soldiers of other nations, such as Germany or Japan, if such images even survive to this day. clpo13(talk) 22:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong The government does copyright images and they cannot be used without permission. However most are not but blanket statements are a fools analogy that should be best avoided. 172.56.13.28 (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There may be rare exeptions to US federal government images being in the public domain, but it's certainly not a "fools analogy", whatever that is supposed to mean in this context. If anyone can find copyright free images of US aircraft being shot down, they are welcome to add them where relevent. - BilCat (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Biil for clearing up the confusion over use of non copyright images. 172.56.13.28 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to the OP: There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia about non- American aircraft, and and only a very small percentage have photos of them being shot down. So please stop spamming this comment "everywhere". - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style[edit]

I found a number of references missing or inconsistent. My intentions were not motivated by changing the citation style, in consequence I do not consider this change to be in violation of WP:CITEVAR. Cheers. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD welcomes bold editing, but notes that the proper process when challenged is to discuss it, not edit war it back in immediately before that discussion has even begun. Intentions or not, that is a citation style that did not exist in one single instance in the article up until your mass conversion. The inconsistency, in my opinion, was marginal - a vast majority of the citations, close onto 80 percent, were formatted identically in a style you have converted away from - I should know as I added 25% of them recently. Just because it is not your preferred style does not make it invalid or non-established. Kyteto (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyteto: Sorry, I have no intentions of creating an edit war, nor do I want to enforce a new style. You make assumptions on my motivations which are not true. I chose this style of citation because this style has advantages and allows any user to find errors in the references (not saying that they were caused by you nor that they were intentional, it can happen). By reverting, your re-introduced numerous citations which now point nowhere. I recommend you familiarize yourself with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, it would also assist you in detecting the errors you re-introduced again. Good luck MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kyteto. WP:CITEVAR applies. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are inconsistent cite styles present, the most equitable solution is to standardize on the style used by the very first editor to add a citation, however many years ago that might have been, as that style should have governed all subsequent cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: I am not sure what you are saying. In my view, the article, in its current state, uses an inconsistent cite style. I acknowledge that it does not yet make use of the {{sfn}} template which I had introduced to fix and unify the citation style. Are you saying that sticking to the preexisting inconsistent style takes precedence to introducing a newer sfn-based style which allows users to detect and fix errors? Is the article not in a better state with citation errors fixed even if it does require consolidation of styles? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MisterBee1966: I do lots of copy editing these days as I'm a shift worker and don't have the continuity I used to have for articles. I rarely get criticised for citevar but I only really know sfn so that's what I use to standardise citations; perhaps I'm lucky that no-one reads these articles. I would suggest that Mr Bee has a point about the usefulness of sfn to expose cite errors for remedy. Kyteto and Mztourist are right that the original style should be kept unless there is consensus for a change but what has this done to the article? Are they so committed to the non sfn style that they won't agree to a change if they won't need to do the work? Keith-264 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: Yes, that is my perception. I had done the change, I had fixed the missing references, and I was reverted purely on account of WP:CITEVAR. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lets go beyond assumptions about my motions, which may seem to be extremely pessimistic - you could just ask me. I would be overjoyed to accept a new citation style for this article, and am in no way 'so committed' to the non sfn style - however, we're having trouble even agreeing if this is, or isn't, a citevar issue. If we cannot get a consensus on that, it seems that insufficient dialogue has occurred before racing ahead with conversion. The work is all fine and good, as long as we stop flipping two fingers to policy in the process. Good work doesn't overpower the need to do things in the long established and agreed manner. We shouldn't be converting without discussion, and we shouldn't press ahead if we cannot even agree if policy does or doesn't apply. The ends don't justify the means; we can deliver the same result without steamrolling by adhering to due process. If a consensus emerges for 'sfn', then citevar says we should convert. If not, it says the original style should remain. I'm trying to be fair and act no further than what policy would expect. Are we so committed to conversion that we cannot even discuss this? Kyteto (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyteto: I am sorry if I triggered the wrong impression, and yes, I am very open to discussion. So if you and others feel that my attempt at fixing the referencing errors is a good way forward, I will gladly implement the change. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the references that were radded and then removed in the back and forth - hopefully this is OK?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet&oldid=1209016216"