Me-163 Komet from Arkansas [by Klima at Apogee]

[Crawf56]

Despite other projects, I couldn't help but open this one up.

The Me-163 Komet was a German rocket powered aircraft during World War II. It had mixed success; it was difficult to fly and operate, and was not as affective against allied bombers as hoped.

But it did function, and had a few victories. It was flown by JG400, the only German fighter squadron to operate the aircraft.

This is a mainly EPO foam model, that uses a rocket motor to go up, and glide back down (similar to the real aircraft). The model requires RC control, and will likely be a bit tricky to fly.

Just playing around, I assembled the model (no glue), as shown below. Has a 30 inch wingspan, using a D3-P motor.

 

[Crawf56]

The Klima Me-163 uses 18mm motors. I thought about trying to modify the model for 24mm motors (which I already have), but I think not.

Reloadable motors and casings are available at Dynasoar Rocketry.
https://dynasoarrocketry.com/https://dynasoarrocketry.com/

 

[Crawf56]

You get actual written instructions. The picture on the cover is a Me-163 in which Wolfgang Spate flew the first operational rocket fighter sorte on May 14, 1944. Spate never made a kill in the Me-163, though he was more successful in the Me-262.

 

[Crawf56]

And here are the decals that come with the model. I think they are peel & press.

The markings are for Spate's Me-163, though his Komet did not have any unit badges on the nose. Also, there are no swastikas (Me-163's carried a swastika on the rudder).

I am not familiar with all the unit badges (top right of pic). I know the second row [blue] is the JG400 badge of a flea with a rocket. The third row [red/white/black] is possibly an unofficial JG400 symbol.

 

[Crawf56]

I am planning to model an Me-163 flown by Fritz Kelb of JG400 in early 1945. He is special in that he shot down enemy aircraft in both the Me-163 rocket fighter and the Me-262 jet fighter. He was killed in combat in April, 1945.

I strongly suggest the book, "German Jet Aces of WW2" by Osprey Publishing.

I have chosen Kelb's Me-163 because the camouflage between top and bottom is very different (grey/blue vs. green/dark green). This will help me distinguish top & bottom on this small, fast flying aircraft.

 

[aerostadt]

I see that Apogee sells this kit. It looks like a challenge. Like usual I will be following your build thread.
https://www.apogeerockets.com/Model-Rocket-Kits/Skill-Level-5-Model-Rocket-Kits/ME-163

 

[Ez2cDave]

So, basically, a "flying wing" with a Rudder.

Dave F.

 

[Crawf56]

Let's review what is in the package. This is the fuselage, rudder, and nose cone. The silver object on the right is a friction-fit motor mount.

There are plastic pieces to reinforce the bottom of the fuselage (skids). There is also a magnet to hold the canopy section in place.

 

[Crawf56]

Looking at the wing here. The black line is a Wing Spar, which must be removed, and glued back in place (maybe).

 

[Crawf56]

Well, a complication right at the start. If you look at the wing, it is not flat.

In the pic, we are looking at the Wing from the front. If you look on the left, the wing tip is "bent" up slightly. (This is actually the right wingtip.)

I will come back to this.

 

[Crawf56]

So, a little deviation from the instructions. They show the Wing Spar and the Fiberglass Stiffeners as needing to be glued in place.

But it appears they are already glued in place. But this brings up additional problems......

 

[Crawf56]

Remember what I said about the right wingtip but bent up slightly? This also lead to the Wing Spar (made of graphite) sticking out on the underside of the wing (see the blue arrow in the second pic).

 

[Crawf56]

So, I decided to sand down the spar, so it would not act as an aileron.

Now that I look back on it, I am not sure this was really necessary. But it is what I did. See the effect of sanding the graphite down; I am planning on painting the underside of the aircraft.

And I ran into another issue: the graphite rod is hollow (see the second pic). I plan to fill this in with 5-minute epoxy.

 

[Crawf56]

Meanwhile, on to the fuselage.

I decided to use 12-minute epoxy to assemble the fuselage. Started with the lower rear Fuselage, then the lower front Fuselage.

 

[Crawf56]

Attaching the tail skid. Had to sand on the bottom tail section to get the skid to fit right. Using 12-minute epoxy.

 

[Crawf56]

Front skid on the bottom of the Fuselage, and a look at both skids on the Fuselage.

 

[Crawf56]

Gluing the upper rear Fuselage together. This does not have a 'pin' molded in the foam to help align it, so I help it together while it set.

 

[lakeroadster]

Looks like a fun build. I don't get the $80 price tag though. What am I missing? Is that pretty typical for foam glider kits?

 

[Crawf56]

Looks like a fun build. I don't get the $80 price tag though. What am I missing? Is that pretty typical for foam glider kits?

Well, "Made in Germany" probably doesn't help the price. Also, I like Apogee, but they are not the cheapest.

But, I like to support companies that give extra effort. Apogee always gives a good review and information.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I found a PDF of the instructions . . . ( below ).

Dave F.

 

[Crawf56]

A few other thoughts:

The Me-163 from Klima, with a 29.13 inch wingspan, is 1/12.6 scale. And since it has a clear canopy, I will try to find a pilot.

There is no provision for a launch rod. A pic on the instructions shows is being launched from a pvc tube (?) rail (two tubes). I would say the launch angle is 10 to 20 degrees. The instructions talk about pulling up shortly after ignition. I am still thinking about this....

 

[Ez2cDave]

There is no provision for a launch rod. A pic on the instructions shows is being launched from a pvc tube (?) rail (two tubes). I would say the launch angle is 10 to 20 degrees. The instructions talk about pulling up shortly after ignition. I am still thinking about this....

Goerge Gassaway may be a good source of "inspiration" . . .

http://georgesrockets.com/GRP/LaunchGear/Glider_Tower.html

http://georgesrockets.com/GRP/LaunchGear/PadTower2011.html

Dave F.

 

[aerostadt]

A few other thoughts:

The Me-163 from Klima, with a 29.13 inch wingspan, is 1/12.6 scale. And since it has a clear canopy, I will try to find a pilot.

There is no provision for a launch rod. A pic on the instructions shows is being launched from a pvc tube (?) rail (two tubes). I would say the launch angle is 10 to 20 degrees. The instructions talk about pulling up shortly after ignition. I am still thinking about this....

Apogee shows that they made their own launch tower/pad with constricting carbon tubes. It looks like the pad launch angle is near vertical more in line with NAR requirements. They used an 18 mm reloadable D-motor in order to get a higher lift-off thrust.

 

[Grog6]

Now there's an interesting historical rocket! I wonder what the FAA would say if you tried to register one of those at a Vintage aircraft event! Nitric and peroxide, IIRC.
They recommended not landing until you were out of fuels, lol.

 

[burkefj]

I was at NSL when they tried to maiden this using a D-20 or D-24 I think, it was basically unflyable, really pitchy, and maybe was a bit tail heavy. At 300 grams that's way heavy for the D2.3 for anything but a pretty level takeoff, under AMA rules I just got clarification that you must follow NAR and/or Tripoli rules, so you are bound by the 45 degree max angle from vertical. Maybe a D13 would allow a more vertical take off once you have it trimmed using the slow burn motor.

The problem with komets is they can be really pitchy on boost if set up too far AFT with CG but then at burnout the CG is nose heavy and they run out of pitch authority, so you are always skirting with aft cg to help glide/flare. They have a relatively short nose moment and long tail so the motor is mounted pretty far aft relatively and small elevon surfaces don't help as much for the CG shift. Heavier motors require at least or more nose weight than the motor weight difference.

I think that if you tried a 24mm E6 conversion it would be pretty heavy for the size and the CG shift might not be trimmable with the surfaces as designed.

I hope you have better luck than they did.

Here is the best video I've seen of someone flying this, you can see it's just a wing supporting flat takeoff using pvc...I think the D2.3 would be similar to this. Looks like he's getting about 20 second post burn glide times or so.

 

[Daddyisabar]

It looks like this little beasty is a good flyer back in the Fatherland! Kids could fly in a park. What's up with Die Amerikanners? Memorize you list of stoffs and get out your fuse! Join the youth glider club. Nicht Stompen!

 

[burkefj]

I just got formal word from AMA that they require any rocket motor usage even fixed to R/C aircraft to follow NAR guidelines, ie unmodified motors(no plugging) and you must also follow the 45 degree maximum from vertical launch angle, so what they show in the video would not be permitted at an AMA insured flying site or at tripoli or nar launches, so you are limited to trying that at a super secret covert base of operations and good idea not to provide video evidence for the prosecution

 

[burkefj]

Looks like a fun build. I don't get the $80 price tag though. What am I missing? Is that pretty typical for foam glider kits?

Rocket gliders are a very niche market, I know, investment in moulding for this type of model is not cheap, you have to be able to recoupe $50K or more in mold cost over the lifetime...In the case of the kits that use depron foam I make, you are paying for something that was designed to work and is easy to put together, and for an hour of my time to hand cut, hinge, cut slots, slot body tubes, punch rb holes, modify nose cones and package everything up, but they are less expensive because I'm not investing in molding.

 

[lakeroadster]

Rocket gliders are a very niche market, I know, investment in moulding for this type of model is not cheap, you have to be able to recoupe $50K or more in mold cost over the lifetime...In the case of the kits that use depron foam I make, you are paying for something that was designed to work and is easy to put together, and for an hour of my time to hand cut, hinge, cut slots, slot body tubes, punch rb holes, modify nose cones and package everything up, but they are less expensive because I'm not investing in molding.

I learned something today, and for that, I thank you.

 

[Crawf56]

I found a PDF of the instructions . . . ( below ).

Dave F.

Yes, at quick glance, this matches what I have.