Talk:Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet

message: 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)
thread_title: Identities

message: 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)
thread_title: Flight Duration

message: 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)
thread_title: Angle and Climb Speed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Splitting off japanese variants 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why it didn't do more for their war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling and Legal Issues in "Survivors" Paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: The event was also described by Mano Ziegler in Rocket Pilot.  —QuicksilverT @ 04:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel problems 

message: 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)
thread_title: St Athan

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Me 163B-0.jpg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Me 163A-1.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title: Identities

message: 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)
replies: text: C-Stoff is hydrazine/methanol/water with potassium-copper-cyanide as catalyst.--HDP (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoff 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Flying the Me 163 section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source that asserts that? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This also is such a reliant source: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_163Ari-69 (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me-163:s nickname 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notes & Pronunciations 

message: ...is not the right name of the german air-force in 1988.--85.183.157.76 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Luftwaffe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dangerously Unstable? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140517032700/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBbMaxsTh8c&NR=1 to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBbMaxsTh8c&NR=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 21:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: while the american ones don't 94.154.66.240 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  why do 
all
 some non-american planes have those "being shot down" gun camera pics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: I agree with Kyteto.  WP:CITEVAR applies. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Reference style