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

How to put this...if I had the tech manual, the fuel and oxidizer, the permits and immortality, I still wouldn't attempt to fire it up. Too many ways to have more fun than that with propellant systems these days.

============================================== Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked! "The original frugal ponder" ~~~~ } ~~~~~~ } ~~~~~~~ }

Sure!

Hydrazine and methanol, according to Wikipedia. The methanol is no problem; the hydrazine is considered a hazardoussubstance and probably regulated to some extent. (VERY hazardous - i've read reports of what happened in WWII when pilots were splashed with the stuff).

Ah, there's the rub. These blew up pretty regularly 60 years ago when they were new. I don't even want to be in the same COUNTY with you when you try this one...

In my much younger days I knew the Merrerschmidt test pilot, Karl Bauer. I was very young then but I do remember hearing him give a series of lectures at this aviation historical group my dad belong to, about his flying experiences during WWII. Each week a different person gave his experiences during aviations greatest and worst moments.

Karl told us that one of his friends was killed by the Komet when it crashed on landing. The plane flipped over and the fuel cell broken open. By the time the ground crew/medics arrive the pilot had the back of his head dissolved by the fuel. Dad and I talked about this years later and it seems Karl refused to fly the Komet. Probably the only Me design he didn't fly.

Point of interest, Dad told me that the Gigant flying transport originally was a glider. But after a very nasty crash in which over 100+ paras were killed and four aircraft crashed it was converted to engines. Probably was that the pilot didn't have a direct linkage to the engine. It seems in the wings were the flight engineers and the pilot spoke into speaking tubes giving orders about power settings. This was almost as dangerous as the glider idea and Karl complained bitterly. Finally the pilot had some direct power control on the engines.

Really interesting man, saddly he died when a nurse screwed up a put an air bubble into his vein. The bubble hit his heart and that was it. I remember dad crying when he heard the news. Karl was very respected by the historical community.

a - no b - The origial fuels were, IIRC, hypergolic and ignited on contact. I think tit was a hydrazine and alcohol mix. I also rember reading that you almost had to wear a space suit to fuel the beast.. c - no (see b)

I was lucky enough to get a good tour of the Garber Facility back in the late '80s. One of the things they emphasized was that "museum quality" and "airworthy" were two, very different things.

This would be a cool conversation piece. Or an instrument of self-immolation. Owne'rs choice, I guess.

Bill Kambic

I have had hydrazine on me already and it amaounted to nithing more than having water splashed on you. I hgot dosed with it my a dumb a$$ed fuel troop when he was working on a EPU on an F-16C, and two others also got it all over them..Of course the place went into a panic, they made us strip down on the flight line, butt nekid, the fire department came and hosed us down and sprayed us with chlorox, carried us wrapped up in sheets to the base hospital, where they washed us and washed us some more and took blood tests, and continued to take blood tests for over 6 months just about every week or two.......It did not burn or sting or anything else it was like water....

For hydraz>===>===

============================================== Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked! "The original frugal ponder" ~~~~ } ~~~~~~ } ~~~~~~~ }

Thats only the fuel or C-stoff which was 57% Methanol, 30% hydrazine hydrate and 13% water. The killer was the oxidiser, t-stoff which was 80% concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This compound causes spontaneous combustion when in contact with almost any fuel, including human flesh.

Keith

Oh yes indeedy.

The Me-163 killed far more of its own pilots than it did the enemy and many died horribly in fuel accidents and when their rocket motors exploded.

There are plenty of relatively safe modern rocket motors available, running a 60 year old Walter rocket is just an expensive way of committing suicide.

Keith

Do yourself a favor and first read the history of the ME-163, especially about pilots who were burned to death by the rocket motor's fuel!

end

-- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 163 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try

Mount it to the back of a car, get some fuel for it, make sure there's people with cameras about, and you'll be a living legend in DAFUL :-)

Juergen Nieveler

One story mentioned a lot is of a pilot less (or more?) lucky - by the time the medics arrived only the bones were left.

The glider was the Me321, the version with engines the Me323. Problem with the glider was that it needed 3 Ju88 to tow it - as an alternative the He111Z was developed, which was 2 He111 joined by a wing element with a 5th engine on it.

ISTR that the Dornier Do-X had a similar arrangement, correct?

Juergen Nieveler

No, you'd be a DEAD "legend". You'd probably qualify for a "Darwin Award" nomination.

I think "burned" is the wrong word. More like "dissolved", I'm afraid...

Juergen Nieveler

Safer to buy a replica:

a) it would be very dumb to do it without a major overhaul and an extensive study of the engine....actually, might be worthwhile to make a replica with modern materials and run that. b) a permit? What is a permit going to do for you? You don't need no stinkin' permit...unless you really need a permit...then you get one. c) there is risk if everything, but historically speaking, firing one up and documenting on video/audio for posterity would be very worthwhile. With the right people (definitely not the mythbusters) taking the proper precautions, running this engine, while a major undertaking, under controled conditions ought to be tried....but only if you are going to do it under near lab conditions. Just my opinion...it isn't an ordinary "motor".

BeepBeep wrote:

A catalyst, usually either calcium permamgante or potassium permanganate.

C-stoff, early engines used to Z-stoff to make the T-stoff dissassociate into steam and O2. This was the so called 'cold' engine. The same reaction was used to drive the turbine fuel pump for the V-2 and the Walter turbines in the experimental type XXVI U-Boats

Two of these were briefly used as test craft by the RN post war and were nicknamed HMS Exploder and HMS Excruciator by their crews !

Keith

A note of personal experience. As a young high school student with an active interest in rockets and pyrotechnics, I fabricated a "cold" rocket engine inspired by the Walter designs. The motor used 30% Hydrogen peroxide (strongest stuff my school's chem lab had) and a catalyst composed of manganese dioxide ( I think, it was pulled out of old non-alkaline D cell batteries). Didn't make much thrust but it generated a lot of impressive steam and noise. The peroxide was nasty stuff. Even at 30% concentration, if you got any on your skin, it would be bleached white instantly and then begin to slough off.

I can remember urging my physics teacher to try to get some higher concentration of peroxide to improve the performance. Sometimes I wonder how I lived through my teens.

Mark

Any you would probably end up paying more for phone service too! (Apologies to Vonage)

JD