Popular
Wisdom vs. a Test Pilot’s Experiences
1. Rocket engines would explode without
warning.
RO: engines were reliable and relatively safe and
were adjusted so as to shut down in the event of an imbalance in fuel
flow. If there was a problem in engine performance, it related to
shutdowns, not explosions. The only instances of engines blowing were in
early testing of prototypes or when they had been damaged in battle or by
accident.
2. Leaking fuel could turn pilots to jelly,
particularly if the plane flipped over.
RO: pilots, me
included, survived overturned Komets, and an overturned ship would not
necessarily leak fuel into the cockpit. When fuel contacted organic
material, including skin, it ignited after only a few seconds. Our
protective nylon suits would not ignite but were porous, and fuel could
sop through to the skin.
3. Forward-mounted flaps were
necessary to counter a negative pitching moment from the trailing-edge
flaps.
RO: the TE flaps were trim flaps only, and the
deployment of the forward-mounted underwing flaps did not cause a pitch
change.
4. The Komet’s dive to speeds
resulting in compressibility were often fatal.
RO: no
fatalities resulted from this, to my knowledge. The Komets in such dives
recovered after reaching a lower altitude that neutralized the
compressibility problems.
5. As many as 15 percent of Komets
broke up while pulling out of high-speed dives where compressibility had
became a factor.
RO: no such fatalities to my
knowledge.
6. Stall characteristics were
abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter
pilots.
RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots
that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was
immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally
designed to be docile for low-time pilots.
7. Only experienced pilots could
adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.
RO: the
plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for
low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick.
8. The
Komet was not a successful fighter but future development would have made
it a formidable interceptor.
RO: The 263—the next
incarnation—had retractable landing gear, a pressurized cabin and
considerably more fuel, but it never got beyond the early prototype stage.
I agree the 163B was not a successful fighter. Several hundred
163Bs were built,
but only 91 were operational as of December 31,
1944, and only 16 kills were attributed to 163s during the War. Note,
however, that while under power or in a fast glide, the 163 could fly
circles around any other fighter of its time.
In fact, the true
contribution of the Komet was to high-speed flight as evidenced by the
success of the delta-wing Concorde and delta-wing space shuttle. These
Lippisch planform concepts live on today.
| 
