ME-262 fuel(s)
Keith B Rosenberg
Dierich (translated into English). In it the author states that some ME-262
pilots were poisoned, and one, with slight burns on his hands, was killed,
by the fuel used after their jets had been hit in combat. This apparently
started in November and December of 1944. This begs a few questions.
What fuel was being used?
Were there toxic additives?
Did the fuel change just before November 1944?
Perhaps the fuel for the Me-262s was more complex than thought.
Keith Rosenberg
--
Keith B Rosenberg
UK Reb
The fuel for that was extremely volatile,the fumes could actually dissolve
human flesh so the pilots had to wear special protective suits.It was also
susceptible to hard knocks,and many planes were destroyed on landing when
surplus fuel detonated when the aircraft touched down.
"Keith B Rosenberg" <en...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:bo3qe9$2bsq$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
--
Michael Emrys
en...@pacbell.net wrote on 11/2/03 12:46 PM:
> Perhaps the fuel for the Me-262s was more complex than thought.
Perhaps there is some confusion with the Me-163. The fuel for it was very
dangerous stuff. Some of it (there were two parts) was unstable and highly
corrosive, not to say toxic.
Michael
--
Odd Erling N. Eriksen
> What fuel was being used?
Qualified guess: hydrogen peroxide for oxidizer, some easily available
volatile liquid for fuel. Hydrogen peroxide is not toxic in itself, but
when concentrated (As it would be in order to save weight and improve
efficiency) it is rather unstable. Decomposition results in water (Well,
steam, actually!) and free oxygen, which then is used for combustion.
Also, hydrogen peroxide is rather caustic. It is definitely not something
you'd like to get on your skin. That may account for the burns described.
> Were there toxic additives?
-Likely. The hydrogen peroxide would need some stabilizer, more likely than
not to be toxic, and in order to have the combustion go fast enough, you'd
need some sort of catalyst as well - may be toxic.
Hydrazine is a common ingredient in rocket propellants, and is highly toxic.
It may have been included in the Me-262's fuel to improve engine efficiency.
Note that this is a guess, not a proven fact.
--
73 de LB1LF
Odd Erling, ARK
Famous last words #4: Trust me, I know what I'm doing!
--
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> susceptible to hard knocks,and many planes were destroyed on landing when
> surplus fuel detonated when the aircraft touched down.
Urban myth.
Popular Wisdom vs. a Test Pilot^Òs Experiences
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_5.asp
Answers:
Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz
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.
--
Keith B Rosenberg
>
> Perhaps there is some confusion with the Me-163. The fuel for it was very
> dangerous stuff. Some of it (there were two parts) was unstable and highly
> corrosive, not to say toxic.
The book is pretty clear that it was the fuel used in the Me-262. Other
sources say that the fuel used in the Me-262 was a type of diesel, but with
the extreme fuel shortages at the time, the Luftwaffe may have used other
fuels and/or additives. The Me-163 was not mentioned in the book so I assume
that the squadron never flew the Me-163.
Are there any books on the fuels and other petroleum products used during
WWII?
Keith
--
Michael Emrys
en...@pacbell.net wrote on 11/4/03 9:07 AM:
> The book is pretty clear that it was the fuel used in the Me-262.
Unlikely. In all the accounts I've read, it's never been mentioned. On the
other hand, it's nearly always mentioned in connection with the Me-163. BTW,
there was a later derivative of the Me-163 called the Me-263 that used the
same kinds of fuel. I wonder if that is where the confusion comes in. In any
event, I would be curious to know where he got his information and whether
he checked it qagainst any other sources.
> Other sources say that the fuel used in the Me-262 was a type of diesel...
That's what I've *always* heard.
It just seems to me that if the fuels of the 262 were so dangerous and
required such careful handling, some mention of the fact would have been
made in all the previous accounts I've encountered over the last 45 years.
Michael
--
R ESTEY
The ME 262 used a medium weight hydrocarbon fuel similar to diesel fuel. The
fuel was a synthetic made from coal by the Fischer-Tropsch process where the
coal was first converted to a mix of Carbon monoxide and Hydrogen by blasting
steam into red hot coal bed. By adjusting the ratio of cabon monoxide and
hydrogen while passing at high temperature over a catylst the gas was converted
to diesel fuel. The author was probably confusing the fuel used by the ME163
rocket fighter. The Me 163 burned a mixture of 57% methyl alcohol, 30%
hydrazine hydrate and 13% water as the fuel, 80% Hydrogen peroxide was the
oxidizer (as a rocket the ME163 carried both fuel and oxidizer, the Me 262 as
a jet used ordinary air (compressed by the turbine) as its oxygen source).
Hydrogen peroxide is very touchy - it will decompose (violently!) in contact
with various metals (copper, nickel, manganese)and containers must be free of
all traces of these metals. Also in contact with organic materials will
spontaneous ignite. The fuels used by the Me163 are hypergolic - explode on
contact. There were many accidents when landing Me163 the residual fuels
would mix and explode. Heard of one case where peroxide tank ruptured on
landing and pilot was literally dissolved when doused by the peroxide.
--
Keith B Rosenberg
>
> Unlikely. In all the accounts I've read, it's never been mentioned. On the
> other hand, it's nearly always mentioned in connection with the Me-163.
BTW,
> there was a later derivative of the Me-163 called the Me-263 that used the
> same kinds of fuel. I wonder if that is where the confusion comes in. In
any
> event, I would be curious to know where he got his information and whether
> he checked it qagainst any other sources.
>
> > Other sources say that the fuel used in the Me-262 was a type of
diesel...
>
> That's what I've *always* heard.
>
> It just seems to me that if the fuels of the 262 were so dangerous and
> required such careful handling, some mention of the fact would have been
> made in all the previous accounts I've encountered over the last 45 years.
I also had never heard of anything like the statement in the
book. By asking the question here I was after information
and also questioning the statement. I am aware of the nature
of the fuel used in the Me-163 and its volatile and dangerous
nature. But since KG-51 never flew the Me163, it is unlikely
the fuels for that aircraft was meant. Specifically the paragraph
says "The cause was fuel used for the gas turbines...".
Leather protective clothing was issued. (Page 92 in my copy
of Kampfgeschwader 'Edelweiss') It also says that this
problem happened to KG-51 which makes it even more
unlikely that the Me-163 was meant. The Me-163 is not
even mentioned in the book as far as I can tell.
There is also the possibility that the cause of the problem
was incorrectly determined at the time.
There has been very little written of the fuels used by the
3rd Reich or any of the combatants. A lot of the aviation
fuel refined for the Luftwaffe late in the war was synthetic.
The Britich got 100 octane fuel just in time for the Battle
of Britain. And I have read a reference to some 150 or
200 octane fuel being tested by the Allies. The Japanese
are also reported to have refined aviation fuel from pine
roots very late in the war.
It is clear to me is that fuel technology was not static during
WWII and there is the possibility that the Luftwaffe deployed
some dangerous fuels and/or additives just to keep planes
in the air.
Note that this book contains an appendix containing flight
procedures for the Me-262.
Keith
--
Merlin Dorfman
...
: The ME 262 used a medium weight hydrocarbon fuel similar to diesel fuel. The
: fuel was a synthetic made from coal by the Fischer-Tropsch process where the
: coal was first converted to a mix of Carbon monoxide and Hydrogen by blasting
: steam into red hot coal bed.
...
It was my understanding that the Me-262 was comparatively little
used during the closing weeks/months of the war due to a shortage of
fuel. There is an anecdote about a Luftwaffe base commander who
complained that he had an airfield full of jet fighters but only enough
fuel to get his staff car to a meeting and back.
Yet if the fuel was synthetic, there should not have been a
shortage of it as there was with gasoline, etc.
--
R ESTEY
> > > The book is pretty clear that it was the fuel used in the Me-262.
>
> I also had never heard of anything like the statement in the
> book. By asking the question here I was after information
> and also questioning the statement. I am aware of the nature
> of the fuel used in the Me-163 and its volatile and dangerous
> nature. But since KG-51 never flew the Me163, it is unlikely
> the fuels for that aircraft was meant. Specifically the paragraph
> says "The cause was fuel used for the gas turbines...".
> Leather protective clothing was issued. (Page 92 in my copy
> of Kampfgeschwader 'Edelweiss') It also says that this
> problem happened to KG-51 which makes it even more
> unlikely that the Me-163 was meant. The Me-163 is not
> even mentioned in the book as far as I can tell.
>
developed RATO (Rocket Assist Take Off) - small rocket pods strapped on to
aircraft to give extra thrust during takeoffs. The units burned a mixture
of fuels like the ME 163 - Methyl alcohol/Hydrazine with Hydrogen peroxide.
The units were jettisoned right after launch - some came equipped with
parachutes to prevent damage. As stated earlier the fuel/oxidizer combinations
were very toxic and corrosive, not to mention explosive! Accidents were common
and burns caused by the liquids splashing onto skin.
--
Nik Simpson
You are neglecting several key points
1. Allied control of the air in the closing weeks/months meant that any
attempt to move fuel from the point of manufacture to the airfields was
likely to end in a large ball of flame as the tanker exploded.
2. The road and rail system in Germany on which the tankers might have
travelled had been bombed to hell and back making movement of large
quantities of fuel very difficult.
3. The factories that produced the synthetic fuel had also been heavily
bombed at regular intervals making the initial production of the synthetic
fuel equally difficult.
In short, it doesn't matter what fuel the 262 burned if you can't produce it
and you can't transport it.
--
Nik Simpson
--
Merlin Dorfman
: Merlin Dorfman wrote:
...
[My statement that if the Me-262 used synthetic fuels, the lack
of "natural" fuels should not have affected it.]
[Nik's reply that manufacture and transport in Germany late in
the war were in very poor condition due to air attacks.]
In fact, I suspect that the shortage of "natural" fuels was at
least as much due to disruption of refineries and transport as to
destruction, and eventually loss, of the sources of crude petroleum.
--
Robert Sveinson
> > > Perhaps the fuel for the Me-262s was more complex than thought.
> >
> > Perhaps there is some confusion with the Me-163. The fuel for it was
very
> > dangerous stuff. Some of it (there were two parts) was unstable and
highly
> > corrosive, not to say toxic.
>
> The book is pretty clear that it was the fuel used in the Me-262.
From "German Aircraft Industry and Production 1933-1945
by Ferenc A Vajda & Peter Dancey.
the following comment.....Jet aircraft could use low grade kerosene
but the production of this diminished slowly. Kerosene that was
available
had to be distributed amongst the tanks, military vehicles, and
submarines.
Page 98
--