- #1
Williamgkv
- 2
- 0
Can someone tell me how a German plane Messerschmitt Me 163 lands? Because I found out that this plane lands without landing gears.
How a Messerschmitt Me 163 plane lands?
- Thread starter Williamgkv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Plane
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the landing mechanism of the Messerschmitt Me 163, a German aircraft known for landing without traditional landing gear. Participants explore the implications and mechanics of this design choice, as well as comparisons to modern aircraft landing systems.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Technical explanation
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- Some participants note that the Me 163 lands using skids instead of landing gear.
- Others argue that while planes can land without landing gear, it is generally preferable to have them.
- One participant mentions that the Me 163 often exploded upon touchdown, suggesting that this design was a significant risk.
- A later reply discusses the Me 163's design as a stopgap measure, highlighting its limited endurance and the expectation of dead stick landings.
- Another participant questions why modern jets are not designed to land without landing gear, suggesting potential cost and fuel savings.
- Some participants reference historical designs and modifications of other aircraft that utilized skids or tail skids.
- There is mention of the Me 263, which was anticipated to have regular landing gear but never reached production.
- One participant explains that modern jets are significantly heavier than the Me 163, leading to higher landing speeds and sink rates that would make skid landings impractical.
- Another participant notes that landing on skids is more effective on water and discusses the challenges of maneuvering aircraft with skids in confined spaces.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of views on the effectiveness and practicality of landing without traditional landing gear. There is no consensus on the merits of this approach, and the discussion includes both supportive and critical perspectives.
Contextual Notes
Participants reference various design considerations, historical context, and the limitations of using skids for landing, but these points remain unresolved and are subject to differing interpretations.
Who May Find This Useful
Individuals interested in aviation history, aircraft design, and the mechanics of landing systems may find this discussion relevant.
- #2
Borek
Mentor
- 29,204
- 4,626
Skids are enough, aren't they.
- #3
SteamKing
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 12,828
- 1,673
Planes will land with or without landing gear, although the former is preferable.
- #4
Q_Goest
Science Advisor
- 3,014
- 42
They don't need landing gear because they explode on touch down.
- #5
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
- 9,864
- 4,896
and often on takeoff.Q_Goest said:
there are documentaries... they just belly land on a retractable skid.
http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/me163.htm
- #6
Williamgkv
- 2
- 0
hmm then why the modern jets aren't designed in that way? It would probably save some money and fuel^^
- #7
etudiant
Gold Member
- 1,239
- 128
The Me 163 was a stopgap design, based on glider prototypes, with the rocket engine added in
The plane had only about 10 minutes endurance, the expectation was that the landing would be dead stick.
As the residual fuel sometimes exploded from the landing impact, powered landings were no less risky.
A follow on, the Me 263 was expected to have regular landing gear, but never made it into hardware.
Modern jets weigh 10-20 times as much as the Me 163, which at less than 10,000 pounds fully loaded was truly svelte. Their wings are not 10-20 times bigger, so they have much higher sink rates and landing speeds.
Landing on skids, even if hydraulically damped, would break their airframes. The USAF did experiment with landing on air cushions deployed from the aircraft, but the effort did not go forward.
The plane had only about 10 minutes endurance, the expectation was that the landing would be dead stick.
As the residual fuel sometimes exploded from the landing impact, powered landings were no less risky.
A follow on, the Me 263 was expected to have regular landing gear, but never made it into hardware.
Modern jets weigh 10-20 times as much as the Me 163, which at less than 10,000 pounds fully loaded was truly svelte. Their wings are not 10-20 times bigger, so they have much higher sink rates and landing speeds.
Landing on skids, even if hydraulically damped, would break their airframes. The USAF did experiment with landing on air cushions deployed from the aircraft, but the effort did not go forward.
- #8
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 6,999
- 299
Landing planes on skids was not a new idea for the Me 163, but it works best if you land on water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaplane
Some old aircraft like the de Haviland Tiger Moth had a tail skid rather than a third wheel, but some have been modified with a tail wheel for use on paved runways rather than grass.
The "only" problem with the skid is that if you want to turn the plane around in a restricted space, you have to get out of the cockpit and lift the tail off the ground.
Some old aircraft like the de Haviland Tiger Moth had a tail skid rather than a third wheel, but some have been modified with a tail wheel for use on paved runways rather than grass.
The "only" problem with the skid is that if you want to turn the plane around in a restricted space, you have to get out of the cockpit and lift the tail off the ground.
Similar threads
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 9 ·
High School
Inertia and flying
- · Replies 23 ·
- · Replies 18 ·
- · Replies 4 ·
- · Replies 12 ·
- · Replies 28 ·
- · Replies 4 ·