In article ,
"Peter von Tresckow" wrote:

"Berry" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Evan Ludeman wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:36 am, "Peter von Tresckow" wrote:
The thing probably isn't much worse than a 2-22 :-)

Anyone know thae actual best L/D for a Komet?

Pete

No idea, but it obviously isn't horrible. The prototypes (less
engines) were aero towed during the development program.

Someone built a non-powered full-scale replica a few years ago. It was
lighter than the original and I don't know if it used the same airfoils
or not. The builder flew it as his personal sailplane. There were/are
videos on the net of it flying and even thermalling. I think it has
since gone to a museum.

XCOR Aerospace, the outfit that put rocket engines on a Long EZ, was
offering to build rocket powered full scale Me-163 replicas a while
back. I don't think they got any takers.

LOL I just found a few references to the L/D of the ME-163 being around 17.
IIRC that's the same as a 2-22 :-)

Granted the 163 probably had a much higher minimum sink though.

Peter

Found the link to the flying replica:
http://robdebie.home.xs4all.nl/me163/kurz.htm