Talk:T-Stoff

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Military history: Aviation / Technology / European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Unsigned comment[edit]

T-stoff is the name of a chemical weapon used in WWI by the Germans. The caustic mixture was used in the German Me163 and was 80% Hydrogen Peroxide and 20% distilled water, by weight. Phosphoric acid was one of the stabilizers used to produce this chemical. Whomever knows more, please fill in!

Propellant not weapon, and WW Two not One. DPdH (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

T-Stoff C-Stoff ratio[edit]

This source reports (for the Walter HWK 109-509 engine) a C-Stoff:T-Stoff stochiometric ratio of 0.36:1 (which is close to 1:3). In the article is reported a 3:1 ratio. Who is wrong? --Nubifer (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's hard to calculate an exact stoichiometric ratio, partly because the composition of C-Stoff varied due to shortages of hydrazine, falling to 15% at the end of the war (and shortage of hydrazine was the main reason the Me 163 didn't do a lot in the war, they didn't have the fuel to operate it), and partly not knowing whether to calculate to carbon monoxide or dioxide - and more, it is unusual to operate an engine at stoichiometric ratio anyway.

Actual ratios in use varied from 3.1 to 3.45, most often around 3.15 - that's 3.15 T-Stoff to one part C-Stoff, or oxidiser-to-fuel, the usual way these ratios are given by rockety guys. the original article is wildly wrong. I have corrected it. peter@tsto.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.121.230 (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]