# Almost in time. He-162.



## davebender (Apr 6, 2012)

Just in time is a good thing. Almost in time is not. The He-162 was almost in time.






The original Heinkel P.1073 design looked something like this. 
By mid 1944 German jet engines produced enough power that the bottom engine was no longer necessary. Deleting the bottom engine and cleaning up the resulting airframe would have produced an advanced yet low cost swept wing fighter aircraft. A nice looking aircraft too.







The He-162 had to be production ready in 4 months so Heinkel opted for a simple straight wing with turned down wingtip extensions to improve directional stability. This rough and ready solution flew remarkably well provided the sub-standard plywood didn't fall apart. However even this war emergency design entered service too late to matter.


----------



## andy2012 (Apr 6, 2012)

Do you think it would've been successful?


----------



## Denniss (Apr 6, 2012)

Please use He 162 and not He-162.
As it might come up - this aircraft was never named Salamander (program codename during development).


----------



## davebender (Apr 6, 2012)

Heinkel He 162 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft." This opinion was mirrored by Eric "Winkle" Brown of the Fleet Air Arm (FAA), who flew it not only during post-war evaluations, but went on to fly it for fun after testing had completed. He considered it delightful to fly


If experienced pilots thought this of the crude He 162A I cannot help but to think a properly developed He 162 would have been a world beater.



What the He 162C (with swept wings) might have looked like.


----------



## johnbr (Apr 6, 2012)

I have always thought the HeS-006 would be a great engine for the He-162c.


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 6, 2012)

All you'll ever need to know about this odd duck:






Without doubt the best book on the subject - an astonishing story.


----------



## nuuumannn (Apr 7, 2012)

Excellent book and excellent series; I have the Me 163 and 262 volumes. The thing about the He 162 that startled me is how small it is.


----------



## Juha (Apr 7, 2012)

In fact while liking He 162 as a flying machine, especially its rolling ability, Brown thought in his memoirs, Wings on my sleeve?, that it was rather useless as combat a/c because its inadequate range. Also French, who used it as introductional a/c to jet fighters for French pilots noted that it had badly inadequate range.

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2012)

Not a problem, the "D" version with enough range to fly to Moscow was only a few weeks away from going into production..............


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2012)

The Me-262 is pretty small also for a twin engine aircraft. Length and width almost the same as a P-51.

Nothing beats a trip to the USAF museum in Ohio for gaining perspective on combat aircraft size. Everything looks small compared to the B-36 and B-70.


----------



## norab (Apr 7, 2012)

two significant problems as a combat aircraft, no vision to the rear because of the engine placement, and trying to escape a fatally damaged aircraft without getting sucked into the jet intake, also because of engine placement, IIRC no ejection seat fitted


----------



## cimmex (Apr 7, 2012)

An ejection seat was fitted of coarse, same as in the He219.
cimmex


----------



## Thorlifter (Apr 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> Nothing beats a trip to the USAF museum in Ohio for gaining perspective on combat aircraft size. Everything looks small compared to the B-36 and B-70.



Or a Super Guppy. Plane looks like it has an apartment building on top of it.

I place the He 162 in my list of planes that just looks cool and I place many aircraft in that category. One other is the Do-335.


----------



## norab (Apr 7, 2012)

It was fired by a cannon shell unlike other German ejector seats and was as likely to break your spine as not, and that still leaves the lack of vision for a threat from the rear, a tremendous handicap for a combat aircraft of that era.


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2012)

Like the straight wing and defective plywood, this would have been fixed with 6 months additional development time.

Not much you can do about He 162 rear visibility. However it's not easy to bounce a 560mph aircraft from the rear using a piston engine fighter aircraft.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 7, 2012)

Juha said:


> In fact while liking He 162 as a flying machine, especially its rolling ability, Brown thought in his memoirs, Wings on my sleeve?, that it was rather useless as combat a/c because its inadequate range. Also French, who used it as introductional a/c to jet fighters for French pilots noted that it had badly inadequate range.
> 
> Juha


 
Hi Juha,
that is still somewhat of a mystery for me. IIRC from specs it had a fuel load of a little more than half of that of a double-engined Me 262. So it should have about the same range?

I know that the typical saying is it had fuel for only half an hour of flight. But I read that it was specified to fly half an hour *at sea level with full throttle*, so its real endurance was likely higher.


----------



## cimmex (Apr 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> Like the straight wing and defective plywood, this would have been fixed with 6 months additional development time.



Never the wing went defective, only at one time an aileron got loose during a test flight.
cimmex


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 7, 2012)

riacrato said:


> Hi Juha,
> that is still somewhat of a mystery for me. IIRC from specs it had a fuel load of a little more than half of that of a double-engined Me 262. So it should have about the same range?
> 
> I know that the typical saying is it had fuel for only half an hour of flight. But I read that it was specified to fly half an hour *at sea level with full throttle*, so its real endurance was likely higher.



It may have been higher but not enough to get excited about. Early jet engines did not cruise well. They did not shift from a rich mixture to a lean mixture for cruise like piston engines and their propulsive efficiency fell the lower the airspeed. 

AS an example the manual for a P-80 says that one minute of taxiing was worth 7 miles of cruising range. The Range charts give at 10,000ft a range of 500miles using 96% rpm (max continuous) on 470 gallons of fuel burning 470 gallons an hour. using the maximum range setting gives 550 miles range at the same height burning 370 gals an hour for an indicated 395mph. Considerable increases in range could be achieved by using higher altitudes. Best cruise was at 40,000ft. cruising at 35,000ft could roughly double the range over cruising at 10,000ft so I am sure the the He 162 could actually do better than 1/2 hour but even 1 hour to 1 1/2 hours at altitude isn't that great. Considering that the P-80 (without tanks) could use 120 gallons getting to 35,000ft (and cover 100 miles doing it) the endurance even at altitude wasn't going to be great.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2012)

I was always the fan of the He-162, or at least the concept of it. For LW, it was something like a 100 mph faster Bf-109 using 'diesel' to fly. 
Ideal jet? No. Too little, too late? Yes.


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2012)

I agree.

When did jet engine fuel efficiency start to improve?


----------



## norab (Apr 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> Like the straight wing and defective plywood, this would have been fixed with 6 months additional development time.
> 
> Not much you can do about He 162 rear visibility. However it's not easy to bounce a 560mph aircraft from the rear using a piston engine fighter aircraft.



you have to land and take off and if you are running at full throttle the rest of the time your radius of action is reduced and in 6 more months it might have been raining nukes in Germany


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2012)

Maybe we're all forgetting thah the He-162 did not fly well ... unless you were an expert pilot, and that many were built by slave labor, and were sabotaged during construction so the wood joints in the wing were weak. One even came apart when being demonstrated for the Luftwaffe brass. There are pics of this event.

It had some issues but could have been turned into a viable combat aircraft. In the reale vent, it was not a viable combat aircrft and saw little use.

At the Planes of Fame Museum, we have one, in great shape. I have been up close and personal with it many times. It looks the part of a lightweight fighter, but definitly hasn't much air time since being constructed. I'd say it had potential that was never realized, and would have required some devel.opment to be effective. I bet the pilot got quite a jolt when he fired teh cannons as the muzzles are right under his seat.

As far as German stuff goes, we also have 100% full scale wood replicas of the Bachem Natter, the Heinkel He-100D, and an Me-163 Komet, a real Fieseler Storch, a Fokker Triplane, an Me-109E raised from a Russian lake (to be repstored to flying status), and a Fleugwerk Fw 190F with an R-2800 in it (flyable).


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 8, 2012)

Pacific Wrecks - B5N Kate Manufacture Number 5353 Tail 53-305 (H-305)

Hey Greg, you guys are not interested in this B5N?

God, how I would like to see this aircraft restored. I always had fascination by it.


----------



## jim (Apr 8, 2012)

It had some issues but could have been turned into a viable combat aircraft. In the reale vent, it was not a viable combat aircrft and saw little use. ( By GreqP about He 162)
P-80 was viable in 45? How many pilots ,IN PERFECT conditions and with all raw materials available, were killed in 45 flying the P80? Even the best american pilot Bong was among them. Still you consider it combat ready 
He 162 was very interesting and capable as point defender as it was. Few corrections were nessecary to become formidable anti fighter interceptor
1) Jummo 004D(in production April 45) for better fuel efficiency,throttle responce and better performance 
2) Longer fuselage for additional fuel
3) Corrected angle between fuselage and wings
4) Somewhat larger wing area. 
5) Better construction quality
6) Better brakes
7) Drop tanks
Most of them were on the planned -B model
Still would be very cheap and superior to Meteor I/III and the first soviets jets. T


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2012)

Jim,

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the P-80 was combat ready, and I don't consider it so. I said tt was an even match or possibly slightly better than the Me-262. Neither was combat ready, as far as I'm concerned, in late 1944 to mid-1945. They probably would have both been combat ready by the end of 1945 but, in wartime, equipment gets deployed before it is ready. From the example we have at our museum, I don't think the He-162 was ever going to be combat ready without a major redesign for larger size, more power, better quality, and enough items to mean the combat-ready version would be a different aircraft entirely.

The combat-ready P-80 was very much the same as those deployed in 1945 with minor updates that didn't materially change the looks, airframe size, engine, or anything else in the P-80. The German equipment is what it is; they never deployed improved version of many of the the late-war planes because the war ended and so did the Luftwaffe, RLM, the Nazi government, etc. So we are left with the planes as deployed. 

The T-152 series had great potential but never lived up to it. 

The He-162 could have been developed but, as deployed, was not a great aircraft and was, in fact, dangerous to low-time pilots in addition to having an unreliable and short-life engine. 

The Me-262 enjoyed some success, but likely more than if the Allied jets had been deployed at the front.

The He-280 was only a prototype and probably would have been combat ready sooner than the Me-262 was if pursued for production.

The Bachem Natter killed more Luftwaffe test pilots tha Allied people. 

The Me-163 was very interesting, but was not a combat success.

So the Luftwaffe was essentially 1 for 6 above if you consider the Me-262 as a success. I think it was mildly successful, which speaks well for what was essentially prototype techology. I don't consider any of the other four as successful in that yes, they flew, but no, they did not not perform in combat as anticipated. Together as a team, they failed to stop any sinlge large combat raid, much less turn the tide of war.

Still, I find them innovative and very interessting, but not war winners as deployed.


Jenisch,

I'm sure we would be interested in the Kate; at least I am. Rare warbirds always interest me. Thanks for the link!

We are making great progress with our Yiokosuka D4Y Judy. It has the engine and cowling on it mow and we are working on the exhaust ejectors. At present it LOOKS pretty complete, btu tehre are a lot of details left before we can start and taxi it.


----------



## iron man (Apr 8, 2012)

GregP said:


> <snip>...many were built by slave labor, and were *sabotaged during construction so the wood joints in the wing were weak*. One even came apart when being demonstrated for the Luftwaffe brass...<snip>



Here's another view on this...

German science had developed an advanced phenolic resin in the early 30's, initially with a view towards finding a better bonding method when laminating plies of veneer during the manufacture of "marine"/exterior grade plywood. Extant glues were waterborne solutions, using casein based formulations and caused warpage issues due to the wetting effect of these glues. "Tego Film" was an entirely different approach. It used sheets of paper, impregnated with phenolic resins and assembled under heat and pressure, similar to "hot melt" phenolics in common usage today. By 1943, Germany had developed this product to the point where it was to be used in the production of all of the wood components (being engineered by the aircraft industry as an economy measure), as the war situation went increasingly "pear-shaped".
Problem was that this "super glue" was manufactured at one facility (Wuppertal) and those decidedly "unsporting" British completely destroyed this facility. As the decisions had already been taken to introduce large-scale wooden components into aircraft production, the Germans scrambled for an immediate "work around" substitute and the one that was chosen later proved to be far from optimal. 
In fact, it was later discovered that this "ersatz" adhesive developed severe acidity, (months after curing) and actually attacked and degraded the cellular structure of the wood itself. The glue was still as sound as the day it had been applied, but the wood surfaces deteriorated to the point where the joints sometimes failed under the repeated high stresses inherent in aviation.

It would be really interesting to know just how many of the piston engined machines with "ersatz" wooden construction were lost in the last year of the war when these wooden components failed under hard manoevering. I'm willing to bet that this number may be rather significant.

And I'm not denying the fact that many "impressed" laborers did indeed do their part...that said, I'm also quite sure that quality control measures would have forestalled many such defective structures from ever being installed. I'm sure that these items would be subjected to visual inspection and stress testing...they're going into combat aircraft after all. 

It remains that what I have shown above is documented fact...and it was the _actual source _of the lions share of the "problems" with wooden substitutes in the last year of the war.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2012)

Actually, the He280 was combat ready by the time the Me262 was being tested with a piston engine in it's nose...the RLM turned it down.

The He162 was rushed into production, so it had teething problems that would have been ironed out if it had been allowed to be developed through the standard process of development AND not being sabotaged by the forced laborer during assembly.

It definately held potential, but then again, so did the Ho229 and other up-and-coming Luftwaffe jet types...


----------



## davebender (Apr 8, 2012)

When did the HeS 8 engine pass a 100 hour endurance test?


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2012)

davebender said:


> When did the HeS 8 engine pass a 100 hour endurance test?


It wasn't until the 004B was produced in 43, that a satisfactory 100 hour endurance test was acheived...and even then, the 004B was problematic...

The He280 was ready for production in '41 and if the RLM had approved the project and provided the much needed funding, the problems with the HeS8 (and it's possible successor, the HeS30) would have been addressed. Since the He280 was designed for the smaller and lower thrust engine, using an alternate engine destined the airframe to problems.


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2012)

I seriously doubt the He 280 was combat ready. I have no trouble believing the airframe could have been so, but not the engines. If they were, they would have been fitted to the Me-262 ... and weren't.

Meanwhile, the Ho-229 showed potential, too, but not all the flight characteristics were very good. It would have needed development as well as better engines.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2012)

Perhaps you missed the part where I said the He280 was designed around the *lower thrust HeS8*?


----------



## GregP (Apr 8, 2012)

Nope, didn't miss it at all. What I said, essentially, was that if the engines were combat-ready they would have been used, probably on other aircraft. They weren't, so I infer some issues with the engines. At that stage in the war I doubt if a good, combat-ready engine would have been ignored, even if weer a Heinkel design.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 8, 2012)

Because of funding issues, the developement of the engines became agonizing slow. You'll notice that the Jumo engine developement suffered similiar problems, even after the RLM gave Messerschmitt the go-ahead for the 262.

Heinkel was counting on the RLM to give him thier blessing early on and it wasn't until 1943 when they finally decided on a limited run of the 280 (and they were developing the HeS011 as a replacement), but by then the war was on in earnest and time ran out for the project when Milch gave it the axe.

The advantage to the HeS8 engine was that it could run on kerosene where the Jumo used Diesel, synthetic or aviation fuel.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 9, 2012)

Where were the pilots to fly this aircraft to come from? It's origional intent was to be a kinder, gentler, aircraft for low time pilots to be able to take it into combat, and that it was not. It took a experienced pilot, and those were in short supply.

As for increasing it's range with a longer fuselage, it already had plenty of unused room in it's present design, but they couldn't utilize it, it already had lead added forward to correct for a tailheavy COG problem. It needed a complete redesign of the fuselage to mount the wings further back, or a wing redesign, for swept wings.


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2012)

> Because of funding issues, the developement of the engines became agonizing slow. You'll notice that the Jumo engine developement suffered similiar problems


The Jumo 004A engine passed several 100 hour endurance tests during 1943 and the final version was supposedly rated for a service life of 250 hours. As good as many piston engines. RLM funded production of only 80 Jumo 004A engines.

Germany did not mass produce jet aircraft during 1943 because RLM chose not to do so. If Germany had produced jet aircraft during 1943 they would almost certainly be powered by the Jumo 004A engine. The only choice would be whether those Jumo 004A engines power the He 280 airframe or the Me 262 airframe.


----------



## Denniss (Apr 9, 2012)

Come on - you know that the 004A used far too many rare materials which Germany couldn't supply in sufficient quantities. That's why they had to redesign it into the 004B.
Just passing some static 100h endurance tests does not make an engine combat ready - many so tested BMW 801 or DB 603 initially made poof after just about 20 hours of realworld flight ops.


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2012)

Perhaps you could give me names for those rare materials and quantities required for both the Jumo 004A engine and the DB605A piston engine. Then we can make an informed decision rather then just repeating "common knowledge" which is often wrong.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Jumo 004A engine passed several 100 hour endurance tests during 1943 and the final version was supposedly rated for a service life of 250 hours. As good as many piston engines. RLM funded production of only 80 Jumo 004A engines.


I think you meant the 004B passed the test in 1943, since the 004A had already been tested and was fitted to the 262 during it's trials in 1941...subsequently having (as you said) 80 units produced, total.



davebender said:


> Germany did not mass produce jet aircraft during 1943 because RLM chose not to do so. If Germany had produced jet aircraft during 1943 they would almost certainly be powered by the Jumo 004A engine. The only choice would be whether those Jumo 004A engines power the He 280 airframe or the Me 262 airframe.


The He280 was tested with the Jumo engine and the 004 was too heavy for the aircraft...again, Heinkel designed it for the lighter and lower thrust HeS family of engines.

So the Jumo ended up in the Me262, Ar234 and of course, the He162...

Now, here's a different spin on things...just suppose that Heinkel did have success in procuring the funds needed for the HeS series of engines and they ended up producing the He280 (and other related projects)...would the He162 ever have come into being?


----------



## davebender (Apr 9, 2012)

> just suppose that Heinkel did have success in procuring the funds needed for the HeS series of engines and they ended up producing the He280


Did the HeS 8 engine pass an endurance test of any duration?

The Jumo 004A engine passed a 10 hour endurance test as early as December 1941. It was more reliable and more powerful then the HeS 8 engine so why would RLM continue to fund the HeS 8 engine program?


----------



## Gixxerman (Apr 9, 2012)

GrauGeist said:


> So the Jumo ended up in the Me262, Ar234 and of course, the He162.



I'm pretty sure the Heinkel He 162 was powered by the BMW 003 jet, not the Jumo 004.

Like several German designs, I see this plane its jet as having lots of potential but nothing like enough time or resources available to turn into a combat ready weapons system - or to operate it in any numbers even if it ever were to be properly developed deployed.

......and God help the barely trained children those lunatics in the German heirachy in their nightmareish if laughable delusions imagined flying these things in combt against the well trained well experienced allied pilots.
It would in my opinion have simply been yet more young German lives callously fed into the grinder for no possible alteration in the looming total utter defeat.
Sheer senseless pig-headed murder in other words.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 9, 2012)

OOps, you're right, Gixxerman, the 004 was planned to be installed in the He162, but the BMW ended up being outfitted instead!

Regarding the endurance evaluation: I've haven't seen any hard data regarding the HeS8 testing, I do know that there were about 30 HeS8 engines produced and the later half of the series were reliably performing, though slightly lower than the anticipated 700kg...


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 9, 2012)

Juha said:


> In fact while liking He 162 as a flying machine, especially its rolling ability, Brown thought in his memoirs, Wings on my sleeve?, that it was rather useless as combat a/c because its inadequate range. Also French, who used it as introductional a/c to jet fighters for French pilots noted that it had badly inadequate range.
> 
> Juha



Latter He 162 had increased tankage (about 40 gallons), the fuel issue was real but if the He 162 climbed to atltitude it had nearly 1.5 hours endurance at full power. Fuel consumption at sea level was however indeed very high: about 30-35 minutes at full throttle. Allowing for reserves and the journey back to base this is indeed minimal.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> Just in time is a good thing. Almost in time is not. The He-162 was almost in time.
> 
> The original Heinkel P.1073 design looked something like this.
> By mid 1944 German jet engines produced enough power that the bottom engine was no longer necessary. Deleting the bottom engine and cleaning up the resulting airframe would have produced an advanced yet low cost swept wing fighter aircraft. A nice looking aircraft too.
> ...




The original P.1073 might have been a better bet.

The idea behined P.1073 was to produce a Mach 0.95 aircraft using available engines (BMW 003A/E) rather than rely on something still on the test bench. The ventral-chin and dorsal engine were in fact distributed (staggered) according to the supersonic area rule which was discovered in wind tunnel testing of scale models of this aircraft. The single engine derived version was the He 162; it suffered from a pitch and slight spin problem caused by the upper engine piching the nose down when thrust was increased when in the landing configuration ie pilot would see himself approaching short of the landing field, increase thrust and find the effect was to lower the nose. Not a problem for an experienced pilots but likely problematic for a 15 year old. The modest handling issues of the He 162 could be fixed by reducing the dihedral and lengthening the tail. Unfortunatly the subcomponents had already been commited to production before the test flight. The lengthened tail would also allow more room for fuel in future versions.

The BMW 003E (an BMW 003A with the accesories gearbox mounted for dorsal installation) had a 30 second (get me out of here) overspeed. This gave the He 162A a short term speed of 562mph making it by far the fastest aircraft of the war and the fastest combat aircraft of 1945 or 1946.

Heinkel P.1073 would have had the performance of a F-86 Sabre or MiG 15 potentially in servive by 1945, albeit with poor reward vision. Some kind of mirror arrangment might have moderated that however the Luftwaffe had long developed tactics to cope with the poor reward vision of the Me 109.

One extremely important motivation for the He 162 was its low fuel consumption per mission which was of major concern to the Luftwaffe. One very interesting version would have used the BMW 003R, this had a rocket engine whose pumps were driven of an clutched engine accesories gearbox. It used the normal fuel tanks plus xlidine and notric acid tripropplents. The clmb rate was under 2 minutes to 11000m which means it could outcomb a Mirage III, Phantom or F-104 of the chocks. Getting the aircraft to altitude so quickly gets the aircraft into its optimal cruise altitude and substantially increases range. There is also no issue of getting through fighter screens.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 9, 2012)

norab said:


> two significant problems as a combat aircraft, no vision to the rear because of the engine placement, and trying to escape a fatally damaged aircraft without getting sucked into the jet intake, also because of engine placement, IIRC no ejection seat fitted



The He 162 had an ejection seat as standard. Here is a picture of one





http://www.ejectionsite.com/he162seat.htm

The ejection seat was a German invention, with Heinkel retaining overall responsibillity throughout the war. Those rocket sled ejections you see in some post war videos are using a rocket sled 'stollen' from the Heinkel factory as war booty. Most were used on He 219 (compressed air type) while the He 162 received the world first lightweight pyrotechnical types.

Ejection seats were standard on test aircraft. Do 335 also had them as did apparently some He 177.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 9, 2012)

And thats this evenings news from the Bunker film at 11


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2012)

Siegfried,

There were only two He-162 models ever built. The He-162A-1 and the He-162A-2. Neither could fly for an hour and a half. The range was 600 km on their best day and the endurance was one-half hour.

The He-162 began to see combat in mid-April 1945 and actually got into combat on 19 April 1945. Hitler put a bullet in his head in 30 April 1945, and the He-162's were all grounded on 4 May 1945. The He-162 unit had scored a few kills in the short action life, but lost 13 He-162's and 10 pilots. Interesting that we can confirm the losses but not the kills.

Altogether a very interesting but completely fruitless endeavor. As I said before, our museum has one. I like it ... buit I wouldn't FLY it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 10, 2012)

10 of those 13 losses were due to operational situations (engine failure, landing errors, etc.), not enemy action


----------



## Denniss (Apr 10, 2012)

According to the He 162 Baubeschreibung it had 20min endurance at sealevel with a calculated range of 265km, 33min and 430km in 6km and 66 min and 660km in 11km. With 200kg of additional fuel in both fuselage and wing tanks performance is given/calc'ed as 30 min and 390km at sealevel and 85min an 1000km at 11km.
I don't know how far off these alcs were from the realworld He 162 performance though.


----------



## davebender (Apr 10, 2012)

Low fuel consumption per se wasn't the issue. Jet aircraft burn low grade fuel which Germany had enough of rather then high octane aviation gasoline which was becoming scarce.

Shortage of aviation gasoline was impacting German pilot training by 1942. By 1943 even high priority military operations such as Kursk were experiencing shortages of aviation gasoline. IMO that's plenty of reason to push the Jumo 004A jet engine into mass production during 1943. Every combat aircraft powered by jet engines is a combat aircraft that doesn't require aviation gasoline.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> One very interesting version would have used the BMW 003R, this had a rocket engine whose pumps were driven of an clutched engine accesories gearbox. It used the normal fuel tanks plus xlidine and notric acid tripropplents. The clmb rate was under 2 minutes to 11000m which means it could outcomb a Mirage III, Phantom or F-104 of the chocks. Getting the aircraft to altitude so quickly gets the aircraft into its optimal cruise altitude and substantially increases range. There is also no issue of getting through fighter screens.


 Would have, could have, should have. A good little aircraft the 162 was despite its limitations, I don't see one regardless of powerplant coming close to 3rd generation fighter aircraft in climb performance without turing into a caudron of splinters on the inital climb out. Very wishful thinking at the 11th hour.


pbfoot said:


> And thats this evenings news from the Bunker film at 11


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The ejection seat was a German invention



It was not - Germany only built the first practical explosive charge ejection seat installed on an aircraft. There were bungee egress seats developed during WW1 and later I think a Frenchman tested a seat on the ground that worked with compressed air. I believe he got a patent on it during the late 20s or early 30s.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 10, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The clmb rate was under 2 minutes to 11000m which means it could outcomb a Mirage III, Phantom or F-104 of the chocks. Getting the aircraft to altitude so quickly gets the aircraft into its optimal cruise altitude and substantially increases range. There is also no issue of getting through fighter screens.



This indeed impressive, however, the T-38 set a record to 40k in 90 seconds and not long afterwards the F-4 beat it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2012)

davparlr said:


> *This indeed impressive*, however, the T-38 set a record to 40k in 90 seconds and not long afterwards the F-4 beat it.



"Would have been impressive, could have been impressive, should have been impressive"


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2012)

The climb rate was about 4,200 - 4,600 feet per minute. 2 minutes to 11,000 meters? No way. 2 minutes to 9,200 feet, or about 2,800 meters or less is more like it.

Siegfried, you have made many false statements about the performance of German aircraft, even in this thread. Are you making this up as you go? 

Your claims are starting to sound like Gastonese ... whre did you get 2 minutes to 11,000 meters?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2012)

Greg, he is talking about a coulda/woulda/shoulda variant with a rocket engine in addition to the the jet engine.


----------



## GregP (Apr 10, 2012)

OK, I apologize. I thought he meant the production aircraft.

Sorry Siegfried, it is not Gastonese after all. Please slap me. Really.

I'll buy the beer.


----------



## Jack_Hill (May 21, 2012)

Concerning Bmw003R powered He-162, i only found calculatings and anticipatings saying reaching 295 feet from standing point in 24 seconds, then 16400 ft within 1mn57 seconds.
Karl Baur, him, in march 1945 did fly an 262C-2b igniting BMW 718 units at 0 foot/100 mph to reach 25000 feet in 1 minute30 from unstick.


----------



## Siegfried (May 21, 2012)

There were no test flights of the He 162with BMW 003R rocket however there is some test flight data in Anthony Kay's "German jet engines and gas turbines" for about 3 flights in the Me 262. It clearly would have been capable of a very fast intercept and also of getting through most allied fighter screens. Interestingly the aircraft had greater range than a standard Me 262.


----------



## GregP (May 22, 2012)

Why do you think we should use He 162 as compared with He-162? Do you think that everyone will mis-identify the aircraft? Everyone will know what we are talking about, either way.

It has been called the "Salamander" longer than the Third Reich existed added to the length of time of the entire production run added to the entire time it flew in combat added to the entire length of WWII, all together. It has earned the nickname, and will probabkly be known as the "Salamander" forever.

You might as well get used to it since it is a fact at this time and has been so for 50+ years, outside of the Heinkel factory as well as outside of Germany. I had a book from 1950 that identifies it as the "Salamander" and that is possible misidentification for 62 years. I think the identifier nickname IS "Salamader" as far as history is concerned.


----------



## Edgar Brooks (May 22, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The ejection seat was a German invention, .


Like heck it was; James Martin was invited, in 1944, to investigate ways to extract pilots from aircraft, and experiments with 16' test rig started in January 1945, with a 200lb weight on the 20th., and a live shot, with Mr. Bernard Lynch, on the 24th. The first ejection, from a modified Defiant, using just sand bags, took place on May 10th., 1945, and I doubt that Martin had been able to steal anything from Germany in just two days. Bernard Lynch made the first live ejection, from a modified Meteor III, 24-7-45.


----------



## cimmex (May 22, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> Like heck it was; James Martin was invited, in 1944, to investigate ways to extract pilots from aircraft, and experiments with 16' test rig started in January 1945, with a 200lb weight on the 20th., and a live shot, with Mr. Bernard Lynch, on the 24th. The first ejection, from a modified Defiant, using just sand bags, took place on May 10th., 1945, and I doubt that Martin had been able to steal anything from Germany in just two days. Bernard Lynch made the first live ejection, from a modified Meteor III, 24-7-45.



timeline before, outside GB
Helmut Schenk, became the first person to escape from a stricken aircraft with an ejection seat on 13 January 1942 in a He280. The He 280 was never put into production status and the first operational type to provide ejection seats for the crew was the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter in 1942. In Sweden a version using compressed air was tested in 1941. A gunpowder ejection seat was developed by Bofors and tested in 1943 for the Saab 21. The first test in the air was on a Saab 17 on 27 February 1944.
In late 1944, the Heinkel He 162 featured a new type of ejection seat, this time fired by an explosive cartridge. In this system the seat rode on wheels set between two pipes running up the back of the cockpit.
By the end of the war, the Do-335 Pfeil and a few prototype aircraft were also fitted with ejection seats.
cimmex


----------



## Edgar Brooks (May 22, 2012)

If you check back, you'll see the accusation that the technology was "stolen" by the Allies, post-war; my point is that parallel investigations were taking place, before the war's end, so the accusation is manifestly false.


----------



## cimmex (May 22, 2012)

Sorry, haven’t read that (stolen) post, I agree that all nations are working on ejection seats. It’s a logical evolution when planes getting faster and faster.
Regards
cimmex


----------



## davebender (May 22, 2012)

Patents and copyrights don't apply vs a nation you are attempting to destroy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2012)

Edgar Brooks said:


> If you check back, you'll see the accusation that the technology was "stolen" by the Allies, post-war; my point is that parallel investigations were taking place, before the war's end, so the accusation is manifestly false.


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/almost-time-he-162-a-32339-4.html#post887174


----------



## norab (May 22, 2012)

davebender said:


> Patents and copyrights don't apply vs a nation you are attempting to destroy.



not historically true


> The design infringement issue of the US Springfield '03 service rifle vs. Paul Mauser's design goes all the way back to the Spanish-American War. To make a long and interesting story short, when in July 1898 US forces (among them Theodore Roosevelt and his famous "Rough Riders"), armed with the then-issued .30-40 "Krag" rifle encountered Spanish military troops armed with the 7mm Mauser, the Mauser was clearly superior in every respect. A small band of Spanish regulars was able to hold a numerically superior US force at bay using the rifle. Later, T.R., apparently still stung by the technical superiority of the rifle, appointed Captain (soon to be General) William Crozier, as head of the Springfield Armory, tasked with designing a replacement for the Krag. Crozier had already designed a bolt-action rifle and used his post to further its development and adoption by the US military. And so the M1903 "Springfield" rifle was born and issued. Not long after its introduction however, rumors began to surface that many salient features of the rifle were taken directly from the Mauser design. It ultimately was determined that Crozier's rifle infringed on no less than two Mauser patents regarding the magazine design and five more on the rifle itself. The US government was embarrassed and humiliated and ultimately had to pay Mauser some $200,000 (over $4.7 million in today's dollars) in royalties. (For an interesting read on this whole nasty mess, you might check out Rifles: An Illustrated History of Their Impact, by David Westwood.)


----------



## Vincenzo (May 22, 2012)

norab also if maybe true your not true
the example is not related the US government pay license fee and penalties when the two countries were in peace, propably much higher of 200,000


----------



## nuuumannn (May 23, 2012)

Meanwhile, back to the He 162, Eric Brown spoke highly of it in Wings of the Luftwaffe; 

"...the aircraft had excellent directional snaking characteristics, making it a good gun platform. From this aspect it was the best jet fighter of its time, and I was certainly in a position to judge, having flown every jet aircraft then in existence."

"It was like all the German jets- a superb aeroplane in its element but quite a handful to take off and land. I had never met better flying controls yet they could be so easily mishandled..."

"In view of the fact that the He 162 never saw combat, we are left with the intriguing if purely academic question of how it would have made out if it had been used in anger. It would certainly have been an effective gun platform, and its dimensions would have rendered it difficult to hit. Even if somewhat underpowered, it had a good performance - it could certainly have run rings around the contemporary Meteor - but it was no aeroplane to let embryo pilots loose on, and it would have demanded more than simply a good pilot to operate it out of a small airfield. Nevertheless as a back up for the formidable Me 262 it could have conceivably have helped the Luftwaffe to regain air superiority over Germany had it appeared on the scene sooner."

"Personally, I shall always recall the He 162 with affection as it gave me some exhilarating hours in the air and I cannot help but feel that the Allies were fortunate, for had another month or two and the necessary fuel been available, the He 162 might well have got in among our bombers in numbers at a time when desperate measures might just have achieved sensational results."


----------



## tyrodtom (May 23, 2012)

I don't see where the He-162 was so small, short wing span yes, but it's actually longer in length than a Me109.

With just 2 20mm guns I wonder how effective a bomber destroyer it would have been. The early models with the 30mm cannon showed the origional design wouldn't take the pounding of the Mk-108, re-inforcing the front fuselage for the larger cannon was in the future.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 23, 2012)

That's not much of a gauge of its size; the Bf 109 wasn't exactly big.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 23, 2012)

Perhaps this might be a better indication of its size. That's a B-25 beside it.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 23, 2012)

The Me109 is a little shorter, when compared with the P-47, or P-51. But it's only 4 inches shorter than a Spitfire.( depends on the Spitfire Mk. )

I sure there weren't many BOB pilots complaining about not being able to shoot down any Me's because they were so small.

And the Fw190 is even shorter.


----------



## norab (May 23, 2012)

you are still left with the problem of not being able to check your 6 o'clock


----------



## nuuumannn (May 24, 2012)

I guess size is relative; I've stood next to an He 162 and have spent a lot of time around warbirds and it _appears_ small to me. To add a little weight to my statement, this is what Brown wrote; "The first He 162 that I encountered was a standard production A-series model and I was staggered by its tiny dimensions..." This is from a man who had flown Spits, Mustangs, Bf 109s, Fw 190s etc by that time, also having flown the Grumman Martlett (F4F Wildcat), which is no giant, in combat.

Funny, he makes no mention of visibility, but he does mention an exceptional roll rate; "...a check on the rate of roll at 400 mph revealed the highest that I had ever experienced outside the realm of hydraulically powered ailerons, and the stick force demanded to produce these exhilarating gyrations was delightfully light." So, manoeuvrability to make up for lack of rearward visibility, perhaps?

20 mm cannon is going to leave a mighty big hole in a bomber. I disagree about the MK 108; the Me 163 had such a high closure rate with its target that it had such a small window of opportunity with which to hit its target and armed with a (relatively) low velocity cannon made combat difficult. Whilst not as fast as the Komet, the He 162 was still real quick.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 24, 2012)

It's wingspan is the only thing smaller, the Me109 and FW190 are both shorter, and the Spit only 3 inches longer. It does have a narrow fuselage.
Since Brown doesn't specify what dimensions, we don't know what he was refering to for sure, it could have just meant the cockpit, because it does appear pretty tight.

But it's just a fact of numbers that it's longer than the two most common German fighters.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 24, 2012)

> Since Brown doesn't specify what dimensions, we don't know what he was refering to for sure, it could have just meant the cockpit, because it does appear pretty tight.



Well, actually, we do. Continuing on from that line in the book. "I was also astonished by the amount of wood that had been used in its construction and the notes that I made at the time read: "An exciting looking aeroplane, though not exactly beautiful. There is so much wood around that it looks as though it has been built by a modelling enthusiast. Its narrow track undercarriage is likely to make it a handful in a cross wind. An oversize V1 on wheels!"" Sounds like he's generally speaking about the size of it.

I guess if the numbers add up, the numbers add up eh? Don't forget that pitot tube on the front; take that away and it's probably a bit shorter than a Bf 109 - and its airspeed readings are up the sh*tter.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 24, 2012)

Ok, I give up. It's a few inches shorter, IF they included the pitot tube in the length.
I wonder why he's remarking on all the wood. The wings and nose cap were wood, but the rest of the fuselage and tail were aluminum, not that unusual in that era.


----------



## davparlr (May 24, 2012)

It had to be a wee aircraft, it had a wee engine.


----------



## riacrato (May 24, 2012)

Just btw: I haven't seen a single original reference stating the MK 108 caused problems, in the two books I have on the plane there is no mention either. AFAIK both variants were always developed in parallel and the solicitation specifically stated that "lighter" armament was acceptable since the main focus would be low level interceptions against fighters anf fighter bombers.


----------



## Juha (May 24, 2012)

while in the 2006 edition of his "Wings on my sleeve" Brown praise the controls of He 162 he endedthe He 162 part in the book " The Volksjaeger Salamander, with its pigmy size and very limited range, was an impracticable proposition. A more powerful jet and swept-back wing might have made it a phenomenal machine, provided there had been more time to develop it properly."

Juha


----------



## Jack_Hill (May 31, 2012)

Hi all.
He 162 had never been able to prove her effectiveness in combat conditions.
The reasons are very well known (lack of supplying mostly).
Lack of development of the design himself, certainly, too.
But something i remember in some 93 or 94's' days, shivering in excitation while boarding mae's'162 is :
Boarding an extremely modern a/c.
Highly modern seat angle. Simple, clear instrumentation and controls layout and great "visibility", see below...
Boarding an highly agressive, potent fighter.
And it was much before restauration : cockpit floor, seat, panels,electricals,sides all over stained with millimeters of dust and kind of grease,inside canopy looking like a cigar smoker lived in for 20 years, rust and stains everywhere...
Airframe not being much cleaner...
But still the bird looked very much alive asking : fly me !
So far, i can imagine a real pilot (wich i'm not) like E.Brown had a good first feeling about He 162.


----------



## Jack_Hill (May 31, 2012)

Hi Riacrato.
Yes, MK 108 did proved troublesome with He 162'light aiframe, revealing excessive vibrations, necessitating strenghtening of forward fuselage.
But certainly, having time enough, MK 108 could have been efficient with 162.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 31, 2012)

".... Patents and copyrights don't apply vs a nation you are attempting to destroy...."

I'm not sure that statement is true, Mr. B. -- however we might wish it to be true. Patents and copyrights don't go out the window during war time.

In Manchester's book on the House of Krupp he details at length how Krupp sued Britain for failure to pay royalties on Krupp-designed artillery fuses that Britain was making and using against Germany at the time. It was early in WW1 and caused a scandal in parliament - and the public even began to think how preposterous of Krupp to sue Britain .... hahah etc, .... after the war ended and faced with the certainty of a Krupp legal victory -- His Magesty's Government of the time - *settled* the outstanding bill.


----------



## davebender (May 31, 2012)

I agree. He-162 cannon were installed in the sides of the lower fuselage. Weapon mounts should have been a relatively simple fix.

That bubble canopy looks outstanding. Visibility should have been great in all directions except straight back.

Internal fuel = 278.6 U.S. gallons.
Fuel consumption @ max cruise = 260 gal per hour.
The He-162 is often stated to have a 30 minute endurance. They must mean 30 minutes after take off and climb to combat altitude. Hard points for a standard 300 liter drop tank under each wing should give you an additional 30 minutes of loiter time. Or perhaps a permanently attached conformal fuel tank. Losing 20 or 30 mph due to fuel tank drag would still leave the He-162 plenty fast.


----------



## davebender (May 31, 2012)

Not for the full amount. Krupp received only a token payment for British use of the Krupp artillery fuze patent.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 31, 2012)

davebender said:


> I agree. He-162 cannon were installed in the sides of the lower fuselage. Weapon mounts should have been a relatively simple fix.
> 
> That bubble canopy looks outstanding. Visibility should have been great in all directions except straight back.
> 
> ...


Max cruise isn't maximum power, and i'd bet it didn't climb at max cruise.
You don't just add hardpoints to wooden wings and hang 500+ pounds on them without some redesign, especially those wings.

I don't think the ground handling with 500 lbs under each wing would be too pleasant with that narrow main gear, it looks even narrower than the Me109.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 1, 2012)

The $$$$ amount doesn't matter ..... the principle was recognized and supported ..... war doesn't negate legal conventions such as patents.

MM


----------



## Denniss (Jun 1, 2012)

He 162 had 475kg of fuel + additional 105 kg for running-up the engine and take-off. An overload condition was planned with 200kg of extra fuel.
This 30 min endurance was calculated with 200kg extra fuel for full power at sea level, at 11km calculated endurance was 85 min. Calculated endurance at sea level without extra fuel and full power was 20 min.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 1, 2012)

I agree, almost in every points excepting 2X300L wing mounted auxiliary tanks.
I do not think He 162 bolted wooden single piece wings, with no spar, could withstand such a load.
One good hard point should locate under the light metal fuselage,between mainwheels.
Another question i ask myself is : what the hell the RLM was wishing He 162 to become ?
A fighter interceptor ?
A pulk-zerstörer ?
Both of two ? 
If possessing such a small, light, fast, quick roll rater, why trying to turn her into an heavy impotent truck ?
If a zerstorer, the a/c will never be able to carry half the armament of the me 262.
If a fighter/escort fighters interceptor, i guess she meet the match. 
Yes, turbojet of its time had very high fuel consumption, though lowering with altitude, like any today's'turbojet.
But if (as i think He 162 should be) used as a fighter/escort interceptor, i guess an underbelly aerodynamic 200L jettisonable (or not) tank, 2X MK 151-20 would be enough to reach and give heavy occupation for escorting P 51's while 262's engage bombers.
And if still not enough range, solid fuel take off rocket was possible.


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2012)

Dirt cheap lightweight fighter to succeed the Me-109. 

IMO two cannon (either MG151/20 or 3cm Mk108) are plenty of firepower provided both weapons are mounted on the centerline. Lightweight R4M FF rockets are also possible.

Short combat radius is the trade off required to achieve high performance in such an inexpensive aircraft. However you still need adequate endurance to get the job done. You don't want an aircraft like the Me-163 which had awe inspiring performance but was likely to run out of fuel 5 minutes after climbing to 30,000 feet.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 1, 2012)

Hi Davebender
Yes, two racks of 12 R4M could be an option.
Wing should withstand weight/drag with very low performance loss.
But what for ?
Killing a fighter natural qualities, trading a promising fighter to fighter interceptor for a poor (like eg. Bf 109G6/R2 or R4) bomber interceptor ?
I may be wrong, but me 262 to my eyes, already had shoulders enough to do the job. 
I agree with short range terms about 162, but isn't it there a bit of exageration comparing her with Me 163 ?
Structurals, engine improvements and rüstzeiten could have, with time, widely increase her operational efficiency and range.
And absolutly yes, 2X MK 151-20 or MK 108 is plenty of firepower mounted in a/c centerline.


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2012)

He-162C (swept wings) costs about half as much as the Me-262 but it's almost as capable. So the Me-262 can end production when the He-162C enters service in large numbers. Perhaps that would allow the He-162C to be constructed of aluminum.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 1, 2012)

Would the He162C be as capable as the improved models of the Me262 that would be coming off the production lines when the He162C became available?


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2012)

If the program is properly supported then by 1946 the He-162C will be armed with a pair of MG213 revolver cannon and powered by a better engine. It could probably handle any aerial threat prior to 1950. Isn't that good enough for an aircraft that costs so little to produce?


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 1, 2012)

Dear Davebender,
Yes, you're probably right.
Me 262 was expensive, high diesel fuel consumer, might not have much operational/performance improvements possibilities, coupled with already obsolescent powerplant.
Maybe a dead-end design.
But, by late 44, she was the only heavy fighter, operation ready, that fast with such a firepower.
Meanwhile, tactics and training processes were still to be created.
Fuel supplying troubles.
Daily straffed airfields.
Exhausted pilots.
Global german disorganisation.
He 162, his further operational developement, her crews and in general, Germany did not have any chance for further hope.
I do my best not abusing of "maybe" versions (though fascinating, some way)
I do prefer focusing on operational aircrafts.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 1, 2012)

davebender said:


> If the program is properly supported then by 1946 the He-162C will be armed with a pair of MG213 revolver cannon and powered by a better engine. It could probably handle any aerial threat prior to 1950. Isn't that good enough for an aircraft that costs so little to produce?



And the Me262 would not have MG213s as well? The Ta183 would have been a more capable a/c.

How did other _light_ fighters fair?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 1, 2012)

Again with the German revolver cannon in 1946??

Give it a rest. 

Light fighters never work against the SAME Generation heavy fighter. 

They only work against fighters using older technology. 

as far as sticking more powerful engines in the He 162 goes, it could be done but please remember that the drag and aerodynamic loads on the air frame go up with the square of the speed so that going from 500mph to 600mph is a 44% increase in loads on the airframe.


----------



## davebender (Jun 2, 2012)

No argument there but Dr. Tank will encounter the same problems as he did historically when working on the Ta-183 design in Argentina. The perfected Ta-183 is unlikely to enter service prior to 1948. Meanwhile the perfected He-162C would be in service before the end of 1945.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 2, 2012)

Hi Milosh,
1946...
In 1946, Germans and all european peoples did not care a bag of beans for He 162.
Just prefering... The bag of succulent beans.
WWII was ended, and i'm sure you know who won it.
1946, Every european people was in starvation, hoping being able to feed the kids.
Every morning.
Hi Shortround6,
And what happens with a smaller,lighter, higher thrust, less fuel consuming turbojet wich was the (proven) ineluctable fate of turbojets ?
And yes, like Me 262, He 162, swept wings or not, had a limited operational improvement abilities.


----------



## davebender (Jun 2, 2012)

The A6M worked just fine vs the F4F.
The Me-109 worked just fine vs P-38s and P-47s. 
The F-16 worked just fine vs MiG23s and MiG25s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2012)

The A6M was NOT a light fighter. It was lighter than the F4F but is was the _heaviest_ fighter the Japanese Navy was buying for the first few years of the war. 

The Me-109 was NOT a light fighter when it was designed. It weighed close to what most other first line fighters did at the time. It worked "fine" as a short endurance interceptor in later years but was lacking in many of the capabilities of the P-38 and P-47. 

" The F-16 worked just fine vs MiG23s and MiG25s" is a real hoot. Sure it did 

the Mig 23 first flew in June of 1967 and went into service in 1970. The Mig 25 first flew in 1964 and went into service in 1970. The F-16 first flew in 1974 and went into service in 1978. 

Want to tell me how well the F-16 did against the two Russian planes in the 8 years from 1970 to 1978??

And I suppose the Americans made absolutely *NO ADVANCES* on propulsion/electronics/aerodynamics/flight control in the years between the Russian planes being designed and the F-16 being designed? 

you Know, like the engine in the F-16 weighing 3085lbs for about 15,000lbs thrust (dry) compared to the Mig-25s over 5000lb engines of about the same power*? 

*Dry means no after burner in this case. 

By the way, just how many Mig 25s did the F-16 shoot down?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 2, 2012)

i'm adding to Sr6 list that MiG-23 was not a heavy fighter


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 2, 2012)

Shortround6 said :
"as far as sticking more
powerful engines in the
He 162 goes, it could be
done."
Pardon me for getting
back to thread but :
I can very easily imagine a very light turbojet fighter, with only 800kg thrust and a pair of MK 151-20 downing anything flying in the 1945 european skyes.
I can also imagine a motivated allied pilot downing this little fast jet.
As far as i know, flags does not score kills.
Ps : what F16, an interresting a/c anyway, have to do with He 162 thread ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2012)

Jack_Hill said:


> Pardon me for getting
> back to thread but :
> I can very easily imagine a very light turbojet fighter, with only 800kg thrust and a pair of MK 151-20 downing anything flying in the 1945 downing anything flying in the 1945 european skyes .



No problem getting back to the thread, while it is quite possible for a very light turbojet fighter with a pair of MK 151-20 downing anything flying in the 1945 european skyes, it is also quite possible (and in fact quite likely) for said fighter NOT to bring down a B-17 with such an armament despite damaging it. This is one reason the the Germans were sifting to the MK 108 cannon. 




Jack_Hill said:


> Ps : what F16, an interresting a/c anyway, have to do with He 162 thread ?



Mr Bender brought it in as an example of a "light fighter" equaling the same generation heavy fighter. Except his examples don't hold water.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 2, 2012)

Shortround6,
I try, as well as you, to be fair and open minded. 
Can any 500+mph fighter pilot having good firing solution, motivated in downing a bomber,equiped with well placed,accurate,flat trajectory, high rof 2X2cm cannons do very much more than simply hurts her ?
Don't misunderstand me, i do not wish such a fate for any bomber crew. Not at all.
But,again, i ask this question : was He 162 a bomber interceptor or a promising fighter/escort interceptor ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2012)

The question, from the German point of view is that their research (rightly or wrongly) showed them that it took 15-20 20mm hits to bring down a B-17 on the _average._ Other research the Germans did (again right or wrong?) told them that on _average_ a pilot (average, not expert) hit with about 2% of rounds fired. So it took 750-1000 rounds FIRED to bring down a B-17. This means on _average_ 3-4 He 162s to bring down ONE B-17 _IF_ they can empty _ALL_ their ammo at one plane (repeated passes on the same plane?) 

The 30mm cannon need 3-4 hits to bring down a B-17, or 150-200 rounds fired if the chances of hitting were the same. The He 162 with 30mm cannon carried 100 rounds for both guns (50rpg) making the likelyhood of a single (or pair) of He 162/s bring down a bomber much better. 

While fighters need many few hits to bring them down they are also much harder to hit, smaller target/moving faster and maneuvering (unless bounced?). The MG 151/20 fires about 12 rounds a sec, so 24 rounds a second for two guns. _IF_ the 2% hit rate holds true it would take our _average_ pilot about 4 seconds firing time to get two hits on the target. 

The high closing speeds of the jet aircraft usually meant short firing times. 

The He 162 was an interesting aircraft and might have been a dangerous opponent if flown by good pilots. However it was under armed for the job they wanted it to do. Either bomber buster or escort fighter buster.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 2, 2012)

My friend, i love datas for what they worth.
Yes, we can count weight of ammos reaching target.
At any range.
In french, (or Greek) it's called a Sophism.
You know, like : cats have two ears, humans have two ears too, so humans are cats.
Then : 20mm HE shell is so much impotent that not any allied bomber, or even fighter a/c could ever had been shot down until "magic" MK 108.
Then, shooting 5 times same hole at 10 meters is statisticly impossible.
But not indeed, i do that twice or thrice a week. 
And my 6 years old son do too, sometimes...
Do you have statistics about that ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2012)

Several points. 

1. I did put in the word/s "on Average" an number of times. Certainly a number of planes, including B-17s were shot down by a single 20mm hit but not so often that a good ordnance officer would depend on it. When dealing with hundreds of bombers and hundreds of interceptors on a single raid going with what works "on average" is about all you can do. 

2. I don't really hold the MK 108 in that high a regard. It was good for bomber busting but had some serious limitations for other work. 

3. Your last comments "Then, shooting 5 times same hole at 10 meters is statisticly impossible.
But not indeed, i do that twice or thrice a week. 
And my 6 years old son do too, sometimes...
Do you have statistics about that ?"

If you really can do that with a .22 caliber rifle you are a certainty to win a medal at the next Olympics. And your 6 year old son is a candidate for the Olympic shooting team. 

Please define "same hole" ? bullet holes overlap so there is one large multi lobed hole in the target ( actually not all that hard from certain positions) as in firing five .222-223inch diameter bullets into a "hole" .40-.45 inches across out side edge to outside edge?

OR putting FIVE .222-.223 inch diameter bullets into a hole that measures just .222-.223 across out side edge to outside edge.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 2, 2012)

davebender said:


> Meanwhile the perfected He-162C would be in service before the end of 1945.



As with all the end-war new LW planes I'd love to know what 'perfected' is meant to mean here.
It certainly can't be a properly flight-tested series of prototypes as so little flying was done towards the end.
Even the Me262 (possibly the last to see anything of some sort of semblance of proper testing which, as one would expect, went on for YEARS) can hardly be said to have received the proper time resources to working out its kinks. So much was done 'on the job'.

Just because they might have briefly flown a preceeding sub-type or prototype that is nothing like the same as being 'perfected'.
As interesting as the He162 was it can hardly be said to have been properly tested even in its first A varients, nevermind the barely sketched later ones.


(and as for the effectiveness of potential German fighter armament surely the fact that the quality of manufacture was falling through the floor in 1944 -45 that they were reduced to using poor substitutes for explosives seriously degrades the performance anyone might reasonably expect?)


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 3, 2012)

If Germany had been able to get sufficent supplies of Unobtanium ore the perfected supersonic He 162 with twin revolver cannon and fire and forget AAMs would have won the war. As it was it would have been an excellent way of killing scores of young Germans.


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 3, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> As it was it would have been an excellent way of killing scores of young Germans.



Yes indeed.
Hundreds if not thousands (if they had had their way).
It should never be forgotten that at the centre the height of this 'Volksjager' nazi insanity was to start strapping children into a (then) modern jet after the most rudimentary instruction (and necessarily little flying training time, as German increasingly swarmed with allied fighters) be expected stand a chance take on overwhelming numbers of the increasingly experienced allied aircrew.
It would have been (yet more) callous sheer wanton cruel murder.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 3, 2012)

I've wondered about this German research on how many hits it took of each particular shell it took to bring down a aircraft.

Did they watch gun camera films? The gun camera films i've seen aren't good enough to see all the gunstrikes.
Did they examine wreckage ? That, in a lot of cases is just smoking holes in the ground.

I don't even see how they can determine how many shells hit the target in real combat. I've got a feeling it was just the German version of the SWAG method.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 3, 2012)

Maybe it was the German version of the SWAG method, but since they were (before 1945) the only country being attacked by 4 engine bombers in hundreds of aircraft per attack I would say they had an interest in what was the best way to stop them. maybe their study was flawed or the methodology flawed, I don't know. But I haven't seen the results of any other study, they may very well exist. I don't know how much test firing was done on captured airframes on test ranges either. British shot up a few of their own Blenheims on test ranges to test weapons effectiveness and to test protection. 

From Tony Williams books it appears that is what the Germans believed (for what ever reasons) and they were planing weapons procurement and armament fits based on those beliefs. They could be wrong but I would like something more than the idea that the armament of somebodies favorite late war fighter may not be up to the job it needed to do.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 3, 2012)

According to the Baubeschreibung 8-162, which is laying in front of me,
the 20 and 30 minutes endurance rating are calculated as remaining netto cruise time, not as total endurance.
that means fuel required to warming up the engine, taxiing, take off, acceleration and climb to altitude is already accounted for as well as a slightly higher specific fuel consumption but no 10 minutes reserve. 20 ( 30) minutes is the remaining cruise flight time at altitude with 820 km/h (max sustainable cruise speed). Not much, though.

hope this helps


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 3, 2012)

Hi Shortround6
I 100% agree with points 1 and 2.
You are perfectly right and i said it before, honest, competent and fair.
Yes my son do multilobed 1 hole at his best.
By now... 
But when speaking about 5 shots, one hole, i mean 5 shots with single, perfect round hole.
And no, i'm very far from being an olympic champion, just an amateur shooter for 35 years now, getting a bit old, with vision getting poorer and poorer....
No, we don't practice 10 meters shooting using .222 or .223.
I do not want to destroy my old barn and i do not want to take the risk of hurting anyone using such (expensive) powerfull ammunitions just for plinking...
We use a 25 year old 4.5mm compressed air Feinwerkbau.
But, though now a pretty old, small caliber gun, the more i shoot her, the more i find her accurate, yet still capable of straight killing an adult 5kg muskrat.
I guess caliber is not all.
How you make use of a weapon may be more important.
An exemple could be the P 51, P 47 etc...highly efficient .50 weaponnery wich, multiplied by 6 or 8 and properly aimed, could down anything flying too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 3, 2012)

Fair enough.

I too, have been doing competitive shooting for over 40 years and the eyes are not what they used to be. 

5 shots, exactly in one hole, has been the goal of competitive benchrest shooters (and others) for decades if not over a century. While groups small enough to routinely require a moving backer target (witness) to ensure that 5 shots are indeed fired, as of a few years ago nobody had reported a 5 shot group _exactly_in one caliber sized hole. Bench rest competitors (of which I am not one) measure the group sizes as center to center (over all size of group minus the bullet diameter). World records at 100 yds were down to just under .10 of inch a few years ago for center fire rifles. The .22 rimfire, even as used in the Olympics, is far from that standard. In the 90s and early part of the last decade the Bench resters tried branching out to the .22LR and air guns. I have lost track of what is current but after a few years they were giving up on the .22 and were still working on the air guns. The smallest groups at 50meters for the .22 equaled the center to center distance of the center-fire guns at 200yds. 

I have don't have any Feinwerkbau air guns but do have some RWS or Diana ones, including the old recoil-less models like the model 75, a bit of a dinosaur now. 

I have number of centerfire rifles that will give a one ragged hole 5 shot group at 100yds and on occasion at 200yds. 

The point of this is that it may be statistically possible (1 in a gazillion?) for a 5 shot "one hole group" (0.00 in or millimeters center to center) to have happened but as a practical matter, as of a few years ago, such a thing has never been recorded. At least at any distance more than 10 meters or so. You do need good gauges, overlays, and/or dial calipers or micrometers to measure such things though. The Olympics went over to laser scanning for scoring a while back.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Jun 12, 2012)

Hi Shortround 6.
I'm convinced with : my eventuals "shooting talents" or thousands hours shooting lots of guns at the stand, and elsewhere, does not fascinate anyone. Not even me. We don't use micrometers, lasers or whatever, to check shots.
If it looks round, it's round for us.
I'm not talking about benchresting, or 1500m .50 rifle shooting or even 600+m varminting using exotics/efficient homemade ammos/guns shooting prairy dogs straight between the eyes.
Just talked about 10m (ten meters) using an Fwb300,witch i'm so much used to, having shot her thousands and thousands pellets.
What i was pointing, concerning He-162 weaponery, was that 2 "small", accurate cannons, if well balanced with highest possible rate of fire, firing a very light,modern shell, may be more decisive.
According to He-162 very high speed for its time, allowing very short firing time per attack pass, a statisticly more powerfull weapon, less accurate, heavyer, complicated (troublesome ?) actioned, slower firing, short-barreled, generating high vibrations, then making the lightweighted He 162 a poorer gunplatform than normal could be a real handicap.
According, again, that i do not think He 162 was a suitable aircraft for viermots interception.
I agree (again...) That MG151/20 was NOT a top downer, lacking of very high rof, but times were... 1945... 
Yes, statisticly, 20mm rounds weight needed to down a B17 was high.
But, for exemple, less weight was needed to down a B24 or a Lancaster.
3/4 rounds for a fighter (average), maybe more for a P-47.
Not so bad.
And, what about damaging criterias ?
What about, (always a sad and very hard point to think and speak about) crew damages ?
Again, stats concerning shoot/hits ratios,(forgetting the evidence of target size/maneuverability/dive/climb abilities) seams to mean : any very fast/manouverable MG151/20 equiped a/c was in heavy trouble trying to shoot down/straff anything ?
But, it saddly happened, so many times.


----------



## chris mcmillin (Jun 28, 2012)

Great info on this thread, interesting stuff.

I remember reading a very interesting article about French operation of a small fleet of He162's and they decided that for safety, as in not dying from the inevitable crash occuring after a flame out, was not flying the airplane for more than 20 minutes.
Operating peacetime, testing for jet research, trying to bring back data without human loss, that was the realistic endurance after liftoff.

Really cute jet, I recall a Bob Hoover write-up on it that he recalled it being a great little airplane to bomb down the railroad tracks at high speed. Great visibility, nice cockpit, smooth jet engine, hauled ass. All the good stuff. I felt like I was in it, feeling all that he described. The airplane is small, with a big engine on top. It has low frontal area, no propeller, and tiny wing and tail. The POF airplane has been around in my life since childhood and always did capture my imagination. 

Chris...


----------



## Gixxerman (Jun 29, 2012)

Worth noting that the He 162's BMW 003 jet engine formed the basis of the later French Atar jet engine......and look how that turned out, after several decades developement.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2012)

That was a problem for the Germans ( or anyone else), a _good idea_ or design often needs _YEARS_ of development or improved manufacturing techniques in order to become a usable/profitable product.


----------



## GregP (Jun 30, 2012)

Aircraft are NOT stable aiming platforms. Turbulence and even slow-moving air move you around. Even perfect piloting will NOT result in all hits. And there are NO pilots who shoot every bullet into the target.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 1, 2012)

Retracted - I had a bad day then with an ensuing short fuse, sincere apologies.


----------

