# He-162 vs Meteor MK-III



## delcyros (Nov 21, 2005)

Both planes got operational in early 45 and represented attempts to
place a jet fighter in service. They could -hypothetically- meet in combat, because both were operating over northern Germany in the same timeframe. Both planes only barely saw combat, the Meteor participated in ground attacks, the He-162 in fighter sweeps. The differences in these two designs are overwhelming: Twin engined vs single engined, long range vs. short range, small vs. big. What are Your thoughts?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 21, 2005)

With the right Pilot, probably a He-162. Much faster and probably more manoeverable too.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2005)

Definitely the 162


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 21, 2005)

I'd take the Meteor- why would anybody fly a wooden jet?
Also, the pilots of the Heinkels were rookies from JG400 if I remember correctly


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 21, 2005)

I'd take the Meteor because of the security of two engines. I'd keep pulling Gs until the -162 just fell apart!


----------



## book1182 (Nov 21, 2005)

If the 162 could be produced with better quality then I would have to go with it. But like said before it was made of wood.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2005)

Book, could u please make ur signature pic smaller... Its waaayyy too large for some of our dialup members...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Nov 21, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> I'd take the Meteor- why would anybody fly a wooden jet?
> Also, the pilots of the Heinkels were rookies from JG400 if I remember correctly



Why would anyone fly a wooden airplane.

JG1 was not a rookie unit.

The Vampire was most constructed of wood.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 21, 2005)

I would for sure go with the He-162. Built with wooden components yes, and it only had one engine and was less heavily armed (when armed with the two Mg151/20 and not the MK-108). But being small and powered by a powerful turbojet engine, it could climb like hell, had a decent turning radius so ive heard. Its main shortcomings again being the contruction, about 27minute flying time, and snaking originally when high speeds or angles of attack were used. The downturned wing tips were a temporary solution, and worked, but later redesign would be incorporated into the mass production later on.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 22, 2005)

I will post some statistics for the -162, maybe someone can back up for the Meteor-III?
Dimensions He-162 A2:

spanwidth: 7,2m
aspect ratio: 4,65
wing area:11,16 m²

Weight fullyloaden---fight endurance(100%)He-162 A2:
2634 Kg (5800 lbs) ---20 min at sea level
2889 Kg (6361 lbs) ---30 min at sea level
wingload: 240 Kg /lbs per m²

Defensive:
Armor: 70 Kg (154 lbs) in front of the cockpit
Ejection seat for the pilot
sustainable G-forces: 6.5g -serial planes
max G-forces: 8.5g -serial planes
max stick forces at 1000 Km/h (617 mp/h): 8,5 Kg / 18,7 lbs 

Offensive:
gunsight: 
Revi 16B or -16D: 
most prototypes and all serial planes
EZ 42computing gunsight:
He-162 M30 and M31, later probably at JG-1

2 MK 108/30 mm with 50 rounds each (He-162 A1) or
2 MG 151/20mm with 120 rouns each (He-162 A2)

Poerplants----thrust output

BMW-003 A1/2----800 Kp (1761 lbs) _He162 M1-M10
BMW-003 E1----800 Kp (1761 lbs), 923 Kp (2032 lbs at 30 sec. overrew)
installed from He-162 M18 onwards into all serial planes
Jumo-004D4---932 Kp (2052 lbs) He-162 M11 and M12
He-S011A-----1300 Kp (2862 lbs) He-162 M14 and M15 (not completed)
As 014------2* 400-500 Kp He-162 M 42

(lifetime BMW-003A/E: 200+ hours, Jumo-004D: around 50 hours,
He-S011A: unknown, AS-014: unknown)

Service seiling: 11.700 m (around 38.500 ft)
Top speed at sea level: 790 Km/h at 100%
---------------------------820 Km/h at 115 % (30 sec.)
Top speed at 6000 m (nearly 20k ft): 840 Km/h at 100%
---------------------------880 Km/h at 115 % (30 sec.)
Top speed at 11.000 m (36.500 ft): 780 Km/h at 100%
---------------------------810 Km/h at 115% (30 sec.)
highest recorded speed: 905 Km/h at 6.800m (at 115%)
limiting Mach speed: 0.845
critical Mach speed: 0.867

flight endurance at 6.000m: 33 min (at 2634 Kg)
"---100%--------at 11.000m: 57 min (at 2634 Kg)
"-----"------------at 11.000m: 85 min (at 2889 Kg)
Range at sea level: 265 Km (at 2634 Kg)
-------"--------------: 390 Km (at 2889 Kg)Range at 11.000m: 660 Km (at 2634 Kg)
--------"------------:1000 Km (at 2889 Kg)
take off distance: 800 m
take off distance with jettisonable rocket assistance: 380 m


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 22, 2005)

The Meteor III had all sorts of artificial limitations placed on it when it entered service. Higher than normal alieron forces were needed to manoeuver it, as a deliberate foil to pilots performing aerobatics in what was still a 'experimental' airframe. Apparently they were worried about overstressig the wings. As a result it was very slow in the rolling plane. 

Similarly, there were also some limitations placed on the operation of the Derwent I turbojets. IIRC they were operationally limited in the temperature and RPM they could put on the turbine, something that they got rid of with the Derwent 5 fitted to the F. 4. I think this was just a wear and tear issue (like the "5 minute limit" for the Merlin) instead of anything seriously wrong with the engine, but I could be wrong. The Derwent I put out about 2000lbs thrust though, so it was at least as good as any service jet engine at the time.

Problems with buffeting from the nacels and snaking at high speeds (475 mph +) were still present, although they had been reduced from the Mk I, with the short nacel Welland engines. These problems were finally redressed later in MK III production, when the nacels were lengthened again. The aircraft also had balance issues, and had to have quite a large amount of balast added to eliminate them. There were a few other bits and bots that were adjusted in the first 20 or so production airframes and also in the last production batches in 1946.

As it stood in service, the MK III was a good aircraft, but nothing special. It was fast, but probably not manouervable enough to make a good fighter. 

If the British had fitted lengthened nacels (which would of eliminated the high speed buffet and partially solved the snaking problem) , allowed full power for the Derwents and reinstated proper alieron control, THEN the Meteor III would of been an excellent fighter. As it stood, it was a fast, well liked airframe, but it really didn't have the potential to go toe-to-toe with the German jets, mostly due to the restraints placed upon it.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 22, 2005)

Interesting to read, Jabberwocky.

I think the Dervent I was comparable to the BMW-003 or Jumo-004 in terms of performance but it´s huge diamter would only hardly allow a mid wing fitting (inside the fuselage could be wiser). The comparably low crit Mach figure of the Meteor originates partly because of the very thick airfoil, also.
I also think that the Meteor, while a large target to hit, can take a good deal of punishment, esspeccially because fuel tanks hits -unlike the P-80- would rarely result in destruction of the airframe.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 22, 2005)

I can't remember the source, but I do remember reading that the Derwets were supposed to be putting out 2,200 lbs thrust initially, but were 'de-tuned' by about 10%, because of some operational concerns.

The Meteor, while admittedly having a thickish wing section, was still very fast. The Mk. III could do 495 mph. The wing did provide very good slow speed handling and turn performance, perhaps at the expense of top end speed.

The Meteor really only hit its stride with the development of the F4, from July 1945. The first, and most obvious, improvement was fitting the Derwent V. The Derwents I-IV made between 2,000 and 2450 lbs thrust. The Derwent V was something different. It was smaller and lighter than its older brothers, but it was also more fuel efficient and put out 3400 lbs thrust (a 70% improvement over the Derwent I  ).

Concurrent with the Derwewnt V installation, a number of other important cahnges were made. Firstly, new nacells were wider and longer, and tested with Derwent I/IIs fitted, they improved both speed and handling and removed the need for the large amounts of ballast sitting in the Meteor. The new Derwents and larger nacells also cured most, but not all, of the high speed issues. It actually wasn't until Gloster fitted a revised tail sction to the F.8 in the late 1940s that these completely disappeared.

Clipping the wings improved speed and roll and also stopped the designers worries about wing stress, so that the control imitations were resciinded. In 1945 a F.4 prototype did 606 mph, so the wing couldn't of been that bad at near supersonic speeds. Later F.4s went up to 616 mph


----------



## delcyros (Nov 22, 2005)

I read it too, but You cannot -even with pure force- accelerate
the Meteor F4 to higher speeds than 620 mp/h at sea level.
Keep an eye on the altitude of these tests, that´s what I call treetop altitude!
At higher level the plane hits its critical Mach sooner and becomes uncontrollable.
The F-4 really was agreat advantage. Let´s asume that a Meteor F-4 has to fight against an improved He-162 (He-S011 or BMW-003D engine), what do you think?


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 22, 2005)

An He-162 could take the meteor, Being smaller, faster, better climb and roll and turning radius. The two lack luster things were the armament and the range, not to mention the wooden construction. The Meteor was big and lumbering compared to the -162, and just wouldnt be able to manouever or hit something so small, at high speeds due to snaking and being an unstable gun platform, or at low speeds it would just be outturned and shot down. Being as big and heavy as it was, it would most likely be slow to accelerate. The Meteors would have to catch the -162's landing, and to counter that, the germans would have to launch swarms, in waves, when one group lands, the next takes off, but they had neither the fuel, pilots, or planes at the time.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 22, 2005)

delcyros said:


> I also think that the Meteor, while a large target to hit, can take a good deal of punishment, esspeccially because fuel tanks hits -unlike the P-80- would rarely result in destruction of the airframe.



You know I've got to disagree with the assessment of the P-80s fuel tank. I don't care if it got hit in the fuel tank, wing, or tail, chances are if one the the HE-162s cannon shells hit the P-80 it was not a good thing....

Case in point 5 years later in Korea. Out gunned and totally out classed the only combat the P-80 (F-80) saw was in Korea. About 15 P-80s were lost to Mig-15s, the P-80 destroyed about 9 MiG-15s. There were never any reports of those P-80s exploding or turning into massive fireballs no different than any other aircraft being hit by a 37mm. Even in the ground support role, if the fuel tank was that detrimental to its survivability, there would of been massive stories of how the P-80 was a death trap, and from I read the opposite seems to be the norm as the F-80 flew more operational sorties than any other aircraft deployed in Korea. Pilots who flew it in the ground support role loved it! Bottom line, If a HE-162 achieved a few hits on any aircraft, P-80, Meteor, etc., they were done, If the HE-162 was hit in the same manner, the result would be the same....

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/cat_index_20.shtml


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 22, 2005)

Yeah, no question the Hee-162 would be easy to take down with a few hits. Thats why its small, fast, and manouverable, so it doesnt get hit. The Meteor, unless flown by an excellent fighter pilot, or against completely inferior adversaris (very very likely scenario considering it was intended to be piloted by hitler youth with glider training only, or sent straight into combat) the Meteor wouldnt stand too much a chance, especially if the -162 would have been a later model armed with the Mk-108 30mm cannon with minenschlusse rounds.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 23, 2005)

The He 162 suffered many of the drawbacks of the Meteor at high speed, as well as others based around its light, wooden construction.

There was a marked tendency for lateral instability and snaking at high speeds, traced to the incidence of the wing dihedral. The A2 version had enlarged span tail surfaces in an attempt to alleviate this. They plane also suffered from yaw instability, which was partially corrected by fitting those characteristic downward angled wing extensions.

The A1 and A2 variants were both too lightly constructed to allow a Mk 108 cannon to be used in the nose. There were problems with the recoil and vibration from the cannon. A proposed A3 variant would of had a reinforced nose section to deal with this, but the CoG issues probably would of been interesting. They might have had to balast the plane, much like they did with the Meteor Mk. III.


I'd give the advanatage to the He-162, mostly because its anywhere from 10-50 mph faster depending on altitude. It's maximum R.o.C seems to be only about 200 feet/ minute better than the Meteor Mk III though and I have no data to compare in the turn, but i'd assume the He-162 is better; higher wingloading, but much better powerloading and aerodynamics. Roll would favour the He 162, but mostly because the alierons were wired heavy in the Meteor.

From an operation standpoint, the Meteor Mk III is a better plane. It's more reliable and has better range and endurance. Its also more heavily armed.

The Meteor F. 4 is proably better than the He 162, but that is a different kettle of fish, and 6 months further down the track. Still, it would provide a much more challenging cmparison. Similarly, the Vampire Mk I might also make an interesting "compare and contrast" piece.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 23, 2005)

Undoubtedly the He-162 did have some draw backs, one of them being the two Mg151/20 used in the subsuquent aircraft produced after the a few built with the MK-108. The -162 had a metal fuesalgue. Also it was as manouverable as the pilot was comfortable. If they had more experience they could have been more confident and pushed the aircraft more, but they didnt like the weak tail structure, because you could only stay stable and not shear it off with 3/4 rudder applied smoothly. Hitler youth and fighter pilots from a -109 wouldnt know how to handle it right, and it would be a flame out, breake up death trap. But if someone had proper conversion training, in an aircraft with an engine, not a glider, it could have been an exceptional aircraft to fight against.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 24, 2005)

Ummm,

Flyboy, right we have discussed the P-80 issue, but in Korea, the F-84, F-86 and even the Mig-15 was designed in the same manner (fuel tanks in front of the engine), so they indeed have shown little differences. The enforced structure around the tanks couldn´t prevent a 20mm hit from holing. If fuel goes out it will - narly automaticly- inflame by the engine. Bad thing. The He-162, Me-262 and Meteor are designed otherwise. I also think that the Meteor- while outclassed by the Mig´s did perform very well in the ground attack role in Korea.

It should be noted that the He-162 isn´t a wooden plane. Most of the fuselage and the rudders are of Dural, the wingtips made of Pantal, some parts even made of steel, the wings (without rudders), the nosecap, the gearcoverings and a small section behind the canopy are made of wood.
The wooden wings have a small area and a tiny spanwidth, that´s why they are capable to high G-forces (I suspect, but I am not sure, that the He-162 has a higher destruction limit than the Meteor MK III).
Actually it is the same basic construction which we see in the Me-109K and Me-163. Nobody ever wanted these planes bad because they are wooden/Dural composites. Check the construction manual for these details. It cannot be denied that the M1-M13 prototypes had problems with bad glues, even later some serial planes had shown bad quality due to lack of a proper glue agent or simply bad working. 

The heavy recoil forces of twin 30mm MK108 were unsuited for the A-1/A-2, the bow section would need structural reeinforcements. I don´t think the plane would need some kind of ballast, because the guns were placed almost at the CoG and the CoG could widely differ from 19.0% to 26.0% according to the operating manual (page 3). Generally I suspect that the 20mm MG151 are the better weaponry for this fighter because the rounds allow a higher effective shooting range than the low muzzle 30 mm rounds.

The rudder forces were limited to 3/4 at high speeds only (500+mp/h), it indeed had the problem of a very light stick. The roll rates of the He-162 are even superior to the Fw-190 at all but very low speeds, esspeccially at high speeds. 
The low speed turnrate would probably go to the Meteor because of it´s lower wingload. 
The Meteor -III operating over Germany in early 45 carried a white camouflage in order to prevent them from beeing shot down by allied forces mixing it up with a Me-262. This undoubtly would result in a problem if seen by a He-162 (big and white target).
There is little proof that the pilots of JG-1 were rookies. Indeed the only pilots to fly the He-162 were veterans but with little training for the jet engine. On the other side the BMW-003 is easier to operate than was the Jumo-004, it simply wasn´t that sensitive throttle changings and flame outs.
According to the thrust to weight ratio, the acceleration of Meteor-III and He-162 don´t differ much: 0.29 vs. 0.28 (at 100%) or 0.32 (at 115%).At half fuel load, the He-162 is somehow superior in acceleration.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Ummm,
> 
> Flyboy, right we have discussed the P-80 issue, but in Korea, the F-84, F-86 and even the Mig-15 was designed in the same manner (fuel tanks in front of the engine), so they indeed have shown little differences. The enforced structure around the tanks couldn´t prevent a 20mm hit from holing. If fuel goes out it will - narly automaticly- inflame by the engine. Bad thing. The He-162, Me-262 and Meteor are designed otherwise. I also think that the Meteor- while outclassed by the Mig´s did perform very well in the ground attack role in Korea.



The fuel tank in the F-80 is in a bay above the air intake. I remember this installation distinctly in my time working on T-33s. The tank is self sealing, but I recognize that this isn't going to stop any cannon shell. With that in mind, a round would have to puncture the tank, penetrate the air intake compartment in such a way that fuel could be ingested into the engine. I think the aircraft would be long destroyed in this scenario unless small arms fire were involved, and even then the damage would have to be in an exact spot. In Korea the P-80 was committed to a more hazardous role and was shot at by every Russian built firearm deployed into the area including heavy AA. If anything, the F-80 proved to be reliable and rugged and because of the Centrifugal flow compressor there was a smaller "critical" engine area to sustain damage, a positive characteristic of a centrifugal flow turbine engine.

I remain, the "Turtle Back" fuel tank design found on the F-80, Mig-15, and even F-84, presented no more hazard than locating it on the belly, you will always have a vulnerable area where the golden BB could penetrate. The area to penetrate was small and I doubt even the best fighter pilot could purposely place a cannon round in that exact location, and even if it was done, a lot of other things would go wrong before the damaged fuel tank allowed fuel to be ingested into the engine. If the installation of the fuel tank in that location was that hazardous, we would have pilot reports of these aircraft lighting up like a Roman candle anytime they were hit....


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 24, 2005)

Very true. And fact is, i dont think i ever head of an F-80 going down in a fiery wreck from anything less than very severe damage, from deffinatly more than one or two hits. They were rugged, and the margin for error to hit that precise spot was very, very limited.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 24, 2005)

Nothing I would disagree with, Flyboy. 
There were initially problems with the fuel caps and the air intake in the P-80 program but in the end they have been mastered. And I am going to underline that a radial engine is somehow less sensitive to damage than was an axial one but 20mm are anyhow a serious thread.
Wouldn´t You like to compare He-162 with the P-80? A much closer pairing, I think.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 24, 2005)

delcyros said:


> Nothing I would disagree with, Flyboy.
> There were initially problems with the fuel caps and the air intake in the P-80 program but in the end they have been mastered. And I am going to underline that a radial engine is somehow less sensitive to damage than was an axial one but 20mm are anyhow a serious thread.
> Wouldn´t You like to compare He-162 with the P-80? A much closer pairing, I think.



I agree. Didn't we have that going on another thread?

The -162 to the Meteor; I think the only thing the Meteor had going for it was reliability and maybe range. I knew a guy who had a later NF version, he told me it was a very stable aircraft to fly....


----------



## delcyros (Nov 25, 2005)

Yep.
+ for Metor-III:
reliable jet engine
better weaponry, more rounds
better range and endurance
better service seiling
lower take off/landing speed
(probably) better low speed handling

- for Meteor-III
top speed 
crit Mach figures
roll rate
heavy stick forces
high speed handling
target size
numbers deployed
initial climb

Can anyone submit the speed figures of Meteor -III depending on altitude?


----------



## Tommy Enfield (Nov 25, 2005)

The Meteor III was a further development of the MkI, a proven design with some operational record (including like 13 V-1s shot down) so I'd go for the British plane, providing that it is early 1945.

The problem with the He-162 is that it was a very advanced [although easy to build] design and needed more time to reach maturity. Besides that, an engine obstructing your six o'clock view is not good news at all.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 26, 2005)

Neither the Heinkel engineerers nor the RLM was fully statisfied with the solution to carry an engine directly behind the canopy.
This solution was made because it allows very easy maintenance and engine replacements (the BMW-003 E was in the end more reliable than the Jumo was but this was unknown at the time of it´s construction)
Wind tunnel testings proved that there is only little additional drag compared to a fuselage mounted jet engine and more importantly, it allows the fuel tanks to be set in the fuselage. In case of damagings, the fuel wouldn´t ignite on the engine, that´s surely a plus. However, there are reports that a canopy failure will cause a 5-8% reduced top speed and that´s pretty much.
The Heinkel company also featured the first ejection seats on serial planes (He-219, He-280, He-162), providing a better chance of survivability for the pilot.
The visibility tor the six was reduced but not by that much (compare it with Me-163, Bf-109K), the overall visibility was better than in a Me-262 because of the blown canopy.
I don´t rate the Meteor-III equal, maybe it can win 3-4 out of 10 engagements under normal circumstances, worst having that a low crit Mach figure. It´s good to have a soft low speed handling, but these jet´s aren´t build for low speed engagements.
And while the Meteor I made some shots on V-1, the He-162 had shown capable in dogfights. Records confirm at least 10 air to air engagements and a few more are probable. If the 6 claims of He-162 kills turns out to be reliable is unclear so far.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 26, 2005)

I know that Lockheed was developing an ejection seat as early as 1944 - the He-162 had components copied on later seats that ultimately went into the F-80C.

Had a thought! Imagine constructing an He-162 from composite material (Kevlar and graphite) ?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

I always thought that the He-162
was a pretty looking plane but as stated by others I would not want the engine behind my cockpit like that. Just a bad feeling comes to my mind.

Below is an ejection seat from a He-162. It is on display at the Deutsches Museum in Munchen, Germany. The parachute was stored in the seat pan and was cartridge fired giving it the name 'Schleudersitz Heinkel-Kartusche'.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 26, 2005)

These early ejection seats truly had their shortcomings: Of 7 He-162 ejections, two ended fatal because the canopy wasn´t released. Another ejection of a british technician directly after VE-day in Leck was also fatal, because he ejected at zero alt/speed (this had to be invented later).
Technically it was the right way, of the examples in US hands there has been quite an intensive testing, which ended that the cardridge for F-80 uses had to be more powerful but otherwise it was ok.
A modified He-162 ejection seat went into serial production in the SU.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

I agree the early ejection seats would have been scary to try. I almost would say take your chance and try and ride it in.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Nov 26, 2005)

German ejection seats used compressed air as the 'propellant'. Many times the pressure in the storage tank would bleed down and the seat would only be partially ejected. The He219 had this problem.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

As you can see I had to make a change to my post up there. I made a typo calling it the He-172 instead of the He-162. Anyhows. You can go and see that ejection seat up there at the Deutsches Museum. It is a great museum and the diagrams behind the seat show how the cartridge fired the seat and propelled the pilot out of the aircraft.


----------



## delcyros (Nov 29, 2005)

Yes it is. A great Museum but I would more likely have a view to Silver Hill NASM depot. 
In order to provide some raw basics for a comparison of He-162 B with Meteor MK-IV I made some calculations.

Variant 1 (He-162 airframe with BMW-003D)

take of weight: 3082 Kg with 700 Kg fuel (not included fuel for take off and acceleration)
static thrust: 1100 Kp (2430 lbs.) 
wing area: 11, 16 m²
wingload: 276 Kg/m²
thrust / weight ratio: 0.357
flight time with 100% at sea level: 32 min, 440 Km
--------"----------------at 6.000 m: 53 min, 800 Km
--------"----------------at 11.000m: 89 min, 1150 Km
(estimations)
top speed at sea level: 843 Km/h
top speed at 6.000 m: 921 Km/h
top speed at 11.000m: 830 Km/h
top speed at 6.800 m: 938 Km/h
best climb: 25 m/sec The proposed V-tail of the A-6 subtype would add some 4-6 Km/h to
it´s top speed only but positively increase the crit Mach to 0.873

Variant B (swept wing with 30 degrees (positive) and He-S011A)
(wing load would be very high with straight 11,16m² wing)
take off weight: 3364 Kg with 850 Kg fuel
static thrust: 1300 Kp 
wing area: 14 m²
wingload: 240 Kg/m²
thrust to weight ratio: 0.386 
flight time with 100% at sea level: 30 min, 430 Km
------------------"--------at 6.000m: 57 min, 800 Km
-------------------"------at 11.000m:85 min, 1100 Km
(estimations)
top speed at sea level: 875 Km/h
top speed at 6.000m: 945 km/h
top speed at 11.000m: 855 Km/h
top speed at 6.800 m: 958 Km/h
crit Mach: 0.911
best climb: 28 m/sec.
These figures are well below Heinkel expectations, I took a plus on it´s weight (cause it always went some 10% heavier than wanted) and used
the maths of march 45 rather than those of 44. Keep in mind that the He-S011 A1 wouldn´t make it into serial, I expect the lighter He-S011 A-6 or the more powerful He-S011B to do so. However, I calculated with the He-S011A1. Has the He-162 still the advantage over the Meteor-IV?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2005)

Here's a F-80 seat....


----------



## delcyros (Dec 1, 2005)

The He-162 ejection seat did not used compressed air as propellant. The cartridge (Schleuderkartusche HL-34-4) was filled with high propellant powder. It was manufactured by Labor Dellbrück.
Compressed air as propellent was used for some of the early ejection seats (FW-190 and He-111 testbeds as well as for a part of the He-219 and most He-280´s) but is not evident for the He-162 ejection seat.I also heard of no complications regarding the partially ejection of the seat.
At least two ejections were fatal because the canopy wasn´t released.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The He-162 ejection seat did not used compressed air as propellant. The cartridge (Schleuderkartusche HL-34-4) was filled with high propellant powder. It was manufactured by Labor Dellbrück.
> Compressed air as propellent was used for some of the early ejection seats (FW-190 and He-111 testbeds as well as for a part of the He-219 and most He-280´s) but is not evident for the He-162 ejection seat.I also heard of no complications regarding the partially ejection of the seat.
> At least two ejections were fatal because the canopy wasn´t released.



Yeap I believe that is what I said in my posting as well, I just was not going to get into a lengthy discussion about it. I am glad you did.


----------



## Parmigiano (Dec 2, 2005)

> The Meteor III was a further development of the MkI, a proven design with some operational record (including like 13 V-1s shot down) so I'd go for the British plane, providing that it is early 1945



Only 16 Meteor Mk I were built, all (under)powered by the RR Welland engine rated at only 1600lb.
Meteor MK II was the only one prototype fitted with MetroVick axial turbojets, probably then not developed enough to justify a production.

So Meteor MK III is the first real production aircraft, the first units still delivered with the Welland, soon replaced by the RR Derwent that was in the same power range of the Jumo 004. (2000lb)

Could be that an undisturbed MK I was able to chase the V1, but surely with a top speed of 665 kmh was too underpowered to be a good combat jet aircraft.

I think that He162 and Meteor are not directly comparable because they are completely different aircrafts.
In my opinion Meteor vs Me262 is a more logical comparison, while for the He162 I would see a theoretical He162-1946 development vs DH Vampire.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

I agree with that. I think the Me-262 is better compared with the Meteor than the Volkjaeger.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 3, 2005)

Just from the technical point I agree.
More interesting for me that both planes represented their nations last attempts to put a jet fighter in service (...and they could have met in combat...)
If you compare He-162 with the Vampire (in 46), I would go for the He-162, it simply would have been superior in speed, crit Mach, climb, acceleration and maneuverability. The only allied plane able to deal with the He-162 on equal or even more favourable conditions is the P-80, I think.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2005)

delcyros said:


> The only allied plane able to deal with the He-162 on equal or even more favourable conditions is the P-80, I think.


Agree


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

That I will agree with also, however I still dont like the engine behind the cockpit like that. I think they could have done that better.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 5, 2005)

Yes, if they had decided to do so, they would cancel the whole He-162 program and shift ressources towards Messerschmidt´s P1101 program.
Even without variable wing sweep (The V-1 prototype had them just in order to get additional datas for transsonic speeds and low speed handling) the plane would have been better. However it doesn´t fit to the RLM´s ideas of a small, simple plane which is easy to fly and producable in very high numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2005)

I agree either the P.1011 or the Ta-183 program. Both were almost ready for test flight by wars end.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 5, 2005)

The Ta-183 was found to have some problems that took time to correct. Kurt tank actually built the aircraft for.... <.< >.> ... Paraguay maybe, i dont know, but the aircraft had poor handling at first and needed some refinement to the wings and the tail surfaces. The germans just didnt have time to choose what might be better, because they needed something right then and there, and Heinkel had been working on a small lightweight fighter for some time, so had the edge.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 6, 2005)

I will go with You on this.
The Pulqui-II build for Argentinia was somehow problematic. It should be noted that it isn´t a Ta-183 (the basic idea behind it shares a lot with the original Huckebein but the technical solutions to provide space for new jet engines show a new design at all). 
Since there is no recorded flight of a Ta-183 prototype we can only draw cocnlusions from the construction charts. The high wing sweep with very high aspect ratio and without anhedral and additional lift provider for low speeds (no slats or flaperons) would give the plane an excellent crit Mach but a worrisome low speed handling. Wing boundary layers could fix it as demonstrated by Lawotchkin´s La-15 (who overtook the Ta-183 wingdesign).
All in all a problematic plane to fly in my estimation. The Me-P1101 was far more ahead in development but Heinkel had the advantage of P1073, which was the ancestor of the He-162. Neither the Me nor the Ta could be produced in such a brief period and pushed into service.
It should be considered that the layout of the He-162 makes improvements (engine, weaponry, fuel, wing sweep) very easy. Any operational engine could be fitted, the wing could be replaced by a swept one (this did not go farther than a half completed prototype with interchangable swept forward or swept back wings, found by advancing ground forces at the Schwechau plant)


----------



## Parmigiano (Dec 6, 2005)

I agree with Delcyros, the Salamander was designed as 'quick' solution and having easiness of service and developmnent in mind.
Apparently one of the reason of the strange jet arrangement was that in that position there was no problem to ingest mud and dirt in case of operation on semi-prepared runways, plus the easy replacement/change of the engine.
It the goal to have an operational jet fighter in very short time this points were deemed more important than the inevitable drawbacks of such a configuration.
Prototypes and designs were made with He011 jet engine, 1 or 2 Argus pulsejets (same as V1) and others.

All in all it looked more an experimental aircraft pressed into production than a fully developed project.

If I have to be honest, I don't like the 162 very much!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2005)

i do, not only do i like the concept but i like the plane..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2005)

I think it was a pretty slick aircraft, my only worry would of been its reliability...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

I think looks wise and performance wise she was a good aircraft, I just dont like the fact of trying to eject from an aircraft with the engine right behind my cockpit or the fact with the engine there it would have made it very easy to hit that engine with your cannons.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2005)

I think that it was remarkable...Especially considering Germany's position when they were designing it and its brilliance compared to the length of development...


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 6, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I think that it was remarkable...Especially considering Germany's position when they were designing it and its brilliance compared to the length of development...


I agree CC. It was good considering it was developed and put into production so quickly, something the Germans needed to as the war drew to a close, it allowed a cheap and effective interceptor to get into the skies relatively quickly after coming off the drawing board.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

That was the whole point of the "Volks Jaeger" (Peoples Fighter). It was to be easy to build without using rare materials and easy to learn to fly. In that sence it was a very remarkable machine, considering it was all of those three things.

As I said I think it was a great aircraft, I just dont like where the engine is.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 7, 2005)

A psychological disadvantage it seems to be...
While it is easier to hit an engine mounted on the back, you need to fly in the same performance class....P-80 or Meteor (F)MK-IV. Even then it is a tiny target to hit (64 cm in diameter, the BMW-003 was the smallest axial engine in ww2) and jet engines in general can take more damge than the more complicated piston ones. In this special point I would prefer the british, resp. the US radial designs, they can take much more than the axial ones, preferred by the Germans.
I am not sure if the He-162 was easy to fly, I would expect that the engine layout can produce a considerable amount of yaw and pitch forces. It probably was the most agile jet of it´s time (considering stick forces and roll rates) but not the easiest (this in my view belongs to either the Gloster E 28/39 or the He-280) to learn with.
I find it interesting that the project in the end succesfully overcomes the shortcomings of the early prototypes as pointed out above.
Comparing the He-162 with the other "Volksjäger" candidates of Focke Wulf, Blohn&Voss and Junkers the RLM decision for Heinkel was correct, the plane had the best performances and great potential for further development. Can anyone provide informations of british jet projects in 44? hadn´t the RAF a contract in 44 about a single engined jet fighter or am I wrong?


----------



## Glider (Dec 7, 2005)

I think you are talking about the Vampire that was in test at the time. Another unusual design but one that worked.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 7, 2005)

I love the He-162 as an aircraft. If ir was built entirely of metals and alloys, and the engines were more reliable, it could have been an amazing aircraft. But because it was made because of a lack of all those things, it never made it to its full potential as an interceptor. Think about an all metal He-162, with a reliable He sO11 engine and two Mk-108, fitted with drop tanks to extend loiter time above the target. It would have been the most formidable interceptor flying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2005)

Metal Alloys? Shoot I 'd like to see one built from modern composites!


----------



## delcyros (Dec 8, 2005)

A metal winged He-162 with HeS011 and drop tanks would have been an excellent fighter, agreed. The metal wing was already on the drawing board in nov. 44 but canceled because of the delaying factor. Drop tanks could be fitted under the wingtips, increasing the endurance at sea level to around one hour at 100%. The extra weight of engine and wing could counter the recoilforces of the MK 108 but I don´t think it would have been an ideal fighter´s layout. Three MG 151/20 were still in the limits of the original design and I expect that this would be excellent for it´s role.
And I have to underline that the jet engine of the He-162 was, compared to it´s standarts, a reliable jet powerplant. Don´t mix it with a Jumo-004.
The spoolup time was shorter, it wasn´t that sensitive to throttle setting changes, it even could sustain a 115% overrew for at least 30 sec. (tested up to two minutes but for the cost of average lifetime)! Not to mention it´s much higher average lifetime (200 hours compared to 25-50 for the Jumo-004). It wasn´t that prone to flamouts at full acceleration, it had a superior high altitude behavior and even less specific fuel consumption. I would also like to point out that it weights nearly 200 Kg less than a Jumo-004 (dry).
We don´t know if the HeS011 would make it to a reliable powerplant, testbenched examples showed a wide field of complications (spool up time, feul consumption, high alt effectiveness), the only example to fly under a He-111 showed no malfunctions but decent tests are missing.

The Vampire is great, I simply lack in detailed knowledge but would be grateful if anyone can provide some interesting links.
Originally I had the Supermarine Ace or something comparable in mind. Ideas?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 10, 2007)

The main disadvantage of the early Vampires was their short range, had this been improved enough they might have seen some active service tward the war's end.

I don't think the BMW 003 was the smallest axial engine of the war, though it was certainly the smallest to see significant production. The smallest axial engine of the war that had production potential (and perhaps the best) was the HeS-006 (HeS-30) engine. It was slightly narrower, significantly shorter and lighter than the 003. With a diameter of only 24in (62cm), a length of 107in (272cm), a weight of 860 lbs (390kg), and a thrust of over 2000 lbf (in static tests, max theoretical thrust was projected at 2478 lbf) giving it a Thrust/weight of 2.8 (theoretical) and 2.33 (in testing) it was superior to all other early engines. In addition to these properties the engine used only a 3-stage compressor an along with its lighter weight it would have been easier and more economical to produce. (too bad it was dropped for the HeS-011, which, IMHO was not as good of an overall design, and certainly not as usefull since the 006 could have feasibly entered production between the 004 and 003 engines))

The 1600 lbf axial Westinghouse J30 engine which was entering production in late 1944 (used in the FH Phantom first flying in early '45) was also smaller though it wasn't available in numbers until after the war's end.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 10, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I just dont like where the engine is.



And they keep doing it (circa 2000)


----------



## The Basket (Oct 10, 2007)

Eric Brown flew the He 162 and his views were very positive. But he said the idea of letting untrained hitler youth fly it was utterly stupid and it needed an experienced pilot to fly it.

I think the engine positon was part of the rush job but I see no harm in it being there. 

The 162 was fast well armed small and agile but with poor range. Also suffered structual failures. An RAF pilot was killed when rolling...the tail fell off. 

Brown said the 162 had the fastest rate of roll of any aircraft he flew before. Not bad for a desperate design.
He said that the 162 had better snaking characteristics than the 262 or 234.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 11, 2007)

Graeme said:


> And they keep doing it (circa 2000)



And again . . .


----------



## Graeme (Oct 11, 2007)

...and again.(1952)


----------

