# Ta-152C equivalent to Tempest?



## wiking85 (Dec 11, 2013)

The Ta-152 had a low altitude version with the DB603 engine, shorter wings, and MW boost for low/medium altitude air superiority and ground attack; this sounds much like the Hawker Tempest to me, but with a slightly weaker, though less complex engine. Is this about right or were there key differences I'm missing? How would it have held up against the Tempest?


----------



## davebender (Dec 11, 2013)

Not sure why Germany would need something beside Me-109 for that mission. It had an excellent combat record at medium / low altitude right up to end of WWII.


----------



## Crimea_River (Dec 11, 2013)

Reschke successfully engaged and shot down a Tempest in a Ta152-H at low altitude so....

It's all theoretical and once again, pilot skill can not be ignored.


----------



## GregP (Dec 11, 2013)

There weren't enough Ta-152C's made to know. Reschke flew the Ta-152H and accounted for 3 of the 7 combat victories. Josef Kiel accounte for 4 more, not 5 as widely claimed (1 of his victories was logged the day BEFORE his unti converted to the Ta-152H), accounting for the seven now widely recognized as the best approximation we have. It logged 4 losses but some people claim only 2. Most sources recognize 4.

So the Ta-152C didn't actually accomplish anything to make us believe it could anything near what a Tempest ... a proven winner ... could do. 

The Reschke encounter with Tempests seems to get better with telling and it well may be the Tempests simply didn;t see the Ta-152H's until they were bounced. After that, it was time to evade and if the circumstances had been reversed, the results might have been complimentary.

I make no claim except to say the war record of the Ta-152C is missing in action for a meaningful comparison.

The Tempest, on the other hand, shot down 638 of the 1,846 V-1's claimed by aircraft. It is said the Tempest achieved a 7:1 kill ratio in air-to-air combat and 6:1 against single-seat fighters.

So making meaningful comparisons is fraught with speculation, based on actual wartime achievements. It is possible the Ta-152C might have been a good one. The converse is also possible though unlikely. But there is simply nothing to compare in combat achievements.

Personally, I like the Ta-152's and think that if they had been developed and deployed in a reasomable time, they could have made a formidable force.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 11, 2013)

Tempest made 240 claims of which 79 were Bf109s and 115 were Fw190s.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 11, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> The Ta-152 had a low altitude version with the DB603 engine, shorter wings, and MW boost for low/medium altitude air superiority and ground attack; this sounds much like the Hawker Tempest to me, but with a slightly weaker, though less complex engine. Is this about right or were there key differences I'm missing? How would it have held up against the Tempest?



Supposing the war went on long enough for the Ta-152C to be deployed, it would come up against not only the Tempest V, but also the slightly more capable Tempest II.

The Mk II was found to be 10-20 mph faster than the Mk V below 20,000 ft, 350-1000 ft/min better in climb through the altitude range, slightly better in a zoom climb, faster to accelerate, better in the rolling plane, identical in a dive and only slightly worse in turning circles.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 11, 2013)

The Ta-152 was (mostly) a high altitude Fighter, not sure how that compare with the Tempest. The german tempest should be the Me-309 but that plane never made it.


----------



## DonL (Dec 12, 2013)

CharlesBronson said:


> The Ta-152 was (mostly) a high altitude Fighter, not sure how that compare with the Tempest. The german tempest should be the Me-309 but that plane never made it.




That is incorrect.

The Ta 152H should be the high altitude fighter, the Ta 152C was intended as multirole aircraft to follow the FW 190F as ground support and the FW 190D as low and medium altitude fighter and bomber intercector. 

Armament 4 x 20mm 151 + 1 x 30mm, instaed of 1x 30mm and 2 x 20mm of the Ta 152H.
Wingspan of the Ta 152C was 11,00m instead of 14,82m of the Ta 152H




> Supposing the war went on long enough for the Ta-152C to be deployed, it would come up against not only the Tempest V, but also the slightly more capable Tempest II.
> 
> The Mk II was found to be 10-20 mph faster than the Mk V below 20,000 ft, 350-1000 ft/min better in climb through the altitude range, slightly better in a zoom climb, faster to accelerate, better in the rolling plane, identical in a dive and only slightly worse in turning circles.



After Mr. Hermanns book Ta 152,
the Ta 152C1 should be faster at low and medium altitudes then the Ta 152H

Max speed with combat rating power 702 km/h and 736 km/h with MW50 at 9000m (engine DB 603LA)


----------



## GregP (Dec 12, 2013)

Hi DonL,

I think the Ta-152C would have been a good one if it had been deployed in numbers after proper development, as would have the Ta-152H. They called them "production" but the first 20 aircraft are "developmental" or "service prototypes" unless it is a Piper Cub or something similar. A Ta-152 was not hardly a "simple" aircraft. It was intended to be world-beating fighter.

These formidable fighters had great potential and might have made a real difference if deployed a year earlier in significent numbers, but simply weren't ready yet and remain extremely interesting if not significant during the actual war. I wish they had been documented with a bit more certainty, but see disparate performance claims copuled with specifications that do not agree with one another in some cases.

I surmise these disparate performance claims were at wildly different power settings and condictions. There is a great deal of difference between a fighter at corner speed, using WER, and another at cruise not knowing it was about to be attacked from out of the sun, but I also don't want to fight about it.

Suffice to say the Ta-152's had incredible potential that was entirely unrealized in the real world. They remain interesting, but aren't fearsome in any manner with a total of 7 to 10 air-to-air victories from 43 or so delivered units of all varieties against 2 to 4 combat losses.

If deployed in numbers early enough, they could have made a real difference to the Axis powers, but weren't and didn't.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 12, 2013)

Wouldnt the Ta152s equivalent Hawker opponent be the Hawker Fury the development timelines are very similar. The 152 got into service because it was desperately needed the Fury development was slowed and then cancelled by the RAF in late 44 as it wasnt wanted. Without the advent of Jets and a longer war both could have been the main LW and RAF types by say Xmas 45.


----------



## davebender (Dec 12, 2013)

Problem is you cannot magically make jets disappear. Give Germany six more months and many Jagdgeschwader will have converted to He-162, which will have most of the early technical problems fixed. It will be an entirely new air war with USA and Britain rushing their own jets into service before technical glitches are fixed as they have no choice.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 12, 2013)

davebender said:


> Give Germany six more months and many Jagdgeschwader will have converted to He-162, which will have most of the early technical problems fixed.



First I don't believe there was a snowball's chance in hell of the technical problems on the He 162 being fixed within six months given the state of German jet engines and lack of materiel. The few He 162s that were sort of operational towards the end of the war were mostly falling out of the sky with no help from allied air forces at all. 

More importantly how is the endurance, at most thirty minutes, going to be improved?

Finally, who is going to fly significant numbers of He 162s, or any other aircraft, jet or piston engine, for that matter?

It's a non-starter and a red herring both in the context of the war and this thread. "an entirely new air war", I think not. The air war was already lost by the Germans. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## cimmex (Dec 12, 2013)

stona said:


> The few He 162s that were sort of operational towards the end of the war were mostly falling out of the sky with no help from allied air forces at all.


How many He162 lost JG1 by accidents, just curious?
cimmex


----------



## stona (Dec 12, 2013)

cimmex said:


> How many He162 lost JG1 by accidents, just curious?
> cimmex



Ten out of the thirteen recorded losses. That's 77% of an admittedly small sample. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## CobberKane (Dec 12, 2013)

I imagine the Ta152 would have been a good match for the Tempest. Both aircraft represented a pinnacle of single engine fighter design for their countries. I don’t think the 152 was ever going to be a ‘world beater’ though, even had the jets not arived. For one thing its possible superiority over be best contemporary Allied designs (Spit IXV, P-51D) seems moderate, and for another there were plenty of other fighters coming through (Fury, Hornet, P-51H) to take it on. Even had the 152 been available in numbers and competently flown I can’t see that there would have been any repetition of the happy hunting time ushered in by the appearance of the first Fw190


----------



## GregP (Dec 12, 2013)

Question guys,

A bit above Milosh said the Tempest made 240 claims with 79 Bf 109's and 115 Fw 190's. For some reason, and I did not write down the source, I have 266.5 claims by the Tempest in 17 months of action with 1,702 Tempests built.

Does anyone have a good list of Tempest claims, missions, action missions, etc?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 12, 2013)

stona said:


> First I don't believe there was a snowball's chance in hell of the technical problems on the He 162 being fixed within six months given the state of German jet engines and lack of materiel. The few He 162s that were sort of operational towards the end of the war were mostly falling out of the sky with no help from allied air forces at all.
> 
> More importantly how is the endurance, at most thirty minutes, going to be improved?
> 
> ...



There needs to be some serious lateral thinking to generate a plausible scenario in which the germans remain competitive in 1945-6. The obvious variable to feed in is that serparate peace with the Soviets. This does not necessarily mean game over, however. The Soviets accounted for about 15% of air to air losses suffered by the LW, and all up about 28% of total losses. The percentage lost in air combat was relatively modest, but the losses from attritional courses....things like base overruns were very high. 

But even with a 28% reduction in losses, Im still doubtful that the germans would be still viable for more than 3 month after the actual hisortical surrender. If the LW had risen up in strength in November-April 1945, it would still be getting meaatgrinded even if the LW was 25-30% stronger than it was


----------



## Jabberwocky (Dec 13, 2013)

GregP said:


> Question guys,
> 
> A bit above Milosh said the Tempest made 240 claims with 79 Bf 109's and 115 Fw 190's. For some reason, and I did not write down the source, I have 266.5 claims by the Tempest in 17 months of action with 1,702 Tempests built.
> 
> Does anyone have a good list of Tempest claims, missions, action missions, etc?



I cannot vouch for accuracy, but here's what appears to be a fairly comprehensive list of claims:

The Hawker Tempest Page


----------



## Milosh (Dec 13, 2013)

GregP said:


> Question guys,
> 
> A bit above Milosh said the Tempest made 240 claims with 79 Bf 109's and 115 Fw 190's. For some reason, and I did not write down the source, I have 266.5 claims by the Tempest in 17 months of action with 1,702 Tempests built.
> 
> Does anyone have a good list of Tempest claims, missions, action missions, etc?



read The Typhoon Tempest Story (Chris Thomas Christopher Shores)


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 13, 2013)

davebender said:


> Problem is you cannot magically make jets disappear. Give Germany six more months and many Jagdgeschwader will have converted to He-162, which will have most of the early technical problems fixed. It will be an entirely new air war with USA and Britain rushing their own jets into service before technical glitches are fixed as they have no choice.


 The Ta 152 was easily a more practical option than the the He 162, and would have made a far superior combat plane. The Ta 152 was far from its' potential, while the Heinkel simply did not even have one.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 13, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> The Ta 152 was easily a more practical option than the the He 162, and would have made a far superior combat plane. The Ta 152 was far from its' potential, while the Heinkel simply did not even have one.



Of course this ignores the Me262 and a matured Jumo 004's potential.


----------



## stona (Dec 13, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Of course this ignores the Me262 and a matured Jumo 004's potential.



But when would this potential have been realised? The engine that entered production in 1944 was_ less_ reliable than the prototypes built more than two years earlier. This retrograde step was caused by many factors, not least a shortage of strategic materials, something that would only become more acute as the Reich shrank under allied offensives.

The Me 262 (the only non piston engine aircraft in which I've ever taken a real interest in) makes a foot note to WW2 because it was the first jet powered aircraft to see active service. Even an ardent fan like me has to concede that in terms of the air war of WW2 it was irrelevant. It caused more consternation to the allies than actual damage.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Aozora (Dec 13, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> I cannot vouch for accuracy, but here's what appears to be a fairly comprehensive list of claims:
> 
> The Hawker Tempest Page



The list pretty well lines up with the list in Thomas and Shores' _The Typhoon and Tempest Story_: Note that the Fw 190s claimed by 486(NZ) Squadron's Sheddan Shaw on 14 April 1945 were from the encounter with JG 301's Ta 152H.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 13, 2013)

stona said:


> But when would this potential have been realised? The engine that entered production in 1944 was_ less_ reliable than the prototypes built more than two years earlier. This retrograde step was caused by many factors, not least a shortage of strategic materials, something that would only become more acute as the Reich shrank under allied offensives.
> 
> The Me 262 (the only non piston engine aircraft in which I've ever taken a real interest in) makes a foot note to WW2 because it was the first jet powered aircraft to see active service. Even an ardent fan like me has to concede that in terms of the air war of WW2 it was irrelevant. It caused more consternation to the allies than actual damage.
> 
> ...



Mid-1945, early 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004#Variants


> A number of more advanced versions were in development at the end of the war. The 004C included an afterburner for increased thrust, but was not built. The 004D improved fuel efficiency with a two-stage fuel injector, and introduced a new throttle control that avoided dumping too much fuel into the engine during throttle-ups. The 004D had passed testing and was ready to enter production in place of the 004B, when the war ended. The 004E was a 004D model with an improved exhaust area for better altitude performance.
> 
> A much more advanced model based on the same basic systems was also under development as the Jumo 012. The 012 was based on a "two-spool" system, in which two turbines, spinning at different speeds, drove two separate sections of the compressor for more efficiency. In a jet engine the compressor typically uses up about 60% of all the power generated, so any improvements can have a dramatic effect on fuel use. Plans were also underway to use the 012's basic concept in an engine outwardly identical to the 004, known as the 004H, which improved specific fuel consumption from the 004B's 1.39 kg/(daN*h) to a respectable 1.20 kg/(daN*h), a decrease of about 15%.


----------



## Aozora (Dec 13, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Mid-1945, early 1946.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004#Variants



It may well be that Junkers was planning a series of more advanced Jumo 004s but the central problem, a lack of strategic materials such as suitable high-strength high temperature alloys, would have been even more acute: without such materials the greater complexity of these advanced 004 variants would most likely have led to even greater reliability problems during operations.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 13, 2013)

Aozora said:


> It may well be that Junkers was planning a series of more advanced Jumo 004s but the central problem, a lack of strategic materials such as suitable high-strength high temperature alloys, would have been even more acute: without such materials the greater complexity of these advanced 004 variants would most likely have led to even greater reliability problems during operations.



The more developed versions of the Jumo 004 (not the 012) required no more materials than the 004B, which required less than even the Jumo 211. These versions were restricted in how quickly they could have fuel dumped into them, which prevented flame outs and increased lifespan to 50 hours. Other versions that were better designed, but again didn't require more strategic materials, boosted engine life to 100 hours. Fuel consumption issues though I'm not sure would require strategic materials (that is the 012 version). Can you provide some evidence that the jumo 012 needed extra materials over the 004?


----------



## davparlr (Dec 13, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Mid-1945, early 1946.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004#Variants


As I have argued on other sites, I think the Germans made a major mistake on relying on primarily axial flow engines. By the end of the war, German engine development had already slipped behind both Britain and American engines. Both the American J-33 and later the British Nene engine was run at 4000 lbs thrust in 1944. As far as I know, no German jet engine ran producing much more than 2500 lbs of thrust. Indeed, the American axial flow J-35 ran at 3620 lbs thrust in 1944, although it had production problems not cured until later, another indication of the development difficulties of the much more complex axial flow engine. The Germans had a lot of plans and concepts but many of them did not pan out and maybe more concepts would not have worked.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 13, 2013)

davparlr said:


> As I have argued on other sites, I think the Germans made a major mistake on relying on primarily axial flow engines. By the end of the war, German engine development had already slipped behind both Britain and American engines. Both the American J-33 and later the British Nene engine was run at 4000 lbs thrust in 1944. As far as I know, no German jet engine ran producing much more than 2500 lbs of thrust. Indeed, the American axial flow J-35 ran at 3620 lbs thrust in 1944, although it had production problems not cured until later, another indication of the development difficulties of the much more complex axial flow engine. The Germans had a lot of plans and concepts but many of them did not pan out and maybe more concepts would not have worked.



You're making the assumption that the Germans worked on the Jumo 004 as a future pathway for development; they realized it was a dead end, but designed it that way because it was easier to get working and in combat without strategic materials in quantities that would make them cost prohibitive. 
Follow on engines like the HeS 011 was meant to be the future, I'm just suggesting that the Jumo 004 still had potential in the war years, but post-war or, depending on how long the war lasts, later in the war the Class II and III engines would replace the Jumo 004. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004


> Franz opted for a design that was at once conservative and revolutionary. His design differed from von Ohain's in that he utilised a new type of compressor which allowed a continuous, straight flow of air through the engine (an axial compressor), recently developed by the Aerodynamische Versuchsanstalt (AVA - Aerodynamic Research Institute) at Göttingen. The axial-flow compressor not only had excellent performance, about 78% efficient in "real world" conditions, but it also had a smaller cross-section, important for high-speed aircraft.
> 
> On the other hand, he aimed to produce an engine that was far below its theoretical potential, in the interests of expediting development and simplifying production. One major decision was to opt for a simple combustion area using six "flame cans", instead of the more efficient single annular can. For the same reasons, he collaborated heavily on the development of the engine's turbine with Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft (AEG - General Electric Company) in Berlin, and instead of building development engines, opted to begin work immediately on the prototype of an engine that could be put straight into production. Franz's conservative approach came under question from the RLM, but was vindicated when even given the developmental problems that it was to face, the 004 entered production and service well ahead of its more technologically advanced competitor, the BMW 003.



This engine was all about getting into production first, not being the best. It won handily in that regard and in 1945 and 1946 it would have improved, but still been behind more advanced engines of course, but these would not have been available until 1946-7 at the earliest, which would still leave space for the Jumo, which was buying time for the more advanced German engines to get their kinks worked out.

When did the Nene first power an aircraft? 1948, not much help in WW2 which is the goal here. The J35 ran in 1946 for the first time, which meant it was still years from service introduction. The J33 was just entering production when the war ended, which didn't mean it was necessarily ready for service introduction either, just that production had started. The Jumo 004 entered production in 1943, though not full production, but was rushed into service introduction in mid-1944 arguably before it was fully ready.
Also it ran first in 1940, which indicates the time frame jet engines were taking between first run and full service introduction.


----------



## Juha (Dec 14, 2013)

The Nene powered planes. The prototype Supermarine Type 392 (Attacker land version) was first flown on 27 July 1946.


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

Juha said:


> The Nene powered planes. The prototype Supermarine Type 392 (Attacker land version) was first flown on 27 July 1946.



And that illustrates the problem for the Germans. I don't believe that they could have had a matured Jumo or any other engine in 1945 or 1946 by which time they would once again have been playing catch up with allied developments.
There was never any chance of the war lasting long enough for this to be anything but a 'what' if and this had nothing to do with the air war, which the Germans had already lost.

Any suggestion that a developed Jumo 004 would have lasted 100 hours in service life is unproven. 

The CAA in the UK sets inspection times for critical parts in the later Derwent engines still operated privately here. These intervals, as of 2003, are 450 hours for the turbine disc and 900 hours for the impellor and shaft section. That is an illustration of the problems that a shortage of strategic materials was causing the Germans.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 14, 2013)

Juha said:


> The Nene powered planes. The prototype Supermarine Type 392 (Attacker land version) was first flown on 27 July 1946.


And BMW 801s powered prototypes in 1940, but it wasn't ready for full service introduction until 1942; the Jumo 222 was flying on prototypes in 1941, but was not really ready until 1943. Considering that the Nene didn't fly on an operational aircraft in service until 1948 this means nothing about getting into service introduction.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Considering that the Nene didn't fly on an operational aircraft in service until 1948 this means nothing about getting into service introduction.



Peace time regulations are very different to war time expediencies......as the Me 262 perfectly demonstrated.

Just to put the short lifespan of the Jumo jet into perspective, in 2003 the CAA, with input from Rolls Royce, set the inspection interval for the late model Derwent engines fitted to the Meteors flying in the UK today at 450 hours for the turbine disc (900 hours for the impellor and shaft sections). Rolls Royce suggested a 15 year calendar life for the engines after which the engine should be effectively re-built. This is for privately operated engines with the aircraft flown in what the CAA calls a 'benign regime' but the differences between this and even a 'matured' Jumo engine with a total engine life measured in tens of hours are manifest.

German jet reliability was being severely curtailed by a lack of strategic materials and the 'work arounds' (in English we'd call them bodges) that they undertook to overcome this. It was a situation which was only going to get worse for them and did not effect the development of British engines by the western allies at all.

The RAF was in no rush to get the Meteor into service because there was no need for it. It would be naïve to imagine that had the need for a jet aircraft developed the same attitude would have prevailed. More resources would have been poured into the project in an effort to accelerate development and introduction of an RAF jet. It would be a normal reaction to a development by the enemy.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 14, 2013)

stona said:


> The RAF was in no rush to get the Meteor into service because there was no need for it. It would be naïve to imagine that had the need for a jet aircraft developed the same attitude would have prevailed. More resources would have been poured into the project in an effort to accelerate development and introduction of an RAF jet. It would be a normal reaction to a development by the enemy.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


I have to disagree about this. The Meteor was in service in 1944, just about the same time as the Me 262; both were defensively operational, but the 262 had much higher speed, though lower engine life. The Meteor was used against the V-1 bombs and would have been used against German bombers if need be. Still, they weren't any more ahead of German developments in terms of getting engines into service, because there is only so much that could be thrown at a problem. Potentially yes, they could have invested more in their various projects and potentially had them earlier than historically with less reliability, but even then we are looking at 1946 at the earliest. The US tried to get its P-80 into service in Italy in 1945, but it was totally non-operational due to engine issues. 
The best the Allies were able to rush into service was the Meteor, which was still well below the performance of the 262 even in 1945 after the Derwent engines were introduced. This was a centrifugal compressed engine too and offered only 200 lbs of thrust more than the Jumo 004B, which entered production nearly a year earlier. The contemporary Jumo 004D (phasing into production in Spring 1945) would have offered more thrust than the Derwent Mk. I (in service in January 1945). Only the Derwent Mk. IV would have barely bested the Jumo 004D, which wasn't available until at least 1946 AFAIK. The Jumo 004H would have offered 3970 lbs thrust and been in service some time before the Nene, as it was just an enhancement of the 004 rather than a bigger Derwent, like the Nene was. Yes, the Nene would have been better than the Jumo 004H (though the Nene would have lost to the Jumo 012, which was a bigger 004 like the Nene was a bigger Derwent), but the Nene wouldn't fit on a Meteor, so would require a new jet fighter. 

German jet engines were ahead of the British ones by about a year or so. Even with the Jumo 004 being a dead end there were still developments of it that would have kept its edge if the war had gone on for a few more years until it could be replaced by something better, of which there were several other designs still having their problems worked out. I find it interesting that so many here seem to think that the post-war designs of the Allies were indications of their superiority of the Germans, while ignoring the other engines which also had not reached service yet that were under development with German firms. Comparing the Jumo 004 to post-war designs is not comparing apples to apples. 

The contemporary of the Jumo 004 was the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2, which was also Axial flow and never entered service. Otherwise it was the Welland turbojet engine, which was well below the Jumo in performance, despite being a centrifugal compressor design. The US didn't have a functional engine during WW2 to throw into the comparison. The Derwent was the next step and it was better than the Jumo 004B, but was about to be passed up by the Jumo 004D when the war ended. That would have given the Jumo engine greater performance until 1946, by which time the Mark IV Derwent would be around, but then so would the 004H and probably the Jumo 012.

Keep in mind too that the Allies were rushing to get engines into service in 1943-44 once they became aware of the German jet engines (1943), but were not able to get anything better into service, save the Derwent, which still left the Meteor behind the Me 262 in terms of performance. The P-80 was not able to get into service, despite being deployed to Italy in 1945; its engines were a mess and it couldn't even fly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cimmex (Dec 14, 2013)

I don’t know why people always compare things from different times. The Me262 from 1945 compared to the Meteor from the fifties. The Jumo 004 from 1945 to the RR Nene from the fifties aso.
1975 I owned a Mini Cooper which had a Morris A engine with twin SU carbs, in 1978 I changed to a Golf I GTI with K-jetronic fuel injection, should I compare….
BTW I had fun with both cars.
cimmex


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

The RAF didn't rush the Meteor into service at all. It was put on 'Diver' operations which it was not particularly suited for. Beamont, who knew a thing or two about shooting down V-1s, tested the Meteor in this role on 26th August 1944. His verdict is a perfect example of English understatement, "it's not very good" he said.
The RAF made absolutely sure that the Meteor didn't get too close to the Luftwaffe. On deployment to the continent in early 1945 there were strict limitations placed on where it could fly. It was largely relegated it to trying to catch V-1s which it failed to do consistently. Like all early jets, including the Me 262, it lacked acceleration.

I notice now that you are talking about the war continuing for 'a few more years' rather than months to give the time for the Germans to develop their engines. What makes you imagine that they would retain their early advantage for a few more years? It seems unlikely to me even in this improbable 'what if'.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 14, 2013)

stona said:


> The RAF didn't rush the Meteor into service at all. It was put on 'Diver' operations which it was not particularly suited for. Beamont, who knew a thing or two about shooting down V-1s, tested the Meteor in this role on 26th August 1944. His verdict is a perfect example of English understatement, "it's not very good" he said.
> The RAF made absolutely sure that the Meteor didn't get too close to the Luftwaffe. On deployment to the continent in early 1945 there were strict limitations placed on where it could fly. It was largely relegated it to trying to catch V-1s which it failed to do consistently. Like all early jets, including the Me 262, it lacked acceleration.
> 
> I notice now that you are talking about the war continuing for 'a few more years' rather than months to give the time for the Germans to develop their engines. What makes you imagine that they would retain their early advantage for a few more years? It seems unlikely to me even in this improbable 'what if'.
> ...



Whether we are talking about 6 months or 2 years, the Germans would have been able to maintain their technical edge due to their advances in the field. As it was even in May 1945 there were no jets as good as the Me 262, which was on its way to get better with the Jumo 004D and later H. Strategic materials and the state of allied bombing of industry would have had a major effect on what the operational status of all of this was of course, but in terms of design and performance it would have been better than the Meteor or P-80.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 14, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> You're making the assumption that the Germans worked on the Jumo 004 as a future pathway for development; they realized it was a dead end, but designed it that way because it was easier to get working and in combat without strategic materials in quantities that would make them cost prohibitive.



And I think putting all their eggs into the axial flow design was a mistake. I believe that if they had pressed the much simpler centrifugal flow design that they could have had a single 4-5000 lb thrust engine, straight wing fighter fielded in late ’43, in time to affect the air war over Germany. Possibly, such engine installed into a P1101 type fighter could have been in production by early ’45, pre-dating the F-86/Mig 15 by 2 years. 



> When did the Nene first power an aircraft? 1948, not much help in WW2 which is the goal here.


According to Antony L Kays books, the Nene was first run at 4000 lbs thrust on 27 October, 1944. The J33 generated 4,000 lbs of thrust first in February, 1944. The Germans had never even run an engine much over 2500 lb thrust, much less getting one into production.


> The J35 ran in 1946 for the first time, which meant it was still years from service introduction.


According to Kay, “On 21 April, 1944 the TG-180-A1 was given it first test. It gave a thrust of 1,643kg/sec (3,620lb/sec) for a weight of 1,044kg (2,300lb) and no serious problems were experienced”. The TG-180-A1 was the J-35. It did, however, have development problems. Its first flight was in February, 1946.


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 14, 2013)

davparlr said:


> And I think putting all their eggs into the axial flow design was a mistake. I believe that if they had pressed the much simpler centrifugal flow design that they could have had a single 4-5000 lb thrust engine, straight wing fighter fielded in late ’43, in time to affect the air war over Germany. Possibly, such engine installed into a P1101 type fighter could have been in production by early ’45, pre-dating the F-86/Mig 15 by 2 years.


Which is why no centrifugal design was in service prior to 1945? Even then those designs were weaker than the developed Axial design of the Jumo 004. The entire point of the Axial flow design was it was easier to get into service quickly, even though the Centrifugal design was more efficient; it was more difficult to get into service quickly and needed many more years to get it into widespread service. The Derwent was the only centrifugal design that was in service, which was in 1945, with 2000 lbs thrust. The Jumo 004D offered more than that. Can you demonstrate that the Germans could have had a centrifugal design in service in 1943?




davparlr said:


> According to Antony L Kays books, the Nene was first run at 4000 lbs thrust on 27 October, 1944. The J33 generated 4,000 lbs of thrust first in February, 1944. The Germans had never even run an engine much over 2500 lb thrust, much less getting one into production.
> 
> According to Kay, “On 21 April, 1944 the TG-180-A1 was given it first test. It gave a thrust of 1,643kg/sec (3,620lb/sec) for a weight of 1,044kg (2,300lb) and no serious problems were experienced”. The TG-180-A1 was the J-35. It did, however, have development problems. Its first flight was in February, 1946.


That was a first test, that means nothing about getting an engine ready for production and service. Otherwise the Jumo 222 would have been ready in 1941 along with the Jumo 004.


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> in terms of design and performance it would have been better than the Meteor or P-80.



That's the subject of another thread.

I prefer to stick to reality.

How many Me 262s were produced before the end of the war? Difficult to say, but somewhere over 1500 and less than 1700 would fall in with current best estimates.

What was their effect on the air war in Europe? Insignificant.

I'm a big fan of the Me 262. It was a technically advanced aircraft for its time. It was built under the most difficult and sometimes primitive circumstances and yet not that many fell apart in the air. Many were really badly built. It was forced into roles for which it was never designed (as were many WW2 era aircraft) and the airframe did at least begin to evolve over it's short life span.
It was an aircraft forced into service well before it was ready, this is where I would dispute the idea that the Germans had any significant lead, and as a result suffered the inevitable failures and losses associated with such a premature introduction. It could have been worse.

The big problem was the engines and I don't believe that the Germans had the method or the means to overcome this as readily as many here seem to think.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Which is why no centrifugal design was in service prior to 1945? Even then those designs were weaker than the developed Axial design of the Jumo 004. The entire point of the Axial flow design was it was easier to get into service quickly, even though the Centrifugal design was more efficient; it was more difficult to get into service quickly and needed many more years to get it into widespread service. The Derwent was the only centrifugal design that was in service, which was in 1945, with 2000 lbs thrust. The Jumo 004D offered more than that. Can you demonstrate that the Germans could have had a centrifugal design in service in 1943?



This is not quite right, in late 1944 and 1945 you almost have to go month by month as trying to state what was true for an entire year is subject to a lot of interpretation at best. 

"Between January and March 1945 however, two American pre-production Lockheed YP-80A Shooting Star fighter jets did see limited service in Italy with the USAAF" OK "limited service" but with well over 2000lb thrust engines.
"The initial production order was for 344 P-80As after USAAF acceptance in February 1945. A total of 83 P-80s had been delivered by the end of July 1945" After the war in Europe but in month no 7 of 1945 and again, at well over 2000lb thrust. 
First production DeHavilland Vampire flies in April 1945 with well over 2000lb thrust engine, granted squadron service takes a bit longer. 

The Axial flow design was NOT easier to get into service quickly, the British had a least one if not more axial programs and the US and 2 or 3 programs, even allocating them to engineering firms with extensive steam turbine experience resulted in spotty results. In part because the US imposed some rather restrictive secrecy rules which prevented companies from talking to each other (although a few of them could talk to a "parent/partner" company in England) which meant a lot of the same problems had to solved a number of times independently. 
The Axial compressor ( the rest of the "stuff" ie, combustion chambers and power turbines are pretty much interchangeable between the two types) was very hard to sort out. The early axial flow compressors (everybody's) were heavy, complex, and had lower compression ratios and efficiency than the centrifugal compressor. By the late 40s and very early 50s this had flipped and new axial compressors were showing much better performance than the centrifugals but that is several years too late.


----------



## stona (Dec 14, 2013)

cimmex said:


> I don’t know why people always compare things from different times. The Me262 from 1945 compared to the Meteor from the fifties.
> cimmex




The best Time Between Overhaul (TBO) for any Jumo 004 was 30 hours. Both the Welland and Derwent, which were contemporary engines, had passed type tests of 500 hours and had a service TBO of 150 hours. I would suggest that this puts the Germans at a bit of a technical _disadvantage_, certainly in a practical, in service, front line sense.

BTW the B.41 'Nene' first ran at 5000lb thrust on 28th October 1944, so it is not a completely irrational comparison with the Jumo. Again, I'm not seeing a large German advantage a few years down the line. 

As I said before this was largely due to the inferior materials that the German engines were being forced to incorporate in their construction. The German engineers made some very clever compromises but these drastically reduced the life of many vital components. I'm sure they would have liked a limitless supply of the alloys (like the Nimonic alloys used in the turbine blades and 'cans') being used by the British and Americans.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## delcyros (Dec 14, 2013)

30 hours, more or less, yes.
It depends on the specific version, early B1 had less down to 7 to 10 hours, late B4 or D4 versions were somehow better at 50 hours (due to better fuel flow regulation, it was now more difficult to burn out the turbine blades by accelerating to fast). But 20 to 30 is a reasonable mean for most of the engines which saw service in 44 and early 45.
Still, I want You to keep in mind that You better not generalize the JUMO-004 data for all german jet engines. The design was choosen intentionally because it was a low risk design timely aviable. The better performing BMW-003, for example, had a significantly longer service lifetime than the JUMO-004. German jet engines had one very practical advantage over allied ones in this period: They could be relighted in flight after flame-out. 
Dervent and RR after end of ww2 exploited the BMW-altitude jet engine test facilities and expertise of german engeneerers to finally sort their own problems with flame out, which frequenty beset 1st geneation jet engines, and allowed them safely to be relighted in flight.

The DB-company was running a dual flow, 2800lbs jet engine (Db-007) in 1943. It was abandoned, correctly because of complexity. I am also not certain that it could be relied on that the HeS011 would be bound for a successful design.
The german jet engine project was delayed by approx. 2.5 years due to the necessarity to find replacement but heat resistent materials and invent new cooling technologies (film cooling, hollow blade cooling with bleed air from the compressor) as well as sorting out harmonic vibration and the problems with automatic exhoust nozzle controll and fuel flow gouvernors. 
After all, it was still a new technology.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2013)

What concentrating on the centrifugal compressor allowed the British and Americans to do was to work on all the other "stuff" " sorting out harmonic vibration and the problems with automatic exhoust nozzle controll and fuel flow gouvernors" combustion chambers, ignitors and so on. Granted there were design teams working on axial compressors in Britain and America Like Westinghouse.

"The Westinghouse J30, initially known as the Westinghouse 19XB, was a turbojet engine developed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. It was the first American-designed turbojet to run, and only the second axial-flow turbojet to run outside of Germany. 

They did get it up to 1600lbs of thrust in the Production version post war but with a 3 to 1 pressure ratio it had the same miserable fuel consumption as the German engines. Westinghouse was unable to capitalize on this early engine and their later engines fell increasingly behind their competitors ( both centrifugal and axial)


----------



## Milosh (Dec 15, 2013)

Didn't the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 run in Nov 1941. The 19XB first ran in March 1943.


----------



## stona (Dec 15, 2013)

delcyros said:


> German jet engines had one very practical advantage over allied ones in this period: They could be relighted in flight after flame-out.



I would add the word 'theoretically' before 'be relighted in flight'. The accounts of many men who actually flew with the engines strongly suggests that it was rarely possible to accomplish this.

I think that the German engineers came up with some very clever solutions to overcome their lack of ideal materials, some of which you mentioned. These solutions might have enabled the engines to function but they did nothing for their longevity. For an engine in the hurly-burly of service life the TBO is an important factor and the TBO for the British engines is longer than the life of a Jumo 004. This is a significant problem in practical terms for units attempting to operate a type equipped with such engines. Serviceability rates for the Me 262 were, unsurprisingly, woeful. 

The Me 262 had an Achilles heel and it was the power plants, under developed and unreliable. 

It has often been said that pilots preferred a decent aeroplane which would allow them to fly relatively safely over a hot rod which was more likely to kill them than the enemy.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Dec 15, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Didn't the Metropolitan-Vickers F.2 run in Nov 1941. The 19XB first ran in March 1943.



It did and is the grand daddy of the Armstrong Siddeley 'Sapphire' which ran in early 1948.

I think you mean the X19A which gave 1200 lb thrust. The 19XB was an engine derived from this which became the J 30 as mentioned above.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Dec 15, 2013)

S6 said: "_Westinghouse 19XB_"


----------



## stona (Dec 15, 2013)

Milosh said:


> S6 said: "_Westinghouse 19XB_"




S6 correctly referred to the Westinghouse 19XB as the predecessor of the J30 but it didn't run in 1943. The X19A did and I assumed that was the engine you were referring to. It did not become the J30, the 19XB, with an extra 400 lbs of thrust, did.

Just to confuse things almost exactly half of the 261 J30 engines produced were built by Pratt and Whitney, not Westinghouse 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Dec 15, 2013)

_The Westinghouse J30, initially known as the Westinghouse 19XB...._

He quoted Wiki. So Wiki needs to be corrected.


----------



## stona (Dec 15, 2013)

Milosh said:


> _The Westinghouse J30, initially known as the Westinghouse 19XB...._
> 
> He quoted Wiki. So Wiki needs to be corrected.



No, that's right, the 19XB did become the J30. What it didn't do was run in 1943. 

The X19A ran in 1943 and is a different engine (6-stage rather than 10 stage compressor and 400lbs less thrust for a start)

I haven't looked at the Wiki text, I'm looking at Gunston.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davparlr (Dec 15, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> The US tried to get its P-80 into service in Italy in 1945, but it was totally non-operational due to engine issues.


Of the seven pilots killed in P-80s up to Aug. ‘45, two were caused by fuel pump failure although both had a backup fuel pump but were not operated properly by the pilot, one of these was Bong, one was caused by a midair collision, one was a failure of the tail pipe flange (this was one of the planes sent to Europe), one by over rotation and stall on takeoff, and one due to possible trim tab failure. An earlier, non-fatal, accident was caused by impure metal used in manufacturing of the turbine wheel. So, of the first seven fatal accidents of the P-80, none can be attributed to failure of the engine itself. One non-fatal accident that was an engine failure was a manufacturing quality problem. Additionally, the deployment to Europe was considered successful and the P-80 assumed rapid procurement. The one loss to these four was due to tail pipe separation. So I don’t think your comment can be supported.



> The Jumo 004H would have offered 3970 lbs thrust and been in service some time before the Nene, as it was just an enhancement of the 004 rather than a bigger Derwent, like the Nene was. Yes, the Nene would have been better than the Jumo 004H (though the Nene would have lost to the Jumo 012, which was a bigger 004 like the Nene was a bigger Derwent), but the Nene wouldn't fit on a Meteor, so would require a new jet fighter.



At the end of the war the Jumo 004H was only a few drawings and a pile of parts on the garage floor. It was nowhere near running much less meeting any performance requirements. The Nene had already been running for over six month with at least 4000 lbs thrust and probably 5000 lbs thrust. There is no way the 004H could have been developed faster than the Nene unless dangerous shortcuts were taken.



> the Nene was a bigger Derwent), but the Nene wouldn't fit on a Meteor, so would require a new jet fighter.



Like the very capable Vampire?




> German jet engines were ahead of the British ones by about a year or so. Even with the Jumo 004 being a dead end there were still developments of it that would have kept its edge if the war had gone on for a few more years until it could be replaced by something better, of which there were several other designs still having their problems worked out. I find it interesting that so many here seem to think that the post-war designs of the Allies were indications of their superiority of the Germans, while ignoring the other engines which also had not reached service yet that were under development with German firms. Comparing the Jumo 004 to post-war designs is not comparing apples to apples.



I think that German jet engine technology had fallen behind the Allies by the end of the war in thrust and thrust to weight. German jet aircraft integration was still ahead by six months or so and their theoretical aerodynamics was probably a year ahead, but not their engines, which hampered their advantage in aircraft integration.



> That would have given the Jumo engine greater performance until 1946, by which time the Mark IV Derwent would be around, but then so would the 004H and probably the Jumo 012.



You mean the previously cancelled Jumo 012?



> The P-80 was not able to get into service, despite being deployed to Italy in 1945; *its engines were a mess and it couldn't even fly*.



Not true.



> The entire point of the Axial flow design was it was easier to get into service quickly, even though the Centrifugal design was more efficient; it was more difficult to get into service quickly and needed many more years to get it into widespread service.



The axial flow engine is much more complicated with multiple compressor stages. The reason the British had to catch up, and did, was because of the late start of the effort. If the Germans had started their work on the centrifugal compressor at the same time they did the axial, they would easily have been a year ahead of Britain, maybe more, an could have fielded much more powerful production jets much earlier than they did, in my opinion. 



> That was a first test, that means nothing about getting an engine ready for production and service. Otherwise the Jumo 222 would have been ready in 1941 along with the Jumo 004.



There is a huge jump between having a paper design and a production jet engine. A major hurdle is a working prototype, which, when it came to thrust improvements, the British and the Americans did, and the Germans DID NOT.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Dec 15, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> The US tried to get its P-80 into service in Italy in 1945, but it was totally non-operational due to engine issues.
> The P-80 was not able to get into service, despite being deployed to Italy in 1945; its engines were a mess and it couldn't even fly.



What you can say about the YP-80 is that few were deployed to ETO/MTO, one was lost due to the tailpipe failure, and as far as any documented example no air to air combat was experienced while deployed to Italy.

If you believe its engines 'were a mess' and 'it couldn't even fly' you should document why you think so - and elaborate why the USAAF was stupid to buy such a defective fighter.


----------



## stona (Dec 15, 2013)

drgondog said:


> If you believe its engines 'were a mess' and 'it couldn't even fly' you should document why you think so - and elaborate why the USAAF was stupid to buy such a defective fighter.



.......More than 9,000 of all types and derivatives. Surely some of them could fly 

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Dec 15, 2013)

so... yeah, about that Ta-152C thingy....


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 15, 2013)

Well, we have thread creep and thread swerve or skew and then we have thread gallop and/or careen over a cliff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Dec 15, 2013)

apparently not enough discussion material to comparre probably the best German piston engined fighter to the best allied piston engined fighter......hmmm


----------



## davparlr (Dec 16, 2013)

Okay, back to the old thread. There is so little data on the Ta-152C and so few ever built that comparisons are difficult. The C appears to just be a slightly larger and more powerful Fw-190D-9. The first comment is that the Ta-152C, first flown Nov, '44, and the Tempest V and II are generations apart, the Tempest V first flying in Sept. '42, the II flying in June, '43. From my data (again limited on the Ta), shows that both Tempest versions would out perform the Ta 152C in speed and climb (although I have no really good climb data on the Ta), up to about 25k ft., the Tempest II being significantly so. Above 25k the Ta 152C begins to have the advantage in speed. Again my poor climb data shows the Ta 152C still struggles. As a side note, the Ta 152C contemporary, the P-47M, with its flat-rated 2800hp up to 33k, out performed the Ta 152C in both speed and climb from SL to ceiling, significantly so at altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Dec 17, 2013)

I am not sure but the only primary data speed curves I have ever seen referring to Ta-152C0 performances based upon the DB-603L are referring to 1.75 ata and B4 fuel. 1.75 ata is roughly 2,240HP max. That´s not max power with MW-50 ("Sondernotleistung"=1.95ata with MW-50 injection, "Start-und Notleistung" 1.75ata for Db-603L without MW-50 injection). -just to keep in mind. Critical altitude should be lower and speed better with MW-50 at and below crit alt.
If compared with P47M, one should therefore use the curves without water injection, too. e.g. the curves with 54.5" instead of 72" hg. For these power ratings we do have comparable data, for MW-50 injection performances in the Ta-152C we would need to rely on speculation, which I would reject in absence of sources.

But aside from this, the example shows pretty clearly that the limit of piston engined A/C was approached by all powers. The only justifyable progress in performance loomed with jet propulsion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Dec 17, 2013)

delcyros said:


> delcyros said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure but the only primary data speed curves I have ever seen referring to Ta-152C0 performances based upon the DB-603L are referring to 1.75 ata and B4 fuel. 1.75 ata is roughly 2,240HP max. That´s not max power with MW-50 ("Sondernotleistung"=1.95ata with MW-50 injection, "Start-und Notleistung" 1.75ata for Db-603L without MW-50 injection). -just to keep in mind. Critical altitude should be lower and speed better with MW-50 at and below crit alt.
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2013)

If I may ask something:
-"Sondernotleistung" will always mean that MW system is used; in case the fuel is B4, the manifold pressure is 1.75 ata max, in case C3 fuel is used, the manifold pressure is 1.95 max (for the DB-603LA)?
-What kind of manifold pressure was possible with C3 fuel only, ie. without using the MW-50?
-What are main differences between the 603L and 603LA engines?
-No matter whether C3 or B4 fule is used, the power will be about the same above 10,5 km (with full ram)?


----------



## delcyros (Dec 17, 2013)

The relevant source is "Leistungsvergleich Fw-190 -Ta-152", issued january 1945. Altough it is indeed labelled with "Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe mit Sondernotleistung", suggesting all-out max speed, there is a note referring to Ta-152H -C stating:
"Gewicht mit halber Kraftstoffmenge; Lüfterrad 039; Start- und Notleistung (emphasized in original); Luftschraubenuntersetzunge (...)".
Thus, The graphs for Fw-190A8 and -A9 are for MW-50 injection (Sondernotleistung) while no MW-50 injection (Start- und Notleistung) is given in both Ta-152 graphs.
But the key point is the 1.75 ata rating. The note just explains why no Sondernotleistung is there for Ta-152. However, the Ta-152H has also GM-1 injection which is given, so it has a graph for Sondernotleistung, making the Ta-152C beeing the only on without any form of injection power.

There is another graph, labelled the same and also from january 1945. In this graph, however, You will note that the Ta-152C1 is listed running on C3 fuel and somehow faster, too (595km/h at SL). Unfortunately, no ata-rating is given.

In my view, the Ta-152 was pretty much a waste of resources, but understandable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 18, 2013)

delcyros said:


> The relevant source is "Leistungsvergleich Fw-190 -Ta-152", issued january 1945. Altough it is indeed labelled with "Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe mit Sondernotleistung", suggesting all-out max speed, there is a note referring to Ta-152H -C stating:
> "Gewicht mit halber Kraftstoffmenge; Lüfterrad 039; Start- und Notleistung (emphasized in original); Luftschraubenuntersetzunge (...)".
> Thus, The graphs for Fw-190A8 and -A9 are for MW-50 injection (Sondernotleistung) while no MW-50 injection (Start- und Notleistung) is given in both Ta-152 graphs.
> But the key point is the 1.75 ata rating. The note just explains why no Sondernotleistung is there for Ta-152. However, the Ta-152H has also GM-1 injection which is given, so it has a graph for Sondernotleistung, making the Ta-152C beeing the only on without any form of injection power.
> ...


What was the better option then? Jets?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2013)

delcyros said:


> The relevant source is "Leistungsvergleich Fw-190 -Ta-152", issued january 1945. Altough it is indeed labelled with "Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe mit Sondernotleistung", suggesting all-out max speed, there is a note referring to Ta-152H -C stating:
> "Gewicht mit halber Kraftstoffmenge; Lüfterrad 039; Start- und Notleistung (emphasized in original); Luftschraubenuntersetzunge (...)".
> Thus, The graphs for Fw-190A8 and -A9 are for MW-50 injection (Sondernotleistung) while no MW-50 injection (Start- und Notleistung) is given in both Ta-152 graphs.
> But the key point is the 1.75 ata rating. The note just explains why no Sondernotleistung is there for Ta-152. However, the Ta-152H has also GM-1 injection which is given, so it has a graph for Sondernotleistung, making the Ta-152C beeing the only on without any form of injection power.
> ...



Thanks for clearing the 'state' of the Ta-152s in the graphs. 
One clarification more, however: for the Fw-190A-8 and A-9, instead of "Sondernotleistung" (= power setting that includes use of the MW system; US term would be "WER wet"), a correct term for them should be "Erhohte Notleistung" (= power setting involving only the increase of manifold pressure (vs. the manifold pressure used in Notleistung), but without MW system; US term would be "WER dry")? In other words, A-8 and A-9 were seldom using MW system?
Care to talk a bit about differences about the 603L and 603LA?


----------



## davparlr (Dec 18, 2013)

I am a bit surprised that the Germans emphasized the high altitude H over the C in that they already had a great interceptor in the Me 262 and what they really needed was a superior airfield protection aircraft which the C could have been, although I think the Bf 109K would also have been effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 18, 2013)

davparlr said:


> I am a bit surprised that the Germans emphasized the high altitude H over the C in that they already had a great interceptor in the Me 262



There are many reasons why the Me 262 was not a 'great interceptor' and numerous threads already devoted to it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## delcyros (Dec 18, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Thanks for clearing the 'state' of the Ta-152s in the graphs.
> One clarification more, however: for the Fw-190A-8 and A-9, instead of "Sondernotleistung" (= power setting that includes use of the MW system; US term would be "WER wet"), a correct term for them should be "Erhohte Notleistung" (= power setting involving only the increase of manifold pressure (vs. the manifold pressure used in Notleistung), but without MW system; US term would be "WER dry")? In other words, A-8 and A-9 were seldom using MW system?



It´s my understanding that the Fw-190A8 and -A9 could carry MW-50 in the rear tank, providing the necessary injection for increased manifold pressure. Thus, I guess the term "Sondernotleistung" is indeed correct here. Have to admit that I am not a Fw-190A expert, so only took it from secondary sources.



> Care to talk a bit about differences about the 603L and 603LA?


The Db-603L was designed to run on C3 fuel, witht he Db-603LA having slight changes to various aspects of the engine to accept either B4 fuel or C3 fuel. There is some evidence in the chaos of the closing weeks to suggest that Ta-152C airframes would have accepted either Db-603L or Db-603LA in crazy quilt patterns depnding on their respective engine aviability. 

One has to keep in mind that the number of test flights for the Ta-152C was limited and the speed curves are not based upon a sufficiently large sample of testflights to extract more than indicative informations on the performance. no informations about variance to be reckoned with from A/C to A/C can be gleaned from them, to name just one example.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 18, 2013)

Wiking has asked 



> What was the better option then? Jets?



That´s my point. The Ta-152C is just another high altitude fighter in the Luftwaffe fighter park. Remember, You already have the Bf-109K4 with ~450´ish mph performance, the Fw-190D12 with 450´ish mph, the Ta-152H1 with a performance of 460´ish mph and scheduled for later production the Fw-190D12 with the uprated Jumo-213 EB with ~480´ish mph predicted performance. All in the same high altitude optimum performance range. Why add with the Ta-152C just another, similarely performing A/C there at all?
Remember, it´s not superior to late war allied projected fighter A/C, it´s just competetive. That´s not bad but doesn´t hand in to any advantage in conducting aerial combat. Thus, advantage lies much more with the better skilled pilots, and I guess we all agree that this -in average- means not with the Luftwaffe. And then these high performance engines take a lot of ressources compared with jet engines and develop best power only with scarce high grade fuels.

From mid march 1945 on, most Luftwaffe high altitude interceptions were made by jets, not by Fw-190D or Bf-109K (both of which were aviable in larger numbers than -262A´s). The jet propelled A/C offered a sufficiently large performane gain over all piston prop A/C to justify the ressources spent into it. it also was cheap to produce and run on any low grade fuel aviable. Not to say that it was troubleless but it was both, effective and efficient compared with the period alternatives on the table.
In my point of view, and guessing from ressources, a less obstructed procurement policy would call for one low to mid level optimised piston prop type (aka Fw-190D9 with uprated engines) and a high altitude jet interceptor in addition to a high altitude jet fighter and a jet bomber.

How it turned out with that many high altitude piston prop fighter projects running in parallel (Bf-109G10, Bf-109K4, Bf-109K14; Fw-190D11; Fw-190D12; Ta-152C; Ta-152H; Do-335) is a bit weird in light of the limits the Luftwaffe was labouring with in connection to R&D, production and deployment. Just my opinion, of course, and Yours may differ...


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 18, 2013)

delcyros said:


> Wiking has asked
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Ta-152C was a medium/low altitude fighter, not a high altitude one. From what I understand it was meant to supplement everything below 20,000 feet until it could be phased out, while the Ta-152H was to take over high altitude interception; everything else was a stop gap until the Ta-152 took over at all levels. Even then it was a stop gap until the Me262 and other jets could become more reliable. In reality it was just about getting anything in the air that offered better performance in a desperate attempt to survive.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2013)

delcyros said:


> It´s my understanding that the Fw-190A8 and -A9 could carry MW-50 in the rear tank, providing the necessary injection for increased manifold pressure. Thus, I guess the term "Sondernotleistung" is indeed correct here. Have to admit that I am not a Fw-190A expert, so only took it from secondary sources.



I've looked again at the chart (here). The remark "x) mit Lufterrad 039: Start-u.Notleistung" is applicable only for the Fw-190A-9, whose engine (BMW 801TS) is remarked with "x)". Neither of the Fw-190As do not carry any MW-50 mixture, and it's noted so in the table. 
The BMW 801D is running at 'Erhohte Notleistung' (1,58 ata in low gear, 1,65 ata in high gear); the 801TS can make 1,65 ata in 'normal' Notleistung, and 1,82 ata in 'Erhohte Notleistung' (here, shaded area). The Ta-152s are indeed remarked as having only half of fuel on board here ("Gew. mit halber Kraftstoffmenge!").
So I'd venture to say that Ta-152C-1 was indeed operating with MW-50. Excerpt form the chart:









> The Db-603L was designed to run on C3 fuel, witht he Db-603LA having slight changes to various aspects of the engine to accept either B4 fuel or C3 fuel. There is some evidence in the chaos of the closing weeks to suggest that Ta-152C airframes would have accepted either Db-603L or Db-603LA in crazy quilt patterns depnding on their respective engine aviability.



Thanks 



> One has to keep in mind that the number of test flights for the Ta-152C was limited and the speed curves are not based upon a sufficiently large sample of testflights to extract more than indicative informations on the performance. no informations about variance to be reckoned with from A/C to A/C can be gleaned from them, to name just one example.



Not hard to agree with that.


----------



## stona (Dec 18, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> In reality it was just about getting anything in the air that offered better performance in a desperate attempt to survive.



I think that's true. 
One of the reasons that so many seemingly competing programs were running is precisely because the RLM/Luftwaffe were grasping at straws. The record of the German aviation industry in producing competitive_ and reliable aircraft _was not outstanding. There was no way that all the eggs were going to be put in one basket. Just about anything on the list above (with the exception of the upgraded Bf 109s) could have been another Me 210.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## delcyros (Dec 18, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> The Ta-152C was a medium/low altitude fighter, not a high altitude one. From what I understand it was meant to supplement everything below 20,000 feet until it could be phased out, while the Ta-152H was to take over high altitude interception; everything else was a stop gap until the Ta-152 took over at all levels. Even then it was a stop gap until the Me262 and other jets could become more reliable. In reality it was just about getting anything in the air that offered better performance in a desperate attempt to survive.



But You know what makes me sceptical about this interpretation? Look, Ta-152H and Ta-152C performance:

SL: 570 km/h (-C1) 580 km/h (H1)
6500m : 700km/h (both)
crit altitude Ta-152H:
9500m 730 km/h (compare: Ta-152C1: 725 km/h at this altitude)

crit altitude Ta-152C:
10500m 730km/h (compare Ta-152H1: 715 km/h at this altitude)

So why then, if the Ta-152C is indeed the low alt performer and the -H is the dedicated high altitude performer is the Ta-152H faster than he Ta-152C at the deck, has a lower critical altitude than the Ta-152C (and faster there) and performs worse at up to altitude of 11500m when GM-1 kicks in and restores advantage for the Ta-152H?

Performancewise there are no differences between both A/C at any reasonable alitude to justify the claim that one is low alt and the other is >20,000ft dedicated. The difference is pressurized cockpit and GM-1 injection, at high altitude the Ta-152C has the advantage, at low altitude the Ta-152H is in possession of it (in contrast to our expectation), albeit in both cases the differences are to subtile to justify development of highly specialised types.

Both planes are optimised for high altitude work. The Ta-152H thanks to the enlarged wings, GM-1 injection and pressurized cockpit is able to work at unrealistically extreme altitudes (maybe Mosquito PR panic anyone?)


----------



## wiking85 (Dec 18, 2013)

My understanding is that the C was only fitted with MW boost, not GM and MW as the H was. It also had short wings for lower altitudes, compared to the long wings of the H, while the C lacked the H's pressurized cockpit. They sported different engines and AFAIK the C did not possess a multistage supercharger.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 18, 2013)

The Ta-152C was outfitted with engine featuring the 2-stage supercharger, as was the Ta-152H.


----------



## silence (Dec 18, 2013)

Maybe it had something to do with the incredibly heavy armament of the 152C?? I dunno, but it seems compared to the D-12/R25 with the 213EB (and maybe wing bag tanks) it really was a waste of effort.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 18, 2013)

Were not the Doras temporary a/c until the 152s came on line?


----------



## stona (Dec 19, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Were not the Doras temporary a/c until the 152s came on line?



Yes. They were _officially_ a stop gap.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## war eagle (Dec 20, 2013)

I always considered the tempest to be the most underrated fighter in the war the Luftwaffe high command were so alarmed at their fighter losses at the hands of the tempest squadrons that they issued a directive to their pilots to avoid dogfights with them knowing they would nearly always lose.It's always been a fact that lack of development time,shortage of materials and pilot loss were the most important factors in the Luftwaffe's loss of the skies in the latter stages of the conflict,their insistance on almost constant deployment of pilots meant the bulk of their experten were dead and the force was made up mainly of green barely trained recruits in the final months.All the remaining top aces were given ME262's a brilliant aircraft conceptually but hamstrung by lack of development,poor engine reliability and durability as a result most squadrons were only able to muster 30-40% of their aircraft at any one time.To sum up my main point is that there were many additional factors involved apart from just out and out technical comparable performance between the tempest and the TA 152.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2013)

Any published source of LW order to avoid Tempest? In 1945, the LW wasn't doing well against Yak's, Mustangs, Spitfires, etc.


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 28, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Of course this ignores the Me262 and a matured Jumo 004's potential.


 It is not a question of ignoring the 262 and its potential, engines, airframe, or otherwise. The Ta 152 was the last and probably the best single engined piston driven fighter the luftwaffe had, and was built for a specific purpose in mind. It never saw use in its intended role, but performed very well regardless of the situations it found itself in. The point I was making was that it was simply a better fighter plane than the Jet powered He 162. I'd go as far as to say that the Meteor would have had its work cut out for it if they had ever met in combat.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 28, 2013)

I am not sure that I can agree. The He-162 was a way better fighter than any version of the Ta-152, proposed or buildt. It also offered a more efficient fighter platform in terms of ressources and manhour investment. Performancewise, the future was in the jet age. The only aspect where I can see operational advantages for the Ta-152 /late Fw-190D is in (a) the low altitude range due to their better endurance and (b) their operational reliability due to the quircks which had yet to be worked out completely. Otherwise the jet own the prop driven fighter in every aspect, most notably survivability.


----------



## stona (Dec 28, 2013)

delcyros said:


> The He-162 was a way better fighter than any version of the Ta-152, proposed or buildt.



It was way better at killing its pilots, even the experienced hands of JG 1.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## delcyros (Dec 28, 2013)

> It was way better at killing its pilots, even the experienced hands of JG 1.


So was the P80 when introduced (beeing grounded twice due to high accident rate when introduced). To be fair, all high performance, 1st generation jet fighters experienced serious safety records. Still they were better than piston props. Accident rate of the He-162 in JG1 during 1945 was lower than for the Me-262 in EKdo-262 and Kdo. Nowotny in 1944.
The He-162a had a much more reliable jet engine than either Me-262, P80, Vampire or Meteor. It was the only jet engine whiches throttles could be handled like those of piston prop fighters without risk of engine damage, which was a great asset. It had very short endurance at low altitude, however.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 29, 2013)

delcyros said:


> I am not sure that I can agree. The He-162 was a way better fighter than any version of the Ta-152, proposed or buildt. It also offered a more efficient fighter platform in terms of ressources and manhour investment. Performancewise, the future was in the jet age. The only aspect where I can see operational advantages for the Ta-152 /late Fw-190D is in (a) the low altitude range due to their better endurance and (b) their operational reliability due to the quircks which had yet to be worked out completely. Otherwise the jet own the prop driven fighter in every aspect, most notably survivability.


 We will have to agree to disagree then, because everything I have ever read about the He 162 points to the contrary. They were a dead end design born out of desperation, with no hope of ever fullfilling its intended role. No amount of Hitler Youth with minimal glider training could have made an impact on allied air superiority using this aircraft. Post war testing saw the design relegated to the historical scrap bin of aviation curiosities. Smith and Creeks' excellent hardcover on this aircraft is the most comprehensive text written, and objectively points out the failure of this plane both technically and operationally. It took valuable resources away from the already battle proven Me 262 and Arado Ar234, and achieved absolutely nothing in return. With properly trained and experienced pilots ( which they were), the Ta 152 was more than a match for any allied fighter, whereas the He 162 came off second best every time. The Ta 152 had superior range, reliability and manouverability, could operate at all altitudes, and was a more developed and intrinsically well thought out design. The He 162 fell apart, fell out of the sky, and quite quickly fell from favour with its pilots. The pilots of the Ta 152, on the other hand, spoke in volumes, praising the quality and performance of their aircraft. Adolf Galland and Willy Messerschmitt were opposed to the production and deployment of the He 162 with good reason. It really was an inferior design.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 29, 2013)

Was it? I dont think this is a correct assessment, technically.

Compared to the Ta-152C the He-162a2 had

[a] a higher crit Mach figure (the highest of all 1st generation jet fighters)
* an even higher roll rate -contradicting Your idea of poor maneuverability -check Eric Browns comment on maneuverability of this bird 
[c] a good 90 to 100 mph faster top speed at all relevant altitudes
[d] a better climb rate
[e] an operational ejector seat

It costs only about 1/3 the manhours of a Ta-152 or Me-262 and it didn´t required either high grade fuels (priceless) or ressource costly high performance JUMO213E / DB603EM engines. Indeed the placement of engine made sure it could go along with any jet engine aviable. Two prototypes were buildt for JUMO-004D engines, two under manufactureing for HeS011 and one for interchangable swept back and swept forward wings.
I don´t think it was a plane for unskilled pilots but as a matter of fact no HJ flew that plan ever. It was slightly faster than the Me-262 in a sprint, had better climb, acceleration and maneuverability and would have been a nice dogfighter and certainly could do a couple of things better than the Me-262a in the air superiority role. It certainly had a huge share of issues to be yet worked out.

There were no confirmed kill awarding in the end of the war but some of the He-162 pilots filed down the following claims:

No.------Name-------------date--------area-------------------eyewitnesses
#1-------Ot Ihlefeldt-------?2./3.45------Lechfeld------------- Fw. Sell
#2-------Fw G. Kirchner----19.4.45------North Germ-----------captured british pilot
#3a------Uff Rechenberger--26.4.45-----North Germ--------Olt Demuth, Stabint Siegfried
#3b------Uff Rechenberger--2.5.45------North Germ--------*probably identical with 3a, in my mind the date of this claim is false (e.g. 26.4., since Rechenberger died on that date)
#4a--------Lt R. Schmitt-----4.5.45--------North Germ-------------Htm H. Künncke
#4b--------Lt. R. Schmitt-----3.5.45-------North Germ------------2nd TAF loss lists, but probably identical to 4b 
#5------OT Adolf Dickfeld----21.4.45----central Germany------unknown
#6-------Lt W.Batz-------------22.4.45----central Germany----unknown

There is another claim made by K.E. Demuth, but no details are aviable. Generally spoken, none of the claims could be confirmed or refuted with the present state of data aviability.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 29, 2013)

JG1 lost thirteen He 162s and 10 pilots. Only 2 were shot down by the enemy so the He 162 was doing a good job of killing its pilots without any help from the RAF or USAAF.

The problem was that both the aircraft and the engine were under developed. The lateral and longitudinal stability problems had never been properly fixed. The engine was still unreliable and prone to flame out and structural failures of the air frame still occurred, just as one famously did on V1 during a demonstration flight, killing test pilot Gotthard Peter. 3 He 162 test pilots were killed, Wedemeyer, Full and Peter, and yet the plan was for pilots with only ground training with the BMW engine and flights in a glider conversion to fly the type in combat!

At the end of the war Oberstleutnant Herbert Ihlefeld might have been commanding JG1 but in reality this consisted of just 2 Einsatz-Staffeln. Even so 10 pilots, including the commanding officer of II./JG1, Knight's Cross holder Hauptmann Paul Dahne, who like most of the others never got to see the enemy from an He 162, were killed.

The fundamental problem of a lack of fuel was never addressed either. The He 162's half hour endurance makes a Bf 109 E look like a long range fighter.

If I had a choice between the He 162 and a Ta 152 I know which I'd choose.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 29, 2013)

No Kills were ever credited to the He 162. The one possible exception was awarded to the AA battery, and the He 162 was incidentally in the area, by all accounts. A higher critical Mach figure is irrelevant on an aircraft which breaks up in flight or in high G manouvres. As far as Eric Browns recommendation goes, I have read his reports, and the roll rate with such short wings is a given. This was as big a drawback as an advantage, with the He 162 displaying the "falling leaf" stall characteristics which were an inherant flaw in the design. They would literally fall out of the sky. The large nacelle hampered both vision and longtitudinal stability and the aircraft was simply not known for its agility or dog fighting prowess. The Ta 152 H could out turn the Tempest and P 51 ( documented accounts), but the Tempest bested the He 162 when engaged. It was meant to be a cheap, mass produced, disposable fighter, flown by barely trained pilots, but was in fact nothing but an act of desperate futility. Have a read of Smith and Creeks reference book ( well worth the money). There are great graphics and factory drawings, as well as very well detailed photographs. In terms of a full historical, operational and technical reference on this aircraft, it cannot be bettered.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 29, 2013)

I prefer primary sources over secondary ones. And I have compiled a rather significant amount of them from german, french, soviet and british accounts on that airplane. 



> No Kills were ever credited to the He 162. The one possible exception was awarded to the AA battery, and the He 162 was incidentally in the area, by all accounts.


Ad. Dickfeld´s 136th victory was credited while flying a He-162A. Similarely, the 2nd TAF last ww2 europe loss is credited by british sources to be caused by a He-162A. Accounts differ but You go so far to claim that they were refuted which is not the case. Similar doubts exist for Ta-152 kill claims. Data is simply not sufficient to jump to conclusions.



> A higher critical Mach figure is irrelevant on an aircraft which breaks up in flight or in high G manouvres.


It is. Contrary to Your interpretation, crit Mach was the best justification for a new design. The He-162A could maneuvre at speeds where the Vampire, Meteor or P80 would already been rendered immaneuverable due to Mach tuck. That´s a rather serious advantage.The Meteor was never cleared for any acrobatics, unlike the He-162a.

High speed behavior was a critical aspect of 1st generation jets.


> According to an US evaluation, the He-162 was attested to have the highest tactically useful Mach speed of all ww2 fighter. As the -262 had a crit Mach speed of M=0.86, I suppose the figure would be around M=0.87. The Baubeschreibung of the He-162 gives a limiting V-gleit figure at 1000 m of 1000 Km/h, which would resemble a safe max. dive speed of Mach= 0.826 at this altitude. The lim. Mach speed therefore would be M=0.83 lowest, with a corresponding crit. Mach speed of M=0.86. A slight bow snaking will be approached at very high speeds.
> (...)
> At the upper end of the speed range, the Vampire behaved in singular fashion with the onset of compressibility, and from M=0.71 up to 0.76 the aircraft displayed increasing porpoising and wing buffet until at M0.79 the aircraft would suddenly "break" up or down with the likelihood of a wing drop, giving the sensation of an "incipient" flick roll.



Btw, the original Baubeschreibung 9-162 gives very precise data on g-limits of the He-162A: 6.5g sustainable, 8.5g max. I don´t know what other planes had but it´s technically justified. 



> I have read his reports, and the roll rate with such short wings is a given. This was as big a drawback as an advantage, with the He 162 displaying the "falling leaf" stall characteristics which were an inherant flaw in the design.


Roll-rate has really nothing to do with stall speed.

Just compare in the low speed behaviour of the Vampire Mk1 with the He-162a:



> VAMPIRE:
> Charackteristics of maneuverability:
> Low wingload, mass concentrated, finely balanced ailerons. Light Stick (very sensitive), good roll charackteristics through the entire speed regime.
> Elevator very sensitive, pulling to hard will give no stall warnings. Pilots have to be careful, not to enter unintended spins, esspeccially at lower speeds.
> ...



So what You described was an overexageration. High angle of attack approaches were typical for jet fighters but new when they made their advent in the early 40´s. Please put it in context to other period A/C before jumping to conclusions. 



> The large nacelle hampered both vision and longtitudinal stability and the aircraft was simply not known for its agility or dog fighting prowess.


The nacelle confined vision backwards. So be it, but remember, it had the highest tactical speed so this would be an issue in approach and take off conditions, which is where the TEMPEST "bested" the He-162a (contrary to the He-162a which went into aerial dogfight with the Tempest not beeing at take off condition). The stability problem is well documented in the sources, however it was adressed by various means like wingtip changes, though that still left a lot to be desired. The agility of the He-162a was excellent and basically superior to the Fw-190 which already had a poor turnrate but an excellent roll rate. The He-162 just emphasized this approach.




> JG1 lost thirteen He 162s and 10 pilots. Only 2 were shot down by the enemy so the He 162 was doing a good job of killing its pilots without any help from the RAF or USAAF.


Yes. But why not putting it in perspective with the 1st operational Me-262a squadron? Kdo. Nowotny with 3 Staffeln strength suffered 26 Me-262 lost in one month. It suffered a worse attrition rate but had the benefit of beeing active in mid 1944 not spring 1945, with all it´s associated benefits in care, controll and thread environment.
The loss rate of the P80a, entirely in post war time was alarmingly high and so was the Meteor pilot loss rate from non-war experience. The truth was that the jet technology was different to piston fighters and required different skills and challanges to be mastered. 



> . The engine was still unreliable and prone to flame out and structural failures of the air frame still occurred, just as one famously did on V1 during a demonstration flight, killing test pilot Gotthard Peter. 3 He 162 test pilots were killed, Wedemeyer, Full and Peter, and yet the plan was for pilots with only ground training with the BMW engine and flights in a glider conversion to fly the type in combat!



I guess we all agree that the idea to have HJ flying after modest instruction is really nothing but a non-starter. However, point is that the plane wouldn´t have equipped HJ staffeln but all plans we know suggest that Bf-109K and Fw-190D are in part to be replaced by Me-262a and He-162 airplanes. These are proper Luftwaffe Staffeln.
Contrary to Your perception, the BMW-003E was the best jet engine anywhere around in terms of operational reliability (150 to 200 hours lifetime of the hot trubine section), ability to relight in flight (only the JUMO004 and the BMW003 were ale to do that in ww2), high altitude behavior and rapid throttle change behavior. Due to the latter two aspects it was certainly better than the trouble plagued JUMO-004B and was technically more matured, too. Some issues still prevailed, f.e. flame out- caused by wrong jet section choice. 
Are You aware that the structural failure of the He-162V1 has been attributed to a faulty glueing, not to a structural (e.g. design) issue?
Again, how many P80A (or for that matter Me-262V) test pilots lost their lives in the first test year? Does that make them technically unreliable -I don´t think so.
Certainly we may all claim that the detoriating conditions of the closing weeks of war in europe were not a proper environment to undertake an operational trial of new jet fighters and I wholeheartedly agree but I also guess that many people extract the wrong conclusions by not applying comparative perspectives.




> The fundamental problem of a lack of fuel was never addressed either. The He 162's half hour endurance makes a Bf 109 E look like a long range fighter.


Half an hour, yes. But remember thats referring to Sea level and max. permissable thrust after allowances for warming up the engines, acceleration and take off. In this condition, the VAMPIRE MKI´s endurance was 36 minutes, better by six minutes while the P80A on internal fuel could cover 49.5 minutes at SL.
It´s probably more telling that the range at 500mph cruise speed in high altitude exceeded 600mls and the endurance 1 hour and 20 minutes, all on internal fuel for 2885kg MTOW. All early jet engines were highly sensible to strong variances in fuel consumption related to different altitudes. 
Plans to add drop tanks under the wingtips existed since the E500 project and it´s not plausible to me why they couldn´t have adressed the range issue properly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 30, 2013)

Delcyros,

You're being a champion for the jet fighter that was singularly the most unsuccessful of the war that was in "production." Some 330 or so were built but few saw any combat or even flight. The Luftwaffe received 120 He-162's that were primarily deployed to I.JG1. They were supposed to be deployed to III.JG1 and I.JG400 but teh war ended before this happened.

The He-162 first saw combat in mid-April 1945 with Erprobungskommando 162 when an RAF officer informed his German captors that he was shot down by an aircraft matching the He-162's description on 19 April 1945 from I.JG1. The He-162 was lost as well to a Tempest in the same combat. In late april, the Soviets approached. On 6 May the German surrendered their He-162's to the Allies.

I.JG-1 lost 13 He-162's and 10 pilots. 

At least one history records "As an operational aircraft the He 162 was a complete and utter failure. After all of the effort involved in its design and production only a handful of aircraft were ever used in combat, and only one combat victory was recorded, on 4 May, when Lt. Schmitt claimed a Typhoon. More He 162s were lost in accidents, and at one or possibly two were shot down - one by a Hawker Tempest of No.3 Squadron on 21 April, and a possible second by a F-6 (P-51 reconnaissance aircraft). Even if the He 162 had come into service earlier and in large numbers, it needed careful handling, and would only have been really effective in the hands of an expert pilot. Given that it was designed to be flown by partially trained novices this can only be seen as a serious failure. In the end all of those voices in Germany that have believed that the entire He 162 programme was a waste of effort were proved correct."

It was innovative, but hardly an outstanding anything, much less a great fighter.

3.947 Meteors wre built., mostly post-war, but the Meteros that DID get deoplyed destroyed 46 German aircraft on the ground and encountered more problems with misidentification than from Germans. It was frequently shot at by its own flak units.

The He-162 was a real dud due to war cicumstances but had potential that was never realized. It never flew again operationally after the war except for some captured-equipment test flights. Since it exhibited a tendency to come apart under flight stress due to sabotaged glues used by slabe labor in prototypes, right in front of the Luftwaffe top brass, this was perhaps fortuitous.


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2013)

I do know that Eric Brown considered the 162 to be the best handling jet of its time. I know views on him are mixed, but he had flown most if not all of the early jets so should be worth considering


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2013)

I'd suggest a structural failure due to faulty or inadequate gluing or bonding is a structural failure nonetheless. It doesn't matter whether the glue, rivets, skin or any other structural component fails, it fails. If bits fall off for whatever reason the airframe has failed.

To compare the loss rates and causes of the Me 262 with the He 162 would require some work. I don't believe that accidents accounted for 80% of Me 262 losses like the He 162s of JG 1. I think that too few He 162s ever flew operationally to make a meaningful comparison.

Eric Brown is a wonderful character and was a remarkable pilot but his opinions of the various aircraft he flew, sometimes only once, are no more than anecdotal evidence from one man.
These are comments from US pilots flying the F4U- Corsair for the first time.

_"Visibility was poor because of the long nose, the nose high attitude, and the rearward cockpit location with respect to the wing"_

_"Visibility was good except dead ahead"_

_"Fair visibility with seat in top position"_

Where they flying the same aeroplane? Pilot opinion is just that, opinion. It is not a realistic assessment of an aeroplanes performance.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 30, 2013)

To be fair to Brown he was a genius pilot who probably could have got an Ikea flat pack wardrobe to fly. Naturally skilled people are sometimes not the best to critique because they can do it without thinking.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2013)

Indeed. If I could I'd invite him around to build the IKEA glass display cabinet I've just bought. He'd probably be good at that too, even pushing 100 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 30, 2013)

That is a very well detailed comeback Delcyros, and you have obviously put quite some time into researching the Subject. Primary and secondary sources aside, my initial and central arguement is that the Ta 152 was a superior fighter plane to the He 162. It is a bit like comparing apples to oranges in several aspects, but from a pure combat aircraft point of view, the Ta 152 proved itself. It also suffered from the same problems ( in 1945) that beset the He 162, and to some extent worse, with no spare parts. BUT, they could confidently mix it with any allied fighter, racked up at least 7 or possibly nine kills, and had a proportionally lower attrition rate amongst pilots. Consequent development of the He 162 ( as detailed in luft 46 type literature) showed some promise, with longer fuses and proper dihedral etc, but of course this never happened. What ever superiority was shown on paper failed to materialise in any practical sense.


----------



## stona (Dec 30, 2013)

delcyros said:


> #4b--------Lt. R. Schmitt-----3.5.45-------North Germ------------2nd TAF loss lists, but probably identical to 4b
> Generally spoken, none of the claims could be confirmed or refuted with the present state of data aviability.



Except this one which was awarded, by the Germans, to a flak unit, not Schmitt.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 30, 2013)

stona said:


> Except this one which was awarded, by the Germans, to a flak unit, not Schmitt.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


 Thats what my books say too.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 31, 2013)

No. It was not "awarded" at all. Schmitt notes in his flight log that he has "Feindflugzeug effektiv beschossen", which meant he fired at and observed strikes on the enemy a/c, the base for a claim. The 20mm AAA also observed effective hits on the Tempest and filed it´s own claim. By british definitions, this kill would be shared between them but such a practice (sharing kills) was never executed in Germany. Note two of the six or seven claims were not made by JG-1 but made by EJG 162, which are generally ignored by secondary literature. At this stage of war, only claims were collected, no awards were given, that means no decsion was taken. If You read in secondary sources that it was "awarded to Flak", it´s producing really a false account.
What You can read in secondary literature is that what the authors interprete. And generally spoken, in absence of any meaningful critical discussion, which doesn´t make it verifyable. As I stated previously, the data is still insufficient to jump to conclusions. 
You notice that the He-162A claims are generally filed down with eyewitness accounts, that doesn´t translate to make kills out of claims but it should be clear that more research needs to be undertaken here. For five of these claims potential matches exist in 2nd TAF loss lists but no positive or negative ID has been put forward from any side.

You know perhaps that JG301 was ordered into combat while JG-1 had to stay clear out of combat and avoid taking offensive action except for only very few sorties in late april 1945 in order to improve pilot familarisation with the jet driven A/C. That´s nothing special for the He-162, it beset most early jet fighters. Certainly, the jet engined A/C was more difficult to handle than piston prop fighters but it offered something the Ta-152 couldn´t offer: a clear performance superiority over enemy aircraft.
There still was sufficient room for further incremental development (stability issues would have been well adressed with the -A6 variant and it´s swept back V-tail, more power was avaiable with JUMO-004D or BMW-003D engines). The He-162A´s development was cut short in may 1945 for nothing else than beeing german. I know, people stress that the engine placement is odd but then again, in those times long intake ducts and exhoust pipes ate so much thrust away from the engine that it was a critical concern. And those of the planes with the most sensible position of the engine in the fuselage or wingroots had the worst performance: He-178, Gloster E28/39, P-59, XFD-1/FH-1, XF6U, Yak-15, La-150. The P80 overcame it by pure power but still, the He-162A2 was arguably faster than the P80A1 while having only half the installed thrust, not a bad accomplishment.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattern14 (Dec 31, 2013)

Very true; there were a number of developmental variants in the pipeline, with good aerodynamic potential. The top 3 fastest manned aircraft of WW2 were German, with the He 162 coming in behind the Komet, but faster than the 262. They are still wanting to argue the toss about the Ta 152 H being the fastest operational piston engined fighter, but I am reasonably convinced that it was. Allied jets like the Meteor and P80 went on to have very long careers, while the German jets can be measured in months. They still managed, regardless of circumstances, to leave an indelible mark on aviation. Few people seem to remember that the British attempt at a cheap mass produced single engined jet, the E1.44, was a complete flop.


----------



## stona (Dec 31, 2013)

delcyros said:


> No. It was not "awarded" at all. Schmitt notes in his flight log that he has "Feindflugzeug effektiv beschossen", which meant he fired at and observed strikes on the enemy a/c, the base for a claim. The 20mm AAA also observed effective hits on the Tempest and filed it´s own claim.



Since no claims were officially verified in 1945 (or the latter part of 1944) that's true. Did Schmitt even submit an Abschussmeldung/Zerstorungsmeldung? I guess he had no witnesses.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Dec 31, 2013)

Hello Delcyros
what is the source of your quotes from the US evaluation report in your very interesting message #87?

Juha


----------



## cimmex (Dec 31, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Allied jets like the Meteor and P80 went on to have very long careers, while the German jets can be measured in months.


Czech built Me 262 (Avia S92 and S199) flew till 1957
cimmex


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 31, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> Few people seem to remember that the British attempt at a cheap mass produced single engined jet, the E1.44, was a complete flop.



You have forgotten DH Vampire about as cheap as it was possible to build a jet. Part of the forward fuselage was built of Plywood 

de Havilland Vampire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 31, 2013)

> Few people seem to remember that the British attempt at a cheap mass produced single engined jet, the E1.44, was a complete flop.



Thanks Fastmongrel; I was just about to say the same thing. Don't forget the enormously successful Vampire, of which over 4,000 were built.

The E.1/44 was originally built to Specification F.1/44 and started life on paper as the E.5/42 Ace, the name by which the E.1/44 was known, or the Gloster Gormless as its pilots called it. The E.5/42 differed from the E.1/44 and drawings of the F.1/44 (anyone confused yet?) featured the taller fin with the tailplane mounted on it as how the Ace was later modified and not the fuselage as the aircraft was completed. It could have been quite a good aircraft had it been prioritised and finished sooner, but Gloster lost interest in the project and by the time it was finished in 1948 it was too slow and overtaken by events.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 31, 2013)

Yes, great information Delcyros and yes, I agree with you; putting the He 162 into context as a first generation jet; its problems seem characteristic of its contempraries. Like its contemporaries, given the chance to mature, it would most certainly have been an excellent service jet with its performance, but with the fate of the Reich as it was, it was not to be. It was born out of desperation and the very thing that spawned it also resulted in its ultimate fate. As such it is overlooked as being anything other than a failed experiment, which might be a little harsh considering its potential, but that's life.

Despite his opinionated approach and arguable hypotheses, Brown's summary of the He 162 is apt:

"It would certanily have been an effective gun platform, and its small dimensions would have rendered it difficult to hit. Even if somewhat underpowered, it had good performance - it could certainly 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_ [Brown's italics] pilot to operate it out of a small airfield. Nevertheless as a back up for the formidable Me 262 it could conceivably have helped the Luftwaffe to regain air superiority over Germany had it appeared 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."


----------



## Juha (Jan 1, 2014)

Hello nuuumannn
but one must remember that Brown has also written "The Volksjaeger Salamander, wit its pygmy size and very limited range, was an impractical proposition." Wings on my sleeve (2007) p. 138. French, who used a few post-war as a jet familiarzation a/c, were not fond of it, IIRC the main complain was its totally inadequate flight time. But as Delcyros wrote, all 1st generation jet fighters had their share of problems and He 162 had had very short development time.

Juha


----------



## stona (Jan 1, 2014)

".... it would have demanded more than simply a _good_ pilot to operate it out of a small airfield."

'Aye, there's the rub', if I may quote the bard. Good or even competent pilots were one of the many things the Luftwaffe did not have an ample supply of in late 1944/early 1945.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 1, 2014)

Yes, Juha, that is interesting; in Wings of the Luftwaffe, from where I took the earler quote, his opinions of it were high. This book was based on notes he had made at the time he flew these aircraft and throughout the book he quotes from the notes he kept. The contents originally appeared as a series of articles in Air Pictorial and Air International in the 60s and 70s prior to Wings being published. It's not surprising that in the intervening years he reassessed his position on the He 162; he's right; it _was_ an impractical proposition and, like I said, it was a victim of the very thing that gave birth to it - the Nazis were desperate after all.

Here's further quotes from Brown about how he regarded it at the time. The first is a quote directly from his notebook that he wrote when he encountered it for the first time:

"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 V 1 on wheels!"

"On the credit side [having just described its side slip problems] however, 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 one to judge, having flown every jet aircraft then in existence."

"My first impressions of the Volksjager were not to change much, although I was to fly the little aeroplane quite frequently. It was like all 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..."

To anyone at the time the aircraft would have been eye opening, but by 2007, when Wings on my Sleeve was published, Brown had flown everything from the He 162 to an F-4 Phantom II and then some. A reassessment of his earlier thoughts was only natural.


----------



## cimmex (Jan 1, 2014)

I have a 87 English and a 88 German edition and as far I can judge the translation is accurate. In both books his comments are very positive regarding the He162.
cimmex


----------



## Juha (Jan 1, 2014)

Hello Nuuumannn and Cimmex
yes, I had read Brown's earlier assesments on He 162 and I was at first rather surprised when I read the description in the Wings on mys sleeve but then I remembered that also his assesment of Zero had changed over the time, in Zero's case to more positive. My thought was that B. had re-valued the He 162 after reading on French assessments on it because IMHO the easiest way to explain the change of his oppinion on Zero is that the clearly more positive assessments of others had influenced him. Of course nuuumannn might be right that his later experiences with more mature jets had chanced his oppinion on He 162.

Juha


----------



## delcyros (Jan 2, 2014)

Juha said:


> Hello Delcyros
> what is the source of your quotes from the US evaluation report in your very interesting message #87?
> 
> Juha



It´s in one of the NACA TN files but I have to look into that again. It´s not an evaluation per se, just a side comment, IIRC.


----------



## Juha (Jan 2, 2014)

TIA delcyros, your info was very interesting indeed!

Juha


----------



## delcyros (Jan 2, 2014)

I have looked into some fuel data for various engines and 1st generation jets.

That makes for a nice mathematical challenge, which I ´d like to share with You.

First I pay attention to Bedienvorschrift He-162 mit TL-Triebwerk BMW-003, 1944 (issued 1945).

The He-162A2 had a max allowance of 772kg of internal aviation fuel, corresponding to a MTOW of 2866kg: one large fuselage tank 640ltr, two wingtanks with 140 ltr each for a grand total of 920ltr and 772kg (p.4). Alternatively, one normal 470ltr fuselage tank would be combined with an emergancy fuselage tank (170ltr) and the wingtanks with 140ltr each for a grand total of similar 920ltr.

The specific fuel consumption of the BMW-003E2 is given with 1.41 kg/hr/kp at SL and 100% thrust rating. The total consumption therefore is 1.128 t. per hour for 800kp thrust at Sea level, agreed?
Thus, the internal fuel buncerage is sufficient for a theoretical 41 minutes of powering the engine to 100% thrust at SL (corresponding to 427kts TAS -without short time overrew). If You substract fuel for warming up the engines, taxiing, acceleration and take off, the 30 minutes rating reproduced in the literature seems reasonable.


Now do some exercises with the following planes:

Yak-15
internal fuel capacity: 710 ltr / 590kg
RD-10 specific fuel consumption at SL and 100%: 1.44 kg/hr/kp 
RD-10 100% SL thrust rating: 890 kp 
What is the theoretical endurance at 100% power and Sea level, corresponding to 410kts TAS?

MiG-9
internal fuel capacity: 1625 ltr / 1349kg
RD-20 specific fuel consumption at SL and 100%: 1.41 kg/hr/kp 
RD-20 100% SL thrust rating: 800 kp 
What is the theoretical endurance at 100% power and Sea level, corresponding to 475kts TAS?

P59A
internal fuel buncerage: 470 US gallons / 1098ltr max
J31 GE-5 specific fuel consumption: 1.25 lbs/hr/lbs thrust at 100%
J31 GE-5 100% thrust rating: 3,100lbs (acc. to Kay)
What is the theoretical endurance at 100% power and Sea level, corresponding to 326kts TAS?

P80A1
internal fuel buncerage: 470 US gallons / 1779ltr max (some sources say 435 US gallons / 1647 ltr max, altough I believe that´s already accounting for fuel needede to warm up, taxiing take off and acceleration)
J33 GE-7 specific fuel consumption: 1.22 lbs/hr/lbs thrust at 100%
J33 GE-7 100% thrust rating: 3,825lbs (acc. to Kay)
What is the theoretical endurance at 100% power and Sea level, corresponding to 461kts TAS?

XP84
internal fuel buncerage: 378 Imp gallons / 1709ltr max 
J35 GE-1 specific fuel consumption: 1.12 lbs/hr/lbs thrust at 100%
J35 GE-1 100% thrust rating: 3,750lbs (acc. to Kay)
What is the theoretical endurance at 100% power and Sea level, corresponding to 506kts TAS?

Vampire F Mk I (late production with Goblin II)
internal fuel buncerage: 202 imp. gallons max (=918.3ltr or 1680lbs) (no drop tanks possible)
Goblin II specific fuel consumption at SL and 100%: 1.233 lbs/ hr/ lbs thurst
Goblin II 100% SL thrust rating: 3000lbs
What is the theoretical endurance at 100% power and Sea level, corresponding to 443kts TAS?

Meteor mk III (mid block production lot, compare note below)
internal fuel buncerage: 490 imp. Gallons or 2227.6 ltr or 4075lbs -note for a varying tankage account in Flight magazine:


> "at present the air-craft has a standard permanent tank capacity of 330 gallons but has only been cleared for
> a normal tankage of 275 gallons. When the R.A.F. begins to take delivery of its Meteor IVs the machine will doubtless
> be cleared for carrying not only its full tankage of 330 gallons but also the ventral drop tank of 180 gallons for which provision has been made."


 -Flight dated feb. 1946, p.157.
Dervent II specific fuel consumption at SL 100%: 1.17 lbs / hr/ lbs thrust
Dervent II 100% SL thrust rating: 2200lbs *2 (twin engined A/C)
What is the theoretical endurance at 100% power and Sea level, corresponding to 424 kts TAS?

Me-262A (1944 production model)
internal fuel buncerage: 2600ltr = 2158 kg (other sources mention 2000ltr, the rear 600ltr fuselage tank was shipped for long endurance missions and could be removed when not needed. Typically with poor directional stability due to cog shift aft)
JUMO-004B specific fuel consumption at SL and 100%: 1.44 kg/hr/kp 
JUMO-004B 100% SL thrust rating: 890 kp *2 (twin engined A/C)
What is the theoretical endurance at 100% power and Sea level, corresponding to 450kts TAS?

What conclusions do You draw from these theoretical but comparative figures You arrive with?

Once You have gone through this exercise You will find the "low endurance He-162" hype beeing just another myth busted. The reason lies in different definitions how to attain endurance figures, whiches meaning hasn´t been comprehended by many authors...
I need to correct my previous statement of the Vampire F1 endurance, which was taken unreflected from aircraft performance charts and refer to_ throttled back condition_.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 2, 2014)

As thorough as your research is, Delcyros - and I don't want to detract from your efforts at all, but the problem with quoting figures from manuals is that in real situations the figures available in tests or trials were invariably not always attainable to frontline operational aircraft for varying reasons. Just because the figures might state a particular engine is not as thirsty as other engines, in practise the pilots who flew the aircraft might have a different view owing to outside factors not taken into account by official figures; finish of the aircraft, for example owing to the rigours of service will degrage its performance because of increassed drag etc. There are countless examples of aircraft not meeting their performance figures in practise. The He 162s and other types in general that Brown flew were not factory fresh; some had been flown in service and were the worse for wear for it.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 3, 2014)

That´s fair and well. We understand numerous differences between theoretical and practical endurance (both operationally, the most important beeing the avaiability of aviation fuel for the Luftwaffe as well as technically with regard to f.e. unusable quantities of fuel in the fuel lines). We know that JG1 pilots in part were flying their mounts not topped off with fuel due to the sparse quantity avaiable in arpil 45). However, if we talk about design defects and in this context adress low endurance of the He-162A as a specific weakpoint in the design we should not make the mistake in forgetting the context these statements refer to. And while it may be possible to be worse than spec (the british post war tested He-162 f.e. suffered from a jet engine with performances far below specification) it hardly is possible to be better than specification in terms of buncerage and specific fuel consumption. As I mentioned previously, I found the claim of 30 minutes low altitude endurance of the He-162A after allowances for ground handling, take off and acceleration to be believable in light of the fuel tankage and consumption figures of the engine.






But what has been missed is that the internal fuel capacity and corresponding endurance of the He-162A is -contrary to popular believe- not to different to the endurance on internal fuel of the Meteor III and XP-84 (within seven and four minutes, respctively -not accounting for the fact that Meteor III´s only beeing cleared for 275 gallons internal in 1945) and roughly similar to the P80A1 Shooting Star (it differs by seconds rather than by minutes) and somehow superior to other first generation jets like P-59A, MiG-9, Yak-15 and Vampire MkI (the latter would be closer to 1 quarter an hour endurance after allowances for ground handling, take off and acceleration and would fail to meet 30 minutes endurance at 100% thrust on any static ground test) . But while nobody hesitates to hark on the He-162A´s design defect of low endurance they hardly ever mention that contemporary jets existed to have a significantly worse endurance than the He-162. I wonder why that is, one reason is possibly that in wartimes these defects are operational issues and thus exposed more clearly than in peacetime operation (mostly P80, Vampire and soviet A/C). But maybe it´s also uncritically reflected accounts and perception issues. The He-162 had lower endurance than the Me-262 (by roughly ten minutes) and the latter had significantly lower endurance than the Ar-234B on internal fuel (by ~23 minutes), making the He-162A the shortest legged german jet fighter (we are not talking about rocket interceptors here) but the pilots who flew them couldn´t possibly know how poor the others endurances were...
The truth is that all 1st generation jets had exceptionally poor low altitude endurance, which is why most of them received drop tanks sooner or later and were advised to cruise at high altitude.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 3, 2014)

Hi Delcyros, my comments about figures were not specifically about this particular topic, but about figures and actual operational aircraft in general, although referencing the figures you mentioned. I don't stick specifically with published figures as the last word on the performance of an aircraft for this reason - each individual aeroplane is different and behaves differently and is often subject to maintenance issues that others might not be subject to. I like to think of official figures as the designer's benchmark by which the aircraft could reach, but for whatever reason might not. In testing, many types, of course did not reach their official figures stipulated in the manuals.

As for the He 162's range I agree with you, by comparison with existing jets, it was not too shabby, to the extent that in Brown's initial flight tests he did not comment on the subject. It seems the He 162 could have carried more fuel; here is an excerpt from Wolfgang Wagner's book The History of German Aviation; The First jet Aircraft;

"The fuel tank in the fuselage held 790 liters [sic]. The 30 liter tank for starting the engine was located in the wing center section.The two 320 liter wing tanks were housed in either wing half. Other sections of the wing could hold 700 liters of fuel, plus room for an additional tank in the leading edge. The entire wing could also be used to carry 900 liers of fuel, so that if the gross weight allowance was increased the aircraft would have enough reserves for greater ranges."



> But while nobody hesitates to hark on the He-162A´s design defect of low endurance they hardly ever mention that contemporary jets existed to have a significantly worse endurance than the He-162. I wonder why that is, one reason is possibly that in wartimes these defects are operational issues and thus exposed more clearly than in peacetime operation (mostly P80, Vampire and soviet A/C). But maybe it´s also uncritically reflected accounts and perception issues.



I guess it depends on what is being used as a frame of reference. Post war analysts might have used existing aircraft performance - i.e. piston engined machines as their source of comparison, so by those standards, yes, the He 162 did have poor range, as did all first generation jets, but we know that already. As we all should know, the transition from piston engined aircraft to the first generation in service jets was far from smooth, although at the time the presumption was very much that they would be as easy to fly and handle. The high rate of incidents and accidents of Vampire and Meteor pilots in the RAF throughout the late 40s and 50s is testimony to the fact that the early jets had a bit of a way to go before they were reliable and 'easy to fly' enough for a tyro pilot to make a successful transition from earlier types to them. A number of early jet losses in the RAF was down to a tendency to ignore the fuel gauges, as well as the usual reliability issues with engines and systems, also cockpit ergonomics and design faults often arises.

Brown himself comments on the fact that he had no training whatever on many of the aircraft he flew and in the absense of notes of any sort, manuals not necessarily being available, was expected to take a cursory glance round the cockpit before kicking its tyres and jumping in for a test flight.



> buncerage



You might have to enlighten me on this term, Delcyros.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pattern14 (Jan 4, 2014)

cimmex said:


> Czech built Me 262 (Avia S92 and S199) flew till 1957
> cimmex


 Good point; I had over looked the Avia. To the best of my knowledge they were only built in very small numbers, never used operationally, and primarily served as a trainer.


----------



## silence (Jan 4, 2014)

"bunkerage" is simply the amount of fuel a vehicle carries. I thinks it most commonly used wrt ships, eg a KGV had xxxxx tons of oil bunkerage.


----------



## Juha (Jan 4, 2014)

Hello 
according to Philippe Couderchon's The Salamander in France article in Aeroplane April 2006 the French He 162 No 1 (ex-WNr 120223 "Yellow 1" of 3./JG 1) had according to a French memo usable fuel capacity of 640lit (470 + 170 for reserve.
And according to the 2nd part of the article in the May 2006 Aeroplane Lt Jean Bourguignat, who flew He 162s twice remembers that No 2 (ex-WNr 120015 "White 21" or "Yellow 21" of 1./JG 1) had a larger fuel tank (650+170lit) than the other two (No 3 was ex-WNr 120093 "White 2" of 1./JG 1).
It would be nice to know what any French pilot who flew both He 162 and Vampire F.1 thought of those two planes.

Juha


----------



## cimmex (Jan 5, 2014)

I don’t think that a French pilot had access to a Vampire FI before 1950 and even 1952 for a Mistral SE 535 (French built Vampire). At this time no He162 was operational any more.
cimmex


----------



## delcyros (Jan 5, 2014)

Hi Nuumann,

I definetely agree in Your points. Since the fuel capacity (the naval term buncerage is my mistake, thanks for the pointer) has been a matter of discussion, I may offer some of my findings here.


> As for the He 162's range I agree with you, by comparison with existing jets, it was not too shabby, to the extent that in Brown's initial flight tests he did not comment on the subject. It seems the He 162 could have carried more fuel; here is an excerpt from Wolfgang Wagner's book The History of German Aviation; The First jet Aircraft;
> 
> "The fuel tank in the fuselage held 790 liters [sic]. The 30 liter tank for starting the engine was located in the wing center section.The two 320 liter wing tanks were housed in either wing half. Other sections of the wing could hold 700 liters of fuel, plus room for an additional tank in the leading edge. The entire wing could also be used to carry 900 liers of fuel, so that if the gross weight allowance was increased the aircraft would have enough reserves for greater ranges."



and Juha´s comments later:


> French He 162 No 1 (ex-WNr 120223 "Yellow 1" of 3./JG 1) had according to a French memo usable fuel capacity of 640lit (470 + 170 for reserve.
> And according to the 2nd part of the article in the May 2006 Aeroplane Lt Jean Bourguignat, who flew He 162s twice remembers that No 2 (ex-WNr 120015 "White 21" or "Yellow 21" of 1./JG 1) had a larger fuel tank (650+170lit) than the other two (No 3 was ex-WNr 120093 "White 2" of 1./JG 1).



The original main fuel tank in the fuselage was supposed to be an unprotected 790 ltr tank. However, EHAG Aktenvermerk 11/45, dated february 1945 states explicitely at page 2 that


> "Firma meldet den Verlust von 150 ltr. durch Abschneiden des Rumpfbehälters, um kleinere Schwerpunktwanderung zu erhalten"
> (translation attempt:
> "Company reports the loss of 150ltr caused by cutting the fuselage tank in order to attain a smaller cog /trim shift"



My guess is that Wagner didn´t traced down all Heinkel Aktenvermerk sources for updating his data on fuel capacity and reproduced the intended size of the main fuel tank, not the actual one executed.
In this context it is mentioned that the freed space would be sufficient to allow 80 instead of 60rpg 30mm MK108 ammo to be carried. However, a permanent weight instead of a used up weight was more desirable and 42kg of ballast were added to the cockpit if the large fuselage tank was to be shipped (EHAG AKTENVERMERK 66/45). This should be replaced in april 45 production by an armoured windscreen and EZ42 computing gunsights for weight neutrality.
Note that only the small, 450ltr measuring fuselage tank could be used in connection with the 170ltr measuring emergancy fuselage fuel tank (Baubeschreibung pilot notes from feb 45)! Also, there appear to be two wingtank sizes avaiable. EHAG AKTENVERMERK 11/45 notes that the total fuel capcity is:


> Brennstoffinhalt bei Fläche mit kleinen Behältern insgesamt 960ltr., Start- Rollstrecke 800m
> (...)
> Brennstoffinhalt bei Fläche mit großen Behätern insgesamt 1300ltr., Rollstrecke 1100m



These figures differ a bit from mine because I ignored the small fuel tank for starting the engine. The corrected figures for the large wingtank would in turn make the internal fuel capacity and corresponding endurance of the He-162 taking the lead over other 1st generation jet fighter with a theoretical endurance of 57 minutes on SL and 100% (except the Ho-229, which I wouldn´t classify as a "fighter type" aircraft). The main fuselage fuel tank was of self sealing type, the wing tanks (and emergancy tank) were not. Appearently, the french examples were flown WITHOUT wing tanks at all. This was possible and resulted in a very low take off weight (around 2.5t), but has been used only for pilot familarisation planes, which were deemed unfit for operational service (caused by missing automatic jet nozzle controll, which degraded thrust by 1/3 and speed by 1/6). Admittently, many He-162A manufactured and delivered before april 1945 fall in this category. 

hope this helps,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Juha (Jan 5, 2014)

cimmex said:


> I don’t think that a French pilot had access to a Vampire FI before 1950 and even 1952 for a Mistral SE 535 (French built Vampire). At this time no He162 was operational any more.
> cimmex



Hello Cimmex
according to Jones' De Havilland Twin-boom Fighters (2004) French ordered 30 ex-RAF Vampire F.1s in 1948, delivery was made in 4 weeks with the last a/c arriving on 8 Jan 1950. IMHO it is very probable that some of the French pilots who had flown He 162 in 1947 - 48 also flew Vampire F.1 later on during their career.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 5, 2014)

Hello Delcyros
thanks for your very enlightening answer.
Yes French noticed the very long t/o runs of their He 162s, some 1200 - 2000m. T/o weight was 2713kg (5980lb). They also noted that "Considering the shape of the fuel tanks, it is adviseable to keep a safety margin of 200lit of fuel for descent and landing."

Juha


----------



## cimmex (Jan 5, 2014)

Juha said:


> Hello Cimmex
> according to Jones' De Havilland Twin-boom Fighters (2004) French ordered 30 ex-RAF Vampire F.1s in 1948, delivery was made in 4 weeks with the last a/c arriving on 8 Jan 1950. IMHO it is very probable that some of the French pilots who had flown He 162 in 1947 - 48 also flew Vampire F.1 later on during their career.
> 
> Juha


Hello Juha
Maybe you’re right
I thought at the same time area
cimmex


----------



## Erich (Jan 5, 2014)

some of you might be interested in this for your files as a ................ tease, I have many original docs for the Ta variants for my future work.

you will have to enlarge/copy and paste

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 5, 2014)

I know you keep these for your work, but: please, more!


----------



## davparlr (Jan 5, 2014)

delcyros said:


> The truth is that all 1st generation jets had exceptionally poor low altitude endurance, which is why most of them received drop tanks sooner or later and were advised to cruise at high altitude.



I appreciate the effort you put in to get this data. It is very informative and enlightening.

For the Germans, none of these are any good. Unlike the Allies, the German jets were flying in a hostile environment and most likely needed to stay at high power levels at all times in order to avoid hostile attacks. This caused high fuel consumption. The He-162 would consume about 10-12 minutes of max power time just to start, takeoff and climbing to bomber altitude. This would leave less than 30 minutes for combat and return. Return would probably need 15 minutes of fuel for low speed draggy flight and reserve, and that leaves about 15 minutes or probably one run at the bombers before heading home. So, for 40 minutes of time, about half the time is spent in the most hazardous time of a jet fighters life, takeoff and landing. And that is for optimum temperature, for a hot day, much less. To really be effective, they needed a much longer endurance capability, so they could attack and re-attack several times before running the gauntlet back to reload.

There are other problems with the He-162. One is that it is very small with very little growth capability. The attached picture was taken at Chino Air Museum and was made at eye level. Note that I am, being six feet tall, effectively looking into the engine inlet. Also, note the motorcycle beside the plane and imagine a man sitting on the seat. It is close to the same position as the pilot in the He-162. The plane is tiny. Another problem, and a larger one, is that it does not have much thrust and is very light, limiting weaponization options. Just adding fuel would create issues with wing loading and, more severly, thrust loading and a Republic aircraft-like takeoff roll.

The aircraft seems to be a great design for what it did and I see no reason to believe it could not have been put into service in force in 1945 but I think it would have struggled. Unlike the aircraft you listed, the P-51 could and did loiter for hours over a German airfield awaiting the departure or landing of a jet. And Germany could never produce enough to fend of the P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires and Tempests flying like bees overhead.


----------



## pattern14 (Jan 6, 2014)

Is that an R75 BMW with the driven third wheel? Great photo!!!


----------



## davparlr (Jan 6, 2014)

pattern14 said:


> Is that an R75 BMW with the driven third wheel? Great photo!!!



I have no idea. I was looking at aircraft not motorcycles. Maybe Greg knows.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 7, 2014)

I have to make a disclaimer.

The data I presented above are for static conditions, not for dynamic ones. Specific fuel consumption is a variable which is highly sensitive to ambient pressure and temperature. The sfc figures I used are authentic from sources referring to that but they all assume the speed to be static and the pressure to be standart SL condition.
For this condition, data for all engines were avaiable and allowed a comparative approach.

However, real data will differ significantly just due to the effect of speed and altitude, f.e. At SL and 500 mph, f.e. the BMW-003 will consume 1670ltr fuel (pilot notes He162) instead of 1360ltr at 100% thrust under static condition (BMW manufacturer spec). Similarely, the Goblin II at 500mph and SL producing 2600lbs instead of 3000lbs static and will require 500imp Gallons instead off 445 imp Gallons of fuel for the same condition (both from manufacturer spec. reducing the theoretical endurance at full throttle and SL to just over 24min for the Vamprie F1). There are more data but not sufficient and complete enough to warrant a complete comparison under dynamic conditions. F.e. in the P80A1 pilot notes the fuel consumption of the J33 at SL and 100% is not given. The closest given is that 100% thrust at 10,000ft altitude, where the J33 GE-7 will require 600 US gall. of fuel per hour, the remaining datapoints at 20,000ft (=420 US gall p. h), 30,000ft (=300 US gall. p.h.) and 40,000ft (=240 US gall. p. hr.) let us inferr that the total consumption at SL is somewhere in between 820 and 900 US gallons per hour at 100% combat power (for dynamic condition, resulting in 32.9min +-1min. theoretical endurance at SL and ~500mph).
As You may notice, the endurance will be significantly less than the one given in my previous tabulated graphic for static conditions.

But the example from the P80A1 pilot notes already demonstrated, the sfc is also very variable to altitude. At 36000ft altitude, the BMW 003 will only require about 323ltr of fuel per hour for 100% thrust rather than 1670lt. at Sealevel (He-162 pilot notes, for dynamic conditions at 800km/h / ~500mph). Similarely, instead of ~820-900 US gall. at SL, the J33 will only require 240 US gallons at 40,000ft.

This was a prerequisite to my following response. As You have perhaps noted, the german jet engines in service in ww2 were notorious for having a significantly worse specific fuel consumption than their allied, centrifugal antagonists, caused in part by the lower pressure ratio´s of the BMW-003 and JUMO-004.



> Unlike the Allies, the German jets were flying in a hostile environment and most likely needed to stay at high power levels at all times in order to avoid hostile attacks. This caused high fuel consumption. The He-162 would consume about 10-12 minutes of max power time just to start, takeoff and climbing to bomber altitude. This would leave less than 30 minutes for combat and return. Return would probably need 15 minutes of fuel for low speed draggy flight and reserve, and that leaves about 15 minutes or probably one run at the bombers before heading home. So, for 40 minutes of time, about half the time is spent in the most hazardous time of a jet fighters life, takeoff and landing. And that is for optimum temperature, for a hot day, much less. To really be effective, they needed a much longer endurance capability, so they could attack and re-attack several times before running the gauntlet back to reload.



While it may be desirable to stay at high powerlevels for reasons of survivability, it is not convincing to suggest that they need to fly at SL all the time where fuel consumption is worst in combination with high power. Take off and climb to 20,000ft of altitude at a gross weight of 2.85t. will take ~8 min with a climbing speed of about 200mph, rather than 10 to 12. During this process, factoring in 200mph dynamic consumption, the fuel consumption at SL would be 1500ltr per hour while the fuel consumption at 20,000ft would be 800ltr per hour for an average of 1150ltr per hour during climb to altitude (reasonable margin of error) or 150ltr (40 US gallons) in total.
Compare that with the P80A1: The pilot notes suggest that for 12,000lbs gross weight about 75 US gallons are consumed for take off to climb to 20,000ft altitude. That´s reasonable for an A/C with >twice the weight and and engine with > twice thrust of the 100% rating BMW jet engine, the difference is easily explainable by the higher fuel efficiency of the US jet engine.
Then, at 20,000ft altitude, and going 100% causing our He-162A to cruise at 520mph at this altitude, the dynamic fuel consumption would be 1000ltr per hour and the remaining 100% thrust endurance is 48 min (150 ltr have been used for take off, acceleration and climb to altitude, thus remaining are 800ltr). If it could afford to cruise at lower ~450 mph speed, the flight endurance would approach 1 hour at this altitude.
That leaves about half an hour possible engagement time and 18/15 minutes return and descent time. That´s still not exceptionally well but on the other hand useful compared to piston prop fighters like the Bf-109 which was useful in this capacity prior to the event of effective escort fighters. And in my opinion, the He-162A is better suited for dogfight than interceptions, though installation of MK108 and R4M were considered for it, too.



> There are other problems with the He-162. One is that it is very small with very little growth capability. The attached picture was taken at Chino Air Museum and was made at eye level. Note that I am, being six feet tall, effectively looking into the engine inlet. Also, note the motorcycle beside the plane and imagine a man sitting on the seat. It is close to the same position as the pilot in the He-162. The plane is tiny.


Indeed, it´s a small airplane. But this makes it also harder to hit in combination with high levels of agility and speed. The installation of the engine outside the fuselage allowed the wing and fuselage space to be devoted entriely for fuel, weapons and flight controll. Thus, significant levels of space optimisation were exploited using this unconventional layout.



> Another problem, and a larger one, is that it does not have much thrust and is very light, limiting weaponization options. Just adding fuel would create issues with wing loading and, more severly, thrust loading and a Republic aircraft-like takeoff roll.



It is my impression that thrust alone is not important as is thrust/weight ratio. From that point of view, the He-162A was better than the P80A, though not as good as late and post ww2 british jets. Heinkel pressed Kammler to allow for a larger gross weight of the He-162A. The main landing gear was ok for a gross weight up to 3600kg and the only variable was stall speed and corresponding take off roll. The latter were to be adressed by two JATO units which assisted in take off and allowed basically small grass strips to be used as improvised airfields. However, Heinkel put forward that if the gross weight was increased to 3100kg, then the fuel carried would be 1300ltr rather than 950, the take off roll of He-162A and Me-262A would be identic 1100m (without JATO, both then having the same thrust to weight ratio) as would be level speed performance and endurance (the Me-262 had 2600ltr max fuel capacity), but just on one, rather than two engines. That´s the point most people forget, the He-162A offered first class performance and endurance on one tiny low output engine, it´s nothing short but amazing how much they squeezed out of this airframe given the technology of the time.



> Unlike the aircraft you listed, the P-51 could and did loiter for hours over a German airfield awaiting the departure or landing of a jet. And Germany could never produce enough to fend of the P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires and Tempests flying like bees overhead.



I always considered that and the avaiability in large quantity to be the utmost combat advantage of the Mustang, a nearly strategic asset as it blunted much of the Luftwaffe´s effort to be able to engage enemy bombers in classic intercept condition. However, it would be more challanging for a Mustang to fight He-162´s than Me-262´s. And the latter was difficult enough.
I would also be more conservative with the argument of quantity -at least in hypothetical, rather than historical perspective. The limiting factor is avaiability of jet engines. Planned production output of He-162 in the Jägernotprogramm was entirely breathtaking. Just four months after decision of mass production has been taken, 118 He-162 were delivered to the Luftwaffe out of approx. three-hundred He-162 airframes completed and approx. six-hundred more have been found in different stages of completition or assembly. Production was not nearly ramped up and targeted in mid 45 to exceed 4,000 He-162 per month*. Already from june 45 onwards, the He-162A monthly production outpaces the combined allied monthly Meteor/ Vampire/ P80/ P51/P47/ Spitfire and Tempest production. If You add the Me-262a production, things are getting hot then. The He-162 required only 1,500 manhours and 75,000 RM unit production costs in early 1945, compared to 144,000RM and 3,300 manhours for a Ta-152 and 3500 manhours / 150,000RM for a Me-262a.
The He-162A was roughly twice as costly as the V1 flying bomb in terms of manhours and about the cheapest german fighter aircraft in ww2.

*) Heinkel Nord: 1000; Junkers-Bernburg: 1000; Mittelbau Dora: 2000 + an unknown amount of airplanes to be produced by Heinkel-Süd.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 7, 2014)

Great synopsis Delcyros. Thinking about it, it's difficult to make a fair comparison between the He 162 and its contemporaries because of the nature behind its reasoning; it was a desperation fighter and few of the then current designers would have been able to come up with a more satisfactory aircraft that met the criteria as well. Yes, armament was limited, but it _was_ a point defence interceptor, in which role it could have served very well. As for its size, others, including Brown have also commented on the fact that its size would serve as an advantage in combat; very difficult to see, let alone hit.

Having a look at other German firms that came up with designs to the requirement, they follow similar or the same layout as the He 162, which states something about the layout; it definitely has advantages. Access to the engine from a maintenance point of view was excellent, if you have stands over the wings to prevent anyone from walking all over it. Alternatives could be as the Russians designed their first axial flow jet designs, Yaks with the engine placed below the nose.

Apart from the obvious - availability of engines, poor quality materials in its engine construction, etc, if I was to point out a weakness in the design itself, it would be its side-slip characteristics. A handling issue; something that plagued almost all the first generation jets and that could have been compensated for by training pilots in recognising its impact.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## delcyros (Jan 7, 2014)

Agreed.

One may be tempted to add other things to it´s weaknesses, mainly that it was still a developmental airplane and in top of that a developmental one in mass production. Usually, an airplane gets through it´s prototype stage with the intent of the bugs beeing worked out and achieving a stabilised design which then will be submitted to the manufacturer. Here we have a case of trying to synchronise prototype testing and manufacturing changes, almost impossible.
The airplane was yet not stabilised at wars end.
Some notworthy changes:
[1] poor stall speed behavior, identified by the DVL windtunnel tests (abrupt loss of lift at critical angle of attack), they confirmed this in testflights and added a turbulator at the wings leading edge which achieved more benign stall charakter
[2] lateral instability at certain CoG conditions. Initially issued airspeed limitation then they changed the main fuel tanks size and added ballast to the nose (even later, this ballast should be replaced by an armoured windscreen and the heavier EZ42 computing gunsight)
[3] longitudinal and rudder oversensitiveness (causing changes in ailerons and rudder sizes, slight fuselage enlargement and finally the V-tail)
[4] poor engine exhoust temperature controll (causing an artificial limitation of the BMW003´s output until automatic nozzle controll was provided)
[5] ejector seat could be activated in case of damage (added a secured activiation line)
[6] recoil forces of the 30mm to strong (required change to 20mm MG151/20 outfit and reeinforcements of the nose in the -A3 variant)
----
[7] high drag due to poor blending of engine nacelle and fuselage/wingroots at M=0.75 speed. Changes in hand yielded a 8% reduction in drag at max speed due to reduced buffeting.
[8] V-tail was tested to balance controll forces, adoption in A-6 variant (after 2,000th He-162) -also improved drag and critical Mach
[9] larger wing with increased fuel capacity scheduled after the 2,000th production He-162. 

(incomplete list)

What was produced was a plethora of individually slightly different airplanes, many of them limited in airspeed and thrust. The directional stability was excellent at high speed but instant turn was down to 3g (sustained trun rate was very good instead), which wasn´t very good. In top of that, yeah, Galland was right, it didn´t made much difference to go for yet another design in the closing months of ww2, which had a prospect in mid/late 45 but not late44 and early 45 where the Me-262 could have been favoured instead.
However, the He-162 airplane design is not born out of desperation. It´s roots are in the long lasting Heinkel P1073 / He-500 series, which were developed long before the Volksjäger competition was held (coincidently, the He P1073 was the first engagement with the area rule effect in wind tunnel tests). The desperation is what brought Heinkel the contract, but it´s not what created the airplane design. Within the group of competitors, Heinkel certainly deserved to get the contract as his entry was much more developed than the other ones. And if You had to decide whether to produce Ta-152 or He-162 in this timeframe, it´s clear that the He-162 is the way to go, not the Ta-152.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 7, 2014)

> One may be tempted to add other things to its weaknesses, mainly that it was still a developmental airplane and in top of that a developmental one in mass production. Usually, an airplane gets through it´s prototype stage with the intent of the bugs beeing worked out and achieving a stabilised design which then will be submitted to the manufacturer. Here we have a case of trying to synchronise prototype testing and manufacturing changes, almost impossible.



Yep, I agree; but then the state of the ailing Third Reich, which resulted in the machine was always going to be a hindrance to its and every other German aircraft's development at the time. The other issues you mention were able to be recified and could have been ironed out given time, which of course the Germans did not have and also sound familiar to other jet types, especially the stability issues. It would have been interesting to see just how effective it would have been by comparison to the Vampire, which is probably the closest the British got to the He 162, had it been able to be developed post war.



> What was produced was a plethora of individually slightly different airplanes, many of them limited in airspeed and thrust.



Again, Germany progressively losing the war resulted in this situation. Me 163 production was the same; differences in individual aircraft were marked in some cases. I remember reading a story about the Smithsonian's example; it was never flown as on the production line it was sabotaged and inside the fuselage was written an inscription in French to that effect that if it was flown it'd explode. Restorers found evidence of this in the power lever linkages to the motor.



> The desperation is what brought Heinkel the contract, but its not what created the airplane design. Within the group of competitors, Heinkel certainly deserved to get the contract as his entry was much more developed than the other ones.



Interesting. Arguably, had Heinkel pushed for his design to be built in competition with the Me 262 or even instead of the He 280, the end result might have been a more fully developed aircraft, rather than a desperate measure, although its ultimate fate and many of the problems that plagued the He 162 as it was most certainly would have been the same. This is in common with other designs of the period, though.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 9, 2014)

delcyros said:


> While it may be desirable to stay at high powerlevels for reasons of survivability, it is not convincing to suggest that they need to fly at SL all the time where fuel consumption is worst in combination with high power. Take off and climb to 20,000ft of altitude at a gross weight of 2.85t. will take ~8 min with a climbing speed of about 200mph, rather than 10 to 12.



But the bombers are at 20-25k and the He 162 would certainly not want to attack at 200 mph so you must accelerate (how long would it take for the He 162 to accelerate from 200 mph to 500 mph?) and will want to climb above 20k. I think 10-12 min is reasonable if not conservative.



> During this process, factoring in 200mph dynamic consumption, the fuel consumption at SL would be 1500ltr per hour while the fuel consumption at 20,000ft would be 800ltr per hour for an average of 1150ltr per hour during climb to altitude (reasonable margin of error) or 150ltr (40 US gallons) in total.



You are correct on the altitude efficiency. SFC reduces (a good thing) as temperature reduces, and it is cold at high altitude.
Fuel usage during climb would be 191-230L for 10-12 minutes. Fuel available for combat and return would be 759-720L or 45 to 43 minutes.
Are you really going to want to climb for eight to twelve minutes at 200 mph in air space where swarms of P-51Hs, P-47Ms, Tempest IIs, Spitfire XIVs, and even some P-80s, Meteors, and possibly Vampires above you, are eager to engage? I suspect you would want to still keep your speed up somewhat.



> remaining 100% thrust endurance is 48 min (150 ltr have been used for take off, acceleration and climb to altitude, thus remaining are 800ltr).



45 to 43 minutes for my estimate. Not particularly important.



> That leaves about half an hour possible engagement time and 18/15 minutes return and descent time.



25-30 minutes. But combat when engaged tended to descend to lower levels quickly so assuming combat will continue to be at efficient altitudes is probably risky. Then, once separated, the He-162 would have to reclimb. Still, it seems to me, one pass, two if no escort, is reasonable.



> That´s still not exceptionally well but on the other hand useful compared to piston prop fighters like the Bf-109 which was useful in this capacity prior to the event of effective escort fighters.



Good point



> And in my opinion, the He-162A is better suited for dogfight than interceptions, though installation of MK108 and R4M were considered for it, too.



I agree that it would be a more effective combat air patrol (CAP) aircraft. My book “German Combat Planes” by Ray Wagner and Heinz Nowarra stated that the MK108 cannons were on the first few aircraft but was determined to be too much for the airframe, certainly a limitation on the flexibility of the aircraft. This would have been very helpful for bomber engagement, especially if there was only time for one pass.




> Indeed, it´s a small airplane. But this makes it also harder to hit in combination with high levels of agility and speed.



True. The Northrop F-5 demonstrated effectiveness of small and agile aircraft.



> The installation of the engine outside the fuselage allowed the wing and fuselage space to be devoted entriely for fuel, weapons and flight controll. Thus, significant levels of space optimisation were exploited using this unconventional layout.



Still very limited due to space and size. Weaponization is difficult with small aircraft. A 500 lb bomb would impact the performance of a small aircraft more than a larger, more powerful one even if empty weight thrust-to-weight is identical. Also smaller aircraft tend to be more sensitive to Cg issues.




> That´s the point most people forget, the He-162A offered first class performance and endurance on one tiny low output engine, it´s nothing short but amazing how much they squeezed out of this airframe given the technology of the time.



I think the He 162 was fine attempt to make a cheap, effective aircraft. The Germans, however, needed an aircraft like this late ’43, early ’44, when they had intact factories to build them and pilots to fly them.



> Production was not nearly ramped up and targeted in mid 45 to exceed 4,000 He-162 per month*. Already from june 45 onwards, the He-162A monthly production outpaces the combined allied monthly Meteor/ Vampire/ P80/ P51/P47/ Spitfire and Tempest production.


I hate to sound dismissive, but this seems like a late war German pipe dream to me. Where are the engines? Where are the pilots?

Now, if Germany had fielded a 2000 lb thrust centrifugal jet engine in late ’43 and put it in this plane (it would probably fit), then that would have been a game changer and I think they could have done it with different priorities. (an old soapbox of mine).


----------



## Milosh (Jan 9, 2014)

I don't see the He162 having much of an endurance difference than late war Bf109s with the scenarios given.


----------



## stona (Jan 9, 2014)

davparlr said:


> Now, if Germany had fielded a 2000 lb thrust centrifugal jet engine in late ’43 and put it in this plane (it would probably fit), then that would have been a game changer and I think they could have done it with different priorities. (an old soapbox of mine).



But they didn't do that did they? 

There are many things the allies, particularly the British, could have done differently too. They were not forced into the desperate measures adopted by the Germans because they were winning without having to resort to them. They didn't have to rush a jet like the Me 262 prematurely into service, or fly death traps like the He 162 or, God forbid, the Ba 349 or Me 163.

How many post war jet engines are direct descendants of the various German projects, compared with, say, rocket motors?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2014)

> There are many things the allies, particularly the British, could have done differently too. They were not forced into the desperate measures adopted by the Germans because they were winning without having to resort to them. They didn't have to rush a jet like the Me 262 prematurely into service, or fly death traps like the He 162 or, God forbid, the Ba 349 or Me 163.



Very valid point, Steve; had the reverse been the case and it was the Germans doing the winning (wouldn't many forum members be wetting themselves at the suggestion right now  ), would the He 162 have been developed at all?


----------



## Milosh (Jan 9, 2014)

Why was the Me163 a death trap?


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2014)

"The landing cross was right beneath me by this time. I made a wider turn over a freshly ploughed field and then, crunch! I hit the ground heavily. The Komet bounced several times and then the skid bit into the sparse grass, grated over some stones and gravel, and I was slowing down rapidly. To be on the safe side, I pulled the canopy release handle while the aircraft was still moving, punched my harness quick-release and stripped off my goggles. Then it happened!

"There was a blinding flash from the floor and a wave of searing heat struck my face! Instinctively, I pulled up my knees, planted my feet hard against the seat and jumped for all I was worth. Maybe I landed on my head or possibly on all fours. All I could think of was putting as much space between me and that burning Messerschmitt as was possible in no time flat!

"There was a bang behind me, and I ran like a hare for twenty or thirty metres, and then glanced over my shoulder. The Komet had come to a standstill and was steaming like a boiling kettle with the skid housing ripped wide open and half the cockpit blown away! By that time the fire tender, the ambulance and the starter truckwere racing towards me at full speed, and, almost within seconds, jets of water were dousing the wreckage and Karl Voy and two of his mechanics were screaming at me: "Mano! Are you all right?"

"My face and hands felt as though they were on fire, and the the tears streaming down my face were stinging my cheeks like drops of acid, but before getting medical attention I wanted to take another look at the wrecked aircraft. The cockpit really was in a bad way. Both the finger-thick armour plates in the floor had been burst asunder like so much cardboard, their jagged edges turned upwards. metal scraps were dangling here and there, every rubber connection had burned away, and the glass in all the instruments had been shattered by heat. The frontal armour plate was as black as soot, and had cracked in the middle like a piece of rotten timber. Pheeww! That time it had been close!"

Excerpt from Rocket Fighter; The story of the Me 163 by Mano Ziegler.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 9, 2014)

So, other a/c burnt from hard landings.

To bad the link to what Rudy Opitz has to say no longer works.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2014)

> So, other a/c burnt from hard landings.



Not necessarily as a result of the fuel tanks in the cockpit shattering on impact with the ground because you have very little means of altering your rate of descent because you are a glider and because you don't actually have wheels, but a skid, which is suspended by a hydraulic ram that often froze at altitude and because of your high rate of descent, often proved utterly useless at providing any resistance to impact with the ground, hard or otherwise that might result in you suffering spinal damage, not to mention that the fuel that is gushing out of the fractured tanks is highly flammable and more often than not will spontaneously combust, just like what happened with poor old Mano in the recollection I provided... Very few aircraft simply exploded as a result of a hard landing.

Look at this; taken from Rocket Fighter. The caption reads;

"All that remained of a Komet that exploded just before a "sharp" start. Fragments of the aircraft were scattered in a wide circle hundreds of yards in diameter."






There were Luftwaffe pilots who refused to fly it on assignment to JG 400 and quickly transferred out of the unit after witnessing scenes like this. Thankfully it didn't happen as often as is led to believe, but you wouldn't get that in a Bf 109 or P-51 on switching on the engine.
Still don't think the Komet was a death trap, Milosh?


----------



## Milosh (Jan 9, 2014)

Fuel tanks were behind the cockpit.

In the 109, the pilot sat over the fuel tank.
Spitfires had fuel tanks in front of the pilot.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 9, 2014)

The C-Stoff tank was behind the cockpit, but the T-Stoff tanks were either side of the pilot's seat. You can refer to my thread for photographic evidence here: 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/wa...c-aircraft-walkarounds-nuuumannn-36981-2.html


----------



## BiffF15 (Jan 9, 2014)

That would not be my preferred ride in combat or otherwise!


----------



## stona (Jan 10, 2014)

There are a lot of unpleasant characteristics of the fuels used in the Walther rocket engines which would make a dousing in aviation spirit seem like a spa bath. Me 163 pilots wore 'plastic' suits and even discarded the Luftwaffe arm band they were supposed to wear to conform with international law as it was made from an organic material which would combust when wet with T-Stoff.

The fuel tanks were fragile (relatively) because you can't store these fuels in tanks made from many typical materials. I'd have to check for production Me 163s but early tanks were ceramic. Mix the two fuels in an uncontrolled way and the results will be as above.

There is also the potential of serious failure and injury from the steam generator, which is a nice little bomb bolted to the bulkhead, visible when the rear fuselage is removed. It's the bit looking like a pressure cooker, usually polished with graphite oil (it was made from steel). 

Add to that the unpowered flight characteristics mentioned by nuuumaan and you've got a death trap. Every landing was a dead stick landing.

It wasn't just Walter rocket motors that destroyed aircraft. After two years work BMW technicians were finally ready to run one of their combination jet/rocket motors (turbinenluftstrahltriebwerk mit raketenantrieb', TLR for short) on a Me 262. It promptly exploded and burst into flames!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## delcyros (Jan 10, 2014)

davparlr said:


> Now, if Germany had fielded a 2000 lb thrust centrifugal jet engine in late ’43 and put it in this plane (it would probably fit), then that would have been a game changer and I think they could have done it with different priorities. (an old soapbox of mine).



Dave,
I kind of agree in most points. We may have differences in valuing endurance but those are small enough to vannish in the usual margin of error.
However, I don´t think that a 2000lbs thrust centrifugal jet engine was feasable for Germany in 1943 (Heinkel tried and failed) due in most part because of the abandandonment of high Chromium and high Nickel content turbine wheels.
Otherwise You already had the axial JUMO-004A which run 1942 on 1000kp / 2,200lbs at 9000rpm -but had to be reconstructed and consequently derated to 8700rpm in the Jumo-004B due to the need to produce the engine without high quality alloys. This problem would be worse in a radial compressor (neither the HeS008 nor the HeS011 AV had been designed for spare free).
Production of the JUMO004 to apr. 3rd, 45 amounted to 7,420 units, BMW´s 003 was introduced in serial production in august 1944 and had been produced in ~700 units to apr. 45, roughly twice as much as He-162 and Ar-234C airframes in this period.
I am pretty sure that a targeted goal of >4,000 He-162 was to optimistic but probably not to excessively, considering that oct. 1944 production of fighter craft peaked out at 3,468 fighters, which were individually significantly more costly in ressources and manhours than was the He-162A (by a considerable margin).


----------



## delcyros (Jan 10, 2014)

stona said:


> But they didn't do that did they?
> 
> 
> How many post war jet engines are direct descendants of the various German projects, compared with, say, rocket motors?



A couple of important ones.
The french ATAR series, dominating the french 50´s and 60´s is the continuation of the BMW P3306, which was a scaled up BMW-003 and qualifies here.
The soviets copied BMW-003 and JUMO-004, and additionally realised the projected JUMO-012 turbojet and later the from it derived turboprop JUMO-022 (the JUMO-012B was not taken into production because of the licensed production of the RR Nene, which offered equal performance at less weight -albeit on a larger frontal diameter). The Jumo-022 went into service and production as TV-2 and was one mainstay in helicopter turbines of the soviet aeroindustry. It eventually wes redesigned into the much more powerful NK-12 turboprop, which powers the Tu-95 till today.


----------



## stona (Jan 10, 2014)

delcyros said:


> A couple of important ones.
> The french ATAR series, dominating the french 50´s and 60´s is the continuation of the BMW P3306, which was a scaled up BMW-003 and qualifies here.
> The soviets copied BMW-003 and JUMO-004, and additionally realised the projected JUMO-012 turbojet and later the from it derived turboprop JUMO-022 (the JUMO-012B was not taken into production because of the licensed production of the RR Nene, which offered equal performance at less weight -albeit on a larger frontal diameter). The Jumo-022 went into service and production as TV-2 and was one mainstay in helicopter turbines of the soviet aeroindustry. It eventually wes redesigned into the much more powerful NK-12 turboprop, which powers the Tu-95 till today.



The French ATAR/SNECMA I agree with.

The Soviets never continued development of German jets for the reasons you give.

That makes a grand total of one post war jet that can be considered a direct descendant of the German war time programs. Considering Oestrich and several of his BMW colleagues had escaped to France the ATAR 101V wasn't even built until March 1948 and then effectively by SNECMA. It was far from a world beater. The 101A was slightly better but sold precisely zero units. The 101B was produced just before ATAR became formally a SNECMA property and is the first engine producing over 2,000Kg thrust. It wasn't until the 101C that an engine was actually produced commercially, eventually powering the Dassault Mystere IIC. It was already moving away from the original design and it was already 1951 and the type wouldn't enter service until 1954!

I don't think that's much of a legacy for the much vaunted German jet development programs of WWII.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davparlr (Jan 10, 2014)

Milosh said:


> I don't see the He162 having much of an endurance difference than late war Bf109s with the scenarios given.



Which was a problem. Germany needed as many aircraft in the air as it could get. Planes refueling and rearming are not fighting. Ground time to flight time is a critical design point for aircraft. Low endurance aircraft have a poorer ground time to flight time ratio than aircraft with more endurance. I think the Germans finally got the idea with the Ta 152 which had much more fuel on board. This is particularly true when the airspace above the airfield is contested. Aircraft landing and taking off are extremely vulnerable and the more you have to do it the more vulnerable you are, especially the jets with notoriously slow acceleration.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 10, 2014)

davparlr said:


> Which was a problem. Germany needed as many aircraft in the air as it could get. Planes refueling and rearming are not fighting. Ground time to flight time is a critical design point for aircraft. Low endurance aircraft have a poorer ground time to flight time ratio than aircraft with more endurance. I think the Germans finally got the idea with the Ta 152 which had much more fuel on board. This is particularly true when the airspace above the airfield is contested. Aircraft landing and taking off are extremely vulnerable and the more you have to do it the more vulnerable you are, especially the jets with notoriously slow acceleration.



It was a huge problem. Standard procedure was for fighters only to carry a drop tank on the first interception of the day. Theoretically an entire Gruppe could be refuelled, rearmed and in the air again in less than thirty minutes, but now with even less endurance and looking at a long, fuel burning, overheating, climb to reach the bombers.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## davparlr (Jan 10, 2014)

delcyros said:


> Dave,
> I kind of agree in most points. We may have differences in valuing endurance but those are small enough to vannish in the usual margin of error.
> However, I don´t think that a 2000lbs thrust centrifugal jet engine was feasable for Germany in 1943 (Heinkel tried and failed) due in most part because of the abandandonment of high Chromium and high Nickel content turbine wheels.
> Otherwise You already had the axial JUMO-004A which run 1942 on 1000kp / 2,200lbs at 9000rpm -but had to be reconstructed and consequently derated to 8700rpm in the Jumo-004B due to the need to produce the engine without high quality alloys. This problem would be worse in a radial compressor (neither the HeS008 nor the HeS011 AV had been designed for spare free).
> ...



Okay, I won't disagree with you here as I am sure you are more knowledgeable about raw material support than I am. But you still have to have engines which I think was in short supply at the end of the war and also trained pilots. I do think that in order to affect the war, really just delay the outcome, Germany needed to stop the Mustangs in the first half of '44. Without the daylight Bomber offensive and the Luftwaffe decimation during that period, D-Day would have been completely different. Any airborne weapons system available after D-day would not have had much an impact on the war. Germany could never outproduce the US or out man the Russians.

I do like the plane and it use of less refined fuel was important. It was, like so many other advanced German concepts, just too little too late.


----------



## Erich (Jan 10, 2014)

am curious this page has nothing to do with the named title Ta vs Tempest, wonder why posts start running amuck since the beginning of this site was created. ??

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jan 10, 2014)

Erich said:


> am curious this page has nothing to do with the named title Ta vs Tempest, wonder why posts start running amuck since the beginning of this site was created. ??



Because debates develop, sometimes in unexpected and interesting ways. It's human nature. It would be a shame if that was seen as a problem when everybody has behaved themselves and posted some fascinating information.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Erich (Jan 10, 2014)

why not start another thread, is it that hard to keep on topic ................ YES it appears. I can bring you all back on the original if interested with docs covering the Ta, for my book actually but am willing to toss a few out for bites if all my systems are a go.


----------



## Erich (Jan 10, 2014)

alright then another doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 10, 2014)

Duly saved


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Jan 10, 2014)

@Stona post #151 :
Exactly what I've been thinking all along.
This is me talking really.

euh, risette ?

Yves


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 11, 2014)

> Because debates develop, sometimes in unexpected and interesting ways. It's human nature. It would be a shame if that was seen as a problem when everybody has behaved themselves and posted some fascinating information.



Yep, I agree - being particularly guilty of straying way off topic in this particular thread. Some of the more lively debates arise as a result of side-tracking from the intended subject. As a shaggy, drug addled old hippie once said; "just go with the flow, maaan..."


----------



## davparlr (Jan 17, 2014)

The Tempest and the Ta 152C represent the last few pages of the last chapter of single engine, propeller driven fighters. As such they join other such aircraft such as the P-51H, F4U-4, P-47M/N, F8F, etc. All of these planes were very powerful and were pushing propeller propulsion to its limits. All were very fast and climbed at a prodigious rate. These planes had over 2000 hp on hand, ranging from about 2200 for the Tempest and Mustang to 2800 hp for P-47M/N. However each was design for a specific performance envelope so comparing them is typically difficult without defining the envelope. For example, the lightweight P-51H performs superbly up to about 25k ft whereas the Ta-152H is untouchable above about 35k ft. The Tempest V and the Ta 152C appear to be similar with the Tempest a bit better in climb and airspeed up to about 20k ft. with the C better above that. Also, the Tempest II outperformed the Tempest V. An uncertainty here is quality of the data for the C. It may perform better than my figures show. All of these planes would be obsolete by the end of 1945 with only the F4U and F8F scheduled for updates due to the uncertainty of carrier borne jets.


----------



## stona (Jan 17, 2014)

davparlr said:


> All of these planes would be obsolete by the end of 1945 with only the F4U and F8F scheduled for updates due to the uncertainty of carrier borne jets.



Though the Tempest is a direct ancestor of the Sea Fury, developed for the RN for the same reason. The Sea Fury is a very different beast to the Tempest under the skin, but the lineage is there.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davparlr (Jan 17, 2014)

stona said:


> Though the Tempest is a direct ancestor of the Sea Fury, developed for the RN for the same reason. The Sea Fury is a very different beast to the Tempest under the skin, but the lineage is there.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Saw one at Chino. Beautiful!


----------



## GregP (Jan 17, 2014)

Race 232 was at Chino for some time and is probably the one you saw there. It started life as a Sea Fury FB 11. but very little of the FB 11 remains. The only thing still working in the wing fold is the pins that hold the wing down. The rest is now manual. The airfoil is no longer FB 11, having been profiled for racing. The tails have been similarly re-airfoiled for racing. The engine is a Wright R-3350 and the canopy is from a Formula One racer. But it IS a beautiful aircraft to watch flying.

Just before he grenaded the engine last year at Reno, Hoot Gibson lapped at 472 mph around the now shorter and somewhat more rounded course.

Ellsworth Getchell has a stock Sea Fury FB 11 being returned to the air with the original Bristol Centaurus engine and prop. And the Sanders family got their Centaurus-powered Sea Fury flying again, too. So at least there are still some genuine Sea Furies around for us to see and hear.

Now if we only had a de Havilland Hornet flying ... I'd sure like to see THAT.


----------



## GregP (Jan 17, 2014)

Race 232 was at Chino for some time, It started life as a Sea Fury FB 11. but very little of the FB 11 remains. The only thing still working in the wing fold is the pins that hold the wing down. The rest is now manual. The airfoil is no longer FB 11, having been profiled for racing. The tails have been similarly re-airfoiled for racing. The engine is a Wright R-3350 and the canopy is from a Formula One racer. But it IS a beautiful aircraft to watch flying.

Just before he grenaded the engine last year at Reno, Hoot Gibson lapped at 472 mph around the now shorter and somewhat more rounded course.

Ellsworth Getchell has a stock Sea Fury FB 11 being returned to the air with the original Bristol Centaurus engine and prop. And the Sanders familt got their Centaurus-powered Sea Fury flying again, too. So at least there are still some genuine Sea Furies around for us to see and hear.

Now if we only had a de Havilland Hornet flying ... I'd sure like to see THAT. It has always been my favorite twin, aesthetically that is. For sheer presence, I am a Tigercat fan. It would be great to see them both flying together!


----------

