Almost in time. He-162.

[davebender]

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

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

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

 

[andy2012]

Do you think it would've been successful?

 

[Denniss]

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

 

[davebender]

Heinkel He 162 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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



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

 

[johnbr]

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

 

[Maximowitz]

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

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

 

[nuuumannn]

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

 

[Juha]

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

Juha

 

[Shortround6]

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

 

[davebender]

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

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

 

[norab]

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

 

[cimmex]

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

 

[Thorlifter]

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

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

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

 

[norab]

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

 

[davebender]

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

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

 

[riacrato]

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

Juha

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

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

 

[cimmex]

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

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

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

 

[tomo pauk]

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

 

[davebender]

I agree.

When did jet engine fuel efficiency start to improve?