He-162 Salamander

Njaco said:

In terms of adaptability and upgrade, I think the Me 262 had it all over the 162. It was a nice plane but the Volksjager couldn't progress much beyond its initial operational type. The 262 at least was able to interchange firepower and be utilized as fighter, jabo, night-fighter, etc. IMHO.

Click to expand...

Not true, there were plenty of plans to develop the He 162 into just about everything with the exception of a bomber. There were many engine designs, wing re-designs and everything in between. I'll post some more info when I get home. I have a couple good books on the He 162 with some of the factory drawings of stuff that never made it off the paper due to the end of the war, but was quite interesting none-the-less.


The Me 262 was more or less the jack of all trades. The He 162 was developed to be a light weight cheap fighter. In a pure fighter role I would easily choose the He 162, in a mixed role, the Me 262 is where it is at.

Njaco said:

In terms of adaptability and upgrade, I think the Me 262 had it all over the 162. It was a nice plane but the Volksjager couldn't progress much beyond its initial operational type. The 262 at least was able to interchange firepower and be utilized as fighter, jabo, night-fighter, etc. IMHO.

Click to expand...

Isn't that always the way with very small fighters. As mentioned earlier in the thread the Folland Gnat is a good example. Small, fast, agile but too small to be any good at anything else.

Evil_Merlin said:

Not in overal manuverability, accelleration (to a point), or duration. Sure it was faster and typically had a better weapons load, but it was much more sensitive to the rigors of true a2a combat. Most allied fighters could out manuver the Me-262 with realitive ease and we won't get into one of the more important parts of keeping an aircraft combat worthy, reliability and ruggedness.

Yes, yes, the Me-262 was considerably faster than any contemporary allied fighter, and while "speed is life", its not everything.

I'm not saying the He 162 was any better. But to claim the Me-262 could easily out perform any allied fighter is really not telling it as it is. There were areas it COULD outperform a contemporary allied fighter, but then again, there were areas were it was outperformed by the same.

Click to expand...

Dead on. Good post.

The pilots of the 2SF and 355th FG didn't have the highest totals for Me 262's destroyed in the air (6-1-7), but they lost none to Me 262's. If they saw them, they out manuevered them. If the 262 continued, they kept out manuevering them, waited until they were low on fuel turned for home, and then followed them.

The frustration of course, is that if the 262 chose to make one pass and go look for easier prey, the 51's could do nothing about it except wave bye bye.

And if a 51 or Spit or Tempest caught a 262 on approach or right after take off they were toast because of poor acceleration and comparable overall ability to manuever until they spooled up and got their speed up

I have serious doubts a He 162 could out turn any contemporary Allied fighter at any altitude at equal speeds and the difference should be even greater at high speeds.. but willing to see the data.

The He 162 could out-roll almost anything (maybe not the (Y)P-80A as it had boosted ailerons as well as fairly short wings) though with its short wings and could maintain energy better than the Me 262s that saw service (004B) as thrust could be boosted with over-rev for 30 sec which could be very useful in maneuvers. (although the same could be done with the 004D and E)

Also remember that the P-51's laminar-flow (low drag at the expence of low lift) airfoil had even lower lift per area than the 162's which wasn't a laminar flow airfoil.

As for upgrades it certainly could be improved, plans for V-tails, various swept wings, 004D, 003D (1200 kp), and 011A engines were all considered, the original MK 108 armament was able reintroduced after structural modifications were made. (although not before the end of the war).


On another note the HeS-30 (109-006, canceled in early '42 for what proved to be very bad reasons) with nearly half the weight of the 004B; along with smaller length and diameter and better specific fuel consumption than even the BMW 003, and should have been fairly easy to produce --simpler than the 004A/B/D/E and 003A/E in most ways except for the advanced 5-stage reaction bladed compressor which necessitated machined blades and thrust bearings-- and likely in production before the 004B, though not the 004A) and similar thrust output s the 004B with 840-910 kp achieved in static testing by the time of cancellation. (even though only 700 kp was originally planned- same as the HeS-8 )

It could have made the Me 262 or He 162 into capable dogfighters and opened up many more possibilities for designers as well. Though it probably would have been wasted on the He 280, though the lesser but cheaper and simpler HeS 8 was well matched to this a/c and was nearing designed thrust (650-670 of the 700 planned) when it was canceled along with the HeS 30 and was more fuel efficient than most competitors, though not the HeS 30. (the major drawback was that the radial inflow turbine could not be air cooled and was too large to be practically made of tinadur or cromadur, so steel had to be used, making the engine cheap but limiting turbine inlet temperature and turbine lifespan and likely lasting as long early 004B engines (probably ~10 hrs 'till a turbine burnout in real world situations) though probably more reliable otherwise and with better spool-up characteristics).

--One note on the HeS 8 is that it had the highest thrust per frontal area of any single-stage centrifugal engine of the war (except maybe the Nene) with about 550-590 kp and only .775 m diameter, higher thrusts were achieved later with a single axial stage and other improvements. Comparatively the 450-500 kp HeS-3b had a .93 m diameter and the 550-590 kp HeS-6 ~1.0 m, the 770 kp Welland and 908-1112 Derwent I-IV were even larger at ~1.09 m and the 1226 kp Goblin I slightly larger still at ~1.11 m.

kool kitty89 said:

The He 162 could out-roll almost anything (maybe not the (Y)P-80A as it had boosted ailerons as well as fairly short wings) though with its short wings and could maintain energy better than the Me 262s that saw service (004B) as thrust could be boosted with over-rev for 30 sec which could be very useful in maneuvers. (although the same could be done with the 004D and E)

Also remember that the P-51's laminar-flow (low drag at the expence of low lift) airfoil had even lower lift per area than the 162's which wasn't a laminar flow airfoil.

KK-?? If you say the He 162 gross weght divided by the total area of the wing is less than the Mustang, I'm ok with that statement as I don't have the data in front of me.

I'm ok with imputed roll as it was a short winged mother and probably wasn't loaded up with a lot of weight in the wings to mess with roll inertia.

If you think, on the other hand, that anyone is agonizing over flow separation points along the aerodynamic chord to arrive at wing loading, they aren't - at least not to estimate relative turn radius at a particular speed...

It might be interesting if you were trying to estimate the airspeed and angle of attack which help you understand a stall region.

So, what are you trying to say with the above statement?

BTW - Wing loading comparisons have nothing to do with calculations regarding lift/pressure distribution over say 25% of the airfoil versus 40% - and the laminar airfoil woul more likely separate later than a non laminar flow wing - assuming clean surfaces.

Click to expand...

As to maintaining energy, if you say the Thrust to weight is greater for the He 162 than the Me 262 or Mustang or Tempest, etc, or the same, but lower wing loading and overall drag I would buy what you are saying.. Is that what you are saying?

The Me 262 was more or less the jack of all trades. The He 162 was developed to be a light weight cheap fighter. In a pure fighter role I would easily choose the He 162, in a mixed role, the Me 262 is where it is at.

Click to expand...

That was the point I was trying to make. As a one purpose AC, the 162 was good. The multi-purpose of the 262 made it a better canidate. If I was producing AC I would want one design that could adapt to all my needs. I was aware of the developement future of the 162 but I still think it was a dead-end when compared to what the 262 had instore for the future.

Njaco said:

That was the point I was trying to make. As a one purpose AC, the 162 was good. The multi-purpose of the 262 made it a better canidate. If I was producing AC I would want one design that could adapt to all my needs. I was aware of the developement future of the 162 but I still think it was a dead-end when compared to what the 262 had instore for the future.

Click to expand...

But the age old adage comes into play here.

Jack of All trades, master of none. If I'm going to be in A2A combat, I'm taking the best I can.

No worries, agreed. But the question is...is the 162 that AC?

Even if the 162 could out turn a Mustang...what about the 3 other Mustangs behind it! The 162 was there to shoot down bombers.

The range is a bit much because the 162 would have to fly fast throughout its mission to stop being bounced...and a heavy throttle would kill range.

As a bomber destroyer, the 162 would be OK I guess. Its agility, small size and high speed would make it a difficult target. A bit undergunned and always outnumbered would be against it.

Not bad for a desperate design.

There were plans to make the 162 a far more formidable fighter but the Americans also had a a plan to drop an atomic bomb on Berlin. The war ended too early for either plan to happen.

Proof that a more powerful 162 would be the least of Germanys problems.

The war was lost well before the 162 left runway.

I bet the 162 would have been a great performer at air shows!

Njaco said:

No worries, agreed. But the question is...is the 162 that AC?

Click to expand...

Between the He 162 and the Me 262 for a2a combat? Yeah, I think so.

If there was a choice between all the post 1945 aircraft? Hells no.

If you look at the Folland Gnat, you will see similar issues to the 162.

The Gnat was small, agile and fast. Cheap as chips.

It also had no range and couldn't carry a worthy bombload. Even if it did it didn't have the range to carry it. The Raf pilots loved it but it was of limited use. Point defence dogfights only. Gnats didn't fall apart either.

However...in a Battle of Britain situation then Gnats would have flown off the production line.

The qualities and weanknesses of an aircraft are secondary to what mess you're in at that moment in time. Again had the Raf had 162s in 1940 then yeah they would have flown 'em. But never when they could be selective.

Desperation can do odd things to a man and beggers can't be choosers.

I was just saying wing area isn't the only factor for turning performance, the wing efficiency, airfoil, lift to drag ratio, power/thrust-loading all affect this. Lift loading is the bigest factor with wing efficiency, area, airfoil type and thickness all efecting this. The laminar flow wing has low drag but also low lift so it will produce less lift than a comparable non laminar flow wing. Other low-lift low-drag wings (seen in the P-47, and as mentioned by Delcyros, in the He 162) were similar but not as poor at lifting as a true lamiar-flow airfoil. (though also not as aerodynamicly clean)

I'd like to ask about your thoughts on the He 280's potential, but that might get us too far off topic.

and the laminar airfoil woul more likely separate later than a non laminar flow wing - assuming clean surfaces.

Click to expand...

That is very wrong.

The sharper leading edge and middle positioned max chamber of laminar flow airfoils means boundary layer seperation occurs at lower AoA's, the transition point moving forward more rapidly, and this is no matter how clean the surface is.

The low lift, low critical AoA and sharp sudden stall is an inherent characteristic of laminar flow airfoils and is the very reason why modern fighters feature LE flaps or slats, thus eliminating the big disadvantages of the laminar flow type airfoil.

delcyros said:

With 196 Kg/m^2 for landing (almost empty) and it´s low drag, low lift airfoil, the He-162 will not outturn many piston prop A/C low slow.

Click to expand...

Low lift airfoil ? Where did you get that from?

Also remember that the P-51's laminar-flow (low drag at the expence of low lift) airfoil had even lower lift per area than the 162's which wasn't a laminar flow airfoil.

Click to expand...

Very correct Koolkitty.

However piston engined a/c benefit from their line of thrust running straight over the wings, increasing the lift over the wing at low airspeeds, and so when comparing jets with piston engined fighters it isn't as simple as just looking at the Clmax of the wing.

I have a couple of questions.

With all this recent talk of manueverability of 162/262 vs. allied prop fighters, I was wondering if the same held true if the jet were to turn so the prop fighter had to turn against the rotation of its prop?

Also, (and maybe this needs its own thread), did the 262 have dual throttle controls?




Elvis

Yes, the Me-262 has individual throttle control.

KK- here is an article that explains both what laminar flow is, and what the modified version ultimately installed on the Mustang achieved.

Laminar Flow Airfoil

The key to the understanding of both laminar boundary layers and subsequent flow, is what charcateristics enable a 'laminar flow' airfoil to delay positive pressure gradient to negative pressure gradient and cause a transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow... an instantaneous increase in drag over laminar flow.

The more you retard this change in pressure gradient and maintain a laminar boundary layer, the less drag you produce - all other factors being equal.

The Mustang had wind tunnel results of nearly 40% of chord but never achieved that in real practice... being closer to 28-30% with average factory finish.

Nevertheless, the Zero lift drag was less than every other conventional wing of similar thickness.

BTW - I have seen several sets of figures for the He 162?

Are these right figure for the He 162A-2?

Wing span = 23.7 ft
Wing Area = 120 sq ft
Gross Weight - no external stores = 6,187#

He-162 A-2 specs

Wing area: 14.5 m^2 (156 ft^2.)
Wing span: 7.2 m (23.62 ft)
Weight fully loaded: 2,800 kg (6,173 lbs)