- Thread starter
- #101
A very good site on the He-162: Heinkel He 162
He-162 Salamander
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
But prop wash wont delay tip stall much since most is concentrated at the centerline.
The He 162 didn't use a laminar flow airfoil, but maybe Delcyros meant it used another low-drag airfoil-- the P-47 had a low-drag airfoil iirc, though not laminar flow and had better stall characteristics than the P-51.
I'm not an expet on aerodynamics (though many are here, I know Soren and Delcyros are quite knowledgeable), but I have a decent grasp of the general concepts. From what I've read on this forum about lamiar airfoils is that they tend to bypass turbulent flow and go straight to separated flow (stalling) at high AoA with little warning.
That aside the He 162 has about the same wing loading (maximum loaded) as the P-51D (max fuel clean configuration) both just over 40 lbs/ft2. (much better than the Me 262, albeit it had the advantage of LE slats-- which could add another ~25% lift fully extended)
Now disregarding the type of airfoil, the He 162 would weigh quite a bit less by the time it engaged the enemy (lets assume 40-50% fuel expended). While the P-51 would likely still have all internal fuel (still carrying drop tanks). So if the P-51 drops tanks and engages it will have a higher wing loading than the He 162 and poorer roll, climb, and acceleration (at least above 300 mph) as well. Plus the 30sec 115% over-rev boost (923 kp) of the 003E would allow better acceleration/energy retention in maneuvers-- along with the fact that at ~60% fuel weight is down to ~2,400 kg and thrust/weight is up to .33 normal and .38 with over-rev!
And at optimum combat cruise at altitude 1000 km range was possible at full 2,800 kg loaded weight, this cruise was still achieved at a speed comparable to the P-51D's max speed in WEP (with wing racks) with an endurance of ~85 min at 438 mph at ~30,000 ft.
Does this comparison seem accurate to you guys?
The He 162 didn't use a laminar flow airfoil, but maybe Delcyros meant it used another low-drag airfoil-- the P-47 had a low-drag airfoil iirc, though not laminar flow and had better stall characteristics than the P-51.
I'm not an expet on aerodynamics (though many are here, I know Soren and Delcyros are quite knowledgeable), but I have a decent grasp of the general concepts. From what I've read on this forum about lamiar airfoils is that they tend to bypass turbulent flow and go straight to separated flow (stalling) at high AoA with little warning.
That aside the He 162 has about the same wing loading (maximum loaded) as the P-51D (max fuel clean configuration) both just over 40 lbs/ft2. (much better than the Me 262, albeit it had the advantage of LE slats-- which could add another ~25% lift fully extended)
Now disregarding the type of airfoil, the He 162 would weigh quite a bit less by the time it engaged the enemy (lets assume 40-50% fuel expended). While the P-51 would likely still have all internal fuel (still carrying drop tanks). So if the P-51 drops tanks and engages it will have a higher wing loading than the He 162 and poorer roll, climb, and acceleration (at least above 300 mph) as well. Plus the 30sec 115% over-rev boost (923 kp) of the 003E would allow better acceleration/energy retention in maneuvers-- along with the fact that at ~60% fuel weight is down to ~2,400 kg and thrust/weight is up to .33 normal and .38 with over-rev!
And at optimum combat cruise at altitude 1000 km range was possible at full 2,800 kg loaded weight, this cruise was still achieved at a speed comparable to the P-51D's max speed in WEP (with wing racks) with an endurance of ~85 min at 438 mph at ~30,000 ft.
Does this comparison seem accurate to you guys?
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
These figures from Delcyros seem to match this except the wing area seems in conflict. (most I've seen state 14.5 m², and the wingloading Delcyros posted on this thread matches this) And the Max takeoff of ~2,700 kg from that link is considerably different than most sited at 2,800 kg usually stated. Though the empty weights and wing-span seem accurate...
From: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/he-162-vs-meteor-mk-iii-2642.html
From: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/he-162-vs-meteor-mk-iii-2642.html
- Thread starter
- #104
The wing area is 14.5 m^2, and performance was as follows:
Lenght: 9.05m
Wing span: 7.2m
Wing area: 14.5 m^2
Weight empty: 1660kg (3,666lbs)
Weight fully loaded: 2800 kg (5,942lb)
Top speeds:
890 km/h at SL
905 km/h at 5,950 m
Climb rate: 23.4 m/s (4,609 ft/min)
Service ceiling: 12,040 m (39,800 ft)
Range: 975 km (606 miles)
Lenght: 9.05m
Wing span: 7.2m
Wing area: 14.5 m^2
Weight empty: 1660kg (3,666lbs)
Weight fully loaded: 2800 kg (5,942lb)
Top speeds:
890 km/h at SL
905 km/h at 5,950 m
Climb rate: 23.4 m/s (4,609 ft/min)
Service ceiling: 12,040 m (39,800 ft)
Range: 975 km (606 miles)
drgondog
Major
The He 162 was a superior airplane in the context of choosing to engage or leave a fight, just like the Me 262... There isn't enough history to evaluate it or derive assumptions about just 'how superior' it was.
Its excellent speed and small size was a major plus. It's low speed manueverablity/limits seem to be a minus, it's visibility aft is terrible, it's ability to loiter is not good - so the mission seems to be focused well on climbing, attacking and running - to get out of sight so that it can land safely.
As to what the wing loading is I'm having trouble finding an unimpeachable source for the dimensions and weights. Joe Baugher's site that Soren pointed out had a higher wing area and lower gross weight than others that I have found so far.
If someone has any dimensions on the wing (like root chord or mean aero chord) it would be simple as all the span dimensions seem to agree -
- Thread starter
- #106
The He-162 was very sensitive to control imput, being almost overly agile according to its pilots, so it certainly was no rookies a/c. At slow speeds stalls could end in viscous spins, esp. if you didn't know what to do to get out of it, something Brown found no difficulty achieving though. The problem was that all previous methods of getting out of a spin in piston engined a/c didn't apply to the He-162.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
OOPS... (double post)
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I don't think SFC for the 003 engine changed too much at altititude, though it still may have been significant (maby 10%) but this is just speculation. I have read that it had much better altitude performance than the 004B.
Thanks for the info on the P-51's wings, Ibelieve the P-63 had similar characteristics, though in later models it had a new wing with larger area and improoved laminar flow (255 ft2 for the P-63E and XP-63D compared to 248 ft2 on the P-63A/C)
And "expert" being a realative term...
The P-80A wouldn't be particularly good in a turning fight either depending on fuel load. Plus ealy models' engines only put out 3850 lbf. A vampire Mk.I had faily low wing loading but inless it was a late model with a 3,100 lbf goblin II acceleration would be even worse.with a thrust/weight of <.27 with 2,700 lbf Goblin I.
Thanks for the info on the P-51's wings, Ibelieve the P-63 had similar characteristics, though in later models it had a new wing with larger area and improoved laminar flow (255 ft2 for the P-63E and XP-63D compared to 248 ft2 on the P-63A/C)
And "expert" being a realative term...
The P-80A wouldn't be particularly good in a turning fight either depending on fuel load. Plus ealy models' engines only put out 3850 lbf. A vampire Mk.I had faily low wing loading but inless it was a late model with a 3,100 lbf goblin II acceleration would be even worse.with a thrust/weight of <.27 with 2,700 lbf Goblin I.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
Also the fuel consumption for the 003E may have been better than the 1.4 kg/kp*hr for the 003A. (this figure is for sea level iirc)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
What was done differently? Here's the general "spin 101" training gouge.
I've spun jets and recipts, recovery was about the same.
P - Retard the throttle to idle. In most aircraft, power hampers the recovery.
A - Ailerons neutral. Many pilots will attempt to recover from the spin using the ailerons. This may actually make the problem worse.
R - Apply full opposite rudder. Apply rudder opposite the rotation of the spin. If you have trouble determining which way the airplane is spinning, look at your turn coordinator or turn needle. It will indicate the direction of rotation.
E - Apply forward elevator. Immediately after applying opposite rudder, apply a quick forward motion on the control yoke and hold anti-spin controls until the aircraft starts to recover.
D - Recover from the dive. Once you have completed the four previous steps, and the rotation stops, recover from the dive.
- Thread starter
- #111
Hey FLYBOYJ, remember what would happen if you were aggressive with the rudder ? Apply full rudder in the He-162 and your playing a dangerous game.
Also the He-162 didn't suffer from the torque effects the piston engined fighters did, and thus this didn't affect recovery as much. (Hence why recipts have to cut power emmidiately)
Also the He-162 didn't suffer from the torque effects the piston engined fighters did, and thus this didn't affect recovery as much. (Hence why recipts have to cut power emmidiately)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The key is "aggressive rudder" and I would think that would be more prevalent at high airspeeds. You would still use full rudder if in a spin.
True but regardless of p factor, power will still induce the spin whether it comes from a propeller or turbine - in both cases reducing power is a key part of the equation of getting out of the spin.
- Thread starter
- #113
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think Brown was an experienced enough pilot to know how aggressive to be with the controls of the 162, not slamming the rudders and knowing when to chop power in a spin so the aircraft doesn't start "wrapping up."
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
I knew that acheiving full laminar flow over the P-51 was not practically possible on production P-51s, but did the P-51 actually use an airfoil altered from the original NACA laminar flow airfoil that was originally chosen?
Even if it was not a "true laminar flow airfoil" it would still have laminar-ish flow and the CL would still be realitively low, lower than the Hellcat (very high-lift), F4U, Fw-190 (medium-high lift, the 190 and Corsair actually using the same NACA airfoil), P-40, P-38 (medium lift as well), and the P-47 (although it also used a low-lift/low-drag airfoil iirc, albeit not a laminar flow type one)
Even if it was not a "true laminar flow airfoil" it would still have laminar-ish flow
and the CL would still be realitively low, lower than the Hellcat (very high-lift), F4U, Fw-190 (medium-high lift, the 190 and Corsair actually using the same NACA airfoil), P-40, P-38 (medium lift as well), and the P-47 (although it also used a low-lift/low-drag airfoil iirc, albeit not a laminar flow type one)- Thread starter
- #116
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Have You sources to proove this, Soren? Or is this a guess.
- Thread starter
- #118
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
This report is a very important document. However, it does show some notable differences. The F-4U´s wing does provide a max. Cl. beeing generally higher than the P-51 until the wing is stalled. The P-51 wing does stall later as it appears. The Cl at angle of attack 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 deg is:
P-51:---.38---.66---.94----1.23---1.30
F-4U:---.88---1.19--1.34---1.40--completely stalled
..and thus suggesting a superior Cl over a wide range of angle´s of attack compared to the P-51.
- Thread starter
- #120
