He-162 vs Meteor MK-III

[FLYBOYJ]

Ummm,

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

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

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

 

[carpenoctem1689]

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

 

[delcyros]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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

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

 

[delcyros]

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

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

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

 

[Tommy Enfield]

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

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

 

[delcyros]

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

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

 

[delcyros]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[KraziKanuK]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[delcyros]

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

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

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

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

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

 

[delcyros]

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

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

 

[Parmigiano]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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

 

[delcyros]

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