FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Glider training has nothing to do with this. It was breaking habits that all pilots had when operating recip aircraft.
And they were operated for how long? And what concept are you referring to?
Last edited:
Resolved. German jets were a waste of time and effort
- Thread starter zoomar
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I assume he means that of a top-mounted engine and the other features that come with that.
I don't find that surprising at all. Most contemporary jets used two engines for thrust and reliability reasons, hence they were usually in or under the wing just as their piston counterparts were. The next generation of jets used the more aerodynamical efficient layout that the Ta 183, Mig 15 and F-86 share. By then the jets were more durable (engines had to be replaced less often, housing them in the fuselage was less of a nuisance) and they had the thrust to allow for a long air intake. Mounting them on top or below the fuselage had no real benefit for all the disadvantages.
Even still there's the Miles which has the same layout. It's just not a very famous plane.
I don't find that surprising at all. Most contemporary jets used two engines for thrust and reliability reasons, hence they were usually in or under the wing just as their piston counterparts were. The next generation of jets used the more aerodynamical efficient layout that the Ta 183, Mig 15 and F-86 share. By then the jets were more durable (engines had to be replaced less often, housing them in the fuselage was less of a nuisance) and they had the thrust to allow for a long air intake. Mounting them on top or below the fuselage had no real benefit for all the disadvantages.
Even still there's the Miles which has the same layout. It's just not a very famous plane.
Last edited:
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
I don't personally think there's anything radical about powered flight wrt engine positioning once they'd consigned the prop to history; side/fuselage/ventral mounted powerplants was the common-sense answer to torsional stresses incurred by wing mounted engines under combat manoeuvres. It's only what prop-era engineers would have done if they hadn't had the prop to consider.
Classic example (though not a fighter) would be the Shagbat; same principle though constrained in proximity to the fuselage by the prop.
With the powerplant on the roof, I daresay the He162 had plenty of room for fuel in the fuselage; I get the impression that the Salamander wasn't lacking in the roll plane.
Classic example (though not a fighter) would be the Shagbat; same principle though constrained in proximity to the fuselage by the prop.
With the powerplant on the roof, I daresay the He162 had plenty of room for fuel in the fuselage; I get the impression that the Salamander wasn't lacking in the roll plane.
Glider
Captain
I can only think of two problems with the positioning of the engine on the He 162.
i) If you misjudge the landing and apply power at a low altitude, with the thrust line being above the engine the aircraft will nose down. If you're not ready for it, increasing the engine power will drive you into the tarmac.
ii) In a steep climb there is a chance that the airflow into the engine will be disrupted by the fuselage increasing the chance of a flame out which was a common problem with early engines. That said in this aircraft the intake is well forward I doubt that it wa a major problem.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Very similar to flying a BD-5
- Thread starter
- #86
Like i said above: Source please.
1. "Salamander" had nothing to do with the development program or the RLM request. It was (very likely) the name for the construction program.
2. Messerschmitt and Tank didn't believe in the concept of a Volksjaeger that could be flown by 15 year old boys with no experience. It had nothing to do with armament.
3. The reason behind the desire of having a second jet fighter made largely out of wood and powered by a single engine should be obvious.
4. The MK108 is slow firing?
6. "No operational He-162 was ever equipped with the Mk108s"
Major source I can rememberis WM Green, "Warplanes of the Third Reich"
1. You might be correct. But whether or not "Salamander" referred to the overall program or just the construction program is irrelevant to whether or not the He-162 should have been developed.
2. I never said their objection was related mainly to the armament. Immediately after my statement, I implied it had to do with the basic concept of a cheap volksjaeger flowen by untrained Hitler Youth.
3. I don't see why this is obvious when you already have a (relatively) proven and much more capable jet fighter entering service - that regular pilots could fly. It's not like any reasonable person in 1944 (read,Tank and Messerschmitt) believed this program would fill the skies with 1000's of wooden jet fighters anyway.
4. Yup, exactly what I said
5. Sorry, but what does this photo and caption prove other than the A1 and A2 looked completely identical on the outside and captions can be incorrect. I'll grant your point however just to be nice. Maybe a few A-1s were issued to Luftwaffe units before it was realized they were over gunned.
Regarding test pilot reports, it is true that the He-162 was complimented on its performance, as one might expect with any light-weight plane powered by a jet engine. However, everyone noted it had to be handled carefully and was not a beginners airplane. The only operational units given it were handpicked experts. I even gave the 162 more credit than it probably deserves by noting that, with time, it might have been turned into a good fighter. It does credit to Heinkel that they turned such a sows ear in basic concept into a wallet, if not a real purse. But why spend the time and effort?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Because it was thought by some the war would still go on for another 6 months?
Warplanes of the Reich I don't know but given the name I take it it's rather not very specific to the He 162. So I'd take that with a grain of salt. Since Griehl's book is about to arrive in a few days I reserve my judgement on that "issue" for later. But here's what Monogram Close-Up says on that matter: "The M6 was probably the last prototype to be fitted with the MK 108 cannon because of bomb damage to the factory."
The MK108 fires 650 rpm and very likely the fastest firing weapon in or anywhere near its caliber that saw service in that conflict, sorry but your comment is bullshit.
Arnound 200 were produced in a timeframe that can be measure in weeks rather than months, so yeah if the war had dragged into the second half of 1945 it would've been able to equip a few JGs. Of course that didn't happen, but that was not what was planned for in august-september 1944.
As for the foto: It is from Griehl's book, it clearly says A-1. Moreover it can't be a regular A-2 or else you'd see the cannon protruding, they are not completely identical on the outside. The Monogram book features another two pictures of A-1s and even mentions their serial numbers. How is it you think to know better than these three authors?
The MK108 fires 650 rpm and very likely the fastest firing weapon in or anywhere near its caliber that saw service in that conflict, sorry but your comment is bullshit.
Arnound 200 were produced in a timeframe that can be measure in weeks rather than months, so yeah if the war had dragged into the second half of 1945 it would've been able to equip a few JGs. Of course that didn't happen, but that was not what was planned for in august-september 1944.
As for the foto: It is from Griehl's book, it clearly says A-1. Moreover it can't be a regular A-2 or else you'd see the cannon protruding, they are not completely identical on the outside. The Monogram book features another two pictures of A-1s and even mentions their serial numbers. How is it you think to know better than these three authors?
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
I have seen those flying a few times over the years, quite remarkable as they seem to defy the laws of physics. That said they must be a lot of fun.
The thrust line on the He 162 is much higher than on a BD-5 so the impact would be more pronounced. Plus of course there wouldn't be the same potential problem re the air intake.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It has been proven many times over that Green's publications are better used as pictorials than a reliable source of information. Just a head's up on that.
Why not just say "screw it" and give up when the war was all but lost?
Germany clung to the hope that they could find a way out of the mess they made, and the He162 was one of those things that gave them a glimmer of hope. The time from a paper concept to an actual flying aircraft was incredibly short. It used cheap and easy to procure materials that could be produced in small facilities rather than a large manufacturing center and offered the Third Reich an opportunity to not nessecarily win the war single-handed, but at least something to help stem the tide that was engulfing them.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The Soviets and the French operated aircraft like the Yak 25 and the Vautour which has a similair layout, The subsonic Su-9 looked exactly the same.
There are examples of what you may call desperate fighters which once the main danger was over, the fighter was no longer needed and discarded.
I cant think post war of a fighter design which had the same throw away concept as the 162. Even the Soviets made their fighters more robust.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Because there just wasn't a need for a 'throw away' fighter. Now if you want to consider this a lightweight fighter, there were many made after WW2
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Yes like the Folland Gnat...which was considered almost useless...
The 162 concept of a cheap lightweight fighter which can be churned out like sausages has no currency post war...
The concept of the 162...even though it was one of the highest performance machines of its day...was not copied because its whole being was flawed. And you can always tell a good idea because everyone copies it.
The 162 concept of a cheap lightweight fighter which can be churned out like sausages has no currency post war...
The concept of the 162...even though it was one of the highest performance machines of its day...was not copied because its whole being was flawed. And you can always tell a good idea because everyone copies it.
Shortround6
Major General
One thing the Folland Gnat had was an engine that had a much better power to weight ratio than the engines in many of it's bigger, heavier "competitors". this allowed a somewhat different split between some of the weight fractions in it's design.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Almost useless? I don't think so. For the RAF, maybe - It did very well with the IAF shooting down 6 or 7 F-86s during the 65' war with Pakistan. It was inexpensive to operate and easy to fly. I know a guy who used to own one and he loved flying it.
The Gnat entered service when some people were looking at the lightweight fighter concept. Others liked the complex, large and advanced fighters. Testosterone won out
Again, because that type of fighter wasn't needed, especially by the allies in the post war years.
A "throw away" fighter concept was not needed in the post war years. Lightweight fighter? Aside from the Gnat (which was also used for a number of years by the Finnish AF) you have the F-5 which was considered a light weight fighter and was one of the most successful fighters and multi force license programs in aviation history, and then in the end the F-16 which although has grown from its lightweight fighter introduction, was still designed around the same concept.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
I believe there is a story that the Gnat was considered for the Nato Light strike fighter completion that was won by the Aeritalia G-91.
The designer refused to bulge the landing gear bays to fit in the lower pressure (low ground pressure) tires the specification required and so it was not really considered.
Maybe all 770 of the Aeritalia G-91s were useless
Besides, the Gnat will always have a place in history for it's staring role in the "HOTSHOT" movies
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Besides, the Gnat will always have a place in history for it's staring role in the "HOTSHOT" movies
The guy I knew who owned one flew in the movie from what I remember.
Glider
Captain
For the RAF the problem was its size. Being small it lacked flexibility and it was up against the Hunter which was more than just an average aircraft.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I believe there is a story that the Gnat was considered for the Nato Light strike fighter completion that was won by the Aeritalia G-91.
Maybe all 770 of the Aeritalia G-91s were useless
:
The Fiat design was physically larger than the Gnat making it more capable.
And only 3 countries took it on...hardly NATO.
To compare the F-16 to the He 162 is a bit rich for me.
The Gnat had no role in the RAF as it was too short ranged and could carry no bombs or internal equipment...even as a trainer it was pretty marginal. The test pilots who flew it did say it was the best flying machine they ever flew...but they couldnt make it operational.
