Ta-152C equivalent to Tempest?

[Juha]

Hello Delcyros
thanks for your very enlightening answer.
Yes French noticed the very long t/o runs of their He 162s, some 1200 - 2000m. T/o weight was 2713kg (5980lb). They also noted that "Considering the shape of the fuel tanks, it is adviseable to keep a safety margin of 200lit of fuel for descent and landing."

Juha

 

[cimmex]

Hello Cimmex
according to Jones' De Havilland Twin-boom Fighters (2004) French ordered 30 ex-RAF Vampire F.1s in 1948, delivery was made in 4 weeks with the last a/c arriving on 8 Jan 1950. IMHO it is very probable that some of the French pilots who had flown He 162 in 1947 - 48 also flew Vampire F.1 later on during their career.

Juha

Hello Juha
Maybe you're right
I thought at the same time area
cimmex

 

[Erich]

some of you might be interested in this for your files as a ................ tease, I have many original docs for the Ta variants for my future work.

you will have to enlarge/copy and paste

 

[tomo pauk]

I know you keep these for your work, but: please, more!

 

[davparlr]

The truth is that all 1st generation jets had exceptionally poor low altitude endurance, which is why most of them received drop tanks sooner or later and were advised to cruise at high altitude.

I appreciate the effort you put in to get this data. It is very informative and enlightening.

For the Germans, none of these are any good. Unlike the Allies, the German jets were flying in a hostile environment and most likely needed to stay at high power levels at all times in order to avoid hostile attacks. This caused high fuel consumption. The He-162 would consume about 10-12 minutes of max power time just to start, takeoff and climbing to bomber altitude. This would leave less than 30 minutes for combat and return. Return would probably need 15 minutes of fuel for low speed draggy flight and reserve, and that leaves about 15 minutes or probably one run at the bombers before heading home. So, for 40 minutes of time, about half the time is spent in the most hazardous time of a jet fighters life, takeoff and landing. And that is for optimum temperature, for a hot day, much less. To really be effective, they needed a much longer endurance capability, so they could attack and re-attack several times before running the gauntlet back to reload.

There are other problems with the He-162. One is that it is very small with very little growth capability. The attached picture was taken at Chino Air Museum and was made at eye level. Note that I am, being six feet tall, effectively looking into the engine inlet. Also, note the motorcycle beside the plane and imagine a man sitting on the seat. It is close to the same position as the pilot in the He-162. The plane is tiny. Another problem, and a larger one, is that it does not have much thrust and is very light, limiting weaponization options. Just adding fuel would create issues with wing loading and, more severly, thrust loading and a Republic aircraft-like takeoff roll.

The aircraft seems to be a great design for what it did and I see no reason to believe it could not have been put into service in force in 1945 but I think it would have struggled. Unlike the aircraft you listed, the P-51 could and did loiter for hours over a German airfield awaiting the departure or landing of a jet. And Germany could never produce enough to fend of the P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires and Tempests flying like bees overhead.

 

[pattern14]

Is that an R75 BMW with the driven third wheel? Great photo!!!

 

[davparlr]

Is that an R75 BMW with the driven third wheel? Great photo!!!

I have no idea. I was looking at aircraft not motorcycles. Maybe Greg knows.

 

[delcyros]

I have to make a disclaimer.

The data I presented above are for static conditions, not for dynamic ones. Specific fuel consumption is a variable which is highly sensitive to ambient pressure and temperature. The sfc figures I used are authentic from sources referring to that but they all assume the speed to be static and the pressure to be standart SL condition.
For this condition, data for all engines were avaiable and allowed a comparative approach.

However, real data will differ significantly just due to the effect of speed and altitude, f.e. At SL and 500 mph, f.e. the BMW-003 will consume 1670ltr fuel (pilot notes He162) instead of 1360ltr at 100% thrust under static condition (BMW manufacturer spec). Similarely, the Goblin II at 500mph and SL producing 2600lbs instead of 3000lbs static and will require 500imp Gallons instead off 445 imp Gallons of fuel for the same condition (both from manufacturer spec. reducing the theoretical endurance at full throttle and SL to just over 24min for the Vamprie F1). There are more data but not sufficient and complete enough to warrant a complete comparison under dynamic conditions. F.e. in the P80A1 pilot notes the fuel consumption of the J33 at SL and 100% is not given. The closest given is that 100% thrust at 10,000ft altitude, where the J33 GE-7 will require 600 US gall. of fuel per hour, the remaining datapoints at 20,000ft (=420 US gall p. h), 30,000ft (=300 US gall. p.h.) and 40,000ft (=240 US gall. p. hr.) let us inferr that the total consumption at SL is somewhere in between 820 and 900 US gallons per hour at 100% combat power (for dynamic condition, resulting in 32.9min +-1min. theoretical endurance at SL and ~500mph).
As You may notice, the endurance will be significantly less than the one given in my previous tabulated graphic for static conditions.

But the example from the P80A1 pilot notes already demonstrated, the sfc is also very variable to altitude. At 36000ft altitude, the BMW 003 will only require about 323ltr of fuel per hour for 100% thrust rather than 1670lt. at Sealevel (He-162 pilot notes, for dynamic conditions at 800km/h / ~500mph). Similarely, instead of ~820-900 US gall. at SL, the J33 will only require 240 US gallons at 40,000ft.

This was a prerequisite to my following response. As You have perhaps noted, the german jet engines in service in ww2 were notorious for having a significantly worse specific fuel consumption than their allied, centrifugal antagonists, caused in part by the lower pressure ratio´s of the BMW-003 and JUMO-004.

Unlike the Allies, the German jets were flying in a hostile environment and most likely needed to stay at high power levels at all times in order to avoid hostile attacks. This caused high fuel consumption. The He-162 would consume about 10-12 minutes of max power time just to start, takeoff and climbing to bomber altitude. This would leave less than 30 minutes for combat and return. Return would probably need 15 minutes of fuel for low speed draggy flight and reserve, and that leaves about 15 minutes or probably one run at the bombers before heading home. So, for 40 minutes of time, about half the time is spent in the most hazardous time of a jet fighters life, takeoff and landing. And that is for optimum temperature, for a hot day, much less. To really be effective, they needed a much longer endurance capability, so they could attack and re-attack several times before running the gauntlet back to reload.

While it may be desirable to stay at high powerlevels for reasons of survivability, it is not convincing to suggest that they need to fly at SL all the time where fuel consumption is worst in combination with high power. Take off and climb to 20,000ft of altitude at a gross weight of 2.85t. will take ~8 min with a climbing speed of about 200mph, rather than 10 to 12. During this process, factoring in 200mph dynamic consumption, the fuel consumption at SL would be 1500ltr per hour while the fuel consumption at 20,000ft would be 800ltr per hour for an average of 1150ltr per hour during climb to altitude (reasonable margin of error) or 150ltr (40 US gallons) in total.
Compare that with the P80A1: The pilot notes suggest that for 12,000lbs gross weight about 75 US gallons are consumed for take off to climb to 20,000ft altitude. That´s reasonable for an A/C with >twice the weight and and engine with > twice thrust of the 100% rating BMW jet engine, the difference is easily explainable by the higher fuel efficiency of the US jet engine.
Then, at 20,000ft altitude, and going 100% causing our He-162A to cruise at 520mph at this altitude, the dynamic fuel consumption would be 1000ltr per hour and the remaining 100% thrust endurance is 48 min (150 ltr have been used for take off, acceleration and climb to altitude, thus remaining are 800ltr). If it could afford to cruise at lower ~450 mph speed, the flight endurance would approach 1 hour at this altitude.
That leaves about half an hour possible engagement time and 18/15 minutes return and descent time. That´s still not exceptionally well but on the other hand useful compared to piston prop fighters like the Bf-109 which was useful in this capacity prior to the event of effective escort fighters. And in my opinion, the He-162A is better suited for dogfight than interceptions, though installation of MK108 and R4M were considered for it, too.

There are other problems with the He-162. One is that it is very small with very little growth capability. The attached picture was taken at Chino Air Museum and was made at eye level. Note that I am, being six feet tall, effectively looking into the engine inlet. Also, note the motorcycle beside the plane and imagine a man sitting on the seat. It is close to the same position as the pilot in the He-162. The plane is tiny.

Indeed, it´s a small airplane. But this makes it also harder to hit in combination with high levels of agility and speed. The installation of the engine outside the fuselage allowed the wing and fuselage space to be devoted entriely for fuel, weapons and flight controll. Thus, significant levels of space optimisation were exploited using this unconventional layout.

Another problem, and a larger one, is that it does not have much thrust and is very light, limiting weaponization options. Just adding fuel would create issues with wing loading and, more severly, thrust loading and a Republic aircraft-like takeoff roll.

It is my impression that thrust alone is not important as is thrust/weight ratio. From that point of view, the He-162A was better than the P80A, though not as good as late and post ww2 british jets. Heinkel pressed Kammler to allow for a larger gross weight of the He-162A. The main landing gear was ok for a gross weight up to 3600kg and the only variable was stall speed and corresponding take off roll. The latter were to be adressed by two JATO units which assisted in take off and allowed basically small grass strips to be used as improvised airfields. However, Heinkel put forward that if the gross weight was increased to 3100kg, then the fuel carried would be 1300ltr rather than 950, the take off roll of He-162A and Me-262A would be identic 1100m (without JATO, both then having the same thrust to weight ratio) as would be level speed performance and endurance (the Me-262 had 2600ltr max fuel capacity), but just on one, rather than two engines. That´s the point most people forget, the He-162A offered first class performance and endurance on one tiny low output engine, it´s nothing short but amazing how much they squeezed out of this airframe given the technology of the time.

Unlike the aircraft you listed, the P-51 could and did loiter for hours over a German airfield awaiting the departure or landing of a jet. And Germany could never produce enough to fend of the P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires and Tempests flying like bees overhead.

I always considered that and the avaiability in large quantity to be the utmost combat advantage of the Mustang, a nearly strategic asset as it blunted much of the Luftwaffe´s effort to be able to engage enemy bombers in classic intercept condition. However, it would be more challanging for a Mustang to fight He-162´s than Me-262´s. And the latter was difficult enough.
I would also be more conservative with the argument of quantity -at least in hypothetical, rather than historical perspective. The limiting factor is avaiability of jet engines. Planned production output of He-162 in the Jägernotprogramm was entirely breathtaking. Just four months after decision of mass production has been taken, 118 He-162 were delivered to the Luftwaffe out of approx. three-hundred He-162 airframes completed and approx. six-hundred more have been found in different stages of completition or assembly. Production was not nearly ramped up and targeted in mid 45 to exceed 4,000 He-162 per month*. Already from june 45 onwards, the He-162A monthly production outpaces the combined allied monthly Meteor/ Vampire/ P80/ P51/P47/ Spitfire and Tempest production. If You add the Me-262a production, things are getting hot then. The He-162 required only 1,500 manhours and 75,000 RM unit production costs in early 1945, compared to 144,000RM and 3,300 manhours for a Ta-152 and 3500 manhours / 150,000RM for a Me-262a.
The He-162A was roughly twice as costly as the V1 flying bomb in terms of manhours and about the cheapest german fighter aircraft in ww2.

*) Heinkel Nord: 1000; Junkers-Bernburg: 1000; Mittelbau Dora: 2000 + an unknown amount of airplanes to be produced by Heinkel-Süd.

 

[nuuumannn]

Great synopsis Delcyros. Thinking about it, it's difficult to make a fair comparison between the He 162 and its contemporaries because of the nature behind its reasoning; it was a desperation fighter and few of the then current designers would have been able to come up with a more satisfactory aircraft that met the criteria as well. Yes, armament was limited, but it was a point defence interceptor, in which role it could have served very well. As for its size, others, including Brown have also commented on the fact that its size would serve as an advantage in combat; very difficult to see, let alone hit.

Having a look at other German firms that came up with designs to the requirement, they follow similar or the same layout as the He 162, which states something about the layout; it definitely has advantages. Access to the engine from a maintenance point of view was excellent, if you have stands over the wings to prevent anyone from walking all over it. Alternatives could be as the Russians designed their first axial flow jet designs, Yaks with the engine placed below the nose.

Apart from the obvious - availability of engines, poor quality materials in its engine construction, etc, if I was to point out a weakness in the design itself, it would be its side-slip characteristics. A handling issue; something that plagued almost all the first generation jets and that could have been compensated for by training pilots in recognising its impact.

 

[delcyros]

Agreed.

One may be tempted to add other things to it´s weaknesses, mainly that it was still a developmental airplane and in top of that a developmental one in mass production. Usually, an airplane gets through it´s prototype stage with the intent of the bugs beeing worked out and achieving a stabilised design which then will be submitted to the manufacturer. Here we have a case of trying to synchronise prototype testing and manufacturing changes, almost impossible.
The airplane was yet not stabilised at wars end.
Some notworthy changes:
[1] poor stall speed behavior, identified by the DVL windtunnel tests (abrupt loss of lift at critical angle of attack), they confirmed this in testflights and added a turbulator at the wings leading edge which achieved more benign stall charakter
[2] lateral instability at certain CoG conditions. Initially issued airspeed limitation then they changed the main fuel tanks size and added ballast to the nose (even later, this ballast should be replaced by an armoured windscreen and the heavier EZ42 computing gunsight)
[3] longitudinal and rudder oversensitiveness (causing changes in ailerons and rudder sizes, slight fuselage enlargement and finally the V-tail)
[4] poor engine exhoust temperature controll (causing an artificial limitation of the BMW003´s output until automatic nozzle controll was provided)
[5] ejector seat could be activated in case of damage (added a secured activiation line)
[6] recoil forces of the 30mm to strong (required change to 20mm MG151/20 outfit and reeinforcements of the nose in the -A3 variant)
----
[7] high drag due to poor blending of engine nacelle and fuselage/wingroots at M=0.75 speed. Changes in hand yielded a 8% reduction in drag at max speed due to reduced buffeting.
[8] V-tail was tested to balance controll forces, adoption in A-6 variant (after 2,000th He-162) -also improved drag and critical Mach
[9] larger wing with increased fuel capacity scheduled after the 2,000th production He-162.

(incomplete list)

What was produced was a plethora of individually slightly different airplanes, many of them limited in airspeed and thrust. The directional stability was excellent at high speed but instant turn was down to 3g (sustained trun rate was very good instead), which wasn´t very good. In top of that, yeah, Galland was right, it didn´t made much difference to go for yet another design in the closing months of ww2, which had a prospect in mid/late 45 but not late44 and early 45 where the Me-262 could have been favoured instead.
However, the He-162 airplane design is not born out of desperation. It´s roots are in the long lasting Heinkel P1073 / He-500 series, which were developed long before the Volksjäger competition was held (coincidently, the He P1073 was the first engagement with the area rule effect in wind tunnel tests). The desperation is what brought Heinkel the contract, but it´s not what created the airplane design. Within the group of competitors, Heinkel certainly deserved to get the contract as his entry was much more developed than the other ones. And if You had to decide whether to produce Ta-152 or He-162 in this timeframe, it´s clear that the He-162 is the way to go, not the Ta-152.

 

[nuuumannn]

One may be tempted to add other things to its weaknesses, mainly that it was still a developmental airplane and in top of that a developmental one in mass production. Usually, an airplane gets through it´s prototype stage with the intent of the bugs beeing worked out and achieving a stabilised design which then will be submitted to the manufacturer. Here we have a case of trying to synchronise prototype testing and manufacturing changes, almost impossible.

Yep, I agree; but then the state of the ailing Third Reich, which resulted in the machine was always going to be a hindrance to its and every other German aircraft's development at the time. The other issues you mention were able to be recified and could have been ironed out given time, which of course the Germans did not have and also sound familiar to other jet types, especially the stability issues. It would have been interesting to see just how effective it would have been by comparison to the Vampire, which is probably the closest the British got to the He 162, had it been able to be developed post war.

What was produced was a plethora of individually slightly different airplanes, many of them limited in airspeed and thrust.

Again, Germany progressively losing the war resulted in this situation. Me 163 production was the same; differences in individual aircraft were marked in some cases. I remember reading a story about the Smithsonian's example; it was never flown as on the production line it was sabotaged and inside the fuselage was written an inscription in French to that effect that if it was flown it'd explode. Restorers found evidence of this in the power lever linkages to the motor.

The desperation is what brought Heinkel the contract, but its not what created the airplane design. Within the group of competitors, Heinkel certainly deserved to get the contract as his entry was much more developed than the other ones.

Interesting. Arguably, had Heinkel pushed for his design to be built in competition with the Me 262 or even instead of the He 280, the end result might have been a more fully developed aircraft, rather than a desperate measure, although its ultimate fate and many of the problems that plagued the He 162 as it was most certainly would have been the same. This is in common with other designs of the period, though.

 

[davparlr]

While it may be desirable to stay at high powerlevels for reasons of survivability, it is not convincing to suggest that they need to fly at SL all the time where fuel consumption is worst in combination with high power. Take off and climb to 20,000ft of altitude at a gross weight of 2.85t. will take ~8 min with a climbing speed of about 200mph, rather than 10 to 12.

But the bombers are at 20-25k and the He 162 would certainly not want to attack at 200 mph so you must accelerate (how long would it take for the He 162 to accelerate from 200 mph to 500 mph?) and will want to climb above 20k. I think 10-12 min is reasonable if not conservative.

During this process, factoring in 200mph dynamic consumption, the fuel consumption at SL would be 1500ltr per hour while the fuel consumption at 20,000ft would be 800ltr per hour for an average of 1150ltr per hour during climb to altitude (reasonable margin of error) or 150ltr (40 US gallons) in total.

You are correct on the altitude efficiency. SFC reduces (a good thing) as temperature reduces, and it is cold at high altitude.
Fuel usage during climb would be 191-230L for 10-12 minutes. Fuel available for combat and return would be 759-720L or 45 to 43 minutes.
Are you really going to want to climb for eight to twelve minutes at 200 mph in air space where swarms of P-51Hs, P-47Ms, Tempest IIs, Spitfire XIVs, and even some P-80s, Meteors, and possibly Vampires above you, are eager to engage? I suspect you would want to still keep your speed up somewhat.

remaining 100% thrust endurance is 48 min (150 ltr have been used for take off, acceleration and climb to altitude, thus remaining are 800ltr).

45 to 43 minutes for my estimate. Not particularly important.

That leaves about half an hour possible engagement time and 18/15 minutes return and descent time.

25-30 minutes. But combat when engaged tended to descend to lower levels quickly so assuming combat will continue to be at efficient altitudes is probably risky. Then, once separated, the He-162 would have to reclimb. Still, it seems to me, one pass, two if no escort, is reasonable.

That´s still not exceptionally well but on the other hand useful compared to piston prop fighters like the Bf-109 which was useful in this capacity prior to the event of effective escort fighters.

Good point

And in my opinion, the He-162A is better suited for dogfight than interceptions, though installation of MK108 and R4M were considered for it, too.

I agree that it would be a more effective combat air patrol (CAP) aircraft. My book "German Combat Planes" by Ray Wagner and Heinz Nowarra stated that the MK108 cannons were on the first few aircraft but was determined to be too much for the airframe, certainly a limitation on the flexibility of the aircraft. This would have been very helpful for bomber engagement, especially if there was only time for one pass.

Indeed, it´s a small airplane. But this makes it also harder to hit in combination with high levels of agility and speed.

True. The Northrop F-5 demonstrated effectiveness of small and agile aircraft.

The installation of the engine outside the fuselage allowed the wing and fuselage space to be devoted entriely for fuel, weapons and flight controll. Thus, significant levels of space optimisation were exploited using this unconventional layout.

Still very limited due to space and size. Weaponization is difficult with small aircraft. A 500 lb bomb would impact the performance of a small aircraft more than a larger, more powerful one even if empty weight thrust-to-weight is identical. Also smaller aircraft tend to be more sensitive to Cg issues.

That´s the point most people forget, the He-162A offered first class performance and endurance on one tiny low output engine, it´s nothing short but amazing how much they squeezed out of this airframe given the technology of the time.

I think the He 162 was fine attempt to make a cheap, effective aircraft. The Germans, however, needed an aircraft like this late '43, early '44, when they had intact factories to build them and pilots to fly them.

Production was not nearly ramped up and targeted in mid 45 to exceed 4,000 He-162 per month*. Already from june 45 onwards, the He-162A monthly production outpaces the combined allied monthly Meteor/ Vampire/ P80/ P51/P47/ Spitfire and Tempest production.

I hate to sound dismissive, but this seems like a late war German pipe dream to me. Where are the engines? Where are the pilots?

Now, if Germany had fielded a 2000 lb thrust centrifugal jet engine in late '43 and put it in this plane (it would probably fit), then that would have been a game changer and I think they could have done it with different priorities. (an old soapbox of mine).

 

[Milosh]

I don't see the He162 having much of an endurance difference than late war Bf109s with the scenarios given.

 

[stona]

Now, if Germany had fielded a 2000 lb thrust centrifugal jet engine in late '43 and put it in this plane (it would probably fit), then that would have been a game changer and I think they could have done it with different priorities. (an old soapbox of mine).

But they didn't do that did they?

There are many things the allies, particularly the British, could have done differently too. They were not forced into the desperate measures adopted by the Germans because they were winning without having to resort to them. They didn't have to rush a jet like the Me 262 prematurely into service, or fly death traps like the He 162 or, God forbid, the Ba 349 or Me 163.

How many post war jet engines are direct descendants of the various German projects, compared with, say, rocket motors?

Cheers

Steve

 

[nuuumannn]

There are many things the allies, particularly the British, could have done differently too. They were not forced into the desperate measures adopted by the Germans because they were winning without having to resort to them. They didn't have to rush a jet like the Me 262 prematurely into service, or fly death traps like the He 162 or, God forbid, the Ba 349 or Me 163.

Very valid point, Steve; had the reverse been the case and it was the Germans doing the winning (wouldn't many forum members be wetting themselves at the suggestion right now ), would the He 162 have been developed at all?

 

[Milosh]

Why was the Me163 a death trap?

 

[nuuumannn]

"The landing cross was right beneath me by this time. I made a wider turn over a freshly ploughed field and then, crunch! I hit the ground heavily. The Komet bounced several times and then the skid bit into the sparse grass, grated over some stones and gravel, and I was slowing down rapidly. To be on the safe side, I pulled the canopy release handle while the aircraft was still moving, punched my harness quick-release and stripped off my goggles. Then it happened!

"There was a blinding flash from the floor and a wave of searing heat struck my face! Instinctively, I pulled up my knees, planted my feet hard against the seat and jumped for all I was worth. Maybe I landed on my head or possibly on all fours. All I could think of was putting as much space between me and that burning Messerschmitt as was possible in no time flat!

"There was a bang behind me, and I ran like a hare for twenty or thirty metres, and then glanced over my shoulder. The Komet had come to a standstill and was steaming like a boiling kettle with the skid housing ripped wide open and half the cockpit blown away! By that time the fire tender, the ambulance and the starter truckwere racing towards me at full speed, and, almost within seconds, jets of water were dousing the wreckage and Karl Voy and two of his mechanics were screaming at me: "Mano! Are you all right?"

"My face and hands felt as though they were on fire, and the the tears streaming down my face were stinging my cheeks like drops of acid, but before getting medical attention I wanted to take another look at the wrecked aircraft. The cockpit really was in a bad way. Both the finger-thick armour plates in the floor had been burst asunder like so much cardboard, their jagged edges turned upwards. metal scraps were dangling here and there, every rubber connection had burned away, and the glass in all the instruments had been shattered by heat. The frontal armour plate was as black as soot, and had cracked in the middle like a piece of rotten timber. Pheeww! That time it had been close!"

Excerpt from Rocket Fighter; The story of the Me 163 by Mano Ziegler.

 

[Milosh]

So, other a/c burnt from hard landings.

To bad the link to what Rudy Opitz has to say no longer works.

 

[nuuumannn]

So, other a/c burnt from hard landings.

Not necessarily as a result of the fuel tanks in the cockpit shattering on impact with the ground because you have very little means of altering your rate of descent because you are a glider and because you don't actually have wheels, but a skid, which is suspended by a hydraulic ram that often froze at altitude and because of your high rate of descent, often proved utterly useless at providing any resistance to impact with the ground, hard or otherwise that might result in you suffering spinal damage, not to mention that the fuel that is gushing out of the fractured tanks is highly flammable and more often than not will spontaneously combust, just like what happened with poor old Mano in the recollection I provided... Very few aircraft simply exploded as a result of a hard landing.

Look at this; taken from Rocket Fighter. The caption reads;

"All that remained of a Komet that exploded just before a "sharp" start. Fragments of the aircraft were scattered in a wide circle hundreds of yards in diameter."

There were Luftwaffe pilots who refused to fly it on assignment to JG 400 and quickly transferred out of the unit after witnessing scenes like this. Thankfully it didn't happen as often as is led to believe, but you wouldn't get that in a Bf 109 or P-51 on switching on the engine.
Still don't think the Komet was a death trap, Milosh?

 

[Milosh]

Fuel tanks were behind the cockpit.

In the 109, the pilot sat over the fuel tank.
Spitfires had fuel tanks in front of the pilot.