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.