He-162 vs Meteor MK-III

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

The only allied plane able to deal with the He-162 on equal or even more favourable conditions is the P-80, I think.

Agree

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That I will agree with also, however I still dont like the engine behind the cockpit like that. I think they could have done that better.

[delcyros]

Yes, if they had decided to do so, they would cancel the whole He-162 program and shift ressources towards Messerschmidt´s P1101 program.
Even without variable wing sweep (The V-1 prototype had them just in order to get additional datas for transsonic speeds and low speed handling) the plane would have been better. However it doesn´t fit to the RLM´s ideas of a small, simple plane which is easy to fly and producable in very high numbers.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree either the P.1011 or the Ta-183 program. Both were almost ready for test flight by wars end.

[carpenoctem1689]

The Ta-183 was found to have some problems that took time to correct. Kurt tank actually built the aircraft for.... <.< >.> ... Paraguay maybe, i dont know, but the aircraft had poor handling at first and needed some refinement to the wings and the tail surfaces. The germans just didnt have time to choose what might be better, because they needed something right then and there, and Heinkel had been working on a small lightweight fighter for some time, so had the edge.