He-162 vs Meteor MK-III

[delcyros]

Both planes got operational in early 45 and represented attempts to
place a jet fighter in service. They could -hypothetically- meet in combat, because both were operating over northern Germany in the same timeframe. Both planes only barely saw combat, the Meteor participated in ground attacks, the He-162 in fighter sweeps. The differences in these two designs are overwhelming: Twin engined vs single engined, long range vs. short range, small vs. big. What are Your thoughts?

[cheddar cheese]

With the right Pilot, probably a He-162. Much faster and probably more manoeverable too.

[Glider]

Definitely the 162

[mosquitoman]

I'd take the Meteor- why would anybody fly a wooden jet?
Also, the pilots of the Heinkels were rookies from JG400 if I remember correctly

[FLYBOYJ]

I'd take the Meteor because of the security of two engines. I'd keep pulling Gs until the -162 just fell apart!

[book1182]

If the 162 could be produced with better quality then I would have to go with it. But like said before it was made of wood.

[lesofprimus]

Book, could u please make ur signature pic smaller... Its waaayyy too large for some of our dialup members...

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by mosquitoman

I'd take the Meteor- why would anybody fly a wooden jet?
Also, the pilots of the Heinkels were rookies from JG400 if I remember correctly

Why would anyone fly a wooden airplane.

JG1 was not a rookie unit.

The Vampire was most constructed of wood.

[carpenoctem1689]

I would for sure go with the He-162. Built with wooden components yes, and it only had one engine and was less heavily armed (when armed with the two Mg151/20 and not the MK-10. But being small and powered by a powerful turbojet engine, it could climb like hell, had a decent turning radius so ive heard. Its main shortcomings again being the contruction, about 27minute flying time, and snaking originally when high speeds or angles of attack were used. The downturned wing tips were a temporary solution, and worked, but later redesign would be incorporated into the mass production later on.

[delcyros]

I will post some statistics for the -162, maybe someone can back up for the Meteor-III?
Dimensions He-162 A2:

spanwidth: 7,2m
aspect ratio: 4,65
wing area:11,16 m²

Weight fullyloaden---fight endurance(100%)He-162 A2:
2634 Kg (5800 lbs) ---20 min at sea level
2889 Kg (6361 lbs) ---30 min at sea level
wingload: 240 Kg /lbs per m²

Defensive:
Armor: 70 Kg (154 lbs) in front of the cockpit
Ejection seat for the pilot
sustainable G-forces: 6.5g -serial planes
max G-forces: 8.5g -serial planes
max stick forces at 1000 Km/h (617 mp/h): 8,5 Kg / 18,7 lbs

Offensive:
gunsight:
Revi 16B or -16D:
most prototypes and all serial planes
EZ 42computing gunsight:
He-162 M30 and M31, later probably at JG-1

2 MK 108/30 mm with 50 rounds each (He-162 A1) or
2 MG 151/20mm with 120 rouns each (He-162 A2)

Poerplants----thrust output

BMW-003 A1/2----800 Kp (1761 lbs) _He162 M1-M10
BMW-003 E1----800 Kp (1761 lbs), 923 Kp (2032 lbs at 30 sec. overrew)
installed from He-162 M18 onwards into all serial planes
Jumo-004D4---932 Kp (2052 lbs) He-162 M11 and M12
He-S011A-----1300 Kp (2862 lbs) He-162 M14 and M15 (not completed)
As 014------2* 400-500 Kp He-162 M 42

(lifetime BMW-003A/E: 200+ hours, Jumo-004D: around 50 hours,
He-S011A: unknown, AS-014: unknown)

Service seiling: 11.700 m (around 38.500 ft)
Top speed at sea level: 790 Km/h at 100%
---------------------------820 Km/h at 115 % (30 sec.)
Top speed at 6000 m (nearly 20k ft): 840 Km/h at 100%
---------------------------880 Km/h at 115 % (30 sec.)
Top speed at 11.000 m (36.500 ft): 780 Km/h at 100%
---------------------------810 Km/h at 115% (30 sec.)
highest recorded speed: 905 Km/h at 6.800m (at 115%)
limiting Mach speed: 0.845
critical Mach speed: 0.867

flight endurance at 6.000m: 33 min (at 2634 Kg)
"---100%--------at 11.000m: 57 min (at 2634 Kg)
"-----"------------at 11.000m: 85 min (at 2889 Kg)
Range at sea level: 265 Km (at 2634 Kg)
-------"--------------: 390 Km (at 2889 Kg)Range at 11.000m: 660 Km (at 2634 Kg)
--------"------------:1000 Km (at 2889 Kg)
take off distance: 800 m
take off distance with jettisonable rocket assistance: 380 m

[Jabberwocky]

The Meteor III had all sorts of artificial limitations placed on it when it entered service. Higher than normal alieron forces were needed to manoeuver it, as a deliberate foil to pilots performing aerobatics in what was still a 'experimental' airframe. Apparently they were worried about overstressig the wings. As a result it was very slow in the rolling plane.

Similarly, there were also some limitations placed on the operation of the Derwent I turbojets. IIRC they were operationally limited in the temperature and RPM they could put on the turbine, something that they got rid of with the Derwent 5 fitted to the F. 4. I think this was just a wear and tear issue (like the "5 minute limit" for the Merlin) instead of anything seriously wrong with the engine, but I could be wrong. The Derwent I put out about 2000lbs thrust though, so it was at least as good as any service jet engine at the time.

Problems with buffeting from the nacels and snaking at high speeds (475 mph +) were still present, although they had been reduced from the Mk I, with the short nacel Welland engines. These problems were finally redressed later in MK III production, when the nacels were lengthened again. The aircraft also had balance issues, and had to have quite a large amount of balast added to eliminate them. There were a few other bits and bots that were adjusted in the first 20 or so production airframes and also in the last production batches in 1946.

As it stood in service, the MK III was a good aircraft, but nothing special. It was fast, but probably not manouervable enough to make a good fighter.

If the British had fitted lengthened nacels (which would of eliminated the high speed buffet and partially solved the snaking problem) , allowed full power for the Derwents and reinstated proper alieron control, THEN the Meteor III would of been an excellent fighter. As it stood, it was a fast, well liked airframe, but it really didn't have the potential to go toe-to-toe with the German jets, mostly due to the restraints placed upon it.

[delcyros]

Interesting to read, Jabberwocky.

I think the Dervent I was comparable to the BMW-003 or Jumo-004 in terms of performance but it´s huge diamter would only hardly allow a mid wing fitting (inside the fuselage could be wiser). The comparably low crit Mach figure of the Meteor originates partly because of the very thick airfoil, also.
I also think that the Meteor, while a large target to hit, can take a good deal of punishment, esspeccially because fuel tanks hits -unlike the P-80- would rarely result in destruction of the airframe.

[Jabberwocky]

I can't remember the source, but I do remember reading that the Derwets were supposed to be putting out 2,200 lbs thrust initially, but were 'de-tuned' by about 10%, because of some operational concerns.

The Meteor, while admittedly having a thickish wing section, was still very fast. The Mk. III could do 495 mph. The wing did provide very good slow speed handling and turn performance, perhaps at the expense of top end speed.

The Meteor really only hit its stride with the development of the F4, from July 1945. The first, and most obvious, improvement was fitting the Derwent V. The Derwents I-IV made between 2,000 and 2450 lbs thrust. The Derwent V was something different. It was smaller and lighter than its older brothers, but it was also more fuel efficient and put out 3400 lbs thrust (a 70% improvement over the Derwent I ).

Concurrent with the Derwewnt V installation, a number of other important cahnges were made. Firstly, new nacells were wider and longer, and tested with Derwent I/IIs fitted, they improved both speed and handling and removed the need for the large amounts of ballast sitting in the Meteor. The new Derwents and larger nacells also cured most, but not all, of the high speed issues. It actually wasn't until Gloster fitted a revised tail sction to the F.8 in the late 1940s that these completely disappeared.

Clipping the wings improved speed and roll and also stopped the designers worries about wing stress, so that the control imitations were resciinded. In 1945 a F.4 prototype did 606 mph, so the wing couldn't of been that bad at near supersonic speeds. Later F.4s went up to 616 mph

[delcyros]

I read it too, but You cannot -even with pure force- accelerate
the Meteor F4 to higher speeds than 620 mp/h at sea level.
Keep an eye on the altitude of these tests, that´s what I call treetop altitude!
At higher level the plane hits its critical Mach sooner and becomes uncontrollable.
The F-4 really was agreat advantage. Let´s asume that a Meteor F-4 has to fight against an improved He-162 (He-S011 or BMW-003D engine), what do you think?

[carpenoctem1689]

An He-162 could take the meteor, Being smaller, faster, better climb and roll and turning radius. The two lack luster things were the armament and the range, not to mention the wooden construction. The Meteor was big and lumbering compared to the -162, and just wouldnt be able to manouever or hit something so small, at high speeds due to snaking and being an unstable gun platform, or at low speeds it would just be outturned and shot down. Being as big and heavy as it was, it would most likely be slow to accelerate. The Meteors would have to catch the -162's landing, and to counter that, the germans would have to launch swarms, in waves, when one group lands, the next takes off, but they had neither the fuel, pilots, or planes at the time.