Heinkel He-162 engine.

[CharlesBronson]

Originally Posted by delcyros

Charles, the He-162 with V-tail is the subtype He-162 A-6, not He-162 Z.

All right , thanks, I dont have too much books about this plane to compare the data.

[me262]

all the z models consisted of 2 fuselages married by means of center wing, AFIK the only one that got in production was the He 111 Z, another example was the Me 109 Z, i'm not sure if this Me got any prototype, others planed : do 635, the he 162, the Ju 290

[delcyros]

Never mind, Charles.
After what I read, the BMW-003D (1.100 Kp at 100%) schould replace all BMW-003 A and -003E in later deliveries of the Salamander.
It had a better compressor (the same BBC manufactured one of the -003C) with higher compression and a two stage turbine with some further improvements, like a much reduced specific fuel consumption. It also weighted less than 640 Kg and could very well enhance the performance of the He-162 (or Ar-234C).
I suspect that this couldn´t happen prior to mid 45 and it would be attended moreso in the swept winged versions of the He-162.
But even without it, the He-162 was a first class fighter. If you compare it with Meteor MK-I and MK-III or YP-80A or Vampire (´45). It has the best powerload and the best thrust to weight ratio (second only to the Me-163 and....Surprise! P-59 Airacobra!!!), a decent climb, an excellent top speed (second only to Me-163 and P-80), an unchallanged roll rate (particularly at high speeds) and crit Mach figure. It also has shortcomings: Range, armement and stall behavior (until tail redesigns in jan. 45) beside of material problems like production quality and so on.
It wasn´t until the arrival of the Meteor MK-IV in late 45 that the allies had something superior in the jet field (just my opinion).
Wrong?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

It wasn´t until the arrival of the Meteor MK-IV in late 45 that the allies had something superior in the jet field (just my opinion).
Wrong?

My opinion Del is that although more manevable than the P-80, six 50 cal all nose concentrated would have made toothpicks out of the -162s wings! I think the -162 would of been the Zero of early jets.

[delcyros]

Some point, Flyboy.
But now we are digging in the field of durability / survivability of the airplanes. I had the opportunity to read something in advance of this.
He-162:
* comparably high wingload and powerload (wl:around 235-244 Kg/m²)
* wooden wings with metal rudders
* metal fuselage
* designed to sustain a max of 8g (+) and 5 g (-) (destruction limit is about 3 g higher)
* engine mounted above the ss fuel tanks
* ejection seat
* the hittable surface is tiny (below those of the FW-190A)


Meteor-III:
* comparably low wingload and very low powerload (wl: around 177 Kg/m²)
* all metal structure
* ss and protected fuel tanks mounted in the wings (as the engines) and in the fuselage
* designed to sustain a max of 7g (+) and 4g (-) (again, not the destruction limit)
* hittable surface is large (more than two times those of the He-162)

P-80:
* medium wingload and low powerload
* all metal structure
*ss fuel tanks mounted in front of the engine
*designed to sustain a max of 7.5 g(+) and 4g (-) (destruction limit higher)
* hittable surface is medium (around 1.7 times those of the He-162)

ergo: While the He-162 has virtually no armor protection, except for the pilot, the airframe (made of wood) sustains more G forces and is more durable (surprise: A Meteor MK-III crashed because of structural limits during testflights, the wing of MK-IV was enforced (adding 320 Kg to it´s weight) but the FMK-8 needs even further reinforcements to the wings structure...
The P-80 design is much more balanced and If (!) hit by 0.50 M2 (the 0.50 M3 wasn´t serially installed prior to early 1946), damage would be severe but it needs repeated hits to kill the He-162 (as for the Bf-109). Hitting the fuel tank wouldn´t have a big effect. Otherwise could the twin 20mm HE rounds blast a P-80 in pieces with ease. Hitting the fuel tank would lead automaticly to the P-80´s destruction (the gazes would forced to move to the engines and inflame in the end. The problems with unsealed fuel caps underlined the problems, it lead to many accidents). Hitting the wing could cause sereouse damage by deforming the wing surface (blast effects). I have seen pictures of Me-262 beeing hitten in the main fuel tanks without serious effects (it needs a HE round or (questionable) an incidentary round of a 0.50 cal gun to inflame the bad burning german low grade jet fuel.

[FLYBOYJ]

Good points! But I have to say a 20mm round hit anywhere isn't heathy. A 20mm hit to a F-80 fuel tank would have to be a direct hit. That area is extrememly reinforced and there is a huge screen in front of the P-80s engine. The P-80s unsealed fuel caps were addressed when many of the A & B models were moded into the "C" configuration in the late 1940s.

I believe a concentrated 50 cal hit anywhere on a -162 would destroy it immediately. You're talking 6 50s with a spread of about 3 feet.

[delcyros]

Not automaticly. Something very important is the spacial density of fire. The 6 0.50 M2 have a very good density (esspeccially because they are concentrated in the nose and not in the wings) -moreso the 0.50 M3- and they can harm the He-162 if prolonged hitten in the fuselage or the wing.
each round will probably went right through the structure, leaving a hole in the metal fuselage or the wooden frames of the wing. That´s it. If you concentrate enough holes in a certain point (remember, the He-162 is a tiny target, the approaching speeds are high and it´s also highly agile...), the structure will desintegrate (you may cut off the tail for example). Jets are much more simple, esspeccially the engines compared to piston planes and I suspect they can take a huge amount of 0.50 cal rounds (happened in Korea, too), the same goes for the P-80. By the way, the weaponry of the P-80 is well placed and strong enough to deal with anything, I am not going to deny this. However, the 20mm HE rounds of the MG 151/20 have a different effect and the blast effect, if hit, will destroy and inflame anything up to 15 cm beyond the impact point (except if stopped by armor) by means of blast effects. This is probably not enough to deal with heavy bombers but for fighters, esspeccially for the P-80 it´s more than enough to deal with. And less hits are needed to ensure destruction, also. The blast effects are very worrisome for the metal structures in general (esspeccially the wing) as testshots with MG151/20 on metal and wooden wings prooved.
The He-162 could be compared with the Zero, but the Zero missed two important performances, which lead to their fate: A good climb and a good dive capability. The He-162 has it. And while it is true that the plane is nearly unarmored (as was the Zero), it is much more rugged ( it sustains more G forces even with a higher wingload compared to P-80 and Meteor) and not that prone to inflamable by hits.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

The He-162 could be compared with the Zero, but the Zero missed two important performances, which lead to their fate: A good climb and a good dive capability. The He-162 has it. And while it is true that the plane is nearly unarmored (as was the Zero), it is much more rugged ( it sustains more G forces even with a higher wingload compared to P-80 and Meteor) and not that prone to inflamable by hits.

Agree!

[delcyros]

The P-80 also was an excellent design, well balanced, fast and quite agile. In the end it was maybe a bit too heavy for it´s engine (or otherwise underpowered) and I estimate that four 20mm instead of six 0.50 would make a better punch, too.
Who knows? The fuselage had a huge diameter, also (depended on the engine). The main problem, beside of air flow seperation at the air intake (causing some flamouts at high g maneouvering) was the fuel regulation and distribution/containing system. But these problems were common for many 1st gen jets.
The Meteor MK III was (my opinion) easy prey for either, He-162 or Me-262.
The MK-IV on the other hand would have been great. Such climb and acceleration impressed me much.
All allied designs miss some aerodynamic points to keep a high maneoverability at high speeds. And the crit mach figure of them is also under average, leaving their opponents in the comfortable situation to break at their own decision.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by delcyros

The P-80 also was an excellent design, well balanced, fast and quite agile. In the end it was maybe a bit too heavy for it´s engine (or otherwise underpowered) and I estimate that four 20mm instead of six 0.50 would make a better punch, too.
Who knows? The fuselage had a huge diameter, also (depended on the engine). The main problem, beside of air flow seperation at the air intake (causing some flamouts at high g maneouvering) was the fuel regulation and distribution/containing system. But these problems were common for many 1st gen jets.

I got to fly T-33s. If you pulled high Gs you could hear a rumble around the air intakes and I was told you could flame the aircraft out if you did something really crazy. The fuel system problems (on both F80s and T-33s) were fixed in the late 40s, early 50s.

I agree with you on the 4 20mms. I think Lockheed offered a study on this in during the Korean war period.

The engine bay is cavernous, but I think the diameter of all the engines were about the same. Its funny, I've worked in T-33s and Mig-15. when the tail is pulled on both aircraft and you're looking forward in the engine bay its very similar in appearance.

[delcyros]

Could be an explenation that the J-33 engine of the P-80 led to the development of the RR Nene (which became copied and renamed RD-45 in case of the Mig-15)?
A Nene modified P-80 would have been intersting, as well.
The problems with fuel containings have been fixed, later, yes. The airflow seperation was (I must say mostly) under controll in mid 46, when Lockheed decided to suck off the whole boundary air flow around the air intake. This added some further weight, but it worked fine (while it never succeded in the whole problem, as your experiances show...).

[plan_D]

The J-33 didn't lead to the development of the Rolls Royce Nene - the power of the 4000 lbs engines of the U.S made the British designers realise they were thinking too small, that's all.

[delcyros]

That´s exactly what I wanted to say:
There was wide cross influence in the engine department over there.
The british designers shared their Whittle units and I believe later also the early Ghost engines, which led to the development of the J-36 from Allison Carmers. The next step was a US one: Realising that the poweroutput of the Ghost engine could be improved much by larger dimensions and some further improvements (particularly in the fuel regulation and turbine stage), the US designers went on the drawing board and began to design the J-33. British technicians, as you said, found this design in advanced stage when they visited the US facilities and relaized that more poweroutput is possible, also. This led to the RR Nene (and later to the down scaled Dervent V).
Without the J-33 program, the British would have moved much slowlier(maybe in another direction, also). And taking this into account, it is reasonable to say that the J-33 led to the RR Nene.

[plan_D]

The J-33 led to the development of a larger engine. The U.S scientists had no influence on the design of the Rolls Royce Nene - nor did the J-33 itself.

[delcyros]

I can agree in this. The main layout of the J-33 was originated in the Ghost, also. The main layout of the Nene, while beeing said to lay on the J-33 is otherwise also Ghost based. So it´s british, I think.