Heinkel He-162 "Spatz", 1944

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I didn´t know they called the Komet the Floh! By its size, it sounds just right!
Don´t worry about being busy - no problem for any time needed for answers!

Thanks for your detailed report on the Sparrow .air file. I will study it and follow your instructions, which are quite clear and concise! Quite honestly, FD are always very difficult for me, and at best I can usually only get some things approximately right, as there is so much that depends on so much else.

Good luck with your son´s computer! At least it still accepts Windows 7 - which is more similar to Windows XP than any newer OS. All the stuff with the apps drives me nuts.

I just got quite a fast bargain new AMD QuadCore laptop last week before they run out of stock next week, as new, more expensive stock will arrive two months later for Christmas. It will be my retiring present for end-November, so I´m not allowed to use it yet... It´s got Windows 8.1 on it, (ughhh!), but it will run CFS1 OK, and for AF99 I´ll install Virtual-Machine Player to run Windows XP 32bit. I tried this out on my tower with a parallel Windows 7-64bit installation, and it works fine!

OK, then. I´ll see how the Sparrow .air file progresses, and will post the results.
I´m sure it´ll get better.

Thanks again, and good luck for the 1st day of school!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
That was priceless! Thanks a lot!
Going down through your list by numbers:

1. OK! Yaw Moment of Inertia now at 12000.

2. (?) Breaking Strength was at 32768 and now it´s at -32768 - I wonder...

3. OK! Too narrow wheel base. I believe the intention originally was to keep it unstable due to the narrow wheel base, but it´s incorrect. 38 inches is now correct.

4. OK! I looked into your Warhawk and got an idea of where to place Scrape Points more correctly. OK also on the strength increases.

5. OK! - Dihedral Effect now down to 50. Much better!
(?) Lateral Stability... is this Weathervane Stab? I reduced it from 220 to 60, and also changed Side Force Rudder from -200 to 100.

6. OK! Of course... Roll moment due to Rudder is now at 0. Excessive Roll eliminated!

7. OK! Stall Warning angle now at 30.

8. OK! Peak in Table 430 dropped to 80 again. It used to have an effect with the positive Wing angle parameters I had before, but much higher at 2000!!, so I left it at 200, but it wasn´t really necessary any longer.

I should soon have this little critter done, and very much appreciate your help. Wundervoll!
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Glad to help.

Regarding the issues in discussion, Most of them are going to require more tuning.
1. I am guessing that the Yaw / Directional MOI is still way too high.
I suspect it is about twice what it should be but can't be sure until I run some calculations.

2. Braking Strength of 32767 versus -32768 is essentially NO DIFFERENCE.
Follow this link starting at Post 866 for a full explanation.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...Absence/page35

(Smilo, Can you copy Post 866 and Post 867 in the Conspicuous Thread to a new thread called "Braking News!".
I get the impression that this one is worth reading a couple more times. Thanks.)

3. Wheel Base is Front to Rear. Wheel Track is Side to Side which is what you are adjusting here.

4. Easiest way to check is to do a Gear Up landing. Some times the numbers don't work but I think that is a Simulator problem.

5. Lateral is Roll. I believe the Weathervane is Yaw / Directional but I could be wrong.

6. On most aircraft, the Rudder is ABOVE the aircraft centerline so when the Rudder is deflected, it creates an "adverse" / opposite direction Roll.

7. A typical Stall Angle is around 14 degrees. The Stall Warning should be set to slightly before this to be useful to warn the pilot of impending loss of control.

8. The problem here is that you need to be able to see where the graph value is at the exact speed you are trying to adjust. When I am adjusting this, I typically graph it using a spreadsheet which should give a value equal to what the Simulator is interpolating.

Hope this helps.

Gotta get some dinner.....
- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
OK, thank you once again for your time, and your additional suggestions.

Moments of Inertia are a difficult dish. FS98 uses much higher values, and these are inherited from there, but I´ll get then licked!
Now I remember your post on the braking! In that sense I´ll then experiment with numbers over 32768.

In the next few days I hope to fix the pending issues on the Sparrow, as at work we´re just winding up the German-for-Waiters course with exams and marks. I´ll get my time back in two or three days.
Then we can also address the panel and the instruments with Hubbabubba!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[hubbabubba]

Still working on the panel, Aleatorylamp; just changed the compass. It now has a O instead of that offending E... and a few other goodies you may like (I know I do).

I did modified your DP file a tiny bit so that both canons are triggered by the main trigger, usually the "pistol-style" trigger on sticks or "1" on the keyboard. But they still read as "cannon". I've installed the ammo counters for both guns but they're not repainted yet.

In "Winkle" Brown's notes, he says that you had to jettison the canopy by pulling a cord attached to it. Any idea of where it was attached precisely an where it was hanging, or dangling? I think I know but, quite frankly, that must have been an annoyance, especially in critical phases, like combat. Not sure I'll put one in this cockpit...

Also noted that you have three fuel tanks; right-left-center. The problem are; 1- Only one fuel gauge ; 2- All tanks are emptied simultaneously and ;3- Center tank being the smallest one, it is emptied first. Therefore, the Spatz fly on what looks like an empty tank! Brown knew that the wings' tanks were empty when the main central tank started showing decreasing fuel. So the bird was only fed through the central tank and both wing tanks were only transferring to that main tank. It would make more sense to have only one central tank, even if they were three. Sounds silly but, really makes sense. Ivan will surely have a take on that.

BTW Ivan; you said that your were programming some gauges now. How about making a "sprite and needles" altimeter? Could you do that?

Back to that cockpit...

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Hubbabubba,
No hurry on the panel, or anything else for that matter!

The Compass sounds great! The new instruments incl. ammo counter will be fantastic too.

On my doctored up Helicopter N2 RPM Gauge, the red marks don´t coincide with the original on the photo, but unless we get a completely different gauge, that will have to do.

The wing tanks were emptied into the main one, as you say, so until both were empty, the single fuel gauge registering the main tank remained on full. I was thinking about that too, and thought of better having one central tank instead - so I´ll have to put the yellow ring around a different gauge.

I´ll see if I can discover the canopy cord.
I´ve also seen a kind of hand-gun in a tube on the front right of the cockpit. What on earth was that? A VERY pistol?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Hubbabubba, Aleatorylamp,

Regarding Gauges:
I can program simple gauges with a custom background.
As of now, I still cannot get a multiple pointer gauge to work which is the big obstacle to doing a panel for the Lightning and Mitchell. (Both aeroplanes use a dual needle Tachometer.)
Although I can get a working single needle Tachometer, it seems not to be portable between FS98 and CFS or even different CFS aeroplanes.
If you have additional information that you think might help such as source code examples, please pass them along.

The three connected fuel tanks represented as a single tank is how I did the Macchi fighters.
There is actually no fuel selector because the two small wing tanks just drain into the main fuselage tank.
I still have not figured out what the best approach is to paired fuel tanks as installed in the Ki-43 Hayabusa.
Other issues regarding fuel tanks and selectors is for the twins:
Does each side's engine draw from its own side's fuel tank?
How do selectors work? Cross Feed? Separate Selectors for each Engine?

For the Lightning thus far, I have not bothered to include a Fuel Selector at all because the default order of use is the one recommended by the operating manual. The limitation is still in programming gauges that require two or more needles.

Send me a picture of the gauge you are looking for and I will see if I know how to do it.

- Ivan.

[hubbabubba]

Hi guys!

(...)
On my doctored up Helicopter N2 RPM Gauge, the red marks don´t coincide with the original on the photo, but unless we get a completely different gauge, that will have to do.

Don't worry, mine will look pretty much the part. I already found a 14k RPM gauge that should do.

(...)
The wing tanks were emptied into the main one, as you say, so until both were empty, the single fuel gauge registering the main tank remained on full. I was thinking about that too, and thought of better having one central tank instead - so I´ll have to put the yellow ring around a different gauge.

Again, don't worry too much, I have what I need.

(...)
I´ll see if I can discover the canopy cord.

Minutes after posting, I found what I was looking for; a clear picture of a closed and secured canopy. The hardware is not difficult to see in open or ajar canopies as it is about a foot long and hanging down from the lid. As I feared, that gizmo was yanked by the pilot forward, a forked catch holding to the windshield lid. This operation was done before putting on the seat harness but, during an emergency ejection, it was out of the question. So a cord was attached to the tip of the handle, basically a tube, and by pulling on that cord the pilot would disengage the catch, maintained in place by a heavy spring, and pull the lever down. The airstream would do the rest. I will try to make the lever and cord as unobtrusive as possible, but I could also use a bit of "artistic license"... we will see.

(...)
I´ve also seen a kind of hand-gun in a tube on the front right of the cockpit. What on earth was that? A VERY pistol?

Yep! A flare gun, Very or Verey pistol. Pulling the trigger, a flare would burst out of the little opening on starboard. Usually the Allied used red flares, but I suppose it was the same for the Germans as red flares are the easiest to see, night or day. This was signaling an emergency and, in theory, gave you priority over all aircraft in the landing pattern. I say "in theory" because it was not rare to see red flares raining right and left at the return of a raid. If you had functioning radio, and time to use it, declaring an emergency had the same effect. but the flare was your last resort.

(...)
Send me a picture of the gauge you are looking for and I will see if I know how to do it.

I will send you a copy of the "official" GroÞhöhenmesser 10Km FI.22326. It had two needles, the long one making a full turn every Km, the short one doing one complete turn at 10Km. A dial was inserted on top showing tiny graduations for every meter. It was made out of a butt-ugly brownish marble-effect bakelite. I already have a gauge with three needles showing Km, Decametre and "God knows what" as it stops at 10Km once it painfully reach 1! Guess which needle I will remove...


I have already made the EGT (Elektrisches Temperatur-Anzeiger 900°), the Airspeed (Farthmesser 900Km/h), the compass (Kompass FK 36), the VSI (Variometer ±30m/s) and I'm getting close to finishing the Turn and Bank indicator (Elektrisches Wendezeiger). That last one was an unpleasant surprise as I thought the Bf 109 would do fine... until I noticed that the needle was bending past the dial! I finally found a substitute, but it has been a 2+ days job.


I really don't mind. This is kind of "getting back on the bike" exercise for me and is getting addictive.


Regards,
Hubbabubba


P.S.- The Spatz front wheel was castoring; I found a picture where it is pointing ±30° starboard.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello, Hubbabubba!
Wow! - to say the least. So even the instruments will be authentic, not only the panel.
I´m glad you are enjoying the project. This panel is indeed a major undertaking, and I´m glad you´re enjoying it.
The new information details like the use of the cord on the canopy, the ammo counters and the castoring nose-wheel, and then the possibility of incorporating some of it into the panel, makes the plane all the more fascinating.

I managed to put a yellow ring around the Extra-300´s wing tank gauge, and it looks plausible - at least for my "general-look-alike" panel it works OK. I changed the FD to read a single 183 USG tank. Very conveniently, it marks 4/4 as full but I guess it should be just over 800 litres.

The plane came with a couple of different tanking possibilities, and as we are going metric, I´m thinking about what would be the most practical fuel capacity. It is quite confusing how it is described in the manual, maybe 700 litres or possibly 820 litres if wing-tanks are included? The gauge on the cockpit-photo seems to indicate the latter. What do you think?

Hello Ivan,
Thanks for your offer to help with the gauges! So the single centre tank will be the best. For the moment I still have it at the previous 183 USG - i.e. 692 litres, which is wrong if we go by the "new" manual.
At the moment I´m working on the FD - a little tedious, I must say, but who said it was going to be easy? Ha ha!
I´ll post the improved FD once it´s done, just for perusal.

I´m just putting together the improved AFX/model too, so that you both have the new model to test with meanwhile, without most of the glitches.

More, later, as well as cheers!
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello, Hello, Ivan and Hubbabubba.

Here´s the Sparrow in its current status - still WIP: Work In Progress!
So now, testing can be done with a more up-to-date model.

Included are:

A) The WIP model, with current bleeds of the aft wing-root through the engine base and lower fuselage, as seen on the screenshot below. They are a bit bothersome, although very momentary, so perhaps not too annoying.
The cabin glass is nice now: AF99 Alpha transparency! I like it more than the White transparent one which makes it more milky-looking. As it is a structure, I saved on a component here, so perhaps I can use it to solve the above-mentioned bleeds by splitting the fuselage section component involved here.

B) The WIP improved but not yet finished Flight Dynamics. I haven´t had time to incorporate Ivan´s latest suggestions, like the braking strength etc., so that´s still pending.

C) The panel is a slightly improved but as yet provisional high-visibility panel, with now metric instruments, as well as my own adapted, equally provisional, non-authentic but "look-alike" ones.

D) The source files, in case either of you (or anyone else, of course) wish to have a look-see or a tinker, are also in the attachment (including R8 files).

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[hubbabubba]

(...)
I managed to put a yellow ring around the Extra-300´s wing tank gauge, and it looks plausible - at least for my "general-look-alike" panel it works OK. I changed the FD to read a single 183 USG tank. Very conveniently, it marks 4/4 as full but I guess it should be just over 800 litres.

The plane came with a couple of different tanking possibilities, and as we are going metric, I´m thinking about what would be the most practical fuel capacity. It is quite confusing how it is described in the manual, maybe 700 litres or possibly 820 litres if wing-tanks are included? The gauge on the cockpit-photo seems to indicate the latter. What do you think?
(...)

In the main panel blueprint, the Elektrische Vorratsanzeiger 700L is designated under the part number FI 20723. That number was a dumping ground for many versions, hence the 700L mention. One "authentic" panel has a 500L gauge! I guess that, according the the availability, they'd put in what they had.

I will d/l the new ZIP file ASAP

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Hubbabubba,
Great! ...but I don´t want to hurry you by any means. Like they say: Don´t hurry your curry!

Interesting! In the manual, it says (admittedly, the four lines below "Fuel"are very confusing), translated:

1) Fuel:
-One fuselage container, big, 650L or
-small, 470L and
-one Fuselage reserve container 170L
-one Wing-container small 280L, medium 700L

2) Fuel for Jet engine:
one containerspace in Wing 30 L.

The restly entries underneath are for other liquids, including fuel for starter piston-engine, oil, hydraulicas etc.

The 500L gauge that you mention must have been for units that had the small 470L fuselage tank and the small 30L Wingtank.
The one I wanted to use had greater range, and would have the gauge on the photo, which goes up to just over 800 L.

Now, how this would add up with the different possible tanks is quite another matter. Which combination tallies?
1) Fuselage: Either 470L + 170L = 640 L, or the 650L tank. It doesn´t really matter which we go for.

2) Which one in the wings? 280 L? That would make it 920L - As the fuel gauge only reads the central tank, which is always full until wing-tanks empty, this could well be the correct tankage.

Thus, a simulator gauge programmed for a given quantity, not percentage, would not read more than that. A fuel gauge going from 0 to 100% would of course not be so good.

So shall we leave the plane´s full tankage at 920L then, with the main tank-gauge having a maximum of 700 L although the dial would go beyond 800L ? ...If this makes any sense, of course!!

Hello Ivan:
I was testing different Braking Strength entries and found that none over 32767 is allowed, so presumably the possible 64000 must include the -32768 range. You mention it can, or should be increased. I tried the 10000 and 20000 suggested in the info-help file, and also 32000, but without a stopwatch my sensations are not reliable. Have you had any further success with this?

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I did a little poking around and found a reference that stated the He 162 had a Kraftstoff load of 475 KG which seems very much in line with the numbers you mentioned. Now as far as actual distribution, this site did not say but I have pretty good faith the number is reasonable because of the other weights listed.

I did some poking around in the ZIP file you posted.
(My computer kept crashing and in the course of testing CFS must have crashed at least a dozen times. Three of those were lockups that required a system reset..... This machine is definitely not right at this point. I just walked away from it a few minutes ago after the fourth reboot.)

Regarding the Flight Model: (A few Opinions.)

Braking Factor of between -15000 and -20000 seems to work pretty well.
Even with your current numbers, the aeroplane is controllable on the ground though not easily.
With steering, the throttle lag seems to be a big problem but that was probably true of the actual aeroplane as well.
(I will be posting a little more explanation in the Braking News thread shortly.)

The Roll Rate seems to be much slower than I would expect from something with such a small wing.

The Elevators seems to be much too powerful. Red outs and black outs are much too common.
Remember also that this aeroplane did not have great structural strength, so I would suggest a 6-7G limit.
On the other hand, low speed Elevator control seems to be a touch weak.

I still suggest changing the Stall Warning down. I changed my test copy to 13 Degrees and was getting quite a few warnings. It should correspond to your CL Graph at Record 404. The constant stall warnings is also a sign that the elevators are too powerful.
Along the same lines, the Stick Shaker should also somewhat match the Stall speed. At the moment it is at 100 Knots which I believe is a touch slow.

Regarding the AFX: (A few more Opinions)

You have quite a few Parts remaining but 29 of 30 Components used.

I would recommend you convert your Canopy Frame from 1D to 2D Parts because it seems way too narrow.

The majority of your Wing Assembly is relying on Automatic Glue. Why not add Glue Parts? That would allow you to control things more precisely.

You do not have Animated Ailerons so why are they distinct Components?
If you intention is not to animate the Ailerons, you can probably save a Component on each side by cutting the Wing at the outer edge of the Flaps and combining Outer Wing, Ailerons and Wing Tips in a single Component on each side.

Your Wing Root Components might work better if Glued to the Fuselage and then the Engine Glued on top....
I would have to experiment a bit to be sure, but it makes more sense there than in the Mid Wing Assembly.

Hope this helps.
- Ivan.

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

See the explanation in the Braking News thread.

By the way, you should get a Stopwatch.... ;-)

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I have an egg timer in the kitchen - maybe that would work! Anyway, thanks a lot for the braking factor values, and for the other suggestions.

Thank you very much for your detailed reply. I´ll look into the different issues right away.

As regards the 2 main issues with fuselage and wings:
I´ll see if I can follow your suggestion of gluing the engine on top of the fuselage. The reason the fuselage and wing construction got so complicated was because of fuselage bleeds through the wings when seen from above, and wing bleeds through the fuselage when seen from below, both at near vertical angles. The original version, had wingrootless wings glued to the fuselage, and the shoulder-wing with pot-belly configuration made these bleeds quite impossible!

Then, the ailerons as separate components were because I was under the impression that a wing with a cut-out for the flaps would cause triangular texture bleed-fills in the cut-out. From what you say, however, this component separation seems to be unnecessary. Thanks!

I´ll see what I can do, also with the elevator controls, and thanks too for the confirmation on the tankage!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I don't think your egg timer will work. We are talking about being accurate to within about 1/10 second.
Perhaps an app for your cellular phone might work, but the problem is that the start / stop would not be so convenient.

Regarding Fuselage / Wing Roots / Engine, I will see if I can either demonstrate with your AFX or post a picture to illustrate what I am describing.
The Sequence would be something like this:
Fuselage
Glue
Left Wing Root
Glue
Right Wing Root
Glue
Engine

Regarding the Flaps / Ailerons / Wing / Wing Tip, you are correct about the triangular cutout.
The idea I had was to chop the Wing where the outboard edge of the Flap ends thus creating an Inner and Outer Wing.
The Outer Wing can be combined with the Wing Tip without bleeds if you list all the underside Parts and then the Parts for the top surfaces.
This would then use just 3 Components per Wing (minus the Wing Roots) instead of 4.
I figure that having a couple extra Components to work with would help in other areas.

The alternative if you don't want to chop the Wing is to throw in some glue and there will be no bleeds at least in the Wing.
Consider this sequence:
Flap
Glue
Aileron
Glue
Wing
Glue
Wing Tip

Regarding Fuel Load, I just found a German site that listed Weights. I don't know for sure that they are accurate or even under what load conditions the 475 KG is listed for. In other words: Is 475 KG with full internal fuel or just partial load?

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

The egg timer was just a joke, although it does exist in our kitchen it CAN be used as a stopwatch - accurate to the nearest second, however.

Very interesting building techniques! OK, I get your meaning, thanks very much indeed! Some time ago you had explained this kind of glue sequence - Once one has discovered where to start, it is quite straight forward to understand! I´ll try this out right away.

Then, for the wing, I´ll try out the 2 possibilities you mention, with and without splitting the wing at the aileron/fuselage division, including the separation within the component of underside and top-surface parts. Let´s see how it goes!

BTW: 1st step´s done: As you said, within-wing un-animated ailerons cause no bleed-overs into flap-gaps, freeing 2 components! Now for the rest...

As regards the 475 KG fuel, it must be the short-range fuselage tankage option, and doesn´t include any of the wing-tank options. All available data is quite confusing and badly explained, I must admit.

As regards tankage for the model, it seems that the Sparrow had an endurance of approximately half an hour.
Consumptions are listed as:
At speeds of 500 km/h and 800 km/h:
Sea Level: 1400 and 1670 litres/hour
6000 m. : 850 and 1000 l/h
11000 m. : 420 and 540 l/h

So, depending on how fast and how high it was flown, it would drink all this J2 fuel. As I have no appreciation as to what an average style of flying could be, I have not tried to calculate an average fuel consumption, and have not translated the metric details.

The fuel gauge in a photo goes up to just over 800 litres, just for the fuselage tank. Hubbabubba mentions a general, standard 700 L fuel gauge.

If we took the main tank with 650 litres and wing tanks with a total of 280 litres more, we´d get 920L (243 USG).
Would this perhaps give an average flying time for an average flying style of half an hour? Then, the interesting thing would be to see if it´s possible to use a 650 L fuel gauge that would start reading lower fuel levels once the 280L wing tank were emptied.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Last night I was hanging out with my Son while he was doing his homework.
He seems to need someone watching to make sure he stays on task.

I decided to do some poking around on the Internet to see what I could find about the Heinkel 162.
First I found a couple sites that almost confirmed the numbers I had earlier about the fuel load.
It turns out that the 475 KG number is only a partial load. The aeroplane could carry an additional 200 KG presumably in the wings.

German Site: Numbers here look pretty good and are fairly consistent with what I found earlier.
http://www.bredow-web.de/RAF_Museum/...el_he_162.html

Interesting view of Fuselage Cross Section along with Landing Gear retraction sequence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlRL320cCGY

Russian Film with additional data but I believe Fuel amount is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKuXHDvSi4

And the Prize: A pretty detailed report with more data than you are likely to need.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-TS-672-RE.pdf

The only question I have now regarding the flight model is: How much does J-2 Diesel / Jet Fuel weigh per Gallon?
Is it the same as Gasoline, Lubricating Oil, or Kerosene or something else entirely?

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I´ve just tried the joint wing+wingtip component, albeit with the whole wing all the way up to the wing root, incl. ailerons, listing the underside parts first in the component, and then the top surface ones, but unfortunately, the lower surface will not show in the simulator.

So, at the moment, I have separate wingtip components, and ailerons are incorporated into main wing components. As there are no bleeds, I ´ll leave it there for now, and concentrate on the engine-fuselage business. With two extra components, I hope to manage there! The problem here is the flaps and the aft wing root, which have forced the existence of a separate fuselage component just for that area.

To glue the engine, I´ll have to split the engine into separate sections and glue each section to the corresponding fuselage section, with the sequence you mentioned. This is, however, no big deal as the engine is a structure and as such can be split up easily.

I´ll do this for the transparent canopy structure too, as the frame line is going to be turned into 2d parts.

Update - I´m just finishing the engine/fuselage mods.
I split the engine into 4 structures, corresponding to the 4 fuselage sections.
Magic?! Wow! All small bleeds of wingroot-bits through the aft engine-base have completely disappeared. I´m quite amazed...
Now I´m doing the engine nozzle and the area below.
Update 3:
I may make an additional split in the fuselage component here because of the exhaust nozzle vanes and the rear triangular engine base below - this still becomes transparent at times.

Your last post regarding Fuel just came in:
I´ll check the links. Thanks!
Meanwhile, before this editing times out: So J2 is Diesel. That would be heavier than modern Gas-oil, and would make the weight per US Gallon 7.2 or 7.3 lb, perhaps?

Update2:
What an amazing wealth of detail in the last link! How did you manage to find that?
As per the new .pdf document, the total fuel is 777 kilos, (start + taxiing included), and if the aforementioned weight per US Gal is correct, then with the density being 0.874 kg/litre, we´d have 893 litres of fuel in total. Anyway, we´re getting there!

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[hubbabubba]

(...)
The only question I have now regarding the flight model is: How much does J-2 Diesel / Jet Fuel weigh per Gallon?
Is it the same as Gasoline, Lubricating Oil, or Kerosene or something else entirely?

Working on it. AIR files tank's capacity is in U.S. gallons and German capacity in Litres. The conversion for one litre is 0.2641721 gal U.S. (only using U.S. gallon from now on).
So far, capacities are going all over the place depending on who you read;
-2170 L maximum = 715.9063 gal (in He 162 Bedienungsanleitung)
-605 L =183.5996 gal (Wikipedia)
-875 L = 231.1505 gal (Wings of the Luwtwaffe)
-980 L = 258.8886 gal (Heinkel He 162, Monogram Close Up 11)

If we go to kilos now, we will have to find the specifics of J2 Kraftsoff.

(...)
Your last post regarding Fuel just came in:
I´ll check the links. Thanks!
Meanwhile, before this editing times out: So J2 is Diesel. That would be heavier than modern Gas-oil, and would make the weight per US Gallon 7.2 or 7.3 lb, perhaps?

Update2:
What an amazing wealth of detail in the last link! How did you manage to find that?
As per the new .pdf document, the total fuel is 777 kilos, (start + taxiing included), and if the aforementioned weight per US Gal is correct, then with the density being 0.874 kg/litre, we´d have 893 litres of fuel in total. Anyway, we´re getting there!

The Anlasskraftstoff J1 should not be counted - for tank's capacity - as it was not jet fuel per se but starting fuel, a 95% light gasoline 5% lubricating oil. The 30 L tank was supposed to be in the wings but apparently ended up on top of the engine. This is the "burst" you could get by depressing the little black button on top of the yellow throttle handle. It was also used at startup when you used the in-board starting procedure with the Anlass switch on the right, which is for the Riedel compressor.

Regards

[Ivan]

Hello Hubbabubba, Aleatorylamp,

I believe the actual Fuel capacities were
475 KG in a Fuselage Tank
200 KG split into two Wing Tanks

I would treat the starting fuel as something like lubricating oil or MW50 as far as weight is concerned.
It also sounds to me like the fuel use for warm up and takeoff are just a comment about what amount of the main fuel capacity was spent for those activities.

Hello Hubbabubba,

The problem here is that although we know the weight of the fuel, we need to figure out the fuel tank capacities from weight and density. As you pointed out, we need volume for the AIR file.

Hello Aleatorylamp,

Now I can see the Wing Tip / Outer Wing Component not working.
Regarding finding data, it was just a matter of varying the searches a little bit.
Note the engine thrust versus altitude entries.
Note also that the speeds at various altitudes are mostly estimates.
I wish I could find this much data on other aeroplanes.

I figure that before even considering working on a CFS Jet, I need to figure out how to vary power with altitude and being able to set up an Afterburner.

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Hubbabubba,
Thanks for the extra information. It seems there´s lots of contradictory data around!

The nearest that comes to my speculated 893 L resulting from my supposition of the J2 German Synthetic Diesel density being 7.3, is the quantity you quoted in litres: 875 L = 231.1505 gal (Wings of the Luwtwaffe).

The following page lists specific weights for several different fuels:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fu...mes-d_166.html

I went for DIESEL 1D at 54.6 lb/cu.ft (7.3 lb/USG) as it seemed the closest.
DIESEL 4D is heavier and gives 8 lb/USG, and the equivalent in Litres would only be 840, so I discarded it, and others seemed a bit light.

Maybe the correct density for the German J2 Diesel can be calculated with the 875L (231 USG) weighing 777 Kilos, and then we could possibly go with the 231 USG Tankage. Is this plausible or is it just going round in circles?

As regards the J1 petrol for the Riedel starter-motor, I realized that (it was only 2L) and edited it out of the post a short while ago.

Interesting, your info on how the "burst" was controlled, and that it also served for engine start-up.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
Your post came in as I was writing!
From your comments, I suppose then that 875 Litres (231 USG) seem closest.
The weight given in the PDF document would be the 675+80+22=777 Kg = 1713 lb, giving a specific weight of 7.41 lb/USG.
...please directly shoot me if I´m wrong...

As regards adjusting power to altitude, I hope I am wrong, but I haven´t seen any parameter in the jet .air file which I can understand as being able to handle this, and as there is no WEP control either, afterburners don´t seem to be covered. Thus, in my limited capacity of a beginner with .air files, my view is that we are landed with what there is! However, I think we can get a decent enough approximation.

Update: I just conducted a high-altitude test at 36000 ft and you do have a point here.
Speed is only slightly low and thrust is somewhat high.
- Wings of the Luftwasse quotes Max. thrust at 36000 ft and 497 mph as 372 flb.
- The American .pdf states 265 flb for normal max. thrust, and 332 flb for 30 sec max. thrust.
- In my case I´m getting considerably more thrust: 630 flb and 485 mph with boost, but it takes much longer than 30 sec. to get there. Then, with normal thrust at 75% throttle, thrust is 483 flb at a little over 400 mph.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I guess I had better see if there is such thing as a CFS Jet file format. Perhaps there were additions for altitude performance there????
Without an afterburner, most of the projects that would have been interesting to me just can't be built.
It seems like we are limited to nothing later than a MiG-17 and a F-86 or similar. Perhaps I will try the Me-262 anyway
I believe I already have some pretty good drawings in a book.

Regarding fuel capacities and weight. I don't really agree with your conclusion but it is certainly within range.
Fuel Oil (Heating and Diesel) is typically in the range of

Diesel ------------- 0.81 to 0.936 grams / mL
Kerosene (Coal)--- 0.81 to 0.936 grams / mL This is typical Coal derived.
JP4 ---------------- 0.751 to 0.802 grams / mL


For JP4, the weight per Gallon would range from 6.267 pounds to 6.693 pounds
The low end of the weight range for Diesel is near the high end for JP4.
The high end of weight of Diesel per Gallon would be 7.811 pounds which is barely lighter than Water.

I don't believe the weight of Starting Fuel should be included.
I also believe that the fuel used for warm up is actually part of the regular supply, otherwise other sources would also have included it.

If the 875 Liters of fuel weighed 675 Kg, then it would be 0.771 grams / mL which is right in the middle of the range for JP4.
That would 6.438 pounds per Gallon....

- Ivan.

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,

Well, for the moment at least the Me262 engines are within the possibilities for an acceptable CFS .air file then.

As regards the fuel type and quantity for the He162, my 777 kg and 875 L calculation comes from page 15 of the document you sent (.pdf page 17), which mentions 675 kg of fuel at take-off, plus 80 additional ones for warm-up and take-off, as well as 22 for startup. Petrol for the Riedel starter motor was only 2L so I don´t think it is included here. Hence my 7.41 lb/gal calculation. However, if you feel it is more correct to calculate on the basis of the 675 kg take-off fuel, it´s better as with 6.4 lb/gal the plane a bit lighter. No problem!

I´ve managed to put in the canopy frame in 2D and I´m finishing the bleeds at the exhaust nozzle, so the model improvements are nearing their finishing phase.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp