Heinkel P1078c

[Wietze]

Hello everyone,

In the Dan Sharp magazine on 'Luftwaffe, secret jets of the third reich' there is a picture of the original drawing of the Heinkel 1078 entry for the report compiled in advance of the 1-TL Jager meeting of february 27-28, 1945. I bought a copy of the magazine. Really nice. Just like the 'secret wings' I also obtained.

Does anyone have a larger image of this image? It's the plane most revered to as Heinkel P1078c...

I'm looking for the original views in order to do a future 3d model build of this project. Most of the time I enlarge them to A3 views in order to measure the elements in the plan before drawing them as a 3D model.

Regards, Wietze

 

[hesham]

Welcome aboard Wietze,

please see;

Heinkel He P.1078C Luft '46 Entry

 

[Justo Miranda]

Model by Slava Trudu

 

[Wietze]

Big thanks Justo and Hesham !!!

 

[iverson]

What was the reasoning behind the rectangular air intake?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Boundary layer suction devices???

 

[iverson]

Boundary layer suction devices???

Thanks, Justo.

But I would think that one advantage of the nose intake would be that there would be no fuselage/intake boundary layer interactions to complicate intake design. Besides, on the A-5 shown in your post, the rectangular intake shape has nothing to do with boundary layer ingestion, at least as far as I know. On the A-5, the gap between the fuselage and the walls of the intake keeps the slow/turbulent boundary layer of the fuselage out of the intake. The rectangular shape of the intakes is due to ramp-type variable geometry intake throats that adapt the airflow to engine requirements at varying sub- and supersonic speeds.

So unless the Heinkel needed a variable inlet throat (which seems unlikely in a subsonic design), I still do not understand why the intake would be rectangular.

 

[sienar]

It seems to be driven more by packaging considerations than anything else.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Boundary layer suction devices???

Thanks, Justo.

But I would think that one advantage of the nose intake would be that there would be no fuselage/intake boundary layer interactions to complicate intake design. Besides, on the A-5 shown in your post, the rectangular intake shape has nothing to do with boundary layer ingestion, at least as far as I know. On the A-5, the gap between the fuselage and the walls of the intake keeps the slow/turbulent boundary layer of the fuselage out of the intake. The rectangular shape of the intakes is due to ramp-type variable geometry intake throats that adapt the airflow to engine requirements at varying sub- and supersonic speeds.

So unless the Heinkel needed a variable inlet throat (which seems unlikely in a subsonic design), I still do not understand why the intake would be rectangular.

I agree

 

[iverson]

It seems to be driven more by packaging considerations than anything else.

Can you elaborate a little?

 

[newsdeskdan]

The primary documents show that the Germans at this time were particularly concerned about loss of power in turbojets due to reduced airflow arising from intake shape and duct length. One of the main reasons why the He 162 defeated the Blohm & Voss P 211 was because concerns were raised (by Karl Frydag) about the length of the P 211's intake. The He 162 obviously did not have any such problem since it had no ducting to worry about. Heinkel would therefore have been particularly sensitive about this issue of intakes and duct length.
I would suggest that sienar is correct regarding packaging considerations. The P 1078 has a rectangular intake because that shape allowed the most air in while also allowing the aircraft to retain an incredibly compact airframe. Have a look at the image below. You can see that the rectangular intake, compared to the two circular intake shapes, makes the best use of space. The smaller circular intake still provides room for the pilot and nosewheel but would have a reduced airflow compared to the rectangular one. The larger circular intake would provide greater airflow but at the cost of a larger airframe overall. The rectangular intake is therefore a compromise between the two.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Heinkel intended to employ boundary suction devices.
I would also add, as an aside, that there is similarly no contemporary evidence at all for this aircraft design being called the 'P 1078 C'. All period documents refer to it solely as the 'P 1078'. The P 1078 A and P 1078 B are known only from postwar documents produced by Heinkel's designers in US custody. All three designs - the P 1078, P 1078 A and P 1078 B appear in the fairly well known January 1946 report 'German Aircraft: New and Projected Types'. Even here, they are correctly labelled as 'P 1078', 'P 1078 A' and 'P 1078 B'. It looks to me as though this state of affairs confused postwar writers who didn't really understand the P 1078 timeline and background. All they could see were three designs from around the same date. So the P 1078 was arbitrarily given a 'C' to clearly differentiate it from the two other designs, even though this design is the only one known for certain to have been produced during the war.

 

[Wietze]

Hello to all,

I'm still searching for a better drawing of the He P1078 to get good measurements. I've scaled the picture in Dan's 'secret wings' to A3 plus. Then it gets blurry, but I can get some 'dirty' measurements that way.



Now I need a good reference. On the luft 46 internet information it says the fuselage length is 5130 mm, the entire plane length is 6100 mm and the wingspan is 9000 mm. My drawing looks off. If the fuselage length is really 5130 mm and the entire plane length is 6100 mm (they could fit together according to the drawing), then the wingspan is more like 9400 mm. That is the same size as on the 1078-04 B drawing on the luft 46 website for the 1078B model.

Does anyone know if the original P1078 drawing is in the national archives in Kew, Richmond, London? # AIR 40/2005
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4105692 And is it the same drawing as in your book Dan?

Regards,

Wietze

 

[newsdeskdan]

Hello to all,

I'm still searching for a better drawing of the He P1078 to get good measurements. I've scaled the picture in Dan's 'secret wings' to A3 plus. Then it gets blurry, but I can get some 'dirty' measurements that way.

View attachment 646476

Now I need a good reference. On the luft 46 internet information it says the fuselage length is 5130 mm, the entire plane length is 6100 mm and the wingspan is 9000 mm. My drawing looks off. If the fuselage length is really 5130 mm and the entire plane length is 6100 mm (they could fit together according to the drawing), then the wingspan is more like 9400 mm. That is the same size as on the 1078-04 B drawing on the luft 46 website for the 1078B model.

Does anyone know if the original P1078 drawing is in the national archives in Kew, Richmond, London? # AIR 40/2005
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4105692 And is it the same drawing as in your book Dan?

Regards,

Wietze

Do these help (see attached)? No the original P 1078 drawing isn't at Kew. I have different versions of it from four or five sources and none are clear enough to show the actual numbers. The best version I could find is in my Secret Projects of the Luftwaffe Vol. 1: Jet Fighters book.

 

[Wietze]

Hello Dan,

Thanks a lot !! They are helpful. Useful information. Also on the wing shape (0012-..).

Still not sure about the 9,0 for the plane width like the tabel mentions. I'll try to re-measure with the wheel dimensions, although that are small sizes that make easy errors... Perhaps the hull width 1350mm is also worth a try. The strange thing is the 5130 and 6100 look allright. Hope the 9,0 is not a typing error... Shouldn't be the case with 'Deutsche gundlichkeit'.

I'll buy your book for X-mas
it ships to the Netherlands...

Regards,
Wietze