why did they choose the Heinkel 162 instead of the Blohm & Voss P 211?

[aurelien wolff]

Hello,
from my document it seems that the P 211 was infavor but they choose the Heinkel P 1073 instead, Heinkel lobbying??

[Helmut0815]

Although the Blohm & Voss BV P 211.02 was judged as the best design, the He P 1073 (which became the He 162) was awarded a contract due to the fact that it needed less man hours for construction, and that it utilized the Bf 109 undercarriage legs.

http://www.luft46.com/bv/bvp211ii.html
regards
Helmut

[T. A. Gardner]

I would add, that the BV design also had serious risks involving the intake design. With the engine buried like it is, the intake requires very careful design to avoid flow disruptions, something the Germans... well, nobody really... had experience with in 1944.
In terms of design, mounting the engine on top of the plane made for a very simple, and safe, design. It also allowed for what was essentially an empty fuselage for fuel tanks and would avoid many CG design issues. One other thing the designers probably didn't know but Henkel accidently designed in was that the top mounted engine would increase directional stability by making the plane more slab sided right where it was needed. One of the common problems with early jets was their vertical tails were usually too small to give good directional stability with jet engines. This was worked out by the end of the 1940's and into the early 50's but in 1944 was an unknown issue. Podded engines tended to increase "keel" on the plane and help dampen out the problem.